"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

At least I don't have to resort to outright lying to make my namr OR my point.
That's about all you ever do.

"Yep, I said that Shannon's law really has nothing to
do with ham radio, and then I proceeded to describe a
case that proved it ."

It seems you resort to outright ignorance, which was indeed
the point above, and it clearly isn't a lie.


If anyone needed proof that DICK really is that ignorant, this
post removed all doubt!

DICK, you should check out the option that google has for
removal of archived articles. You really don't want any of
these articles to be hanging around where they can be quoted
again.

Too late now though, because I sure won't ask them to remove
my post! Your statement is now on record, *forever*.

Well, there ya go, hopping across the tundra again, Frosty.
Since you so conveniently snipped all the information from my post,
I'll just insert it again here, for information of the
readers....wouldn't want anyone
to miss anything....
----------------------------------------------------------------

If you think I have insufficient undestanding of Shannon's infornmation theory that's
because you're terribly uninformed yourself. What my little recited experience showed,
when the PSK was not copyable but the CW ID was, is merely to further confirm what I said-
Shannon and his little mathematical circus really *DON'T* have anything to do with ham
radio. Of course, the lone exception would have to be to allow idiots like you and a few
others to put together trash posts on usenet, but that's a separate issue.

BTW, can you tell us why Shannon's little "circus" doesn't
relate to the Viterbi coding used by PSK-31 or the QPSK
modulation, and how that doesn't relate to effective
communications (compared, for example to CW)? I don't believe
you, and I'd sure like to hear more about it...

What the "PSK-NO, CW-YES" incident showed was that Shannon DOES NOT apply **when the
channel is not set by his rules**, which WAS exactly the case, as is virtually always the
case in ham radio. When one works PSK31, the data portion is filtered to a much tighter
specification than the amateur HF receiver as a whole, being done in the DSP function of
the computer. The "channel" is not set by that narrow filter, only the PSK channel.

It appears you don't actually know much about PSK-31 do you?
Did you ever actually get it to work at all?

When the CW ID comes throuth, and the PSK does not,
it confirms that **in amateur radio applications**, where the communicatons channel in use
is not constrained by Shannon's rules, they cannot be applied with any accuracy. Thus they
don't apply. They * CAN'T* apply.

Wrong. *Any* communications channel in use is constrained by
Shannon's rules.

"The Channel" is whatever the ham radio operator, and his gear, set it to be. So when I
work PSK31 and it can't print, but the CW- ID comes through loud and clear, to quote Cecil
Moore, "The playing field is not level, the comparison is unfair". That was the best he
could do, to insist that I also push the CW signal through the 30 cycle wide filter so
that IT couldn't be copied just like the PSK couldn't be. Nonsense!

What 30 cycle filter are you talking about? There is none.

The problem is you are comparing two different data rates
through the same channel. PSK-31 runs at 31.5 bits per second.
If you used CW at that rate, it works out to about 37.8 wpm.
Are you telling me *you* can copy 35 wpm using a 200 Hz filter
when there is Doppler distortion from auroral activity?

In fact, what you've done is demonstrate that Shannon's work
*does* apply to ham radio! PSK-31 is an m-ary channel using
QPSK (where m = 4), which trades signal to noise ratio for
bandwidth to obtain the same data rate as it would using
straight phase modulation.

What *you* should be saying is that your experience demonstrates
that Shannon's theories prove true in the practical application
of ham radio. When the SNR is low, CW can be useful, albeit at
very low data rates, if restricted bandwidth is a requirement.
Of course, if the bandwidth wasn't restricted to 200 Hz, almost
any variation on PSK modulation would out run CW for efficiency,
as can easily be demonstrated using Shannon's formula.

