On 2/9/2016 12:52 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/8/2016 2:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/7/2016 9:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/6/2016 4:07 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
On 2/6/2016 1:07 PM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Howie" wrote in message
...
In message , gareth
writes
Presumably those SDR rigs which do not work on the IF but
directly from antennae must have, separately from the DSP processor,
some semblance of a DDS generator (but without the final DAC) to
act as the equivalent of the VFO, for I cannot perceive that a
fractional-Hz
tuning rate could be achieved with machine code running in the DSP
processor?
I'm not an expert ,but I think what you're asking is " how is the
local
oscillator generated" in a direct conversion SDR and "what
determines its
resolution"
There is an example here, :-
http://www.radioelementi.it/public/saqrx.pdf
The "c" source code is here,which I can just about understand ( My
software background is FORTRAN and Matlab) :-
https://sites.google.com/site/sm6lkm/saqrx/
Softies shouldn't have a problem with it although I was able to
mess about
with it and recompile it successfully
In this case the spectrum is dc to 22050Hz in 512 steps. It's not
the LO
precision ( it's floating point in this one) that limits it but
the size
of the FFT , the sample rate and thus the record length, that sets
the
minimum FFT bin width . This one tunes in lumps of about 43Hz

Thank-you Brian, but what you have URLed is already at baseband,
being VLF.


When moving from FORTRAN to C, the major difference (apart from the
nitty-gritty
of statement syntax) is that in FORTRAN, variables are always
passed by
reference
(at least in FORTRAN '66 which I did 47 years ago) and in C you
have the
choice of passing
by value or by reference.


Wrong on both counts. Fortran and C are both pass by value. Neither
defines pass by reference in their respective standards although some
recent Fortran compilers have an extension to pass by reference).

In C, if an arguement to a function is defined as a pointer, then the
local values are references to the storage locations of the original
arguments passed in and changes will change the original value. This
is called pass by reference.


In C, if the argument to a function is defined as a pointer, then a copy
of the pointer is passed. Of course, that copy still points at the same
place as the original, but it is still a copy.

And that is the definition of "pass by reference", passing a pointer (a
reference) to an object rather than its value. This "reference"
explains it to you in your own language.

http://courses.washington.edu/css342...32/passby.html



And you can find sites on the internet which say the Earth is flat.

It isn't by most C experts. Pass by reference means being able to use
the variable without having to dereference it.

http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial...-by-reference/

It is not called pass by reference. The pointer must still be
dereference to get to the value.

C++ does have a pass by reference, but not C.

In C, if an arguement to a function is not defined as a pointer,
then the local value is a copy of the original value which will not
be changed. This is called pass by value.


Both are pass by value. The only difference is if you are passing the
variable or a pointer by value.

And that is the whole difference between reference and value parameters.
Heck, I learned this in a chemistry class (FORTRAN) long before I was
in the EE department.


Yea, right. You took FORTRAN in a chemistry class? That's a great one!

Go crawl back into your electronics technology course. You know even
less about programming than you do electronics.


Perfectly normal, at least in the UK, for students studying various courses
(certainly the sciences) to study a programming language (in my Uni days
Fortran). My wife certainly did, we were married while at Uni (still are of
course) and we often spent lunch times preparing 'punch cards' which were
the entry method for the Uni Fortran machines.




And I suppose you learned about exothermic reactions in a World History
class.

In the United States, computer languages are taught in Computer Science
courses, not Chemistry.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 09/02/16 13:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/9/2016 12:52 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/8/2016 2:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/7/2016 9:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/6/2016 4:07 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
On 2/6/2016 1:07 PM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Howie" wrote in message
...
In message , gareth
writes
Presumably those SDR rigs which do not work on the IF but
directly from antennae must have, separately from the DSP processor,
some semblance of a DDS generator (but without the final DAC) to
act as the equivalent of the VFO, for I cannot perceive that a
fractional-Hz
tuning rate could be achieved with machine code running in the DSP
processor?
I'm not an expert ,but I think what you're asking is " how is the
local
oscillator generated" in a direct conversion SDR and "what
determines its
resolution"
There is an example here, :-
http://www.radioelementi.it/public/saqrx.pdf
The "c" source code is here,which I can just about understand ( My
software background is FORTRAN and Matlab) :-
https://sites.google.com/site/sm6lkm/saqrx/
Softies shouldn't have a problem with it although I was able to
mess about
with it and recompile it successfully
In this case the spectrum is dc to 22050Hz in 512 steps. It's not
the LO
precision ( it's floating point in this one) that limits it but
the size
of the FFT , the sample rate and thus the record length, that sets
the
minimum FFT bin width . This one tunes in lumps of about 43Hz

