Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..


I beleive in free choice. If someone wants to study a broad programme they
can, but I don't beleive in forcing people to study things they don't want
to, at least not beyond the age of 16, and even then only to avoid
illiteracy and innumeracy.

My own interests are not atall narrow, but they are eclectic. They include
poetry, archaeology and languages, for example. If, however, a poetry
class were to be compulsory in an EE curriculum, I feel strongly that it
would be wrong. You can't force people to become well-rounded. Force
feeding is a poor sort of education.

I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

I'll believe that when the U.K approach to technical professional
education programs is better that the U.S. approaches when U.K.
technological leadership comes even close to the U.S. on a per capita
or on any other basis.

w3rv

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message

Carl check me here but wasn't it you who advocated the abandonment of
all mode setasides in order to be able to run wall-to-wall spread
spectrum on 20M?

No ... I have pointed out that most countries of the world do not have
"by-mode" sub-band allocations in their amateur regulations and it
doesn't
seem to cause any real problem.

Not the point and most of us were well aware of the differences in
band/mode edges.

I also (as did Gary Coffman, independently)

'nother sweetheart . . .

I don't know about "sweetheart" ... but Gary is a good ham
and quite technically astute from my observation.
I wish he was still around here ...

postulate a strawman design
(but something feasible, never the less) for a system that, in the 150
kHz
of CW/data sub-band on 20m could support a very large number of
20 wpm Morse-equivalent QSOs with virtually no interference.
That was immediately rejected by Morse fanatics,

What's this frigging "Morse fanatic" nonsense? I'm certainly no "Morse
fanatic", I probably spend as much time on an annualized basis with a
mic in my mouth as I do running CW. I use Morse and I support the use
of and testing for Morse.

This particular non-fanatic immediately spotted the fallacies and
impossibilities in your posts on the topic as they relate to any mode
which occupies an entire ham band and is overlaid/underlaid on narrow
modes particularly under weak signal condx. This is not fanaticism.
This is the same reaction some hugely overwheming majority of the
active hams today would reject on smell or sight. Including the
technically savvy amongst us. More like *particularly* the technically
savvy.

The "strawman designs" that Gary and I postulated did NOT contemplate
the use of SS across the whole band as an "underlay." The modulation was
completely different, with a fair amount of coding.

who said something
like:
"We don't want no stinking keyboard mode." (My response was to
make Morse I/O a user interface option. Still rejected.)
"The fun of it is digging the weak ones out of the noise." (My response
was, "You want channel impairments? No problem. I can program
all sorts of simulated channel impairments into the system to make
copying
as hard as you want ... without having to trash the underlying, reliable
communications system." Still rejected.)

Exactly and none of it flew then and it never will.

Why? ... if it looks to the user EXACTLY as "traditional Morse" one would
not be able to tell the difference (and therefore should have no logical,
rational
reason for rejecting it). The idea is that the "challenge" that some relish
can be
provided, as I said, without "trashing" the underlying, reliable
communications
system.

You don't have to worry yourself about writing any simulators,
sophisticated contest simulator programs have been around for years,
all the predicatble parameters can be adjusted to suit the intensity
of the pileups, QSB, QRN, code speeds, whacky callsigns, helluva lotta
fun to play with. They also serve a very valuable role as contest
logger and computer station control traininmg wheels. In the end
they're neat electronic ping-pong games but IT AIN'T FRIGGING RADIO.
Nobody is gonna go play electronic ping-pong so that you and Coffman
can play band edge to band edge.

I *was* talking about RADIO ... a system that would communicate over
distances via radio ... just more reliably ... and THEN adding the
impariments
("challenge") at the receiving end to satisfy those who "like to dig the
weak
ones out of the noise/QRM."

transmit data reliably over transcontinental distances ... with power
outputs on the order of 10 mW ... as an "underlay" to existing services
that don't even notice that they are there.

Times how many stations?

Quite a few, but to be honest I don't know the exact number (and if I
did, I couldn't say).

QRPP PSK31 has done the same tricks. But PSK doesn't clobber the whole
band, doesn't require the development of new equipment, didn't require
a radical R&O to get on the air and can be done for the cost of some
audio cables at most ham stations.