When (if ever) ham radio gear is manufactured so that the Shannon limit is built into
the equipment, and *that* sets the channel limit, obviously my statement will no longer be

Well, danged. I believe that "the Shannon limit is built into"
every piece of communciations equipment I've ever seen. Tell me
about the gear you use where it isn't! I'd like to know about
this infinite bandwidth you have, and the lack of noise. Must
be interesting.

true, as I certainly trust - hope?- you can see. But I see you're not anywhere nearly as
sharp as Cecil, and that certainly comes as no surprise

Cecil is indeed a sharp fellow, and I don't think I'm insulted
if I don't measure up to him.

But maybe that bit about you being too dumb to be a real ham is
true, eh?

So you passed a ham radio test in 1960, then promptly forgot about it all. Now you show
up on usenet to portray yourself as some sort of Guru Expert Professional. Why don't you
just crawl back across the tundra to your rabbit hole- The game's over
You're nothing but a Lennie who once held a license.

And that is another compliment.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote:

Well, there is one other thing to say. But I've stolen this
from Cecil once or twice already, so I'll quote him directly
this time:

"Again, power level is only one of three inter-related
parameters. If they are not all equal, then the playing field
is not level. Your being able to copy the CW ID, which has an
equivalent 12dB power advantage, is like saying a 150w SSB
signal is easier to copy than a 1w CW signal. It's true but it
is also meaningless.

Thanks to DICK CARROLL'S LOGIC, SSB can be proven to be
superior to CW every time. That follows from ignoring any of
the throughput parameters."

Obsuscation when Cecil said it, more of the same from you!. There is
nothing there related whatever to the case cited. QED
....
If you're serious it only means that YOU don't understand Shannon's work
The channel bandwidth limit is central to any application Shannon 's theory.

They why we can increase the SNR and get more channel capacity
regardless of the bandwidth? Sounds like bandwidth isn't so
central after all, eh?

Hmmm... maybe, just maybe, that was what Cecil was getting at,
by leaving all else the same and just providing more signal to
increase the channel capacity despite whatever the bandwidth
was?

See DICK, just having attempted to use PSK-31 hasn't made you into
much of a yard stick to measure hams by. Using CW didn't seem to
help you much either... so I can't see you as a shining example of
any need to have a CW test prerequisite to having a ham ticket.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Floyd Davidson wrote in message
...

So, what we get down to is Extra DICK don't know Shannon from
Shinola. What a hoot.

I think that bad dog just got swatted with a rolled newspaper.

The man from misery doesn't have enough working neurons to
understand he was hit.

Another side-effect syndrome of Beeperitis.

LHA

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

73 de Larry, K3LT

What name calling? I refered to Dick as "Dick." :-)

That's "extra DICK" to you, Carl... :-)

The comment simply paraphrased/slightly modified something someone
else said (I think it may have been Floyd's original comment, but I don't
remember for sure ...)

Besides, this is not a discussion of a truly technical issue, so what does
my level of technical competence have to do with THIS discussion?

Larrah has the fantasy of being a "moderator" in here.

He's another victim of Beeperitis.

LHA

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

How are we going to measure it though? ... Hmmm, I guess we may just
need Larry "The Measuring Stick" Roll after all!

My suggestion on that sort of "stick" is to STICK IT.

I think we all know where... :-)

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


Larry,

I don't expect "exalted status" ... just some respect as one who is arguably
more knowledgable and competent in RF technology than the average ham.

Carl:

You have been shown that respect quite consistently, particularly by me.
However, the fact that you seem to be ignoring that fact is getting to be
more than a little bit off-putting.

It hasn't been YOU showing any "respect" Larrah. Sure, you've tossed
in some "polite" small phrases now and then, but then followed that up
with LOTS of "off-putting" disrespectful sentences and phrases all about
your own self-promotion as "expert in communications.".

However, as has been pointed out, you insist that your superior CW skill
is ALL that counts and that since I'm not up to your standards in that area
I'm a "lesser ham."

It's a simple fact that you don't have operating experience and proficiency
in Morse/CW, which I consider to be one of the most useful communications
skills in the radio amateur's arsenal.

Hmmm...let's see...