Thank-you Brian, but what you have URLed is already at baseband,
being VLF.


When moving from FORTRAN to C, the major difference (apart from the
nitty-gritty
of statement syntax) is that in FORTRAN, variables are always
passed by
reference
(at least in FORTRAN '66 which I did 47 years ago) and in C you
have the
choice of passing
by value or by reference.


Wrong on both counts. Fortran and C are both pass by value. Neither
defines pass by reference in their respective standards although some
recent Fortran compilers have an extension to pass by reference).

In C, if an arguement to a function is defined as a pointer, then the
local values are references to the storage locations of the original
arguments passed in and changes will change the original value. This
is called pass by reference.


In C, if the argument to a function is defined as a pointer, then a copy
of the pointer is passed. Of course, that copy still points at the same
place as the original, but it is still a copy.

And that is the definition of "pass by reference", passing a pointer (a
reference) to an object rather than its value. This "reference"
explains it to you in your own language.

http://courses.washington.edu/css342...32/passby.html



And you can find sites on the internet which say the Earth is flat.

It isn't by most C experts. Pass by reference means being able to use
the variable without having to dereference it.

http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial...-by-reference/

It is not called pass by reference. The pointer must still be
dereference to get to the value.

C++ does have a pass by reference, but not C.

In C, if an arguement to a function is not defined as a pointer,
then the local value is a copy of the original value which will not
be changed. This is called pass by value.


Both are pass by value. The only difference is if you are passing the
variable or a pointer by value.

And that is the whole difference between reference and value parameters.
Heck, I learned this in a chemistry class (FORTRAN) long before I was
in the EE department.


Yea, right. You took FORTRAN in a chemistry class? That's a great one!

Go crawl back into your electronics technology course. You know even
less about programming than you do electronics.


Perfectly normal, at least in the UK, for students studying various courses
(certainly the sciences) to study a programming language (in my Uni days
Fortran). My wife certainly did, we were married while at Uni (still are of
course) and we often spent lunch times preparing 'punch cards' which were
the entry method for the Uni Fortran machines.




And I suppose you learned about exothermic reactions in a World History
class.

No.

In the United States, computer languages are taught in Computer Science
courses, not Chemistry.

Well, it seems not in Rickman's Uni/College.

It certainly isn't the case here. You could be enrolled/registered as,
say, a Chemistry student and taught a course in, say, programming you
would require by the Computer Dept. Just as I was an Engineering Student
and, like all engineers, required to do some Maths courses taught by the
Maths dept. My youngest, completed a 4 year Masters in Chemistry
recently (she is now doing a PhD). She was required, at least in the
first year (and possibly more, I don't recall) to do some Maths courses,
they were taught by the Maths Dept. I helped her with a couple of things
and noticed the dept. name etc. on the material. Likewise, her twin is a
Medical Student. She had to do at least one Law module (or perhaps
more)- that is taught in by the Law dept.

My Eldest is a Law Graduate, she has an LLB and a Masters, studied in
France- the two degrees were linked. She was required to do some French
courses, they were taught in the Language dept in the UK. She was
'Called to the Bar' (not something you have in the US as I understand
it) some time ago.

On 2/9/2016 9:36 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 09/02/16 13:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

And I suppose you learned about exothermic reactions in a World History
class.

No.

In the United States, computer languages are taught in Computer Science
courses, not Chemistry.

