Roy Lewallen wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it?

- Mike KB3EIA -


I do tend to be that way. And because of the couple of negative comments
about my posting I've thought it over a fair amount to see if, on
reflection, I think it was out of line.

But I don't think so, unless I mininterpreted what "John Smith" said.
What he seemed to be saying is that he has this great idea, and the only
reason it's not being impelemented is that *the other people* are too
lazy to do it.

welllll, I think there is another reason that it hasn't been
implemented. It is one of those ideas that sound kinda good, but would
end up creating more problems than it would solve.

As one of the "other people", I find it kind of insulting. Do you really
think his is a valid point of view, that everyone else should jump up
and implement his great idea, while this anonymous person's job is to
tell us what we should do?

I dunno. In my fields I get a *lot* of commentary and
suggestions-sometimes things I've tried long ago and discarded because
they simply don't work, or is talking about.

Which reminds me of a story about FDR....

During WWII, FDR had an important meeting with Stalin. Eleanor
Roosevelt often sat in on these meetings. Stalin Told FDR "It is of
vital importance that America increase aid to Russia, and decrease aid
to Great Britain. It is with us that the most important battles are
being fought."

FDR stroked his chin thoughtfully and said, "Josef, you're absolutely
right!"

An hour later, Winston Churchill also had a meeting with FDR. Churchill
noted, " It is imperative that aid to Britain be increased, even if you
have to reduce aid to Stalin. Our front is the most critical of the war".

FDR took a drag from his famous cigarette in its holder, and said,
"Winston, you're absolutely right!"

After Churchill left, Eleanor came over to him in a huff. "Franklin,
those two men came to you with exact opposite demands, and you just told
them both "You're absolutely right." That's wrong!"

FDR looked at her, smiled, and said, "Eleanor, you're absolutely right!"

Point is I could get irritated and angry with them, but there isn't
much point.

I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.

You're absolutely right! 8^)

Just kidding Roy!!!!!

I was just a little surprised, because it seemed out of character. No
big deal

- Mike KB3EIA -

gb:

Now, here you have a key. The youthful number in any group define its'
likely-hood of survival... it will be "they" who free us from
strangle-holds and limits now imposed...

It will be the vast numbers of youth who end up defining the real future...
without youth--we are all DOOMED (Viagra won't even help!!! grin)

Me? I would like to think, "I am just a guy." In a generic sense, a "John
Smith" of society...

Long time ago I was a boy scout leader, still teach an evening CS course at
a Jr. college (but, have been at odds with admin., my department head, I
think the kids like me (most important--and they are ok...), most women
ditch other instructors/professors to take my course(s)--I like the idea of
them in the field)... many "older" students in my class... this year it is
Java (yuck)...

.... work digital encryption/decryption methods/implementations here, just to
keep out of the unemployment line...

....my first computer was a mainframe, my first desktop an apple--I
recognized a "better idea" (IBM) when it came along... trust me, I am a
"geeky type"...

I set up a network in my garage so I could keep up with youth and remember
mine, but now I have little to offer them, they keep the net and it has
inspired some into the field...

Everyone is aware of my fondness of radio, and I do make known what is
available here--but placed besides IM and internet communications--radio is
a pale color to the net...

I am best at surfing the net, email and newsgroups for "entertainment/hobby
pursuits"... I tinker, now and then with antennas...

.... sorry to bore you... I really am as interesting as a rock!

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

"gb" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
| gb:
|
| Well, we certainly need to examine the "bottle neck" and remove it...
| before
| we are doomed...
|
| If we can't institute this "radical" idea here, we need to look at
Canada,
| Mexico, So. America, China, India, etc...
|
| JS -
|
| "... before we are all doomed". The only way doom happens is if you don't
| do your part in averting that projection. Or are you saying the future is
| hopeless?
|
| So, what are you doing to be part of the "solution" rather than being the
| "profit of bad things to come?"
|
| How many hours over the past year have you worked with middle or high
| schools students volunteering your time? Donating materials, time or
money
| for educational programs targeted for the audience that will make a
| difference?
|
| As George S. Kaufman wrote about money and knowledge in the 1930s - "You
| Can't Take it with You".
|
| gb
|
|

John Smith wrote:

Ohhh, well, you are correct.

Of course I am. I simply expressed an opinion of mine :)

While not attempting to invoke "havoc", "discord" and "chaos", I view the
manner in which topics are handled as being the deciding factor--foul
language, character assassinations and promoting outwardly dangerous evils
which threaten the moral fabric of society are as disgusting to me as the
next guy...

And you are also correct on this aspect.


If the material is just gauged on whether it provokes debate, argument and
thought--and if the measure of this is simply how many posts are invoked as
responses--with the desirable number set as one or NONE--then further delays
in progress should be expected...

I don't think anybody filters because of this. If the presenter of such
debate has a reputation as in your first example...all bets are off.
That is for me to imply that mud-slinging, name-calling, goading or any
wild-eyed radical or raffish behaviour, in spite of the best intentions
of the poster, will cause his occasional good points to be overwhelmed
by the cacophony of kill-filters at work.

-Bill

Bill:

Sounds like we have equal values, or close enough. I joke a lot, but do
have a serious side...

I have been out of line and called upon it--and if my actions are of
questionable nature--that can be put forward... I do all of this as a
hobby... a guy wants to have a bit of fun... I make mistakes--too
frequently...

But, I realize I have opinions not shared by all, and the opposite is
true... if you can't say what you think/see/feel then what good is life in
America...

Thanks for your input, never hurts for a guy to examine what he is about...
I will keep your comments in mind... they are well taken here...

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

"-exray-" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| Ohhh, well, you are correct.
|
| Of course I am. I simply expressed an opinion of mine :)
|
| While not attempting to invoke "havoc", "discord" and "chaos", I view
the
| manner in which topics are handled as being the deciding factor--foul
| language, character assassinations and promoting outwardly dangerous
evils
| which threaten the moral fabric of society are as disgusting to me as
the
| next guy...
|
| And you are also correct on this aspect.
|
|
| If the material is just gauged on whether it provokes debate, argument
and
| thought--and if the measure of this is simply how many posts are invoked
as
| responses--with the desirable number set as one or NONE--then further
delays
| in progress should be expected...
|
| I don't think anybody filters because of this. If the presenter of such
| debate has a reputation as in your first example...all bets are off.
| That is for me to imply that mud-slinging, name-calling, goading or any
| wild-eyed radical or raffish behaviour, in spite of the best intentions
| of the poster, will cause his occasional good points to be overwhelmed
| by the cacophony of kill-filters at work.
|
| -Bill

Well, fwiw you aren't kill-filed at my end. I'm not opposed to a bit of
push and shove on the internet. That comes about as naturally as having
a cup of joe with guys at a radio meet and enjoying some horsing around.
If I took the internet community toilet seriously I might wind up like this.

http://publications.mediapost.com/in... art_aid=29415

-Bill

From: "John Smith" on Sun,May 8 2005 1:39 pm

Exactly my point....

We break into two groups of thought here...

...which seems to be YOUR whole point... :-)

Halt at this point, and lay all plans on that halting (and, if ALL the

others don't agree--be bypassed anyway)...

Nihilism. Tsk, tsk...

Or, stay with the pack, realizing if that day ever comes (technology
ceases
to innovate/obsolete)--we will regret it...

What "pack?" What "regrets?" What "ceasing?!?"

Progress, obsolete equip., is the most desirable thing I can imagine!
It is
a given, not all will agree... Indeed, at 52 years of age, my place
in the
"scope of the world" is becomming smaller--it only gets worse from now
on--I
am not ready to quit and attempt to force others to that "quitting"
with
me...

Tsk. Then your card doesn't seem to be plugged in to
the right slot. I have 20 years on you and began in
HF radio communications 52 years ago. What you have to
understand is that EVERYTHING can be made "obsolete"
in the marketplace...HF is NOT used nearly as much for
communications now as back a half century ago. So, you
are "suddenly realizing" your "place in the world" is
getting smaller? Pass me your TS card and I'll punch it.

When the "Dick Tracy Wrist Radio" is finally designed and
implemented--perhaps there will be a "death of homebrewers" (I myself
am NOT
much of a 'watchbuilder')--but until then we can have fun!

I'm wearing one right now. Made by La Crosse. Cost all
of $30 with shipping. "Tunes in" every night to WWVB
and sets itself to the correct time from a kilomile away,
even adjusts for Daylight Savings time. shrug

I'm not sure what everyone is talking about in this thread
but, like Roy and a few others, I've seen some innovative
(and sometimes inventive) work in the many and various
disciplines of "radio" and electronics in the past half
century.