Larrah claims employment at Radio Shack prior to his 20 years with USAF.
In the USAF he flew a desk and never did any USAF communications.
Then he claims attending college with "summa cum laude" title add-on and
thus able to get any Human Resources career position he wants after
graduation...instead of landing a job as a Personnel specialist, he winds up
a BUS DRIVER but insist on calling his occupation "paratransit specialist."

Yes, a whole heaping glob of "communication skills" in that short resume.

For marketing folks and snake-oil salesmen.

A mere 50 1/2 years ago I was doing trans-Pacific HF transmissions as
part of my military service. At no time during my 3 years in that was there
ANY morse code used for primary communications. The USN radio HF
primary and USAF HF primary communications used the same TTY and
voice and FAX modes at that time. By 1978 HF comm was relegated to
secondary status, all US military branches.

For a half century the military and commercial carriers on HF have NOT
used any manual morse telegraphy for primary communications. But
the soma come loud bus driver insists that "morse code is a primary
skill!"

Ah, but the bus driver insists that is needed in amateurism! Of course,
to keep alive a living museum of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

To keep that legend alive, he insists that ALL who desire to enter a
radio hobby activity MUST take a manual telegraphy test!

Larrah's only justification is his holier-than-everyone opinion and self-
elevation to Raddio Godd status.

I have always acknowledged your
superior, professional-grade technical skills, and those of all other hams of
all license classes who possess them. However, I must reiterate, this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service. The ARS has a long-standing tradition of
requiring proficiency in the use of the Morse code, for the purpose of
permitting radio amateurs to exploit the many benefits and advantages of
that particular mode.

Invalid on all accounts, Larrah. Your accounts are bankrupt.

The FCC is NOT chartered to preserve old legends and old traditions.

ARRL seems to think its duty is to keep the morse legends and myths
alive and doesn't shrink from that propaganda anymore now than they
did a half century ago. They refuse to modernize even though the IARU
sided with eliminating the code test in ITU-R S25.5.

The ONLY place where morse code skills are of "value" would be in
amateur radio. Even snake-oil salesmen who were morsemen couldn't
make a living communicating in morse these days.

But, you, the NON-communicator (except as a very amateur) want to
keep a federal law that forces all newcomers to test for morsemanship!

Incredible!

I have consistently stated that I feel that this skill is
important enough to radio AMATEURS that it simply cannot be replaced,
even with technical skills which exceed licensing requirements.

Not a problem for you Larrah. You know so little about radio-electronics
theory that morsemanship is ALL you have in radiocommunications.

This is my opinion, Carl -- not a demonstration of any lack of due respect.
I would expect a person of your intelligence to recognize and acknowledge
the difference.

Hmmph...I would have expected someone with Summa Cum Laude
status and new BA degree in "human resources" (PERSONNEL) to
"get any job he wanted" in said "human resources." You are now
driving a bus.

Don't worry Larrah...nearly all of us have the "intelligence to recognize
and acknowledge" snake-oil salesmen when they show up in here.

Moreover, I have never held myself out as anything more
than an "average" ham, with the notable exception of occasional hyperbole
used in this newsgroup (and nowhere else) to push the buttons of particularly
intransigent fellow participants, including your own good self.

HYPOCRITE!

Google has thousands and thousands of your own words archived where
YOU hold YOURSELF up as the "role model" of "expert" in anything you
are talking about, showing your "dedication and hard work" to become
an extra class morseman. As an AMATEUR.

Self-elevation. Self-promotion. That is all you do in here.

Now go shine up your big bus, "graduate (summa etc.) human resources
specialist," your passengers are waiting...

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Well, I'm sure Carl expects that his professional RF engineering
qualifications
should grant him exalted status in the ARS, but in truth, it just ain't so!

That is NO "expectation," just the whining of someone who was never
in the professional ranks of radio being envious of those who have.

Like it or not, amateur radio is still a technological activity. If it
weren't
you would be little more than a "CBer" with a license. BFD.

I know
lots of radio amateurs, of all license classes, who haven't made dime number
one as a professional electronics technician or engineer, who are infinitely
better hams than I am or Carl could ever be.

