John Smith wrote:

So, although your original argument was how difficult a bus and keeping
analog seperate from digital which would share various signals--would be,
then, when the argument was made that someone just picked up a bunch of
on-the-shelf items and went ahead and done it... you flip-flop--to where now
it was so obivious someone should have done such a simple thing LONG before
them...


I didn't "Flip-Flop" I know what's involved, including the million
dollar plus expense involved in designing one configuration of a modular
radio.

Yanno, you are pretty obivous here--you are like what has been "the standard
method of operation." A long list of why it can't be done--but if someone
can--its' easy!!!

Or, first it is impossible, then, once someone has done it--it is nothing...


Are you trying to misdirect things again?

Now, that is comming close to a "Troll!" And, that would be proven if once
this is pointed out to you--you use that for a reason to spur more
conflict...


Close to a troll? No, I've never met you.

Arguments and debates for the purpose of looking over what is available--of
reaching a logical and organized ideas--are good--argument for conflict is
not...

While some may take pride in finding all the reasons why something is
difficult--or may end up to be "un-do-able" right at the immediate time...
It is the guys who ignore all this and go ahead and do it which are
remembered...

For every thing we have in this world today--there stands inventors,
engineers, technicans, etc.. who could have easily decided it was either too
hard or impossible and given up--thank gawd they were of a different
breed...

Warmest regards,
John
--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!


You need to think with the other head, troll.

You have your head up your sorry ass, and I'm through wasting time
with your nonsense. Its obvious that you don't know a dam thing about
design when you compare the Apple II to a real design project. You need
to get an education in design and stop trying to blow smoke up
everyone's ass.

PLONK


--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

John Smith wrote:

Well, whatever you did before, great!!

Now what are you doing? Finding out why nothing else can be done? Perhaps
this is why you are no longer working there...

Regards,
John

Its obvious that you can not read as well as not understand
anything. R.I.P. your last live brain cell.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote:

You have no idea what you
are talking about,

And there Michael, you have defined Johns problem. Richard fed him a
question he couldn't answer and he crept off with a lame excuse of pressing
work until he thought everyone had forgotten about it. I was just
celebrating, when someone else fed him and he's back again in full force. If
he's ignored, eventually, he'll go and bother someone else on someone elses
newsgroup. You don't argue with children, don't feed the troll.

W4ZCB

No problem, He is now the one and only twit I have had to filter in
this newsgroup. I hate to filter someone out, but he's hopeless.
--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

You my friend, are crude, rude--most likely blued and tattooed... I am sure
other more "intellectual types" will benefit from your form and method of
words and exchange more... goodday!

John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| So, although your original argument was how difficult a bus and keeping
| analog seperate from digital which would share various signals--would
be,
| then, when the argument was made that someone just picked up a bunch of
| on-the-shelf items and went ahead and done it... you flip-flop--to where
now
| it was so obivious someone should have done such a simple thing LONG
before
| them...
|
|
| I didn't "Flip-Flop" I know what's involved, including the million
| dollar plus expense involved in designing one configuration of a modular
| radio.
|
| Yanno, you are pretty obivous here--you are like what has been "the
standard
| method of operation." A long list of why it can't be done--but if
someone
| can--its' easy!!!
|
| Or, first it is impossible, then, once someone has done it--it is
nothing...
|
|
| Are you trying to misdirect things again?
|
| Now, that is comming close to a "Troll!" And, that would be proven if
once
| this is pointed out to you--you use that for a reason to spur more
| conflict...
|
|
| Close to a troll? No, I've never met you.
|
| Arguments and debates for the purpose of looking over what is
available--of
| reaching a logical and organized ideas--are good--argument for conflict
is
| not...
|
| While some may take pride in finding all the reasons why something is
| difficult--or may end up to be "un-do-able" right at the immediate
time...
| It is the guys who ignore all this and go ahead and do it which are
| remembered...
|
| For every thing we have in this world today--there stands inventors,
| engineers, technicans, etc.. who could have easily decided it was either
too
| hard or impossible and given up--thank gawd they were of a different
| breed...
|
| Warmest regards,
| John
| --
| When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!
|
|
| You need to think with the other head, troll.
|
| You have your head up your sorry ass, and I'm through wasting time
| with your nonsense. Its obvious that you don't know a dam thing about
| design when you compare the Apple II to a real design project. You need
| to get an education in design and stop trying to blow smoke up
| everyone's ass.
|
| PLONK
|
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

John,

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
You missed the point... what I propose is simpler... it is a radio--not a
computer... and still can be done by those who ignore the nay sayers, no
matter how loudly these nay sayers attempt to shout down progress...

