Bob N4HY wrote:
I recently had a general manager of a large amateur radio
organization tell me that if I made it possible to communicate
through BPL or in any way mitigated BPL through DSP techniques,
I would begin to sing soprano and the GM did not mean falsetto.
Hi Bob,
That sort of
The general manager of that organization was not wrong! This
discussion is mixing apples and oranges as to what BPL interferes
with. Digital techniques can not eliminate the interference at RF
that BPL introduces. As I have mentioned before, don't forget the
RADIO side of things when advocating
Please don't treat the radio part of these systems as a simple black
box that replaces an ethernet wire! Please do the homework required
to understand what happens in your radio at RF both on transmit and
receive. In other words, do a little RF engineering in addition to
the baseband and
Bonnie,
Your remarks about this person, and I don't know who it is, are not
very convincing. Your award winning design apparently had to do with
co-channel interference. This is not the same as on-channel
interference that increases the total noise level, which is what BPL
interference is.
I may be wrong but I beleive your theory doesn't assume that the RF
energy at your reciever's antenna is not additive. In other words,
the signal from the transmitter you want to hear and the interfering
signal do not add together. You can only discern the strongest
signal. An example is, that
kd4e wrote:
(text snipped)
As you noted, if we boost the power level of the transmission we
enhance the probability of overcoming the BPL QRM/QRN, but we do so
at the price of increased cost and added energy -- which may be a
precious commodity in an emergency deployment. We also risk
not_so_tongue_in_cheek
If I am 800 miles away, outside the local disaster and power outage
area, and could have provided assistance, but can't hear you through my
local BPL QRM, or have given up HF communications all together as the
newly required digital BPL busting technologies are too
I may be wrong but I beleive your theory doesn't assume that the RF
energy at your reciever's antenna is not additive. In other words,
the signal from the transmitter you want to hear and the interfering
signal do not add together. You can only discern the strongest
signal. An example is,
jgorman01 wrote:
Bonnie,
Your remarks about this person, and I don't know who it is, are not
very convincing. Your award winning design apparently had to do with
co-channel interference. This is not the same as on-channel
interference that increases the total noise level, which is what
Certainly. I cannot argue that.
I was just joking about what would happen in the affected zone.
That's why I emphazised tongue in cheek.
I haved NOT been in favor of BPL either, power lines are too leaky,
but seems it is something we will have to live with. It is a fat source
of revenues for
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 18:52:42 -0400, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Armstrong 'got Moon quote right'
REPLY FOLLOWS
Boys and girls, you have just seen a prime example of historical
revisionism. Usually it's done with more subtlety, but
list email filter wrote:
not_so_tongue_in_cheek
If I am 800 miles away, outside the local disaster and power outage
area, and could have provided assistance, but can't hear you through my
local BPL QRM, or have given up HF communications all together as the
newly required digital BPL
jgorman01 wrote:
I may be wrong but I beleive your theory doesn't assume that the RF
energy at your reciever's antenna is not additive. In other words,
the signal from the transmitter you want to hear and the interfering
signal do not add together. You can only discern the strongest
signal.
The arguments here are understood. For example, I often try very hard to
avoid describing an 802.11g Access Point (AP) as a Ethernet Hub without the
wires. RF is not that simple. However, I am confident, as Dr. Bob is, that
a digital solution to BPL is within our reach.
73, John - K8OCL
Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 18:52:42 -0400, Andrew O'Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Armstrong 'got Moon quote right'
REPLY FOLLOWS
Boys and girls, you have just seen a prime example of historical
revisionism. Usually
Jim WA0LYK wrote:
Bonnie,
your award winning design apparently had to do with co-channel
interference. This is not the same as on-channel
interference that increases the total noise level, which is what
BPL interference is. On-channel interference requires different
techniques to
My uncle, Charles Sumner Williams (author of Introduction to the Optical
Transfer Function), who taught radio at Scott Field during WWII and retired
from TI said that the problem with computer signal detection (we were
discussing CW) was trying to duplicate with a computer what the human brain
All:
Copied K0PFX this afternoon on 20 meter digital voice using WinDRM. Took a
while to get the files in order, but all is working thanks to Mel.
I have the reocrding if anyone would like to hear it.
73 Tony KT2Q
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other
From SPACE.com
Mysterious Radio Hiss Blamed on Space Weather, Full story at:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061003_science_tuesday.html
Jerry - K0HZI
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector :
Does Digital Voice files work the same as the image files that are
sent on 14.233? In other words one needs a good solid signal in order
to copy and decode the Digital Voice files? The way 20 meters has
been at my QTH most of the summer, I would still be trying to decode
the first Digital Voice
Jerry,
Probably the better way to look at it is that co-channel interference is
on the same channel, and adjacent channel interference is immediately
next to the signal you want.
We have some pretty good interference fighting technology in today's
amateur equipment. Although some are claiming
jgorman01 wrote:
I may be wrong but I beleive your theory doesn't assume that the RF
energy at your reciever's antenna is not additive. In other words,
the signal from the transmitter you want to hear and the interfering
signal do not add together.
Do you mean that superposition theorem
Here is the rules page
http://www.n2ty.org/seasons/tara_rumble_rules.html
I look forward to seeing some of you.
Scotty W7PSK
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
Any plans for D-STAR 10F3 Conflict Resolution?
Alinco uses the 10F3 digital mode, Icom D-Star,
they apparently do not intercommunicate.
Anyone aware of an adaptive interface between
them?
Any idea what Kenwood and Yaesu will do?
To the degree to which digital voice and digital
data via 2/440
Your basically talking about signals you can hear well, i.e. well
beyond the minimum signal to noise ratio's. Also with analog SSB
voice the crest factor is very large. That is, one person is just
speaking a hard consonant while anothers voice is just fading to
nothing. Therefore the power
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
Bonnie,
Your remarks about this person, and I don't know who it is, are not
very convincing. Your award winning design apparently had to do with
co-channel interference. This is not the
Good work Tony. I would like to hear the
recording. What was the SNR?
Andy K3UK
- Original Message -
From:
Tony
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 2:10
PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Digital voice
with K0PFX
All:Copied
I can find the exchange rate for the Russian Ruble. What is it for a
PSK Ruble? Hi Hi!
Alan
WA4SCA
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol:
I have done the same thing to calibrate my vfo's. But remember, when
you are right on frequency, there is nothing to indicate that there is
another signal there. And, I'll be honest, I've never seen my s-meter
add the two signals together which would indicate that the powers are
being added in
jgorman01 writes:
just did this using my RF generator. WWV at 5 Mhz is about 10 over
S9. The generator is at about S5 with no antenna connected and the
lead just resting on top of the transceiver. When I switch the
generator on, the S-meter moves not a bit. You would expect it to
Howdy!
I'd like to shed so good news with you. I've learned today that we have a
"NEW" PSK Team that has tossed their hat into the ring for the upcoming TARA
"Rumble" on 7th October 2006. This new team is call The Global PSK Net Team and
here is their team line up:
Eric, K9VICLudek,
DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:
My uncle, Charles Sumner Williams (author of Introduction to the Optical
Transfer Function), who taught radio at Scott Field during WWII and retired
from TI said that the problem with computer signal detection (we were
discussing CW) was trying to
1 and 2, I have sent email to my section manager to find a emcomm
contact. I'll update when possible.
3. Suppose that during an emergency activation, you find yourself to be
the leader of the local emcomm group. To which agency would you report?
To whom within the agency would you report? What
My uncle, Charles Sumner Williams (author of Introduction to the Optical
Transfer Function), who taught radio at Scott Field during WWII and
retired from
TI said that the problem with computer signal detection (we were
discussing
CW) was trying to duplicate with a computer what the human
34 matches
Mail list logo