Then we can all guess that your vaunted Radio Shack days were all
done voluntarily? :-)

Define "better" hams.

What they all have in common is
the fact that they have, throughout their "careers" as radio amateurs, been
willing to explore and adopt new modes, while retaining the skills learned
with the old ones, particularly Morse/CW.

A "career" is what professionals do...it is their WORK.

Unless there has been a sudden change in Part 97, Title 47 CFR, US
amateur radio is NOT for pecuniary compensation. [that's why it is
called "amateur"]

Let's see...you've only mentioned the old-timers you know...who are,
not surprisingly, all very much pro-morse-code. Would that make you
"biased" as judging all of the US ARS? Not according to you (we can
all see the spin coming). According to everyone else except the pro-
code syncophants, the bias is VERY apparent.

Negative points for your appraisal, Larrah...

Their stations are truly up-to-date,
they have usually attained high places on the DXCC standings, routinely
hold leadership positions within their clubs, and can be counted on to
provide valuable input and personal support for all club activities.

Ahem..."truly up-to-date" is cribbing right from the old pre-WW2
Amateur's Code. You should be able to do better, with all your
Summa Cum Laude college studies for a Human Resources degree.

Well, you (and your "ilk" whatever those are) subscribe to the old
description of "amateur radio is all about working DX on HF with CW."
That's the high point of your "career in ham radio?" :-)

"Leadership in a club" is a rather title-hungry description, isn't it?
That would be fine if the "club" is all about DX contesting. However,
some pro-coders insist that US amateur radio is all about a "diverse"
interest range that includes other things than DXing. Which is it?

"Valuable input and personal support" is more self-gratification
phrasing, "standard boilerplate" phrasing it is called in the writing trade.
If a club is all about DXing, then I'm sure the old-timers' "valuable input
and personal support" will be for THEIR favorite activity which is DXing.
That's just self-definition stuff, Larrah, NOT something that covers the
wide range of activities possible in US amateur radio.

They are the ones
who newcomers look to for the answers, while the so-called "professional"
hams simply cluster amongst themselves and look down their noses at the
proceedings of the rest of the club.

Now, now, Larrah, there you go again showing your envy of radio and
electronics folks who have REAL careers in radio-electronics.

You are ALL about self-promotion and self-glorification.

You know so little of basic electronic theory that you don't dare get into
any discussion at all technical in nature about radio in here...you would
be shown to be the self-glorifying flim-flam salesman you probably are
and then YOU look down your nose at those who are knowledgeable!

Feel free to go out and get a REAL job in radio that needs your morse
code skill and expertise and report back, okay? Make a CAREER in
code! Bum a ride on your company's bus if you need to...

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

(No CW Test) wrote in message ...

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

Can both of you
accept that fact?

I think most reasonable people can accept that.

But what is unacceptable is DICK's assertion that any idiot can pick
up PSK in 30 minutes, when he has had weeks of trouble with the mode
by his own words.

No?

No, in a word. If you believe I said such a thing, why don't you google it up and post it here, to stave
off the well earned title of bald faced liar? *I* know why, but others may not. It's because YOU ARE a
bald faced liar, as well as your village's favorite
pointyhead

DICK, your words are so magnificent; why do you deny them?

(Brian) wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

No, in a word. If you believe I said such a thing, why don't
you google it up and post it here, to stave off the well
earned title of bald faced liar? *I* know why, but others may
not. It's because YOU ARE a bald faced liar, as well as your
village's favorite pointyhead

DICK, your words are so magnificent; why do you deny them?

"... what I said- Shannon and his little mathematical circus
really *DON'T* have anything to do with ham radio."

He certainly ought to deny some of his statements!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

Using PSK-31 is not exactly a great indication of experience.
DICK's experience with *only* CW, PSK-31 and other common modes
used on Amateur bands is an extreme restriction. And that is
exactly why he (and Larry Roll) should *not* be using themselves
as a yard stick for other hams.

