K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
cut Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend.
Like when the
NAQP CW is on this winter season.

That's a different story.

It is just an example of what it will be like with massive
digital action.
Just watch and see.

All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say
7000 to 7050.

why?

why is it that Morse Code supporter are always insisting that Morse
Code needs props in order to survive?

Nope.

It needs reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference.

All modes need reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference.

OOK
signals to not mix well with digital and modes such as PSK31

But not because of bandwidth.

are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected
for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code?

They are not left just for theose hobbists. Many hunderd acres ar ein
this area and never hiked to preserve the tree and lifefroms like deer
and wolves and Mtn lions

"those" "hobbyist" "lifeforms"

Sure they are left for "hobbyists", although in your example
"naturalists" is the appropriate term.

There are wilderness areas/preserves where human access is strictly
limited in an attempt to maintain the "wild" nature of the place. The
radio analogy to such preserves is the quiet zone (both geographic and
spectrum) around some radio astronomy observatories.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

There are parks, recreational areas, seashores, lakes, and other areas
reserved from "development" and access in various ways. The rules for
their use are aimed at letting "hobbyists" have the best possible
experience (as in "fun") from the area - even though the rules limit
the use of the area by some.

For example, there are plenty of such places where motor vehicles are
simply not allowed. In many cases the only way to reach such places is
to walk in and walk out. The presence of motor vehicles would change
the place, and the experience, so much that they are simply not
allowed.

There's a nature trail near my home that just opened last fall. Used to
be an interurban right-of-way. It's a favorite for walkers, runners,
bicyclists and rollerbladers. No motor vehicles of any type are
allowed, even though the surface is paved.

At the other end of that spectrum is the Appalachian Trail, stretching
from Stone Mountain in Georgia to Mount Katahdin (sp?) in Maine. No
motor vehicles or even wheeled vehicles allowed on most of it.

Does walking need "props" in order to survive?

the question is why is Morse Code entitled to a such a preserve all to
itself?

Why not?

The ONLY mode that OOK is compatable with is Single Side Band.

In some ways yes, but in most ways no. Even those two modes are
incompatible in many ways. That's why they have separate subbands.

Consider the fact that most "data" modes are not allowed in the
voice/image subbands. Is that a "prop" so that SSB and AM will survive?

Imagine a stretch of band where there are Morse Code signals every 1
kHz. Is there anyplace in such a band where an SSB voice signal can
operate without causing interference to at least one Morse Code signal?



And why if it is Such an EFECTIVE mode does it need the protection?

"EFFECTIVE"


There's a fundamental divide appearing in radio modes nowadays.

Modes like Morse Code and the analog voice modes are real time, "direct
experience" modes. A human listens to the demodulated signal directly,
in real time.

The "digital" modes are fundamentally different in that there is
decoding beyond the demodulation process. A machine does the decoding -
the human does not 'listen' to the signal at all in most cases.

Look at PSK31 - you see a particular pattern on the waterfall, click on
it, and the decoded text appears. If there is interference, the text is
garbled, and there's not very much you can do about it. And what you
can do is a matter of equipment adjustment, not skill in listening.

Because of this difference, it makes sense to allow certain modes -
like Morse Code - a place free of interference from "machine modes",
just like the trails where motor vehicles are not allowed.

Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like PSK31 and
RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham bands
amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If such
protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

snip

There's a fundamental divide appearing in radio modes nowadays.

Modes like Morse Code and the analog voice modes are real time, "direct
experience" modes. A human listens to the demodulated signal directly,
in real time.

The "digital" modes are fundamentally different in that there is
decoding beyond the demodulation process. A machine does the decoding -
the human does not 'listen' to the signal at all in most cases.

Which is great for people such as myself!

Look at PSK31 - you see a particular pattern on the waterfall, click on
it, and the decoded text appears. If there is interference, the text is
garbled, and there's not very much you can do about it. And what you
can do is a matter of equipment adjustment, not skill in listening.

Thank goodness for that! If listening skill was the main criteria, I
wouldn't be much of a Ham! Well hearing skills maybe.....

Because of this difference, it makes sense to allow certain modes -
like Morse Code - a place free of interference from "machine modes",
just like the trails where motor vehicles are not allowed.

I'm certainly all for keeping those accursed robot stations in their
own section of the bands (actually, I am not in favor of their existance
- I think they violate the spirit if not the law). How is a robot
station that wipes out sometimes dozens of QSO's any different from
certain Amateurs who have been known to broadcast "bulletins right over
top of ongoing QSOs?


Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like PSK31 and
RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham bands
amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If such
protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code?

I have to smile at the concept of SSB and AM being protected from my
wimpy little PSK31 signal.

I understand your analogy, but I don't think it quite hits the
fundamental divide point. Certainly RTTY and SSTV and ATV and HELL mode
have been around for quite a while.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:

snip

There's a fundamental divide appearing in radio modes nowadays.

Modes like Morse Code and the analog voice modes
are real time, "direct
experience" modes. A human listens to the
demodulated signal directly, in real time.

The "digital" modes are fundamentally different
in that there is
decoding beyond the demodulation process. A
machine does the decoding -
the human does not 'listen' to the signal
at all in most cases.

Which is great for people such as myself!

Agreed! One more tool in the toolbox.

Look at PSK31 - you see a particular pattern on the
waterfall, click on
it, and the decoded text appears. If there is
interference, the text is
garbled, and there's not very much you can do
about it. And what you
can do is a matter of equipment adjustment,
not skill in listening.

Thank goodness for that! If listening skill
was the main criteria, I
wouldn't be much of a Ham! Well hearing skills maybe.....

Actually, Mike, your *listening* skills are probably excellent.

Because of this difference, it makes sense to allow
certain modes -
like Morse Code - a place free of interference
from "machine modes",
just like the trails where motor vehicles are not allowed.

I'm certainly all for keeping those accursed robot
stations in their
own section of the bands (actually, I am not in
favor of their existance
- I think they violate the spirit if not the law).

Repeaters, satellites and beacons are robots of a sort.
Should we ban those too?

How is a robot
station that wipes out sometimes dozens of QSO's any different from
certain Amateurs who have been known to broadcast "bulletins
right over top of ongoing QSOs?

Several important measures:

1) Does the bulletin station operate on a published schedule of
times and frequencies?

2) Does the bulletin station transmit only information of
clear and special interest to radio amateurs? (IOW, not general
news and such?)

3) Is the bulletin station using an approved method of control?

Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like
PSK31 and
RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham
bands
amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If
such
protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code?

I have to smile at the concept of SSB and AM being
protected from my wimpy little PSK31 signal.

But they are! You can legally transmit PSK31 anywhere on the HF ham
bands where voice modes are *not* allowed. Why does SSB need
protection from PSK31 but not Morse Code?

This sort of thing has some odd ramifiactions. Imagine if you wanted to
use a combined text/voice mode. Such a mode might
use SSB *with carrier* for the voice part, with the carrier
phase-shifted to send the text. Such a mode is not allowed
on amateur HF.

One can even imagine a mode consisting of SSB on one sideband,
SSTV-type images (digitally encoded) on the other, and text
on the phase-shifted carrier. Something neat to try out, huh?
Except it's not allowed on the amateur HF bands either.

Butfull-carrier double-sideband AM voice is allowed.

In both cases the prohibition is not due to the bandwidth used
but because of the content (voice/image vs. text)

I understand your analogy, but I don't think it quite hits the
fundamental divide point. Certainly RTTY and SSTV and ATV
and HELL mode
have been around for quite a while.

Sure - but they've been of limited use until recently because of
the difficulty of implementation. With the drastic reduction
in the cost of a computer, the increased computing power, and
the wide selection of easy-to-use freeware, the game is very
different than even 10 years ago.

Of course none of this prevents someone from having "happy fingers"....


73 de Jim, N2EY

I am arguing with a child. I should have known better. He knows nothing
about anything.

Dan/W4NTI

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

cut
been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came out with the
latest
"gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within the CW
ranges.
Total failure. So why should I expect anything better? Of course
BB
you

Total failure meaning CW can't compete as I have beens aying for years


No dummy that is not what I said, or mean. It is the non CW qualified
types
that just dump on top of a on-going CW communication....because they have
no
idea it is a real communication. Because they can't copy it. Clear now?

The you are full of Bull**** I can reconize CW for what it is.

If Cw can't survive in the real world then I am all for having a wake
for it

What you are saying is that CW can't survive amoungst other modes,
plain and simple

I don't buy your CW welfare program


And that is exactly what will happen in the event of NOT having a
exclusive
CW segement.

Then CW can't compete and will very properly fold, but I doubt it.

Cw Ops will just have to work a bit harder, they do Claim to enjoy a
challange



wouldn't know that would you? So why not just stick with what you
KNOW
about? And do us all a favor.

why don't you grow up and stop asking for protection of your petty
interests?

