BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Blind-Hams For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:02:07 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (34 lines)
Message-Id: <20050328040241.GLFK2051.imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[68.212.106.204]>

k2lkk wrote:
   >Don't you think that degrading analog signals serves the interests
   >of an industry that would like to sell digital equipment?  If you
   >can make a product that makes AM sound great, and contrast it to
   >absolutely noisy signals, wouldn't people be more likely to throw
   >their old analog equipment out and go buy new stuff?  I don't think
   >that is an accident.
HEre's what I wonder about.  WIth the digital systems such as those
used for television or the trunking systems it's known that such
propagation effects a multipath will cause you to get no signal at all
because your digital decoder can't achieve a lock.
WIth crowded conditions on what is known as the am bc band exacerbated
by current rules and skip what happens to these signals?

Hey though it's digital so it's gotta be cooler right?

73 de nf5b
wHo doesn't bother with the medium wave bc band anymore, there's
nothing on it worth listening to for the most part.  Just a bunch fof
cookie cutter satellators.



Richard Webb

Electric Spider Productions
                                            "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania


ATOM RSS1 RSS2