| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Fanatics said by amigo_boy:said by rf_engineer:Many, many amateurs learned morse code just to pass the test only to never use it again. Which is an example of the very pragmatism that has radical hobbyists upset. People learned Morse Code only to consume *10* times more bandwidth with voice. Morse is more intelligible under adverse conditions, but hobbyists (according to you) chose to use more bandwidth, and less intelligible communications (communications requiring a higher level of signal to noise to be intelligible.). But, the rest of the population makes a similar pragmatic choice, and very same hobbyists claim to be victims. You're taking a very simplistic approach. You're not considering the amount of information being transmitted. PSK31 uses even less bandwidth than CW, but it only transmits at 31 baud. The practical limit for most reasonably proficient CW operators is 30 to 50 WPM. What is the speed of voice, 300 WPM (I'm guessing)? Using more bandwidth isn't necessarily evil, you have to consider the amount of information being transmitted.
If you want to get into pragmatic choice debates, tell me how pragmatic it is to place an RF signal on a unshielded media that was designed for 60 hertz energy transmission when a national infrastructure of twisted pair copper designed for such a purpose exists. And how pragmatic is it to that this wired network doesn't even use the wireless spectrum...it pollutes it. On second thought, please don't. This debate isn't worth my time. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer:The practical limit for most reasonably proficient CW operators is 30 to 50 WPM. What is the speed of voice, 300 WPM (I'm guessing)? Using more bandwidth isn't necessarily evil, you have to consider the amount of information being transmitted. Dictation is 120-140 WPM. But, I know how radical radio hobbiests ascribe superhuman powers to themselves.  If we stick with dictation, that means you've chosen to consume 10x bandwidth for only a 4-5x gain.
Anyone except the most biased hobbyists (which, frankly, reminds me of a cult) would admit that the choice to use voice is because "it's easy. To heck with signal-to-noise ratios, intelligibility, using *only* the power necessary to be heard, etc."
said by rf_engineer:tell me how pragmatic it is to place an RF signal on a unshielded media that was designed for 60 hertz energy transmission It's extremely pragmatic when only one person complains. That was the observation I made at the beginning of this thread. But, the cultists couldn't accept it.
said by rf_engineer:On second thought, please don't. This debate isn't worth my time. I understand you don't know how to deal with this. Hobby radio is a walking contradiction. It's to be preserved because it serves a national interest. But, when only 30 (or 60) turn out to serve a national interest, it's because a majority of hobbyists don't concern themselves with emergency preparedness. Interference is to be opposed ... unless it's the hobbyists choosing to consume 10x bandwidth using voice comm which requires a lower signal-to-noise ratio to be intelligible. Pragmatism is to be shunned ... unless it's to get the dwindling license numbers back up (then, jettison Morse code, which, according to you, nobody took seriously anyway, which means most hobbyists chose less efficent, more interference-prone (and causing) voice communications due to pragmatism.
I think you guys could live with FRS and CB radio services.
Mark
|
|
| said by amigo_boy:I think you guys could live with FRS and CB radio services. I think that statement and the paragraph above it sums up how little you know about HF or Amateur Radio or emergency communications for that matter. Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on. And you're pitting a wired network whose media pollutes wireless spectrum versus national and international services whose media is the wireless spectrum. If you can't grasp that concept and why it's wrong, there's little hope for you understanding any argument I'm going to present. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer:I think that statement and the paragraph above it sums up how little you know about HF or Amateur Radio or emergency communications for that matter. Emergency communications in the sense of 30 or 60 people?
said by rf_engineer:Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on. That's because you know what I said is true. Radio hobbyists choose to use a form of communication (voice) that requires more bandwidth, a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and transmitted power to be intelligible. But, when someone outside the "cult" interferes, it's the end of the world.
You know that's true. You're only response is to say it's not worth commenting on.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by rf_engineer:I think that statement and the paragraph above it sums up how little you know about HF or Amateur Radio or emergency communications for that matter. Emergency communications in the sense of 30 or 60 people? said by rf_engineer:Your morse code versus voice/bandwidth arguments are so nonsensical they aren't even worth commenting on. That's because you know what I said is true. Radio hobbyists choose to use a form of communication (voice) that requires more bandwidth, a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and transmitted power to be intelligible. But, when someone outside the "cult" interferes, it's the end of the world. You know that's true. You're only response is to say it's not worth commenting on. You're making a non sequitor argument. Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine. If I have to explain to you why voice would be better than code in certain situations, this is hopeless and not worth getting into. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer: Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine. Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration."
But, if the rest of society makes similarly calculated choices you act like you've been victimized. The ARRL has approved BPL (when done right). But, we don't hear about that from the hobbyists. All we hear is "bad, bad, bad...." as they choose to make pragmatic choices (that effectively reduce the usability of their frequencies) *all day long*.
You're argument is that you're not reducing the usability because voice could be *more* useable. But, I think you understand perfectly the point I'm making. (I.e., that BPL could be more useable than your voice use. It's a matter of pragmatic degrees isn't it?).
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by rf_engineer: Bandwidth isn't the only consideration when choosing a particular mode. If conditions allow it, voice is perfectly fine. Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration." But, if the rest of society makes similarly calculated choices you act like you've been victimized. The ARRL has approved BPL (when done right). But, we don't hear about that from the hobbyists. All we hear is "bad, bad, bad...." as they choose to make pragmatic choices (that effectively reduce the usability of their frequencies) *all day long*. You're argument is that you're not reducing the usability because voice could be *more* useable. But, I think you understand perfectly the point I'm making. (I.e., that BPL could be more useable than your voice use. It's a matter of pragmatic degrees isn't it?). If BPL actually used the wireless spectrum you might have a valid argument, but it doesn't, it just pollutes it and makes it unusable for actual users of the spectrum. On top of this, HF is the only spectrum that can provide worldwide communications with no infrastructure. And finally, BPL is for the most part unnecessary and obsolete. Cable and DSL coverage is more ubiquitous and cable and fiber provide more bandwidth. To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years, has less than 10,000 subscribers in the US after five years of promotion, has questionable scalability, has a habit of missing promises and projections, has a tenuous business model, and formidable competition to ruin a worldwide communications medium. Yea, that sounds like a winner of a "pragmatic choice"....where do I sign up???  |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rf_engineer:If BPL actually used the wireless spectrum you might have a valid argument, but it doesn't, it just pollutes it and makes it unusable for actual users of the spectrum. That's not true. See:
»Catch up on the truth
said by rf_engineer:BPL is for the most part unnecessary and obsolete. Cable and DSL coverage is more ubiquitous and cable and fiber provide more bandwidth. Then the marketplace will resolve it.
said by rf_engineer:To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years, No. I oppose blind extremism.
Mark
|
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by rf_engineer:If BPL actually used the wireless spectrum you might have a valid argument, but it doesn't, it just pollutes it and makes it unusable for actual users of the spectrum. That's not true. See: » Catch up on the truth No, it's true. You can't escape the laws of physics. BPL will emit whatever frequencies it's using. Notching isn't a silver bullet, it just moves the interference to other frequencies and carriers will undoubtedly turn off notching anyways once capacity becomes an issue. ARRL has been working with a few vendors for quite awhile and some vendors have better systems than others; it's no news flash to those of us who have been following BPL. By the way, Motorola pulled out of Access BPL.
said by amigo_boy:said by rf_engineer:BPL is for the most part unnecessary and obsolete. Cable and DSL coverage is more ubiquitous and cable and fiber provide more bandwidth. Then the marketplace will resolve it. And as we've seen with this article, it is.
said by amigo_boy:said by rf_engineer:To sum it up, you favor a technology that hasn't gotten off the ground in ten years, No. I oppose blind extremism. Call it what you like in an effort to discredit us, but most of us have been studying BPL longer than you've been a member here and understand it quite well. Several of us have actually seen systems in operation and have measured emissions (I can identify chipsets by listening to the sounds and identify some systems by looking at the equipment on the pole). It seems you're here more to pick a fight than actually debate anything of substance. If you don't favor BPL then you're really wasting your time here. |
|
 wolfoxGentle Wolfox
join:2002-11-27
Dunnellon, FL | I see Marky-boy hasn't taken up my invitation, preferring to believe what politicians tell him rather than what REAL world science does. You're arguing with a fool, rf_engineer - please do not let him drag you too down to his level. Mark, my original invitation stands:
»BPL is not goin to help people who save lifes
What have you read so far?
--
The RIAA killed my legal webcast. Sadly it will never be mourned... |
|
W1RFI
join:2003-05-12
Burlington, CT | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Which means you're making a pragmatic choice to sacrifice available bandwidth, potential for interference (higher transmitted power to be heard), and require a higher signal-to-noise ratio because "all those things aren't the only consideration." Your position is flawed on its face, Mark. Voice communication contains FAR more than the words it uses. It contains emotion and inflection and other things that often communicate at least as much information as the words themselves. It is like the difference between communicating via keyboard and communicating over the telephone. In terms of transmitted information, there are things that are communicated by voice that can't be communicated any other way.
Your premise that those that use voice modes via radio are doing so to increase their susceptibility to interference is pretty ridiculous.
Ed Hare, W1RFI |
|
