(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

Whew! Pot/Kettle/Black if ever there was an example!

We all KNOW Larrah to be a "pot-kettle-black" for many years, even
back on FIDOnet. No need to state the obvious.

Nice try at a dodge, Lennie. Weak, predictable, and obviously
humiliating for you...but it seems you LIKE self-humiliation.

Now stop with reduncancies in posting, pSycho pSteve, and take
your medications like a good lad.

I am sure you wished it true, Oh Lying One.

Remember, YOU aren't the moderator in here despite what your
psychosis imagines.

I imagine nothing of the like, Lennie...That's YOUR schtick.

Steve, K4YZ

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...

Your village is calling again.....

Yet you answer the phone...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their
way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick,
Larry,
Dan, Bruce...

Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that
Dick, Larry, et al deserve ...

"Us Extras"? Whooo, that's rich, Carl!

Yes, Dave, "Us Extras" ... much as it may eat at you, I'm an Extra, too.

Sure you are, Carl--now.

(FCC said so ... and it's up to them, not you ... :-P

That's right. After all, "us" Extras have to stick together. Right?

For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or
their national equivalent thereof).

What differentiates a majority from a vast majority? In a country with
only two license classes, the higher class license is equivalent to the
U.S. Extra?

When I said "or their national equivalent thereof," I was refering to our
Director from New Zealand ... a long-time, coded ham of their highest
class.

Their *higher* class. In a country with two classes of license, the
higher class is equivalent to the U.S. Extra?

Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our
membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other
license classes.

What constitutes a "significant number" of Extas when compared to the
percentage of your membership holding a license for which no code test
is required?

I haven't calculated the exact percentage, but we have a LOT of members
who hold an Extra class license ... and that's not just since folks were
able
to upgrade with "only 5 wpm."

Noted that there is no indication of what "significant number" or "a LOT
of" actually means.

So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ...

...and I gather that you don't have many members who support code
testing :-)

That's right ... one of the requirements for membership is supporting
the elimination of Morse testing.

I'm glad you made that clear. Then it certainly isn't "the Extras" You
mean anyone of any class who supports continued morse testing.

Dave K8MN

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Dick, your technical ignorance is showing TWOFOLD.

First, Floyd said "the SNR and get more channel capacity


regardless of the bandwidth" ... which is clearly true.


Second, you said "When you can increase the SNR by narrowing
the bandwidth? I knew you has your head on bassackwards."

You certainly CAN increase SNR by narrowing the bandwidth.



Which is EXACTLY the meaning of what I said in question form!
Uh, Carl, where'd you learn to read?

Where did you learn to communicate?

If you increase the SNR by decreasing the bandwidth, you *don't*
get any increase in the channel capacity. What have you gained?

Nothing...

On the other hand, if you increase the SNR by leaving the
bandwidth as it is, and increase the signal level, you get more
capacity!

You don't think that "bandwidth is central" when you can increase
SNR by narrowing bandwidth? What physics do you and Frosty practice?

Try physics that actually accomplish something. What you are
suggesting has no effect on channel capacity.

Surely not the same that ALL hams do. Narrowing the bandwidth to eliminate
noise and other interference IS the most common way to get it done, for
darn
sure within ham radio.

It also reduces the channel capacity. At 500 Hz, with CW, you
are limited to what? 40 wpm or so for a good CW operator.

But with a 2.1 KHz bandwidth they could use SSB, for example,
and transfer *many* *many* times more information.

By *your* methods of comparision, you've just proven that SSB is
more efficient than CW.

(Of course, using your methods we could "prove" almost
anything!)

Since noise is essentially constant across the spectrum,


No, it isn't, although I understand the concept of assuming it to be so
for any
reasonably narrow slice of spectrum under consideration.


it can
be measured in noise power per unit bandwidth (noise power/Hz).
Thus, in a 1 kHz bandwidth, there will be 1000x more noise
power (30 log 10) than in a 1 Hz bandwidth. Thus, the noise floor
is lower in narrower bandwidths.

What part of this don't you get?


Where'd you get the idea that I don't get this???

That's EXACTlY what I said when I asked

"When you can increase the SNR by narrowing
the bandwidth?"

The answer is: you get no change in the channel capacity.

(How did you pass the Extra test
anyway???)



I'm beginning to wonder how you made it out of elementary school

I sure passed it long, long, long, long before you did, and at the FCC
district office!
Didn't miss a single question, either- you watch the grader's pencil
hand to see how many
check marks he/she makes. In my case it was none.

Yes, and here you are years later *proving* that none of that
was accomplishing a darned thing, because obviously *you* passed
so it can't have been working correctly. That's exactly why
none of that is now required.

If you and your other buddy with limited or NO amateur radio experience
had spent some time on the CW bands WORKING CW instead of bitching about

I'll bet that I have more time actually copying CW than you do!

the code test maybe you'd know some of this stuff without having to
resort to
an obscure theory that isn't even mentioned until third year of a
college EE program,
never appeared ANYWHERE in the amateur radio technical literature until
recently,
and only briefly in electrical engineering handbooks. You're absolutely
FIXATED on
insisting that all hams MUST have engineering level; knowledge and
experience in
manipulating Information Theory at the laboratory level.