Frostbite Floyd:

This newsgroup is about AMATEUR Radio. The experience that Dick and I
have with CW, PSK-31, and other modes "common" to AMATEUR Radio
is certainly not a "restriction," and is, indeed, a "yard stick" by which we
can
analyze other hams on the basis of their technical and operational activities.
The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade
technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do. What we do have is curiosity, and a
willingness to learn. We also have the operating authority to experiment with
modes such as PSK-31 and adapt them to effective communications in keeping
with the rules, regulations, and purpose of the AMATEUR Radio Service.

The whole point is that this business of DICK and Larry claiming
that what they can do, is what everyone else _must_ do, is
ridiculous on its face because there are many others we could
use as a standard that would put the two of them out the door as
well.

I won't presume to speak for Dick, but I consider myself to be a typical,
average AMATEUR radio operator who has pursued the art and science
of AMATEUR radio communications at a level which is considerably
above that of other hams who, for whatever reasons (excuses), fail to
pursue modes beyond those involving voice communications. Now, to
be fair, I don't include among that group those who tend to specialize in
more technical aspects of the hobby such as building and maintaining
repeater systems. I've known a lot of hams who do this, but are No-Code
Techs who don't have any interest in CW, or anything else on HF, for
that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs. However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs. They are even further diluted when you consider the fact that a
lot of the technical/repeater gurus are also CW-tested, CW-using, CW-
loving, and Morse code test supporting Pre-Restructuring Extra class
licensees.

DICK and Larry have dabbled at 2, 3, maybe 4 different kinds of
digital communications systems. Thrilling. Whether I or

Yup. "Dabbled" is just about what I'd call it myself. However, my
"dabbling" represents a level of technical involvement which I would
dare say places me in the top 5th percentile of just Extra-class hams,
not including all other license classes. Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

someone else has used or not used *any* of those, is not really
significant... if I or someone else has in fact used *dozens*
of other digital systems, including many of the more recent
ones. There is _nothing_ special about PSK-31, other than it
is just about the upper limit of DICK's lack of experience.

However low Dick's "upper level" of experience is compared to your
professional technical experience is irrelevant. This is a discussion of
the AMATEUR radio service, and the experiences of AMATEUR
radio operators is the only valid basis for the comparison of the relative
level of technical involvement among radio amateurs. Legitimate
"pros" like Len, Carl, and yourself do add considerable value to the
ARS as a whole, but you cannot in any sense of fairness use yourselves
as any kind of objective "yardstick" by which other hams are measured.

In fact *your* argument is the same bogus one that DICK and
Larry make! Because *they* use CW (or PSK-31), everyone else
either does, or is declared too dumb to license (or understand
how Shannon applies to PSK-31). That is invalid logic and leads
you to erroneous conclusions.

Fallacy. You are making apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is a
well known Usenet tactic, but one which always ultimately ends up
disqualifying the person using it.

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

And that tells us *nothing* about which is the more efficient or
effective mode of communications.

No, it doesn't. That would depend on a universally accepted
definition of the terms "efficient" and "effective" in the context
of the use of these modes within the ARS. To the extent that the
meaning of these terms are infinitely arguable, only those of us
with fairly extensive operating experience in each can even come
close to being qualified to render an objective opinion.

Can both of you
accept that fact?

I cannot accept something which isn't true.

DICK is the *only* one who has suggested otherwise. Everyone
else has told him his reasons for such claims are bogus. So
what is *your* point?

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on
his practical operating experience as a radio AMATEUR using
modes authorized in the AMATEUR radio service. The only thing
"bogus" around here is your futile attempt to discredit him.
__________________________________________________ ___

BTW, I do believe that Mr. Shannon's theory is relevant to Amateur
Radio. I believe that what Dick is doing is making observations
based on actual operating experience, rather than empirical theory.
This may be the cause of the confusion, but as I said earlier, I do
not presume to speak for Dick.

73 de Larry, K3LT