I notice that TAPR has given up trying to get spread spectrum on the
air. Nobody in TAPR cares enough about SS to work thru the bugs.
There's a loud statement about ham SS.

IMHO, TAPR's SS effort was doomed from the start by being overly
complex.

Carl - wk3c

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Well, he's clearly Indian, and I'm British, so it wouldn't surprise me if
we share some views in common and don't buy into the received wisdom of
the US of A.

Alun, what a curious statement. What does being Indian and British,
and not American, that allows you to have some views in common?

Brian

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I'm against that too. BTW, I got my EE degree in England, and you don't
have to go through any of that wholly irrelevant stuff. No English, no
social studies of any kind, no chemistry (which I understand is oftem
required over here).

Alun, California state undergraduate requirements in the 1960s had
two semesters of American History. Considering our history, like
from
the 1776 breakaway, that isn't comparable to what you had to do in
the UK. :-) :-) :-)

I don't know why there is such a fervor of the PCTAs to equate an
academic degree with an amateur radio license class that requires
a demonstrated skill at morsemanship. Maybe the PCTA have a need
to stay with the King Kode rulers of the ARS kingdom? :-)

LHA


I don't beleive either academic degrees or ham licences should require
unnecessary stuff, that's all.

Since there is no way to predict where your future interests may lie, it's
impossible to say unequivocally what is unnecessary stuff.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(Brian) wrote in message om...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...

(c) Every FCC-watcher in the last 15 years recognizes that in every
"privitization" move by the FCC - or else they should be in some
other line of work.

Ah, I see. "Everybody knows..."

"(c) Every FCC-watcher..." (SNIP)

Was there a problem with the parameters he set, Brain? I
understood them perfectly.

Steve, K4YZ

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Still no citation from Arnie concerning his claim that NCI is on
record for less technical exams.

Still no answer from you concerning these questions about your alleged /T5
operation:

What callsign was used?
What rigs and antennas were used?
Who did the equipment belong to?
What amateur bands and modes were used?
What countries and continents were worked?
How were the QSLs delivered?

Why is it alleged?

Because you haven't provided any information about or confirmation of your
alleged operation.

Then how do you know about it?

You have claimed here and elsewhere to have operated /T5 about a
decade ago. But you provided no details, even when directly asked. So
any reasonable person has cause to be skeptical.

Lemme think this through.

After you and several minions

I don't have any "minions".

Perhaps they were bunions.

have performed an exhaustive search
concerning my operation in Somalia, and having turned up nothing, you
want me to corroborate my own operation so that you'll be less
skeptical?

Nope.

I and some others have asked some basic, simple, straightforward
questions about your alleged /T5 operations.

After having exhausted all other venues.

You have repeatedly
avoided answering any of them.

Yes, that is correct. But if you do your research you'll find I have
stated much of what you asked in previous posts to rrap. Get to work.

Ha! That's a good one.

Go ahead and believe what you want to believe. You will anyway
regardless of anything I could say.

Why don't you just answer the questions?

How is it that you didn't believe me then, but you're willing to
believe me now? I just don't get it.

To be honest, I don't think there is any answer that will satisfy you.

Brian

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...


Carl check me here but wasn't it you who advocated the abandonment of
all mode setasides in order to be able to run wall-to-wall spread
spectrum on 20M?

Read that sentence carefully:

"I *personally* would hate to see the digital/CW sub-bands overrun by
SSB."

Spread spectrum isn't SSB.

Yeah, I saw it and passed. There's just so much a body has time to
"handle". SS is OK on the HF ham bands but BPL is bad. Beats me.


The rallying cry I recall hearing was "no setasides for legacy
modes"...

What the hell is the definition of a "legacy mode" anyway?

The discussion you recall, Brian, was an exchange between Carl and
either KE3Z or W1RFI (halfheimer moment has me mixing them up, but I
think it was Jon) here some years back. IIRC, Carl thought that HF
DSSS (direct-sequence spread spectrum) could be overlaid atop, say, 15
meters. His opponent pointed out that even a QRP station with a simple
antenna would lay down an increased noise level to "narrow-band" users
for miles around if that were allowed.

Ayup.

Some basics:

Suppose Amateur A operates a 100 watt 15 meter SSB rig into a decent
vertical.

