Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Like the old saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" !

Lessee, he admitted error, and then worked at correcting it. That is a
lot more than some in this group would do. My guess is that is about
what to expect. Perhaps gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair, a good
act of contrition, and a month of bread and water and wearing of
sackcloth would be in order? 8^)


Morsemen don't DO that sort of thing. They are "superior."


He's reading this thread, though - he knows it's here. When the time
is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch!
Meanwhile, he's out there today regaling us with his wisdom on the
subject of license fees, and other matters.

Being wrong on one thing does not mean you can't post on anything else.


Right...but morsemen are ALWAYS right, regardless.

Leo omitted mention of all those other things, like presidential
politics, the space business, global economy and choo-choo
trains.

Mongo like choo choo!

Professional amateurs who have a career in amateur radio seem
to think that all who don't think like they think, "think."

Do you "think" about it?

I'll think about it and get back to you... I think. 8^)


Thounds thinky to me...

What's brown and sticky?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Well, he is traditionally the first one to jump on someone for 'being
wrong' about something - anything, actually, no matter how trivial -
and often only in his own opinion at that.

Give us some examples, Leo.

No examples yet.

Which is unlikely - he's made too many enemies with his "You're just
wrong. I'm always right" attitude in the group for that to be an
option.

The only enemies I know of here are people who have a problem with my
differences of opinion, or with being corrected when they make a mistake.

Would you rather I let the mistakes I notice go uncorrected?

I missed that in my previous answer to Leo. What enemies? Lenover21
(and presumably AveryFineman) aren't too fond of Jim it would seem, And
Brian would appear to be in that group. I'm assuming that Leo puts
himself on that list too. So out of the group, we have three people that
are Jim's "enemies" - four if you count one of Lenover21's other
personalities.

Also consider "nocwtest", "averyfine", and "lenof21", all of which have been
used by Len here. "Lenof21" is still his, and I think the other two are as
well.

So that makes seven - five of whom are the same person...;-)

The rest of us like Jim just fine, thankyouverymuch!

I appreciate that, Mike.

It is interesting to see the reaction when the tables are turned.

Yes, it is.

See below.

You
know that if he had have popped in and said "you're right, guys, I
screwed up", this thread would have died out.

My original post began "if my math is correct". One of the calculations was
quite close (188 seconds) but the other was way off. So I corrected it.

Apparently, and quite
unfortunately, that isn't possible for him to do - so he avoids the
issue, and hopes it goes away.

Did you miss my correction post?

He replied to it!!!

I missed that one.

Like the old saying goes, "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" !

Dish what out?

He's reading this thread, though - he knows it's here.

I read most threads here. But not all posts. Just don't have the time.

I try to be assertive but not aggressive. That apparently infuriates some
people. Particularly when they cannot refute or disprove my facts. Or when
I refuse to back down from my opinions.

When the time
is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch!

How can anyone "take control" of a thread? I'm not the most frequent or
verbose poster here by a long shot.

I simply post facts and opinions. And the occasional mistake. Which I have
corrected.

So what's the problem?

He don't like ya. When you don't like a person, you hold them to an
impossibly high standard.

Well, maybe *he* does, but I don't.

Funny, in a group where I have been accused of supporting all things I
do not comment on, and not condemning "that which should be condemned so
I'll drag this out.

Me too. As if what others post is somehow my responsibility.

Lenover21 made a mistake a week or so ago in which he said the first
voice transmissions occurred in 1906. That was incorrect. No big deal,
it was corrected I didn't notice Leo making "you can hear a pin drop"
posts about that mistake.

About that "tables are turned" thing - it's interesting to note Len's reaction
to being corrected on that historic fact.

Or when he wrote that he had *never* posted here as "averyfine" - and I Googled
up some posts by him using that screen name...

Meanwhile, he's out there today regaling us with his wisdom on the
subject of license fees, and other matters.

Are any of the facts I have written about license fees incorrect?

Are my opinions on license fees somehow unacceptable because of a
calculation mistake?

Would you approve of me more if I behaved like Len, "William", or Steve,
rather than myself?

I suspect that he would approve of you if you had the same opinions as
Brian or Lenover21. At that point you could act however you wanted to.

I suspect you are right.

Would you rather I just shut up?

twould appear! ;^)

The only person I have *ever* seen tell someone else to shut up here on rrap
was Len, in his classic "feldwebel" post to K8MN.

And reading.......

And posting.

and bears....Oh My! hehe

No, the guy who photographed the Bear bombers from the deck of a US aircraft
carrier is W3RV.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 14 Aug 2004 00:36:02 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

snip

The rest of us like Jim just fine, thankyouverymuch!

So far, the 'rest of you' consists of you.

You see anyone else jumping on the support bandwagon, Mike?

I sure don't!

snip

He replied to it!!!

Too bad you weren't able to understand the context of the
reply......try again (sigh)......

snip

I try to be assertive but not aggressive. That apparently infuriates some
people. Particularly when they cannot refute or disprove my facts. Or when
I refuse to back down from my opinions.

Well, you're partly correct - you are trying.....very trying,
actually......


When the time
is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch!

How can anyone "take control" of a thread? I'm not the most frequent or
verbose poster here by a long shot.

Just like this! Jim, you are too predictable.....

remainder of rhetorical BS and righteous indignation snipped......

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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

Why not simply answer
the questions?

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.

The path loss varies
quite a bit, depending
on the positions of
the planets...

Or, you can cheat and crib from NASA information.

Why would copying
NASA information be
"cheating"?

They've been
in the interplanetary communications business for over three decades.
Theoretical information is even older, and still accurate.

Why not simply answer
the questions?

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.

The Doppler shift
will be essentially
constant over the
length of such a
QSO.

If the Doppler shift
is expressed as a
percentage of the
operating frequency,
it depends only on
the relative velocities
of the stations.. The
relative velocity
calculation should
take into account both
the orbital and rotational
velocities.

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

Illogical answer. Len
appears not to understand
the question. This is
understandable because
Len is neither a radio
amateur nor a contester.

It has been calculated that
round-trip delay at closest
approach would be only
a bit more than 6 minutes.
This is also the time of
minimum path loss and
low Doppler shift. Therefore
the premise is quite logical.

If you understand it.

Doppler shift isn't a big problem.

That depends on
the specifics.


RF power output IS.

Not really. The
robot probes to
Mars and beyond
do not use high
power. Less than
100 watts is more
than adequate.

The use of such low
power requires the
use large but steerable
antennas and very
sensitive receivers.

In the early 1960s,
some amateurs
were allowed to use
the 1000 foot
Arecibo antenna
for amateur EME
operation.

They were quite
successful, even
with the limitations
of amateur equipment
of those times..

Think about
that...no ionosphere in between planets, nothing else like it.

Nothing else
is needed.

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.

Why not simply answer
the questions?

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

It appears that Len
can not answer the
questions.

Some very rough
calculations of
path loss:

At closest approach, the one-way path to Mars is roughly about 60 times the
round-trip distance to the moon. So the path loss is 3600 times greater. 3600
times greater is roughly 71 dB.

However, the moon is a pretty poor reflector, losing very roughly about 11 dB
at typical UHF/VHF amateur frequencies. This loss would not exist on a one-way
path to Mars.

So as a very rough estimate, the one-way path loss to Mars at closest approach
is about 60 dB more than EME path loss.

These are very
rough calculations
but at least they are
an answer.

In article , Leo
writes:

On 14 Aug 2004 00:36:02 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

snip

The rest of us like Jim just fine, thankyouverymuch!

So far, the 'rest of you' consists of you.

You see anyone else jumping on the support bandwagon, Mike?

I sure don't!

snip

He replied to it!!!

Too bad you weren't able to understand the context of the
reply......try again (sigh)......

snip

I try to be assertive but not aggressive. That apparently infuriates some
people. Particularly when they cannot refute or disprove my facts. Or
when
I refuse to back down from my opinions.

Well, you're partly correct - you are trying.....very trying,
actually......


When the time
is right, he'll jump in and try to take control of it - just watch!

How can anyone "take control" of a thread? I'm not the most frequent or
verbose poster here by a long shot.

Just like this! Jim, you are too predictable.....

There is no Jim. There
is only anonymity.

Not so. Use of special
spacing establishes
profundity.

Evidence of great spiritual
knowledge surpassing all
professionalism.


remainder of rhetorical BS and righteous indignation snipped......

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:

Not so. Use of special
spacing establishes
profundity.

Could it be that is the reason you so often use it in your own postings?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

Not so. Use of special
spacing establishes
profundity.

Could it be that is the reason you so often use it in your own postings?

Dave K8MN

I'm buying in to the
idea in a huge way!

Hi, hi!