In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Leo wrote:
On 10 Aug 2004 03:16:20 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:


In article , Leo

writes:


On 09 Aug 2004 23:45:24 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:


In article ,

(N2EY) writes:


(N2EY) wrote in message
...

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Okay, now what is the PATH LOSS and what kind of Tx power is
needed at each end for a given S:N ratio?

Can you get by on amateur radio power levels? Without violating
any of the regulations?

How about Doppler Shift? How much?

Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-)


So far, you could hear a pin drop.......


Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick

a position and date for that position and tell us.

It doesn't work that way, Mike. I posed the challenge and it's up
to others to answer...such as yourself.

All the information is available to YOU. Won't take much searching
to find it.

No need for Keplerian tables or that other BS about "picking a position"
since all you need is the MAXIMUM distance for path loss.

Or, you can cheat and crib from NASA information. They've been
in the interplanetary communications business for over three decades.
Theoretical information is even older, and still accurate.

Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO,
starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short
feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35
second transmission. Then the same for the return message.

Illogical premise. Interplanetary QSOs have such long round-trip
times that your paradigm isn't worth 20 cents. Think about it.

Doppler shift isn't a big problem. RF power output IS. Think about
that...no ionosphere in between planets, nothing else like it.

At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check
them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may
need to know.

Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see-
double-yew to take the first shot. You are NOT the range officer
in this shooting gallery.

If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:47:10 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

snip

How about Doppler Shift? How much?

Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-)


So far, you could hear a pin drop.......


Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick
a position and date for that position and tell us.

Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO,
starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short
feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35
second transmission. Then the same for the return message.

At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check
them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may
need to know.

Sorry, Mike, that wasn't my question. You could look it up yourself,
though, if you're interested.


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:04 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 11 Aug 2004 03:25:21 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

snip

BTW, you mentioned in an earlier post that you have a Patent
registered to you, in the area od radio. Interesting - mind if I ask
what it was?

U.S. # 3,848,191 - Pulse Compression Receiver with AGC, granted
in 1974, assigned to RCA Corporation. Sole inventor on patent.
Missed two other applications due to being too close to prior art.

Basically it is a pulse processor and operating in an environment
of many different pulses, only a few of which come close to being
in synchronism with the system. The application was for SECANT,
an R&D project for 4 years at RCA, the acronym standing for
SEparation and Control of Aircraft by Non-synchronous Techniques.
SECANT was an aircraft collision avoidance system and in direct
R&D competition with a modified helicopter station-keeping system
done by Minneapolis-Honeywell. Both the RCA and Minnie-Honey
systems were flight-tested successfully in PA at the (former) Naval
Air Development Center (NADC). Flight testing local in PA, at the
Patuxent River range, and at Key West, Florida, observed by FAA
troops locally as well as USN and USA people. First air tested at
Kern County Airport #7, Mojave, CA...("Mojave International" in fun)
now the site for Scaled Composites, the first company to make it
into space privately.

SECANT worked at 1.6 GHz nominal bandcenter. The final version
(of three) in 1974 used 8 SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) matched
bandpass filters done on quartz substrates (done at Sommerville,
NJ) at 1 MHz bandwidths centered between 55 and 64 MHz. I got
to play with the SAW filters and the final version IF-detectors plus
the pulse pre-processor. Al Walston, W6MJN, and I shared
responsibility for the Tx and Rx parts. Jim Hall, KD6JG, was the
engineering technical manager over the last two versions of
SECANT and all of RIHANS, another R&D program, again working
in L-band at the RF level.

The U.S. government scuttled any more testing funding in 1974 for
both the RCA and Minnie-Honey systems, opting for a less-tested
ATC transponder modification which is now in use, but only by the
air carriers and large executive aircraft.

TCAS? (now TCAS II)

Yup. MIT did their air testing in a couple of Piper Cherokees in MA.
Lovely picture they had in a magazine flying over the 'Haystack'
radome (unrelated project).

RCA's SECANT was tested first on a hired DC-3, Piper Aztec, in
Mojave in '71. [don't know what Minneapolis-Honeywell used]
USN air testing was in a C-117 (military version of "Super DC-3"),
Grumman S-2 Tracker, and Douglas RA twin jet...the latter sharing
duty of testing the prototype GPSS then called NAVSTAR (or
something like that). In PA, NJ, MD, and FL by the USN. It worked
just fine. So did the Minneapolis-Honeywell system. Would have
been interesting for the '74-'75 "electronic shootout" to see which
system was the better. Not so. U.S. gubmint decided in favor of
a largely untested system devised by highly-credentialled friends.