Have you ever heard the saying to the effect that the beginner sees only one
option, which the experienced designer sees many? It really is something of a
curse. :-)

By all means do keep pursuing your interests, but by the same token you might
want to start learning more about RF design and understand where some of the
other posters are coming from. Addressing your original idea, there ARE
"modular" radios out there -- I know I've seen some guy's web site where he
takes this approach -- but the idea that a modular radio can somehow offer the
same performance as a more integrated one is about the same as claiming that
you can build a CPU with the same performance and price of a 3GHz Pentium by
using discrete modules for the ALU, memory controller, cache controller,
instruction decoder, etc. -- it just isn't going to happen. On the other
hand, you certainly COULD build some "many MHz" sort of microcontroller with
this approach, and the sames of microcontrollers today swamps that of Pentiums
anyway. Hence, I think there would be a market for your modular radio
design -- especially within the amateur radio community -- but I doubt you'll
be getting calls from Nokia any time soon.

Software defined radios accomplish a significant amount of the
"reconfigurability" that I think you're looking for, and with ever-increasing
ADC/DAC speeds and DSP horsepower, it probably won't be too long before most
radios digitize directly at RF or IF and the rest is software (oftentimes
highly non-trivial software, however). Even so, you'll always need someone
who understands traditional RF engineering to get the signal from the antenna
to the DAC while preserving the best SNR possible.

---Joel

I have watched a hundred intellectuals fail where one brave man succeeds...

Einstein said, to the effect--genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration...

Difficulty is expected, only cowards refrain...

In the end, such a radio is not only desirable, it is exactly what is
needed... no argument will change that...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
| John,
|
| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
| You missed the point... what I propose is simpler... it is a radio--not
a
| computer... and still can be done by those who ignore the nay sayers, no
| matter how loudly these nay sayers attempt to shout down progress...
|
| Have you ever heard the saying to the effect that the beginner sees only
one
| option, which the experienced designer sees many? It really is something
of a
| curse. :-)
|
| By all means do keep pursuing your interests, but by the same token you
might
| want to start learning more about RF design and understand where some of
the
| other posters are coming from. Addressing your original idea, there ARE
| "modular" radios out there -- I know I've seen some guy's web site where
he
| takes this approach -- but the idea that a modular radio can somehow offer
the
| same performance as a more integrated one is about the same as claiming
that
| you can build a CPU with the same performance and price of a 3GHz Pentium
by
| using discrete modules for the ALU, memory controller, cache controller,
| instruction decoder, etc. -- it just isn't going to happen. On the other
| hand, you certainly COULD build some "many MHz" sort of microcontroller
with
| this approach, and the sames of microcontrollers today swamps that of
Pentiums
| anyway. Hence, I think there would be a market for your modular radio
| design -- especially within the amateur radio community -- but I doubt
you'll
| be getting calls from Nokia any time soon.
|
| Software defined radios accomplish a significant amount of the
| "reconfigurability" that I think you're looking for, and with
ever-increasing
| ADC/DAC speeds and DSP horsepower, it probably won't be too long before
most
| radios digitize directly at RF or IF and the rest is software (oftentimes
| highly non-trivial software, however). Even so, you'll always need
someone
| who understands traditional RF engineering to get the signal from the
antenna
| to the DAC while preserving the best SNR possible.
|
| ---Joel
|
|

Nearly ten years ago I had a project to design an ISDN terminal
adapter/router for "home" use. Once the design was completed I
(and several beta testers) had to install ISDN to our homes in order
to evaluate the product. We all lived in SoCal - with PacBell as the
provider.

We spent *months* going around and around with the PacBell
installers, CO technicians and the general bureacracy and so-called
"tech support" folks.

Eventually we gave up and decided to abandon the product and the
project - 'cause we realized that if *we* couldn't get things going with
PacBell there was NO chance for any potential end-user/customer.
The product worked great - we just couldn't get past the install phase
when working with PacBell!!!

A few weeks later I read a bio on Scott Adams and learned that he had
been employed by...........PacBell - in the ISDN engineering group!!!!!
Suddenly it all became clear - and I never laughed so hard...8-).........

Bill

"Mike Andrews" wrote in message
...
Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:24:45 -0500, "Clair J. Robinson"
wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon on my wall:

PHB (Pointy-Haired Boss), pointing to flip chart graph of declining
sales: "Our sales are dropping like a rock."

PHB, pointing to flip chart graph labeled "Future" and steadily
rising:
"Our plan is to invent some sort of doohickey that everyone wants to
buy."

PHB, to Dilbert: "The visionary leadership part is done. How long
will
your part take?"

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Wonderful! I missed that one somewhere.

73, CJ K?CJ

The really funny thing about Dilbert is that people who work in that
type of environment see only that the character names are wrong for
their office.

Reminds me of a Will Rogers quote, "I don't make jokes. I just watch
the government and report the facts."

Scott Adams worked in a high-tech office, and reports the facts.

It gives me rather considerable pleasure to report that Scott Adams also
appears to monitor, or participate pseudonomously in, some of the other
newsgroups and mailing lists I frequent. Incidents from more than one of
those groups/lists have appeared in Dilbert essentially unchanged within a
few days of being posted to the group/list.

Sometimes I think Scott works for WeBuildHighways, where I'm employed.