Hmmm... you mean hams are that ignorant as a rule???

I don't believe you. I think it's just you and Larry.

What a load of Bull****! ALL of radio got along quite well for a half
century before
Shannon ever thought it up, and after he did there was virtually no use
for it until the advent
of DSP chips.

More of your ignorance. As I've pointed out previously, the
entire direction of communications technology switched gears
immediately after Shannon published his works. DSP chips were a
*result* of Shannon's work, not something that enabled Shannon.

So why don't you join Frosty out on the tundra and do a ritual dance to
celebrate Shannon
and all his math?


OBIT-- want work some DX? Here's my log from last night on ~14.010,
just sitting at the computer with the radio headphones on and idly
listening to what
was going on---

CYO
RN6AT
SV1LV

Betcha you won't catch many of those folks on 20 meter SSB these days.

And I didn't have to give Shannon a single thought.

With no brain to use for thinking, how could you have?

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

Dick Carroll; wrote:


Floyd Davidson wrote:

some snippage

You increase the SNR, regardless of the bandwidth, by increasing the
signal level DICK.


Well, so much for your technical knowledge if THAT"S all you know about
it. Any experienced
ham, even without ANY tech schooling whatever, knows better than that.


As a dilletante, I realize that in any ratio, there are two numbers.

So while it is quite possible to make the s/n ratio larger by
increasing the signal, it is equally possible, and sometimes much better
to increase the s/n ratio by lowering the noise. Sometimes it is the
*only* option available.

Seems like narrowing the bandwidth might just do that!

your humble hockey puck, 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
OBIT-- want work some DX? Here's my log from last night on ~14.010,
just sitting at the computer with the radio headphones on and idly
listening to what
was going on---

CYO
RN6AT
SV1LV

Betcha you won't catch many of those folks on 20 meter SSB these days.

Gee, Dick, I've logged SV2, RNx's, UAx's and a lot of others ... have you
worked those Russian Islands WAY north of Norway? I think there are
only 1 or 2 ops there ... I have that one, too.

BFD ...

And I didn't have to give Shannon a single thought.

You don't appear to be *capable* of thinking Shannon through
and really understanding the significance of his work ... Floyd is
right ... you're just a "glorified CBer."

Carl - wk3c

Floyd Davidson wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Dick Carroll; wrote:


Floyd Davidson wrote:

some snippage

You increase the SNR, regardless of the bandwidth, by increasing the
signal level DICK.


Well, so much for your technical knowledge if THAT"S all you know about
it. Any experienced
ham, even without ANY tech schooling whatever, knows better than that.


As a dilletante, I realize that in any ratio, there are two numbers.


Actually, there are three (bandwidth, signal, and noise) which
are related to channel capacity by the following formula

Capacity = Bandwidth * Log2 ( 1 + Signal/Noise )

The debate is over comparing *efficiency* of different modes (CW
and PSK-31), and hence the channel capacity for such a
comparison, must be normalized.

Reducing the Bandwidth parameter does decrease the observed SNR
in the channel, but the Capacity is not increased because the
actual noise power per Hz is unchanged.


So while it is quite possible to make the s/n ratio larger by
increasing the signal, it is equally possible, and sometimes much better
to increase the s/n ratio by lowering the noise. Sometimes it is the
*only* option available.


However, what has to change is the noise power per Hz, and
reducing the bandwidth does not change that.


Seems like narrowing the bandwidth might just do that!


Increasing the signal power has the desired effect. There are
other ways to accomplish that, of course. Reduction of noise by
any means other than reducing the bandwidth (switching from an
omni directional antenna to a directional antenna, for example)
will have the desired effect.

Okay. What we have here is two separate arguments IMO. Everyone is right


your humble hockey puck, 8^)


Hows come, then, you don't have a Canadian call sign?


Ohh, I just got that pejorative from someone here. I kind of like it
tho'. I'm still playing Hockey at my ripe old age, and will as long as I
can.

And I do like to get up to Canada whenever I can.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Floyd is
right ... you're just a "glorified CBer."

Carl - wk3c

This is Really Cute, MR CBplusser Carl, also head of CB International, calling
someone a Glorifed Cber.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Floyd Davidson wrote:

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?

When you can increase the SNR by narrowing the bandwidth? I knew you
has your head on bassackwards.

Dick, your technical ignorance is showing TWOFOLD.


I've a feeling Dick's got a lot more than just two folds...

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes:

Heh heh... shows what you know about ham radio!....when hams who actually
get on the air find
the need, they just modify their channel. You know, things like variable
width IF, various
filters, IF shift all those things you're unfamiliar with since you'vve
never actually used
any of them.

Extra DICK, you shouldn't drink and Internet.

Sure, you can reconsult Shannon to get the skinny on the new channel, but
we hams have no
need to do that, if you don't already know. We'll leave all that to you and
Putzie to handle in
your spare time for your own entertainment. We have more interesting things
to do ON THE AIR.
IT DOES NOT APPLY to ham radio operation, you fool!

Must be a lot of 'shine runnin going on in Misery.

Might explain the state's upcoming wine industry. :-)

LHA