ATCRBS became TCAS and that was that.

Military doesn't use that
system. MIT had friends in higher places to sway gubmint opinion.

RCA Corporation began (well before WW2) as a place to hold
U.S. patents and try to keep control on the then-new technology
of radio. As a result, RCA built up a fantastic legal staff and pursued
patent filings aggressively. Back in '74 the average cost of any
electronic patent application cost about $6000, nearly all of it being
taken up by the non-patent-office Search costs. Corporate
employees of the lower levels would not get much chance to patent
anything unless a corporation had a large legal staff. I was lucky in
getting a sole patent award and don't sweat the other two at RCA
nor the one multiple-inventor patent turn-down at Electro-Optical
Systems (Xerox division). [sometimes good minds think alike! :-)]

Very impressive - thanks for the summary. I'd never heard of the
SECANT system before.

That would have been quite a challenge back in '74 - all discrete
components, no microprocessors, no CAD tools or circuit
emulators....real hands-on design work.

All discretes for sure, lots of prototype PCBs in the first two
versions, all hand-wired on Douglas boards (not the aircraft
company, but a then-new prototype PCB company in SoCal).
All the RF plumbing used mainly SMA connectors and purchased
uW components such as filters, couplers, etc. (we were short on
time and R&D budgets are not extravagant).

But...we DID have some CAE (although it was called "CAD" back
then). RCA Corporate had COSMIC, Computer Optimization of
Simple Microwave Integrated Circuits, and LECAP, the frequency-
domain analysis for any kind of circuitry...a much simpler version
of the original IBM ECAP. We did write some of our own programs
once we got accounts on the corporate time-share net (second
phase). I learned FORTRAN in '72 using Dan McCracken's book
on it and eventually contributed six programs to the corporate
program library. Was interesting and challenging!

To say the least. Compter programming was pretty mystical back then.
My exposure to Fortran came in college in '76 - the computer was an
old Burroughs B6700 (IIRC), and was absolutely massive.


While RCA Sommerville had just debuted their CMOS family and
was (half-heartedly) promoting COSMAC processors, they were a
bit ahead of time and facing the then-new Intel (and copycat Zilog)
CP/M micros for business applications. At RCA EASD we had to
produce quickly and went with discrete logic subsystems. Worked
out quite well and Bernie Case (not a ham) got at least 3 patents on
the threat-evaluation and tracking logic for SECANT, a couple more
on RIHANS (River Inland Harbor Area Navigation System), a highly
precise positioning system using shore station responders. That
was tested in the Galveston, TX, area in '74 (whole group was there
for the testing over 4 weeks). Following the NOAA survey team,
the positioning accuracy was BETTER than even military GPS of
the next decade. All that and massive amounts of multipath
reflections from all the steel in dockyards, etc., in harbors. RIHANS
worked in L-band also using low power RF pulses; range was only
about 30 miles (to radio horizon) and that suited harbor and roads
navigation very well. [it was so far back in time that ROMs were
limited to 8 KBits of storage...:-) ]

I remember those....worked with Rockwell's PPS-4 4-bit (!)
microprossessor system way back when....


Too bad that RCA Corporation was sold to GE and most of the
divisions parcelled out to other corporations. Was a heady time,
much accomplished in electronics and radio in the 70s, fun days
of pushing lots of performance envelopes. Most of the 3-decade-
old CMOS ICs are alive and well in production at many other IC
makers; Indianapolis division still makes color TV sets under the
RCA logo although Thompson CSF owns that division now.

It's too bad that RCA was not equipped with a some sort of financial
TCAS system when they took on the development of the analog VideoDisc
system..... :-0


No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out
of your league. Are you aware that there are folks here who have
successfully assembled their own Elecraft kits, and built working CW
transmitters from plans? :-) :-) :-)

Yes, they've announced (sometimes with herald trumpets) their
fantastic Nobel-level accomplishments. Ave! :-)

Ad infinitum.


There remains an enormous area of electronics-radio exploration and
experimentation for anyone who wants to venture out from the known,
the already-accomplished a half century ago. Technologically and
operationally, the rest of the radio world has long-since surpassed
even the dreams of most amateurs. There's over 50 Million cell phones
in use in the USA and every one of them is a tiny two-way radio running
in the low microwave region. That's sneered at by the "radio pioneers"
(of the latter-day saints) busy keeping morse code alive and unhealthy
on HF.

That particular technology has been paying the bills (and then some!)
at the Leo household since 1985!

Financed my incursion into this hobby, too!

When every other radio service has either dropped morse code
use or never considered it from the beginning, it doesn't say much for
the pretend-ubiquitousness of that ancient mode.

It was once a mainstream form of telecommunications - but that was a
long, long time ago. Now, it's an interesting mode within the amateur
radio hobby. and the odd covert military organization, perhaps.

And Hollywood!


It's an exciting future for those who care to break away from half-century
old techniques and venture into largely-untried new areas. Only a few
dare. That's how it was in the 1920s. By the 2020s it would seem that
most amateurs want to recreate that time, to live a century back, and
feel "safe" re-inventing wheels because they have all the knowledge
recorded, all the successes and the failures of those early days. They
can neglect the failures because they never did the same thing.

Everything old is new again!




73, Leo

On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:01 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:
snip

Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick

a position and date for that position and tell us.

It doesn't work that way, Mike. I posed the challenge and it's up
to others to answer...such as yourself.

All the information is available to YOU. Won't take much searching
to find it.

No need for Keplerian tables or that other BS about "picking a position"
since all you need is the MAXIMUM distance for path loss.

Or, you can cheat and crib from NASA information. They've been
in the interplanetary communications business for over three decades.
Theoretical information is even older, and still accurate.

Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO,
starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short
feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35
second transmission. Then the same for the return message.

Illogical premise. Interplanetary QSOs have such long round-trip
times that your paradigm isn't worth 20 cents. Think about it.

Doppler shift isn't a big problem. RF power output IS. Think about
that...no ionosphere in between planets, nothing else like it.

At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check
them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may
need to know.

Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see-
double-yew to take the first shot. You are NOT the range officer
in this shooting gallery.

If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-)


Catalyst:

One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being
involved in or changed by the consequences.

Based on previous postings, you don't suspect that this fellow is a
catalyst, do you ? :-)





73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:


RCA Corporation began (well before WW2) as a place to hold
U.S. patents and try to keep control on the then-new technology
of radio. As a result, RCA built up a fantastic legal staff and pursued
patent filings aggressively. Back in '74 the average cost of any
electronic patent application cost about $6000, nearly all of it being
taken up by the non-patent-office Search costs. Corporate
employees of the lower levels would not get much chance to patent
anything unless a corporation had a large legal staff. I was lucky in
getting a sole patent award and don't sweat the other two at RCA
nor the one multiple-inventor patent turn-down at Electro-Optical
Systems (Xerox division).

I was an AMTS at the old RCA Sarnoff Lab in Princeton from 81 to 87.
Got 11 patents there. Mostly television signal processing. That
ended when GE raped and pillaged RCA about 15 years ago.... :-(

In article , Leo
writes:

On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:04 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo

writes:

On 11 Aug 2004 03:25:21 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

snip

But...we DID have some CAE (although it was called "CAD" back
then). RCA Corporate had COSMIC, Computer Optimization of
Simple Microwave Integrated Circuits, and LECAP, the frequency-
domain analysis for any kind of circuitry...a much simpler version
of the original IBM ECAP. We did write some of our own programs
once we got accounts on the corporate time-share net (second
phase). I learned FORTRAN in '72 using Dan McCracken's book
on it and eventually contributed six programs to the corporate
program library. Was interesting and challenging!

To say the least. Compter programming was pretty mystical back then.
My exposure to Fortran came in college in '76 - the computer was an
old Burroughs B6700 (IIRC), and was absolutely massive.

Part of RCA Corporation's profit problems came in trying to
compete with IBM's 360 series with the RCA Spectra 70 series.
While the Spectra 70 had 12% of the mainframe market, the
east coast major part of RCA's computerwerke didn't upgrade
it with newer hardware all around. When IBM debuted their 370
series, that was IT. [RCA EASD made the terminals in Van
Nuys, CA...not a single ROM in the monitor...characters were
done via a special RCA tube with "mini-scanning" for them and
the keyboard was a modified IBM Selectric...:-) ]

By contrast, EASD had 2 Spectra 70s on the first floor of my
group's building, right next to the group lab. Since a time-share
connection hardware set cost (then) $50K, we had to dial-up
Cherry Hill, NJ, and connect to the corporate computer the very
long way around. Seemed silly at the time...the terminals were
on the second floor of the same building. Well, the two mainframes
made money on contract computing in the mid-70s, having two
shifts busy, busy, busy. [blazing speed of 300 Baud on the
corporate net using video terminal or 100 WPM on the Teletype
KSRs...and file space limited to 256K bytes...:-) ] Group and
Commercial Aviation section got together to contract with
Tym-Share for better, faster service via Ann Arbor, MI, and
dial-up.