Well, it seems not in Rickman's Uni/College.

lt wasn't a class in computer programming, it was a lab course with
multiple 2 week topics. Being an undergraduate class the idea was to
give you a taste of a variety of topics. So 2 weeks was just enough to
allow you to write terrible FORTRAN programs. Likewise the CS
department taught a lecture class which spent two weeks on each of
several languages. I recall struggling with Lisp until a few days
before the end of the two weeks when the light bulb finally lit and
programming became easy. In the chem lab I also took 2 weeks of metal
shop where I operated a lathe.

One of my best programming classes was in EE, "Structured Programming".
The ideas in that class have stuck with me ever since.


It certainly isn't the case here. You could be enrolled/registered as,
say, a Chemistry student and taught a course in, say, programming you
would require by the Computer Dept. Just as I was an Engineering Student
and, like all engineers, required to do some Maths courses taught by the
Maths dept. My youngest, completed a 4 year Masters in Chemistry
recently (she is now doing a PhD). She was required, at least in the
first year (and possibly more, I don't recall) to do some Maths courses,
they were taught by the Maths Dept. I helped her with a couple of things
and noticed the dept. name etc. on the material. Likewise, her twin is a
Medical Student. She had to do at least one Law module (or perhaps
more)- that is taught in by the Law dept.

At Univ of MD the Physics department had three different series of
undergraduate physics classes. Two semesters for the Chem majors, three
semesters for the Engineering majors and four semesters for the Physics
majors. I took the Engineering sequence "just in case".


My Eldest is a Law Graduate, she has an LLB and a Masters, studied in
France- the two degrees were linked. She was required to do some French
courses, they were taught in the Language dept in the UK. She was
'Called to the Bar' (not something you have in the US as I understand
it) some time ago.

What the "Bar"? Yes, we call it that as well.

--

Rick

On 2/9/2016 9:36 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
On 09/02/16 13:36, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/9/2016 12:52 AM, Brian Reay wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/8/2016 2:19 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/7/2016 9:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/6/2016 4:07 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
On 2/6/2016 1:07 PM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Howie" wrote in message
...
In message , gareth
writes
Presumably those SDR rigs which do not work on the IF but
directly from antennae must have, separately from the DSP
processor,
some semblance of a DDS generator (but without the final DAC) to
act as the equivalent of the VFO, for I cannot perceive that a
fractional-Hz
tuning rate could be achieved with machine code running in
the DSP
processor?
I'm not an expert ,but I think what you're asking is " how is the
local
oscillator generated" in a direct conversion SDR and "what
determines its
resolution"
There is an example here, :-
http://www.radioelementi.it/public/saqrx.pdf
The "c" source code is here,which I can just about understand
( My
software background is FORTRAN and Matlab) :-
https://sites.google.com/site/sm6lkm/saqrx/
Softies shouldn't have a problem with it although I was able to
mess about
with it and recompile it successfully
In this case the spectrum is dc to 22050Hz in 512 steps. It's not
the LO
precision ( it's floating point in this one) that limits it but
the size
of the FFT , the sample rate and thus the record length, that
sets
the
minimum FFT bin width . This one tunes in lumps of about 43Hz

Thank-you Brian, but what you have URLed is already at baseband,
being VLF.


When moving from FORTRAN to C, the major difference (apart from
the
nitty-gritty
of statement syntax) is that in FORTRAN, variables are always
passed by
reference
(at least in FORTRAN '66 which I did 47 years ago) and in C you
have the
choice of passing
by value or by reference.


Wrong on both counts. Fortran and C are both pass by value.
Neither
defines pass by reference in their respective standards although
some
recent Fortran compilers have an extension to pass by reference).

In C, if an arguement to a function is defined as a pointer, then
the
local values are references to the storage locations of the original
arguments passed in and changes will change the original value. This
is called pass by reference.


In C, if the argument to a function is defined as a pointer, then
a copy
of the pointer is passed. Of course, that copy still points at
the same
place as the original, but it is still a copy.

And that is the definition of "pass by reference", passing a
pointer (a
reference) to an object rather than its value. This "reference"
explains it to you in your own language.

http://courses.washington.edu/css342...32/passby.html



And you can find sites on the internet which say the Earth is flat.

It isn't by most C experts. Pass by reference means being able to use
the variable without having to dereference it.

http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial...-by-reference/

It is not called pass by reference. The pointer must still be
dereference to get to the value.