Why can't you admit that you know NOTHING about the subject and just go
away???

I know quite a bit about it

I know you are lobbing for protection of YOUR mode, and for the FCC to
continue in some form the Morse Code Welfare State that has existed for
years

There may be a case for more restrictions on robots ( am not convinced
either way on that point), but no case at all for CW needing protection
form ALL other mode



You are obviously a product of the 1960 feel good free love society.
You
were most certainly TAUGHT by them. I feel sorry for you. This
actually
explains your problem. So I can't blame you for your "problems".

Naw you have it wrong again. I am a bit too old to taught by the 1960's
folks

Then I really feel sorry for you. You must have grown up in the 60s and
your MaryJane brain is still screwed up from all the sessions.

I was Born in 1964 I was 6 when the 60's ended Never touched that weed



Don't forget to send in those dues to the ACLU.

No way the ACLU isn't the demon say Bill O'Riealy wants to make them
out as as but they are not folks that I support either

Wow.....so when are you going to start acting right?

i act just fine, just not the way you want me to, so grow up


Dan/W4NTI

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

First off asking for a CW only segment is not all that
far fetched.

It's actually a very good idea.

I have
been trying to work on 40 cw ever since the ARRL came
out with the latest
"gentleman's agreement" of allowing digital to operate within
the CW ranges.

?? I'm not sure what you mean, Dan.

For decades it's been legal to operate "digital modes" (RTTY,
PSK31,
etc.) everywhere in the non-voice parts of the HF ham bands.
Including 40 meters.

I dunno which gentleman's agreement you mean, but the ARRL
"regulation by bandwidth" proposal is just that - a
proposal, nothing more. Needs more work IMHO.

Total failure.

Well, I just worked a K4 station not far from you. Nice QSO.
Neither of
us had high power or big antennas, but we did fine. 7037 kHz. Morse
Code, of course.

btw, there were many Morse Code signals on 40 between 7000
and 7050 -
and it's not even dark out yet.

So why should I expect anything better?

Well, I hope for the best.

See you in 40, Dan.

Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend.
Like when the
NAQP CW is on this winter season.

That's a different story.

It is just an example of what it will be like with massive
digital action.
Just watch and see.

All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say
7000 to 7050.


There are no more gentlemen Jim.

Sure there are! But it only takes a few bad apples to
make a mess.

Take away their ability to recognize CW as
a real communication method and you will have chaos. This is what I'm
referring to.

Then the thing to do is to get a place for Morse Code.

There's plenty of precedent for this sort of thing. There are sidewalks
for pedestrians, bike lanes, etc. There are large parts of state and
national parks and wilderness areas where motor vehicles are not
allowed.

Some will say "but it's 'just a hobby'". Well, camping and backpacking
are 'just a hobby' for most people - yet there
are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected
for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Uh Jim, your preaching to the choir here. I agree with you. Just I think
25khz is enough.

Dan/W4NTI

You can't argue with Brian Burke. He has his mind made up and no matter
what you say he comes back with the same ole dry BS. Why bother?

Dan/W4NTI

"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
cut Tell you what Jim, listen during a RTTY contest weekend.
Like when the
NAQP CW is on this winter season.

That's a different story.

It is just an example of what it will be like with massive
digital action.
Just watch and see.

All the more reason to have a reasonable Morse Code only subband. Say
7000 to 7050.

why?

why is it that Morse Code supporter are always insisting that Morse
Code needs props in order to survive?

Nope.

It needs reasonable bandwidth in order to avoid interference. OOK
signals to not mix well with digital and modes such as PSK31

are plenty of spaces left in a natural state and protected
for those "hobbyists". Why not for Morse Code?

They are not left just for theose hobbists. Many hunderd acres ar ein
this area and never hiked to preserve the tree and lifefroms like deer
and wolves and Mtn lions

"those" "hobbyist" "lifeforms"

Sure they are left for "hobbyists", although in your example
"naturalists" is the appropriate term.

the question is why is Morse Code entitled to a such a preserve all to
itself?

Why not?

The ONLY mode that OOK is compatable with is Single Side Band.

And why if it is Such an EFECTIVE mode does it need the protection?

"EFFECTIVE"

We could ask the same about who needs the ADA, Mark.

Steve, K4YZ

From: Dan/W4NTI on Aug 26, 4:26 pm

You can't argue with Brian Burke. He has his mind made up and no matter
what you say he comes back with the same ole dry BS. Why bother?

