Re: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio beforewhenwemayactuallyneed it the most

["Richard Cuff" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be impossible to QSL a carrier pigeon on SSB.

Why?

Simple -- with an SSB transmission you have no carrier.

(ducking for cover)

Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA  USA

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Shortwave programming discussion'" <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 3:00 PM
Subject: RE: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio
beforewhenwemayactuallyneed it the most


> LOL!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 1:19 PM
> To: Shortwave programming discussion
> Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before
> whenwemayactuallyneed it the most
>
> I bet John made sure to be DROPPING that qsl into his collection right
away!
>
> Bill
> KA2EMZ
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Shortwave programming discussion'" <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:17 PM
> Subject: RE: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before when
> wemayactuallyneed it the most
>
>
> >I shudder to think of the QSL the pigeon sent.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Figliozzi
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:07 PM
> > To: Shortwave programming discussion
> > Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before when we
> > mayactuallyneed it the most
> >
> > I QSLed a carrier pigeon once.....    but it's a long story.
> >
> > :-)))
> >
> > John Figliozzi
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at 10:46  PM, Scott Royall wrote:
> >
> >> We are getting dangerously off-topic, but let me say this. I just
> >> re-watched
> >> "Three Days of the Condor", and it's the same tired mantra now being
> >> chanted. Even if your scenario came to past, shortwave would be just
> >> as dead
> >> as the wire telegraph. It is a technology that, in its current form
> >> anyway,
> >> has no future. Satellites are just too easy to lob up, and they don't
> >> want
> >> constant TLC. Transmitter farms do. Shortwave exists today because
> >> tubes had
> >> to come before LNAs on chips. Now, LNAs are kid stuff. Sirius and XM
> >> are
> >> just baby steps compared to what's coming. If I were a government and I
> >> wanted to get my word to a specific region, shortwave would rank just
> >> above
> >> carrier pigeons on my list of choices.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kevin
> >> Anderson
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:57 PM
> >> To: SWPrograms list
> >> Subject: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio before when we may
> >> actuallyneed it the most
> >>
> >> Richard, Joe, and Scott:
> >>
> >> Thanks for reading and commenting on my post, even though I'm
> >> sure you all think I'm off my rocker (a fourth person told me as
> >> such in a direct reply).  Maybe I am, but only time will tell.
> >> <grin>
> >>
> >> Let me provide a few more comments, starting with those more on
> >> topic.
> >>
> >> I would agree with Joe, should economics go the negative way I
> >> suggest, that thousands of local AM (MW) and FM (VHF) radio
> >> stations don't make sense.  The combined used of electricity for
> >> transmitters alone, as you point out, plus all the energy use
> >> for programming, just doesn't seem sustainable.  Satellite
> >> distribution (which Richard also acknowledged) does certainly
> >> make sense (I may someday indeed get Sirius so I can get BBC,
> >> WRN, and CBC from one source), although I don't believe the
> >> private or corporate use of satellites will likely continue.  (I
> >> think space will once again become the domain of only
> >> governments trying to protect their interests.)
> >>
> >> And while I will hope that the Internet (or its future
> >> replacement) might remain viable (providing all the news and
> >> "radio" we need), and indeed the governments may step in to do
> >> so for their own security, I am doubtful that individuals in
> >> great numbers will remain computer users.  If electricity
> >> becomes unreliable, or the availability of computers becomes
> >> more scarce, I doubt they/we will have the time or priority to
> >> use computers.
> >>
> >> So I come back to the idea of shortwave being a viable
> >> broadcasting means for most people.  And if it remains analog,
> >> then all the more who can receive it, including with simple
> >> solar-powered or wind-up radios.  To me, any further "erosion"
> >> now of international broadcasters and open sources of
> >> information will mean much less available to us later when times
> >> get tough.
> >>
> >> Now onto the oil future (stop reading now for those who don't
> >> want to go off topic):
> >>
> >> Joe, I've heard of that research by Gold as well.  It has been
> >> commented on by lots of people in regard to Peak Oil
> >> discussions.  While I don't discount that oil can be made this
> >> way, my reading of the research suggests the rate of production
> >> is no where sufficient to generate enough, or to have created
> >> the volume of oil in the earth except over a long period of
> >> time.  That is the crux of the matter - no matter how oil is
> >> first produced (by compression of organic matter or by other
> >> methods), we are pumping too much of it.
> >>
> >> Richard and Scott, I don't doubt that more alternative energy
> >> sources are here and coming, and higher oil and transportation
> >> prices will certainly help in making them happen.  The more the
> >> better - alternatives, as well as more conservation of energy
> >> use, will soften the blow and postpone the worst times.  But my
> >> reading is that there isn't enough time left, nor are the
> >> replacements as viable as oil, for meeting all the
> >> transportation, energy, and production needs that are currently
> >> met by oil.  Plus the population of the earth is just too large.
> >>  (The carrying capacity of the earth, which is long term,
> >> sustainable use, suggests that between 1 and 2 billion can be
> >> comfortably supported globally.  At 6 billion on the Earth, this
> >> suggests we are 4 to 5 billion too populated.  We passed 2
> >> billion people just before 1930, which is also when the
> >> oil-based economy of today really took off, suggesting that the
> >> extra population is only here because oil had provided the
> >> means.  Some would say that the gains we experienced in our
> >> lifestyle weren't supportable to begin.  And our dependence on
> >> oil to produce food means all the more problems for people to
> >> get food later, so things go as I interpret will happen.)
> >>
> >> I hope you take the time to actually read the books and webpages
> >> that are mentioned in the blog articles I referenced.  I used to
> >> be optimistic and positive thinking as you folks are.  But I
> >> guess all the reading I've bein doing in earnest since 1990, and
> >> particularly in the last two years, has convinced me otherwise.
> >> I can certainly respect where each of you are coming from (as I
> >> was there once too), and all others wanting to ignore what I
> >> say.  It is hard to accept this kind of news.
> >>
> >> Now I apologize to the group as this took things too far astray,
> >> and return you to our regular programming.  I'll gladly talk
> >> with folks offline.  And I will be on topic the next time I
> >> might post again.
> >>
> >> Cheers/73,
> >> Kevin
> >> Dubuque, IA
> >>
> >>
> >> =====
> >> -- 
> >> -------------------------------------
> >> Kevin Anderson, Dubuque IA USA, K9IUA
> >> k9iua (at) yahoo (dot) com
> >> -------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________
> >> Do you Yahoo!?
> >> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> >> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Swprograms mailing list
> >> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
> >> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
> >> URL
> >> shown above.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Swprograms mailing list
> >> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
> >> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
> >> URL shown above.
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Swprograms mailing list
> > Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> >
> > To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
> > swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
URL
> > shown above.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Swprograms mailing list
> > Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> >
> > To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
> > swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the
URL
> > shown above.
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL
> shown above.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to
swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL
shown above.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.