--
Mike Andrews W5EGO 5WPM
Extra
Tired old sysadmin working on his code speed

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I have watched a hundred intellectuals fail where one brave man succeeds...

Yeah, but for every brave man's successs, there are thousands of failures too.
:-)

Einstein said, to the effect--genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration...

I think that was Edison? Einstein said something like, "Creativity is more
important than knowledge," which unfortunately a lot of people seem to want to
interpret as "Hence, knowledge is unimportant," which is not at all what he
meant.

In the end, such a radio is not only desirable, it is exactly what is
needed... no argument will change that...

Well John, there's nothing stopping you from desgining and building the thing.
Even in the post-Internet boom era here, though, you'll probably have a much
easier time finding venture capital from a bunch of businessmen than from a
bunch of engineers.

I do think it's true that, in various areas, amateur radio now plays
technological "catch up" to commercial technologies. IMO, this is a
reflection of the fact that (unlike 40 years ago) designing a "modern radio"
(such as a cell phone) costs literally tens to hundreds of millions of dollars
and hundreds of man years. There's just no way companies like Icom, Yaesu,
etc. can invest that sort of effort when you look at the sales volumes of
their radios (and the fact that -- unlike cell phones -- amateur radio usage
doesn't provide them with any revenue!). A lot of the most interesting
advancements in amateur radio in the past couple of decades have come from the
likes of Doug DeMaw, Bob Larkin, Rick Campbell, Roy Lewallen, Wes Hayward,
etc. -- all of whom, insofar as I'm aware, spent some of their professional
lives performing RF design for well-funded companies. I don't think that's a
coincidence.

---Joel

Joel:

Well, great men have come and gone, what are some younger names which will
be taking on these challenges of the future? A history lesson does not
serve as innovation or chat about new ideas which are needed...

I don't expect people in their 50's on up to be the innovators, it is the
younger crowd who has been educated in universities, with access to the
newest state of the art labs available which will be taking on these
projects--that is a given, I never though different... if you didn't have
access to a computer by jr. college, you are probably not in this group of
new engineers...

The men in their 20s to 30s are the ones with the access to industry and
design labs where these ideas can be taken to... the ones on the cutting
edge--the ones able to introduce new ideas and get them looked at... the
ones to build one and take it around to demonstrate...

I was just hoping there were some here, maybe not...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
| I have watched a hundred intellectuals fail where one brave man
succeeds...
|
| Yeah, but for every brave man's successs, there are thousands of failures
too.
| :-)
|
| Einstein said, to the effect--genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
| perspiration...
|
| I think that was Edison? Einstein said something like, "Creativity is
more
| important than knowledge," which unfortunately a lot of people seem to
want to
| interpret as "Hence, knowledge is unimportant," which is not at all what
he
| meant.
|
| In the end, such a radio is not only desirable, it is exactly what is
| needed... no argument will change that...
|
| Well John, there's nothing stopping you from desgining and building the
thing.
| Even in the post-Internet boom era here, though, you'll probably have a
much
| easier time finding venture capital from a bunch of businessmen than from
a
| bunch of engineers.
|
| I do think it's true that, in various areas, amateur radio now plays
| technological "catch up" to commercial technologies. IMO, this is a
| reflection of the fact that (unlike 40 years ago) designing a "modern
radio"
| (such as a cell phone) costs literally tens to hundreds of millions of
dollars
| and hundreds of man years. There's just no way companies like Icom,
Yaesu,
| etc. can invest that sort of effort when you look at the sales volumes of
| their radios (and the fact that -- unlike cell phones -- amateur radio
usage
| doesn't provide them with any revenue!). A lot of the most interesting
| advancements in amateur radio in the past couple of decades have come from
the
| likes of Doug DeMaw, Bob Larkin, Rick Campbell, Roy Lewallen, Wes Hayward,
| etc. -- all of whom, insofar as I'm aware, spent some of their
professional
| lives performing RF design for well-funded companies. I don't think
that's a
| coincidence.
|
| ---Joel
|
|

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer before
they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers, techs,
scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...

You mean, China, Russia, India, USA, Canada, So. American, Mexico,
etc--and
every gov't, business, private individual, ham and cb'er... is not a big
enough market... these things would be manufactured in China yanno!!!


Nope the entire world wide population of hams is NOT enough. The US has
just under 700,000. Japan has somewhere around 1 million (there numbers are
hard to determine due to their licensing system). The remainder of the
world combined has right around the same total of the US. This gives a
worldwide ham population of under 2.5 million. So starting from that
rough estimate, let's look at some figures. Very, very few people buy a new
HF rig annually. Just using the people I know, it's more like every 5 to 10
years. So let's use an average of 7.5 years. That means a total of 333,000
new radios (rounding off the answer) sold in any given year. Now split that
between 3 makers, yielding 111,000 units per maker. That's pretty low
volume to undertake radical development. We're probably lucky that we get
any new features.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE