Johnny B Goode wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an old friend wrote:


I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which
eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed
it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My
alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have
taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the
next

There is special equipment available to those with his handicap:
electronic spellers and dictionaries
word processors
talking calculators

It is evident that he does not choose to use them.

Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why
he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on
numerous occasions.


Dave K8MN

The above described disorders could easily define a certain Cretin from the
West Virginia area.

Or You, Kevin.

As the saying goes, "You can lead an ignoramus to a
dictionary, but you can't teach him to use it."

Shall we search out your numerous misspellings?

Or something along those lines.

Oh, so you *admit* you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

K4YZ:

Exactly, the duck idea is excellent. And, that is exactly why I was pointing
out the "code" would be buried in a graphic on a website, maybe Al
Jazerra's(sp?), or any other, and can be read from any library or other
computer across the nation...

Also, music broadcasts from sw stations would be good...

John

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:

Why would terrorists use radio, even with the narrowest directive antennas
and
broadcast to who-knows-who?

Simple, John.

Hide in plain sight. Make it look like a duck, sound like a duck
and quack like a duck, everyone thinks it's just another duck.

Just like 20 middle eastern guys did at flight schools around the
United States a few years back and then perpetrated one of the most
heinous acts of terrorism the world had ever seen.

Just my 0.02....

73

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an old friend wrote:


I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which
eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed
it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My
alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have
taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the
next


I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very
difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a
very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the
comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for
hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch.

It'd be easier to deal with Mark if he didn't claim that 1) his earlier
newsreader didn't have a spell checker 2) he can't be bothered to use
the spellchecker in his current newsreader, 3) proofreading his material
is just too much bother for the likes of us and 4) his mistakes are
*our* problem, not his.

you know Dave you just don't seem to like the truth

neverfound newreader writer that had an easy to use spell checker

there is NO spel check in my current set up go to google and try it if
you still don't believe me


There is special equipment available to those with his handicap:
electronic spellers and dictionaries

and you realy ahven't had to try to what is out there, something for
which you thank whatever diety you pray to

word processors
talking calculators

It is evident that he does not choose to use them.

Finally, we have his past fabrications on his military service and why
he needs to keep a low profile. Mark has sought victim status here on
numerous occasions.


Dave K8MN

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an old friend wrote:


I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which
eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed
it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My
alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have
taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the
next

I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very
difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a
very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the
comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for
hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch.

and worse yet as Long as I remember a something I have written I see
what I intended, not what is there, my mind and memory. gnag up trying
to be helpful but jst making things worse, and as you have noticed the
degree varies constantly, but esp on other aspects of my health, or if
I get angery, and so the medical pro Steve who claims to know about
these condictions does his best to provoke and make me angery so he can
continue to make fun of me

an_old_friend:

Let us now move away from this...
Don't keep it going, you will just end up defeating your own best interests...

John

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an old friend wrote:


I suffer from Both Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia, the degree to which
eithe ror both bother me and affect my writing avries over time, Indeed
it is strongly affected by How much I need to take any med Esp My
alegeies meds (which can cause drouseyness, and how recently I have
taken thoose meds. so literly My abilty does vary from one minte to the
next

I have noticed that one post may be very readable and the next very
difficult to decipher. I looked up Aphasia, and you are laboring under a
very difficult disability. Thus please accept my apology for the
comments I have made and it shant happen again. I applaud you for
hanging in there, this can be a tough bunch.

and worse yet as Long as I remember a something I have written I see
what I intended, not what is there, my mind and memory. gnag up trying
to be helpful but jst making things worse, and as you have noticed the
degree varies constantly, but esp on other aspects of my health, or if
I get angery, and so the medical pro Steve who claims to know about
these condictions does his best to provoke and make me angery so he can
continue to make fun of me

From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02


wrote:
From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings.
IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough
known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties
into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall
not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret'
codes).


Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is
trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or
"cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for
many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code"
of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of
morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is
IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English
alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks.

That morse code is an "international language" is more
nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply
STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being
the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to
a "language" other than being a representation of the
English language characters.


a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set
much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation
which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes
one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect -
altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and
bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect
on spectral content which can't be done in here without
some pictures or whiteboard sketching]

Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as
very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that
gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics
knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed
CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple
hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver.
Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified
at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and
will have NONE of that!

As long as a message/communications is being sent, the
transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always
present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that
this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky,
not counting on the added electronic stress on the power
supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the
primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous
rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical
imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM]

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set

FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation
spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of
the spectral components are considered (the difference is
in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier
phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state)
modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement
on a transmitter than FSK.

But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the
"public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they
reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy
as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference
the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus-
parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed
up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new
due to extensive publication in Europe for years before
it was published in QST.

On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in
the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater
range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence
spreading (than the original regs) but they still require
some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later"
use! [that's the interpretation of that very general
regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty
in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial
SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry
fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs*
to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions
of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO
regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings!

* I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones
to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN
category...that's a few million or so more devices.

Len:

So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government
can understand it (decrypt it.)

Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush
on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor
need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling
"fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if
they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can,
depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose...

Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on
my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like
they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the
citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and
prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win
my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"...

.... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such
an necessity, wouldn't I?

Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign
influence is in some kind of control of this country...

.... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would
like ...

When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER
the citizens...

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02


wrote:
From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For
the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings.
IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough
known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties
into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall
not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret'
codes).


Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is
trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or
"cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for
many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code"
of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of
morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is
IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English
alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks.

That morse code is an "international language" is more
nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply
STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being
the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to
a "language" other than being a representation of the
English language characters.


a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set
much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation
which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes
one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect -
altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and
bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect
on spectral content which can't be done in here without
some pictures or whiteboard sketching]

Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as
very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that
gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics
knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed
CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple
hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver.
Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified
at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and
will have NONE of that!

As long as a message/communications is being sent, the
transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always
present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that
this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky,
not counting on the added electronic stress on the power
supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the
primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous
rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical
imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM]

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set

FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation
spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of
the spectral components are considered (the difference is
in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier
phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state)
modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement
on a transmitter than FSK.

But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the
"public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they
reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy
as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference
the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus-
parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed
up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new
due to extensive publication in Europe for years before
it was published in QST.

On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in
the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater
range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence
spreading (than the original regs) but they still require
some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later"
use! [that's the interpretation of that very general
regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty
in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial
SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry
fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs*
to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions
of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO
regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings!

* I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones
to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN
category...that's a few million or so more devices.

John Smith wrote:
Len:

So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government
can understand it (decrypt it.)

The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing
the state of ARS rules


Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from bush
on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to, nor
need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling
"fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if
they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they can,
depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose...

Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye on
my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look like
they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of the
citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and
prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to win
my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"...

... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in such
an necessity, wouldn't I?

Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a foreign
influence is in some kind of control of this country...

... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I would
like ...

When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is NEVER
the citizens...

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02


wrote:
From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For
the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings.
IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough
known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties
into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall
not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret'
codes).


Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is
trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or
"cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for
many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code"
of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of
morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is
IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English
alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks.

That morse code is an "international language" is more
nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply
STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being
the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to
a "language" other than being a representation of the
English language characters.


a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set
much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation
which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes
one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect -
altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and
bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect
on spectral content which can't be done in here without
some pictures or whiteboard sketching]

Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as
very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that
gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics
knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed
CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple
hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver.
Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified
at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and
will have NONE of that!

As long as a message/communications is being sent, the
transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always
present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that
this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky,
not counting on the added electronic stress on the power
supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the
primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous
rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical
imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM]

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set

FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation
spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of
the spectral components are considered (the difference is
in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier
phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state)
modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement
on a transmitter than FSK.

But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the
"public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they
reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy
as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference
the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus-
parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed
up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new
due to extensive publication in Europe for years before
it was published in QST.

On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in
the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater
range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence
spreading (than the original regs) but they still require
some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later"
use! [that's the interpretation of that very general
regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty
in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial
SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry
fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs*
to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions
of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO
regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings!

* I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones
to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN
category...that's a few million or so more devices.

an_old_friend:

I assure you, I am just "bantering" with Len... no need to stand to his
defense...

John

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
Len:

So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government
can understand it (decrypt it.)

The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing
the state of ARS rules


Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from
bush
on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to,
nor
need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling
"fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if
they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they
can,
depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose...

Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye
on
my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look
like
they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of
the
citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and
prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to
win
my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"...

... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in
such
an necessity, wouldn't I?

Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a
foreign
influence is in some kind of control of this country...

... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I
would
like ...

When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is
NEVER
the citizens...

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02


wrote:
From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For
the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings.
IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough
known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties
into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall
not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret'
codes).


Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is
trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or
"cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for
many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code"
of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of
morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is
IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English
alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks.

That morse code is an "international language" is more
nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply
STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being
the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to
a "language" other than being a representation of the
English language characters.


a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set
much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation
which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes
one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect -
altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and
bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect
on spectral content which can't be done in here without
some pictures or whiteboard sketching]

Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as
very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that
gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics
knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed
CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple
hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver.
Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified
at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and
will have NONE of that!

As long as a message/communications is being sent, the
transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always
present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that
this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky,
not counting on the added electronic stress on the power
supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the
primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous
rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical
imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM]

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set

FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation
spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of
the spectral components are considered (the difference is
in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier
phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state)
modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement
on a transmitter than FSK.

But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the
"public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they
reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy
as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference
the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus-
parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed
up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new
due to extensive publication in Europe for years before
it was published in QST.

On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in
the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater
range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence
spreading (than the original regs) but they still require
some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later"
use! [that's the interpretation of that very general
regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty
in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial
SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry
fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs*
to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions
of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO
regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings!

* I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones
to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN
category...that's a few million or so more devices.

John Smith wrote:
an_old_friend:

I assure you, I am just "bantering" with Len... no need to stand to his
defense...

well hard to tell and well It can't be that conforable to bee seen as
defending the FCC's rules as making sense

Personal I don't think the whole rule (no encryption would stand up to
a court challange at least away from the current security charged
paranoia but that isn't a cause I am willing to risk the treasure to do


John

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
Len:

So then, you have decided that free speech is only allowed if the government
can understand it (decrypt it.)

The FCC does at least with respect to Ham radio, Len is only describing
the state of ARS rules


Interesting, my idea of free speech is that they (my public servants--from
bush
on down) don't have anything to say about what I say, nor who I say it to,
nor
need to be aware of the contents of my messages (unless they find me yelling
"fire" in a crowded theatre)... however, I am an american citizen... now if
they want to hassle some other individual in another country, I guess they
can,
depending if they get a pencil shoved in their ear or not, I suppose...

Not only that, but the constitution of my forefathers demands I keep an eye
on
my "public servants", maintaining a constant vigil, and if they even look
like
they are attempting to limit and/or subvert the liberties and freedoms of
the
citizens here, I am demanded to use whatever means necessary to halt and
prevent them, it is how I repay those individuals who gave their lives to
win
my freedoms and liberties--that is a REAL "GENTLEMAN's AGREEMENT!"...

... now I would be a damn fool to tell them what I would have planned in
such
an necessity, wouldn't I?

Sometimes, I think we have already lost a battle, at this point, and a
foreign
influence is in some kind of control of this country...

... perhaps the time approaches to repay that debt, much quicker than I
would
like ...

When a government begins to fear its' very own citizens--the problem is
NEVER
the citizens...

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "an old friend" on Fri 29 Jul 2005 18:02


wrote:
From: K0HB on Jul 29, 12:46 pm
"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For
the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

That's in regard to the FCC regulations on permissible codings.
IF A CODING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED (and supposedly well-enough
known) then it is okay to use by radio amateurs. That ties
into the basic warning of amateur radio communications shall
not be intended to obscure the true meaning (as with 'secret'
codes).


Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

I'm of the understanding that Hans DOES understand it, but is
trying some wordplay. "Cryptic" as in "cryptology" or
"cryptography" carries with it some emotional baggage for
many in being related to espionage activities. "Morse code"
of course is absolutely not (in more emotional baggage of
morsemen) any "code" of any kind...ahem...yet morse code is
IS a CODE of aperiodic on-off states representing the English
alphabet, numerals, and some punctuation marks.

That morse code is an "international language" is more
nonsense by morsemen. The CCITT and later ITU-R simply
STANDARDIZED the "International Morse Code" as being
the standard for radio amateurs. Has NO relation to
a "language" other than being a representation of the
English language characters.


a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set
much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

Peter Martinez' innovation (he is G3PLX) uses PHASE modulation
which can be picked up with an FM demodulator. Peter goes
one step further in the character coding...that of - in effect -
altering the modulation spectrum by the CHOICE of bits and
bit lengths. [there's a very long explanation of the effect
on spectral content which can't be done in here without
some pictures or whiteboard sketching]

Phase modulation has some definite advantages insofar as
very low received signal levels are concerned. [again, that
gets to a complex explanation involving some statistics
knowledge] It CAN actually work BETTER than on-off-keyed
CW at very low signal levels, aided by only a simple
hardware expansion of the detector system in a receiver.
Conservative traditionalist radio amateurs are horrified
at such upstart ideas (only four decades or so old) and
will have NONE of that!

As long as a message/communications is being sent, the
transmitter MUST be on for PM or FM. The carrier is always
present. Again, the conservative traditionalists argue that
this is "inefficient" and other ill-informed horse pucky,
not counting on the added electronic stress on the power
supply or final amplifier or the resulting shock to the
primary power source. [I've seen some truly marvelous
rationalizations on that, little more than nonsensical
imaginings of those that haven't learned enough of FM and PM]

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set

FSK and PSK "sound" almost identical. Their modulation
spectra are VERY close, almost exact if only magnitude of
the spectral components are considered (the difference is
in the phase of their sidebands relative to the carrier
phase and modulation phase). With a binary (two-state)
modulation signal, PSK is a tiny bit easier to implement
on a transmitter than FSK.

But, on regulatory matters, the FCC is quite firm on the
"public knowledge" aspect of ANY coding. For OOK CW, they
reference the CCITT/ITU-T standard on commercial telegraphy
as the International Morse Code. For RTTY they reference
the 5-level so-called Baudot code and the 7-level-plus-
parity ASCII code. PSK31 was allowed for use (followed
up by specific communications from the FCC) when it was new
due to extensive publication in Europe for years before
it was published in QST.

On Spread Spectrum techniques, there's still a gray area in
the regulations. FCC regulations have allowed a greater
range in the pseudo-random sequences for direct-sequence
spreading (than the original regs) but they still require
some form of "recording" of EVERY transmission for "later"
use! [that's the interpretation of that very general
regulation on SS] On the other hand, there's a difficulty
in obtaining the EXACT nature of just about EVERY commercial
SS sequence in commercial use...from keyless auto entry
fob transmitters to garage door openers to LANs and WLANs*
to remote electrical meter useage transmitters. Millions
of commercial SS sequences being sent but there are NO
regulatios imposed on THEIR transmission recordings!

* I'm classifying all those "cordless" devices from 'phones
to remote TV monitors to home networking gadgets in the WLAN
category...that's a few million or so more devices.