RE: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radiobeforewhenwemayactuallyneedit the most

["Scott Royall" <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Damn! You couldn't resist! :)



-----Original Message-----
From: swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:swprograms-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:02 PM
To: Shortwave programming discussion
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of
radiobeforewhenwemayactuallyneedit the most

Sorry Rich...I have it on good authority, this was a piegeon of staus, this 
an exhaulted carrier.
OUCH!

Bill
KA2EMZ




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Cuff" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Shortwave programming discussion" <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] Re: The cutting of radio 
beforewhenwemayactuallyneedit the most


> 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.
>
> 


_______________________________________________
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.