By contrast, this H-P Pavilion "low end" box (just purchased)
does CPU clocking at 2+ GHz, 200 MHz data-memory fetch
rate, 40 GB HD, and CD R-W deck. Modem can do 56 KBPS
but lines limit that to about 49 KBPS on the average. Fabulous
operation at those clockings! My own FORTRAN-developed
programs (originally via a 20 MHz CPU clock machine) hardly
indicate any hiccup in excuting masses of calculation. The
Samsung 712 LCD flat display has NO distortion of the image
and NO focus problems...as were starting to show up on the
6 1/2 year old CRT monitor before its horizontal sweep couldn't
take it anymore.

While RCA Sommerville had just debuted their CMOS family and
was (half-heartedly) promoting COSMAC processors, they were a
bit ahead of time and facing the then-new Intel (and copycat Zilog)
CP/M micros for business applications. At RCA EASD we had to
produce quickly and went with discrete logic subsystems. Worked
out quite well and Bernie Case (not a ham) got at least 3 patents on
the threat-evaluation and tracking logic for SECANT, a couple more
on RIHANS (River Inland Harbor Area Navigation System), a highly
precise positioning system using shore station responders. That
was tested in the Galveston, TX, area in '74 (whole group was there
for the testing over 4 weeks). Following the NOAA survey team,
the positioning accuracy was BETTER than even military GPS of
the next decade. All that and massive amounts of multipath
reflections from all the steel in dockyards, etc., in harbors. RIHANS
worked in L-band also using low power RF pulses; range was only
about 30 miles (to radio horizon) and that suited harbor and roads
navigation very well. [it was so far back in time that ROMs were
limited to 8 KBits of storage...:-) ]

I remember those....worked with Rockwell's PPS-4 4-bit (!)
microprossessor system way back when....

Heh! 4-bitters! Actually, those are alive and well in the Microchip
PIC microcontrollers...dozens and dozens of versions at very low
cost and the PIC development program is free for download!

Even with working for Rockwell, we didn't think much of the little
4-bitters there, running Intel micro development systems for the
then-new 8051s. CP/M was king in PC circles until the Apple ][
started to edge in...and CP/M pretty much evaporated after the
IBM PC debut at the beginning of the 1980s.

Too bad that RCA Corporation was sold to GE and most of the
divisions parcelled out to other corporations. Was a heady time,
much accomplished in electronics and radio in the 70s, fun days
of pushing lots of performance envelopes. Most of the 3-decade-
old CMOS ICs are alive and well in production at many other IC
makers; Indianapolis division still makes color TV sets under the
RCA logo although Thompson CSF owns that division now.

It's too bad that RCA was not equipped with a some sort of financial
TCAS system when they took on the development of the analog VideoDisc
system..... :-0

I was most surprised that they didn't push that at the time. Under
the older Sarnoff they went push-push-push on broadcast quality
videorecording and broadcast equipment in general. Their cameras
set the standard for TV shooting. Jim Hall, KD6JG, was into their
first TV recording efforts in the 1950s.

No wonder you're getting so much heat here, Len - clearly, you are out
of your league. Are you aware that there are folks here who have
successfully assembled their own Elecraft kits, and built working CW
transmitters from plans? :-) :-) :-)

Yes, they've announced (sometimes with herald trumpets) their
fantastic Nobel-level accomplishments. Ave! :-)

Ad infinitum.

...ad nauseum. :-)

There remains an enormous area of electronics-radio exploration and
experimentation for anyone who wants to venture out from the known,
the already-accomplished a half century ago. Technologically and
operationally, the rest of the radio world has long-since surpassed
even the dreams of most amateurs. There's over 50 Million cell phones
in use in the USA and every one of them is a tiny two-way radio running
in the low microwave region. That's sneered at by the "radio pioneers"
(of the latter-day saints) busy keeping morse code alive and unhealthy
on HF.

That particular technology has been paying the bills (and then some!)
at the Leo household since 1985!

Financed my incursion into this hobby, too!

