In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I apologize for being a little vague about this. Are you proposing
replacing wireless communication with wired communication (via the
Internet) as a way to communicate with inadequate radio equipment?

"Wireless" doesn't always work, if you're in a "noise hole,"
or if the mode or radio you want to use isn't "legit" anymore.
So that's one use, yes.
The idea is to use our own radios as source and sink,
bypassing the vagaries of Mother Nature's propagation
and local noise sources. Or, if you're in a "noise hole,"
to bring spectrum to you from a "quiet" location.
It also allows the use of heretofore prohibitied modes.
For instance:
In the article I detail how an old longwave maritime
rig on 415 KC A2 can carry on a real-time CW QSO with
someone using a modern rig on 40 meters.
It will be a real boon for the "boatanchor" community.
I do hope QST will consider it.

TNX ES 73 DE Dave AB5S

Sounds like a perfect article for this coming April's edition of QST
to me :-)

Seriously - you can't be seriously suggesting that vulnerable infrastructure
be considered as a viable replacement for infrastructureless HF
communications?

Again ... perhaps in the April (fools) edition of QST ...

Carl, Unless Stinson has a pre-arranged contract to publish in
any periodical, his submission is no guarantee of acceptance
for publishing. His manuscript has to go in the "slush pile"
with all other submissions for consideration by editors.

Manuscript-wise, it may be that QST isn't getting much and any
submission is ripe for page make-up in a future edition. Or, it
could be that QST will actually consider the article as a viable
alternative to QRM-killed-by-BPL HF ham bands...which are not
yet plagued everywhere with BPL garbage. We will all get some
insight to QST editors' concept of the future if this article gets
printed.

However, October and November manuscript submission dates
would be about right for first-of-April, 2004, issues. :-)

Care for a PDF copy of the infamous/famous Signetics "Write
Only Memory" ad of years ago? :-)

LHA

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"David Stinson" wrote in message
...
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I apologize for being a little vague about this. Are you proposing
replacing wireless communication with wired communication (via the
Internet) as a way to communicate with inadequate radio equipment?

"Wireless" doesn't always work, if you're in a "noise hole,"
or if the mode or radio you want to use isn't "legit" anymore.
So that's one use, yes.
The idea is to use our own radios as source and sink,
bypassing the vagaries of Mother Nature's propagation
and local noise sources. Or, if you're in a "noise hole,"
to bring spectrum to you from a "quiet" location.
It also allows the use of heretofore prohibitied modes.
For instance:
In the article I detail how an old longwave maritime
rig on 415 KC A2 can carry on a real-time CW QSO with
someone using a modern rig on 40 meters.
It will be a real boon for the "boatanchor" community.
I do hope QST will consider it.

TNX ES 73 DE Dave AB5S

Sounds like a perfect article for this coming April's edition of QST
to me :-)

Seriously - you can't be seriously suggesting that vulnerable infrastructure
be considered as a viable replacement for infrastructureless HF
communications?

Again ... perhaps in the April (fools) edition of QST ...

Carl, Unless Stinson has a pre-arranged contract to publish in
any periodical, his submission is no guarantee of acceptance
for publishing. His manuscript has to go in the "slush pile"
with all other submissions for consideration by editors.

Manuscript-wise, it may be that QST isn't getting much and any
submission is ripe for page make-up in a future edition. Or, it
could be that QST will actually consider the article as a viable
alternative to QRM-killed-by-BPL HF ham bands...which are not
yet plagued everywhere with BPL garbage. We will all get some
insight to QST editors' concept of the future if this article gets
printed.

However, October and November manuscript submission dates
would be about right for first-of-April, 2004, issues. :-)

Care for a PDF copy of the infamous/famous Signetics "Write
Only Memory" ad of years ago? :-)

LHA

Perhaps Semper Fi Steve could shed some light on whether Dave's
comments are original and worthy of publication in any periodical,
whether QST, 73, or Ham Radio.

He is, after all, the "at large" editor of original material for
amatuer publications.

Sayonara

Oh, my....*sigh*

No, I don't work for the power companies,
and no, I don't lobby for BPL.

charlesblabham wrote:

..it encourages us all to be discouraged....
Now *that* is an interesting concept..


I am sorry to hear that this invasion of non-ham stuff
into the hobby does not bother you.
I thought innovating, finding new ways around problems, etc.
*was* "ham stuff." We used to do that alot.

So far, the idea of using non-ham links in order to "improve" the
performance of amateur radio has been 100% consistent. In every case where
it has been applied, it has managed to set back
and denigrate the hobby, to some extent or another.

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.
It was just one aspect of many; a way to dodge one giant
hairball the FCC is about to cough up on us.
But when you say "BPL," a few people go into some sort of "brain lock."
They can't even hear anything else.
Oh well... back to building the 611 QSO transverters...
73 Dave S.

David Stinson wrote:

When CW replaced spark, it was going to
"make the hobby too complicated and expensive to continue."

Who said that?

When SSB came on the ham scene, "Donald Duck"
was going to "destroy the hobby."

Who said that?

When FM and repeaters came along, they were
"against the spirit of ham radio. You might as well use a telephone!"

Who said that?

When Packet appeared, they brayed:
"those 'brrrrappp!' signals are denigrating the hobby!"

Who said that?

Throughout our history, hecklers and naysayers have been full of beans.
And they're full of beans now.

So if people are not "for" whatever comes along is full of beans?

In the next rewrite, I'm taking out all references to BPL.

And when BPL appeared, those naughty naysayers thought it was a bad
thing too.

So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:


So I guess those who don't like BPL are full of beans?

See? Whaddya tell'ya... brain lock.

(Brian) wrote in message . com...

Perhaps Semper Fi Steve could shed some light on whether Dave's
comments are original and worthy of publication in any periodical,
whether QST, 73, or Ham Radio.

He is, after all, the "at large" editor of original material for
amatuer publications.

Sayonara

I think your mind said sayonara a long time ago, Brain.

Sheeesh.

Steve, K4YZ