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.