Good for you! Fascinating work, always something new coming
up, pushing the performance envelopes farther and farther out.
Transistor f_t limits are now beyond Ku-band (18+ GHz) and
increasing. Direct-conversion cell phone receivers at 1 GHz
and 2 GHz...unthought of two decades ago!

When every other radio service has either dropped morse code
use or never considered it from the beginning, it doesn't say much for
the pretend-ubiquitousness of that ancient mode.

It was once a mainstream form of telecommunications - but that was a
long, long time ago. Now, it's an interesting mode within the amateur
radio hobby. and the odd covert military organization, perhaps.

And Hollywood!

"Hollywood" makes its money on emotions and fantasies. While
it might be good entertainment, it is waaaayyyyyy to far out for
anything like reality.

PCTA seem to make their thing on emotions and fantasies, too!

It's an exciting future for those who care to break away from half-century
old techniques and venture into largely-untried new areas. Only a few
dare. That's how it was in the 1920s. By the 2020s it would seem that
most amateurs want to recreate that time, to live a century back, and
feel "safe" re-inventing wheels because they have all the knowledge
recorded, all the successes and the failures of those early days. They
can neglect the failures because they never did the same thing.

Everything old is new again!

Retread and (sometimes) retard...

It's sometimes like a living U.S. Civil War re-enactment...old-fashioned
weapons, old-fashioned clothes, old-fashioned tactics, but both sides
DID have telegraphy! [whoopee for the morsemen]

A half century ago, the U.S. military was NOT using any morsemen
in long-distance 24/7 net communications. [that net was considerable
and massive, far bigger than what State Department had] All these
mighty macho morsemen in here just can't understand that. The fairy
stories they were fed by "the league" by other morsemen. Keeps the
re-enactment "alive" even though it is brain-dead.

Beep beep.

In article , Leo
writes:

On 11 Aug 2004 19:59:01 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
snip

Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick

a position and date for that position and tell us.

It doesn't work that way, Mike. I posed the challenge and it's up
to others to answer...such as yourself.

All the information is available to YOU. Won't take much searching
to find it.

No need for Keplerian tables or that other BS about "picking a position"
since all you need is the MAXIMUM distance for path loss.

Or, you can cheat and crib from NASA information. They've been
in the interplanetary communications business for over three decades.
Theoretical information is even older, and still accurate.

Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO,
starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short
feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35
second transmission. Then the same for the return message.

Illogical premise. Interplanetary QSOs have such long round-trip
times that your paradigm isn't worth 20 cents. Think about it.

Doppler shift isn't a big problem. RF power output IS. Think about
that...no ionosphere in between planets, nothing else like it.

At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check
them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may
need to know.

Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see-
double-yew to take the first shot. You are NOT the range officer
in this shooting gallery.

If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-)


Catalyst:

One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being
involved in or changed by the consequences.

Based on previous postings, you don't suspect that this fellow is a
catalyst, do you ? :-)

Catalyst on a cold tin roof... :-)

LHA / WMD

It's too bad that RCA was not equipped with a some sort of financial
TCAS system when they took on the development of the analog VideoDisc
system..... :-0



Makes you wonder why that videodisc system bombed, but DVD
succeeded. Other than being "digital" they are not that
different... No porn avaliable may have had something
to do with it ;-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

Sorry, Mike. It's up to YOU and the other latter-day saints of see-
double-yew to take the first shot.
You are NOT the range officer
in this shooting gallery.

Not the answer I expected, but it'll do. Thanks much!

If you can't do it, well, you can't do it. No problem to me. :-)

Correct!


- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 22:41:14 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Leo wrote:


On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:47:10 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:



snip


How about Doppler Shift? How much?

Betcha there gonna be chicken sounds on that...no answer. :-)


So far, you could hear a pin drop.......


Tell us what the path loss and and Power for a given S/N ratio is. Pick
a position and date for that position and tell us.

Tell us what the Doppler shift is over the length of a short QSO,
starting at the time of of start Assume a DX style QSO with a short
feedback message to insure actual reception on both ends, say a 35
second transmission. Then the same for the return message.

At this time I don't know those details, but I'll be happy to check
them out once you've posted them. Add anything I have forgotten but may
need to know.


Sorry, Mike, that wasn't my question. You could look it up yourself,
though, if you're interested.


My bad Leo. I though since you were talking about hearing a pin drop
that you knew the answers. As Rosanne Rosanadanna said... "Never mind".


Nope - just the deafening silence....


But I did get an answer.


- Mike KB3EIA -