C++ does have a pass by reference, but not C.

In C, if an arguement to a function is not defined as a pointer,
then the local value is a copy of the original value which will not
be changed. This is called pass by value.


Both are pass by value. The only difference is if you are passing
the
variable or a pointer by value.

And that is the whole difference between reference and value
parameters.
Heck, I learned this in a chemistry class (FORTRAN) long before I was
in the EE department.


Yea, right. You took FORTRAN in a chemistry class? That's a great one!

Go crawl back into your electronics technology course. You know even
less about programming than you do electronics.


Perfectly normal, at least in the UK, for students studying various
courses
(certainly the sciences) to study a programming language (in my Uni days
Fortran). My wife certainly did, we were married while at Uni (still
are of
course) and we often spent lunch times preparing 'punch cards' which
were
the entry method for the Uni Fortran machines.




And I suppose you learned about exothermic reactions in a World History
class.

No.

In the United States, computer languages are taught in Computer Science
courses, not Chemistry.

Well, it seems not in Rickman's Uni/College.

It certainly isn't the case here. You could be enrolled/registered as,
say, a Chemistry student and taught a course in, say, programming you
would require by the Computer Dept. Just as I was an Engineering Student
and, like all engineers, required to do some Maths courses taught by the
Maths dept. My youngest, completed a 4 year Masters in Chemistry
recently (she is now doing a PhD). She was required, at least in the
first year (and possibly more, I don't recall) to do some Maths courses,
they were taught by the Maths Dept. I helped her with a couple of things
and noticed the dept. name etc. on the material. Likewise, her twin is a
Medical Student. She had to do at least one Law module (or perhaps
more)- that is taught in by the Law dept.

My Eldest is a Law Graduate, she has an LLB and a Masters, studied in
France- the two degrees were linked. She was required to do some French
courses, they were taught in the Language dept in the UK. She was
'Called to the Bar' (not something you have in the US as I understand
it) some time ago.


Yes, I have to agree with you. Rickman's College of Electronics and
Transcendental Meditation probably did teach FORTRAN in a Chemistry class.

My university also taught FORTRAN and other languages in Computer
Science My courses, calculus by the Math department and every thing else
you said. I don't know of a single major university that does it
otherwise. Or even a small university.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 2/9/2016 12:52 AM, Brian Reay wrote:


Perfectly normal, at least in the UK, for students studying various courses
(certainly the sciences) to study a programming language (in my Uni days
Fortran). My wife certainly did, we were married while at Uni (still are of
course) and we often spent lunch times preparing 'punch cards' which were
the entry method for the Uni Fortran machines.




And I suppose you learned about exothermic reactions in a World History
class.

In the United States, computer languages are taught in Computer Science
courses, not Chemistry.

Well that's yet another difference. Until the great dumbing-down of
university courses in the UK in recent years,[1] first degrees tended
not to be modular, and the department of the primary subject arranged
lecturers in necessary ancillary subjects as part of the main course.

[1] which doesn't apply to all universities.
--

Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 2/9/2016 12:52 AM, Brian Reay wrote:


Perfectly normal, at least in the UK, for students studying various courses
(certainly the sciences) to study a programming language (in my Uni days
Fortran). My wife certainly did, we were married while at Uni (still are of
course) and we often spent lunch times preparing 'punch cards' which were
the entry method for the Uni Fortran machines.




And I suppose you learned about exothermic reactions in a World History
class.

In the United States, computer languages are taught in Computer Science
courses, not Chemistry.

Well that's yet another difference. Until the great dumbing-down of
university courses in the UK in recent years,[1] first degrees tended
not to be modular, and the department of the primary subject arranged
lecturers in necessary ancillary subjects as part of the main course.

[1] which doesn't apply to all universities.

A stunningly inaccurate statement. It was possible to take different
modules in top rated Universities (from a selected list) to get a degree 40
years ago. Including Oxbridge.

It still is.

True, you couldn't mix, say, engineering and tourism but different modules
in engineering (for example) were perfectly normal.