As an aside there is no such thing as a "decent" vertical if used
above 40M.

Let's say he is S9+20 dB or louder over, say, a 5 mile
radius, and his signal is 2.5 kHz wide. That is, a 2.5 kHz wide rx
picks up almost all of the signal Amateur A transmits. (Does anybody
see anything amiss with the above numbers?)

Nope.

Now suppose Amateur A switches to DSSS and spreads that same 100 watts
over 250 kHz of the band. For mathematical simplicity, let's assume
the power is equally distributed over the 250 kHz, though in reality
it will drop off towards the edges and be highest in the center. A 2.5
kHz receiver will now intercept only 1% of that DSSS signal, because
it is 100 times wider than the rx passband. So the DSSS signal sounds
like noise, but its level is 20 db lower - S9. If Amateur A drops his
power to 1 watt, the noise will drop 20 dB more - to about S6.

OR, in the cw setasides where 4-500 Hz filters are commonly used the
received energy from SS signals would be reduced by 80% vs. the case
with the 2.5 Khz ssb filter. Still ridiculous.

So we have an S6 noise level within the above area over 250 kHz of the
band from ONE station running 1 watt.

Who sez they would only run one watt and how many of 'em on the air
simultaneously would it take to (fill in the blank).

Spread the signal over the
entire band instead of 250 kHzand the noise level drops less than 3
dB. How much weak-signal DX you gonna work with an S5 noise level over
the entire band?

Zilch. I routinely work stations which don't even flick my
oversensitive zero-inertia S-meter into the first LED segment.
Whatzzat if you believe S-meters, an SØ?? 25-30 dB weaker than the SS
signal?

Note also that if propagation is decent, it's not unusual to hear
S9+20 dB signals from 100-watt-and-simple-antenna stations hundreds or
thousands of miles away. What if each one of those signals dumped its
own S5+ noise level on you, even though they were running 1W out?

The band would be rendered useless for the hordes by anybody running
SS and that's why it ain't never gonna happen in our lifetimes.


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in some snippage

Alun Palmer wrote:

I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

You must be related to our friend Vipul! At least you think
alike.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Well, he's clearly Indian, and I'm British, so it wouldn't surprise me
if we share some views in common and don't buy into the received
wisdom of the US of A.

Come on, Alun. Let's not go all nationalistic on us here.


Can you predict what you will make use of in your career? Right
now, I
am making full use of my art classes, my technical classes, my
careerlong professional development, and all the other classes I took,
even though some seemed irrelevant at the time.


- Mike KB3EIA -



I have no beef against your EE degrees. Given that they are a whole year
longer than ours I'm sure you can afford to cover irrelevant stuff without
missing anything important. I just feel sorry for the poor students who
have to sit through it, that's all!

Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun Palmer wrote:


I don't beleive either academic degrees or ham licences should require
unnecessary stuff, that's all.

Tell me what shouldn't be taught.

- Mike KB3EIA -



I'm sure you can work it out

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

I beleive in free choice. If someone wants to study a broad programme
they can, but I don't beleive in forcing people to study things they
don't want to, at least not beyond the age of 16, and even then only to
avoid illiteracy and innumeracy.

Alun:

Perhaps there would be fewer illiterate, innumerate, and indigent
people in this world if they WERE pushed to learn more and gain useful
skills.

My own interests are not atall narrow, but they are eclectic. They
include poetry, archaeology and languages, for example. If, however, a
poetry class were to be compulsory in an EE curriculum, I feel strongly
that it would be wrong. You can't force people to become well-rounded.
Force feeding is a poor sort of education.

So, you don't believe that a well-rounded background in the Arts and
Humanities creates people who are better able to think for themselves?
This attitude probably explains why Great Britain is welfare state
about to be crushed under the weight of it's enormous, dependant
underclass.

I do not beleive that it is necessary to make people study unwanted
classes to qualify as an institution of higher learning, more that it
disqualifies the college.

Well, if you want to ensure that there is an endless supply of crude,
intellectually impotent people in the world, I can understand why you
may think that way. You should run for a seat as a Labour Party MP.
You seem to have the right qualifications.

73 de Larry, K3LT
Ex: G0LYW



I'll leave that to people who actually beleive in socialism.

73 de Alun, N3KIP, Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK