Jim,
Good points! Thank you.
John - K8OCL
From: jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:34:20 -
Actually, the statement that a solution
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:00:16 -0400
Ed,
Nobody said it is available now, only that a solution is possible. Bob
even
pointed out that any solution may be too expensive anyway.
If we can pause for a minute and stop thinking
was absolutely worthless! (HI)
73,
John - K8OCL
From: Hare, Ed W1RFI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:03:15 -0400
I strongly disagree. If a digital solution exists
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:03:15 -0400
I strongly disagree. If a digital solution exists to dig signals 60 dB
out of poorly correlated noise, where can I download a copy or
information so I can copy signals 60 dB below
Hi Rick,
Respectfully, since I already had this dialogue with Mr. Hare, there
is no sense in him repeating it through you, especially when he isn't
around here to discuss it himself.
But let me point out, that I personally have designed DSP-based
products that do precisely what we are talking
I think Ed made my argument much more succintly than I did. The only
thing he forgot was how any whitespace/holes in frequency or time
would be synchronized at both ends of a conversation.
It does no good to sync your transmissions to these whitespace/holes
in your end when the person on the
What???
- Original Message -
From: kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One could observe the same paradox about virtually
every religion on earth at certain moments in history
and/or in certain geo-political locales.
The goal of the statement about peaceful Islam is
to empower
I assure you it is possible to make BPL-Busting Modes for ham radio.
Whether or not Mr. Hare and his ARRL buddies want hams to do it, and
are creating a smoke screen to discourage it, is technically moot.
Bonnie KQ6XA
Some of this is strategic posturing, same as saying
that Islam is a
Sorry, Andy. KD4E is an experimental AI application I've been
developing. The recent HP spying scandal combined with a tract on
religious freedom combined to expose a defect in its deduction
module. Its fixed in the next release...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In
Think outside the technological box.
There are few unique patterns of human behavior.
Bonnie accused the ARRL technical folks of being
deceptive about the possibilities of BPL-busting
technology, she gave no reason for their behavior.
I was drawing a current events parallel as to
why sometimes
Looks like its working better now...
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, kd4e [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Think outside the technological box.
There are few unique patterns of human behavior.
Bonnie accused the ARRL technical folks of being
deceptive about the
Looks like its working better now...
73,Dave, AA6YQ
I'm like the old cheap 60's Japanese AM portable
radios.
When they didn't work quite right you gave them a
sharp rap to shake the excess wax out of a pot or
variable cap!
Time for my recharge cycle, e, beauty rest.
jgorman01 wrote:
I'll try to keep this short.
First, the review I quoted was the first one the ARRL, I went back and
read the second one. Some comments:
I agree the numbers that came out of the test are impressive.
--- snip ---
Now a little of my engineering scepticism.
--- snip ---
Gerald and Flex are designing new radios. I believe they will be
introducing those things you are asking for. As I said before, I am
neither an employee or a stock holder in Flex and I do not speak for
them. I do speak for the open source software project of which I am a
leading
Interesting comments. It always seems that there is nothing new that is
totally perfect compared to existing equipment due to the tradeoffs that
often occur. The SDR-1000 does look really interesting as a general
purpose receiver that has some excellent IMD numbers and may be used
(with the
KV9U wrote:
Interesting comments. It always seems that there is nothing new that
is totally perfect compared to existing equipment due to the
tradeoffs that often occur.
Tradeoffs are a central part of engineering.
The SDR-1000 does look really interesting
as a general purpose receiver
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, jgorman01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I understand your promotion of your products. But again, if I
understand what your promoting, forgive me if I have doubts that an
$85,000 system is comparable to what you say may cost less than $300.
In my soon to
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jgorman01 wrote:
S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
gain reduction being applied in the RF/IF chain. As I said in a
previous post, it is an indicator of the reduction in
I'll try to keep this short.
First, the review I quoted was the first one the ARRL, I went back and
read the second one. Some comments:
I agree the numbers that came out of the test are impressive. Very
impressive. Your SDR-1000 receiver is better than the Icom 7800.
Good luck, with a
jgorman01 wrote:
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
If everyone did switch over to HF digital equipment and abandoned their
analog mode equipment, it is very likely that this would drastically
reduce our overall ability to communicate.
This is particularly true of voice communications. I don't think the
science supports the ability to have
S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
gain reduction being applied in the RF/IF chain. As I said in a
previous post, it is an indicator of the reduction in gain, i.e. how
much of an attenuator is being inserted. By inserting this attenuator
you are not just
jgorman01 wrote:
S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
gain reduction being applied in the RF/IF chain. As I said in a
previous post, it is an indicator of the reduction in gain, i.e. how
much of an attenuator is being inserted. By inserting this attenuator
PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
jgorman01 wrote:
S-meters are not just logarithmic indicators, they also indicate the
gain reduction being applied in the RF/IF chain. As I said in a
previous post, it is an indicator
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
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.
From: Robert McGwier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:31:23 -0400
list email filter wrote:
not_so_tongue_in_cheek
If I am 800 miles away, outside
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
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
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
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
If opposing the relaxation of regulations that control unqualified
semi-automatic stations makes me want to be Luddite from your
perspective, Howard, so be it.
From my point of view, the retention of these regulations for
unqualified software and the introduction of a qualification process
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Dave Bernstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Just who are these Luddites you're so fond of attacking, Howard?
Finally, an chance to use the information from those seemingly
useless history classes I endured while frowning up in the UK.
Andy K3UK
From
.
__
Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 AE6SM
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist
- Original Message -
From: obrienaj
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes
AE6SM
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Awfully Extremely Six Sado Masochist
- Original Message -
From: obrienaj
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: BPL-Busting Modes/Techniques Needed to
Mitigate
48 matches
Mail list logo