Typically, the first year was fixed but after that you could specialise in,
say, digital electronics and computing or electrical engineering and
electronics.

Brian Reay wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
snip

Well that's yet another difference. Until the great dumbing-down of
university courses in the UK in recent years,[1] first degrees tended
not to be modular, and the department of the primary subject arranged
lecturers in necessary ancillary subjects as part of the main course.

[1] which doesn't apply to all universities.

A stunningly inaccurate statement. It was possible to take different
modules in top rated Universities (from a selected list) to get a degree 40
years ago. Including Oxbridge.

Things like PPE, or PPP you mean? Whatever the theory, in practice you
couldn't dream up your own combination, there were some established ones



It still is.

True, you couldn't mix, say, engineering and tourism

That of course is what I meant. You couldn't do a Keele style degree of
knitting, Serbo-Croat, media studies and physics. I wasn't trying to
imply that their was no choice of modules in a subject. The point I
was making, of course, that things like computer programming for
chemists, while taught by the subject experts, was part of the Chemistry
degree, not a separately credited module.





but different modules
in engineering (for example) were perfectly normal.

Typically, the first year was fixed but after that you could specialise in,
say, digital electronics and computing or electrical engineering and
electronics.


--

Roger Hayter

On 09/02/16 20:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
snip

Well that's yet another difference. Until the great dumbing-down of
university courses in the UK in recent years,[1] first degrees tended
not to be modular, and the department of the primary subject arranged
lecturers in necessary ancillary subjects as part of the main course.

[1] which doesn't apply to all universities.

A stunningly inaccurate statement. It was possible to take different
modules in top rated Universities (from a selected list) to get a degree 40
years ago. Including Oxbridge.

Things like PPE, or PPP you mean? Whatever the theory, in practice you
couldn't dream up your own combination, there were some established ones



It still is.

True, you couldn't mix, say, engineering and tourism

That of course is what I meant. You couldn't do a Keele style degree of
knitting, Serbo-Croat, media studies and physics. I wasn't trying to
imply that their was no choice of modules in a subject. The point I
was making, of course, that things like computer programming for
chemists, while taught by the subject experts, was part of the Chemistry
degree, not a separately credited module.


Roger, rather than trying to back pedal, just admit you were posting
nonsense. If they were not modules, what were they? Even if they were
called 'units', 'blocks', or whatever, it is irrelevant.

Even now, there are plenty of degrees which don't allow wild and
wonderful combinations of modules.

What happened, were you replaced by someone younger and better qualified
and it has made you bitter?








--
Now we've developed the technology to 'chip' and track every dog, why
not extend it to sex offenders.

Brian Reay wrote:




Roger, rather than trying to back pedal, just admit you were posting
nonsense. If they were not modules, what were they? Even if they were
called 'units', 'blocks', or whatever, it is irrelevant.

Even now, there are plenty of degrees which don't allow wild and
wonderful combinations of modules.

What happened, were you replaced by someone younger and better qualified
and it has made you bitter?

In your eagerness to make bizarre rude remarks about me you seem to
forget we were both on the same side in the originai discussion, which
was when someone expressed surprised about a Fortran course in a
Chemistry degree. You seem to have gone off at a tangent somewhere. I
must take more care about not replying to you, I suppose!


--

Roger Hayter

On 2/9/2016 4:52 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:




Roger, rather than trying to back pedal, just admit you were posting
nonsense. If they were not modules, what were they? Even if they were
called 'units', 'blocks', or whatever, it is irrelevant.

Even now, there are plenty of degrees which don't allow wild and
wonderful combinations of modules.

What happened, were you replaced by someone younger and better qualified
and it has made you bitter?

In your eagerness to make bizarre rude remarks about me you seem to
forget we were both on the same side in the originai discussion, which
was when someone expressed surprised about a Fortran course in a
Chemistry degree. You seem to have gone off at a tangent somewhere. I
must take more care about not replying to you, I suppose!



The issue was not a FORTRAN course in a Chemistry degree. It was a
FORTRAN course provided by the Chemistry department - and that by
"professors" who didn't know FORTRAN.

But then trolls never learned to read. They just contradict things they
know nothing about.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================