Dan/W4NTI

"K4YZ" wrote in message

oups.com...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Jeswald's Nett Kopp days are numbered. Brian Burke is NOT in that
series of quotes. I seriously suggest a good eye doctor and
perhaps a tranquilizer from your general-care physician.

wrote in message
oups.com...

plonk

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

snip

I'm certainly all for keeping those accursed robot
stations in their
own section of the bands (actually, I am not in
favor of their existance
- I think they violate the spirit if not the law).


Repeaters, satellites and beacons are robots of a sort.
Should we ban those too?

Of course, the repeater is supposed to have an active control OP. The
frequencies are also agreed upon. IOW, anyone operating simplex on say
the portions of 2 meters designated as repeater frequencies might expect
some problems. Sats are also pretty well defined too.

The nature of PSK31 is to use what is essentially the BW that 1 SSB
signal would use. We pack a lot of signals in that small space. Due to
the nature of the signal and modulation, we tend to congregate in just
that one area.

When the pactor station opens up beside us, we can't tell each other to
QSY, we are done for the day. Turn off the rig, or maybe change the band.

I suppose that we could agree on a predefined frequency to change to in
the event of interference, since there is no way to let the robot
station know that it is interfering with us.

But it seems to me that we are allowing unattended operation to
interfere with what is a popular, BW conserving mode, populated by
Amateurs who are at least (moreso IMHO) as gentlemanly and ladylike as
CW to be QRM'ed in the interest of getting the spam through.

Yeah - progress.....


How is a robot
station that wipes out sometimes dozens of QSO's any different from
certain Amateurs who have been known to broadcast "bulletins
right over top of ongoing QSOs?


Several important measures:

1) Does the bulletin station operate on a published schedule of
times and frequencies?

2) Does the bulletin station transmit only information of
clear and special interest to radio amateurs? (IOW, not general
news and such?)

3) Is the bulletin station using an approved method of control?


First, let me state my position:

I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the
amateur bands.

Period.

All of the "qualifications as to published schedules, frequencies,
interests, and controls is bafflegab, designed to justify the ARRL
transmissions.

There are people like K1MAN in the world, ready to rub peoples noses in
the mud any chance they get. and this is a big fat chance here!




Voice modes like SSB and AM are protected from modes like
PSK31 and
RTTY. The spectrum allowed to those modes in the US HF ham
bands
amounts to more than half the total spectrum available! If
such
protection is good enough for SSB and AM, why not Morse Code?

I have to smile at the concept of SSB and AM being
protected from my wimpy little PSK31 signal.


But they are! You can legally transmit PSK31 anywhere on the HF ham
bands where voice modes are *not* allowed. Why does SSB need
protection from PSK31 but not Morse Code?

Dunno. Nothing like pertectin killerwatt signals from QRP!

This sort of thing has some odd ramifiactions. Imagine if you wanted to
use a combined text/voice mode. Such a mode might
use SSB *with carrier* for the voice part, with the carrier
phase-shifted to send the text. Such a mode is not allowed
on amateur HF.

One can even imagine a mode consisting of SSB on one sideband,
SSTV-type images (digitally encoded) on the other, and text
on the phase-shifted carrier. Something neat to try out, huh?
Except it's not allowed on the amateur HF bands either.

Butfull-carrier double-sideband AM voice is allowed.

In both cases the prohibition is not due to the bandwidth used
but because of the content (voice/image vs. text)

Now those are all things that can be worked on.

Did you hear about the proposed PSK31 text/voice mode? It actually
would probably work better as BPSK64, but it is both interesting and
goofy at the same time.


I understand your analogy, but I don't think it quite hits the
fundamental divide point. Certainly RTTY and SSTV and ATV
and HELL mode
have been around for quite a while.


Sure - but they've been of limited use until recently because of
the difficulty of implementation. With the drastic reduction
in the cost of a computer, the increased computing power, and
the wide selection of easy-to-use freeware, the game is very
different than even 10 years ago.

Of course none of this prevents someone from having "happy fingers"....

hehe.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote


I do not believe that one way transmissions should be legal on the amateur
bands.

Period.


No bulletins about hurricane Katrina and communications emergency activations?

No code practice sessions?

No remote control of satellites?

No remote control of model airplanes?

No remote control of repeaters?

No telemetry from satellites?

No propagation beacons?

No APRS? (Not even in balloons?)

No auxiliary links between remote elements of a repeater system?

No................

"Period"

Damn, Mike, you one ultra-conservative summabitch!

73, de Hans, K0HB