You want "modularity" a la a PC? WHY?!? Because it is
"familiar?" Because it is "cheap?" Here's a clue: This
newsgroup is NOT a "production design and marketing
newsgroup." It isn't a political science discussion
place to whine and moan over some middle-aged anguish
angst attack.

MODULARITY has been going ON in electronics ALL OVER
since the designers stopped trying to use transistors as
if they were vacuum tubes. I have a nicely working Icom
R-70. It is VERY modular, built NOTHING like what a PC
is, NOR SHOULD IT BE. A cast frame and cover that has
a rectangular box form...for convenience on a desk ...but
everything inside is MODULAR, grouped to take different
boards for different models, different functions. Those
MODULES are mostly soldered together, those MODULES
"sitting" in unlikely positions within that box. I have
another receiver, a National NC-57, all tubes, all boat-
anchor, purchased in 1948 with my own money (about $95)
and it works, to be polite, like BADLY in comparison.

Icom has done the MODULAR thing, so has Yaesu, and
Kenwood, and Collins Radio, and even Heathkit. All did
it DIFFERENTLY than any IBM-clone PC. I think ALL the
"radio" makers have done things differently AND done
the MODULARLY...even those that had only ONE module.

On the other hand, I'm typing away at a "slow" PC which
has a processor chugging away at 2.4 GIGAHertz with
memory access rates up in the 100 MEGAHertz range. Now,
from what I've learned and experienced, such frequencies
ARE RADIO. With newer PCs the memory access rates go
above 200 MHz...and the generated RFI is LESS than my
first "powerful" PC with a 20 MHz clock. Why? Better
IC transistor junctions taking LESS operating power.
MUCH LESS. Less power in those state transitions, ergo
less radiated stray RF. Three thousand cheers for that!
I'm looking at an LCD flat screen monitor which is far
better to watch than the old CRT "monitor" and has much
less RFI than that CRT.

I passed 52 some time ago, had maybe 15 minutes of
middle-age angst/worry/regret/etc., shrugged my
shoulders and carried on. There's way TOO MUCH delight
and wonder of all the new things coming out, the
wonderful new (some marvelous improvements on the old)
components, fantastic circuit and system simulation for
"breadboard" trials, all sorts of SOC (systems on a
chip) by mail-order from dozens of vendors. It's a
marvelous fairyland chock full of goodies to use in
all kinds of hobby construction in new and different
ways. Why sit around and contemplate radio navels
and make noises of badness or arouse controversy to
get your anonymous name "known" in a newsgroup?

A very long time ago I learned a truism: Electrons,
fields, and waves don't give a @#$%!!! what humans
think/feel/emote-about. They work by THEIR laws,
NOT by some emotional advertising copy or glossy
looking shelf items nor by the "reviews" in hobby
publications nor by all the cussing at them by
builders who don't know what they should be doing.

Having said that, I'm going to continue putting
together an EPROM burner so that I can complete a
MODULAR SW BC receiver that is single-conversion
with a 21.4 MHz crystal-filtered IF and has a PLL
for the LO. "Auto-bandswitching" just for those
SW BC bands yet the LO tuning range is continuous.
It's in a little BOX made of double-sided PCB
stock, 4" x 8" x 8" in size. Not one microprocessor
in it...done that way on purpose. Could have been
done a decade ago with nearly the same parts.

There's PROGRESS all over the place. If one keeps
one's eyes open. shrug

John Smith wrote:

Well, things have not gone as one would expect...
And, they may well be due to rules, regulations, and mindsets... and,
specifically, ones generated from an "American mindset."
Now, there is the "rest of the world" as we move to "globalization" these
ideas here will hardly set the course--I have afraid our part will be more
of passenger, as opposed to a captain... the best I can see is, using our
"paddle" we are able to affect a slight course change in our favor...

If one of your arguments is, don't propose any ideas until you have a
complete working design--I see that as more an answer to my original
observation... progress remains slow-to-halted, that simply being one of
the contributing factors...

If you seek to give a list of "why it can't work", that is helpful, but,
bear in mind, I was looking more for a list of "why it can."

Warmest regards,
John


Microdyne (L-3Com) made telemetry receivers that plugged into EISA,
PCI and VME busses. They were very expensive due to the problems of
shielding the modules and having a wad of miniature coax cables and
connectors running between sections. The RCB-2000 (VME based) system
was $80,000. You got that kind of money laying around?

What happens when you have compatibility problems between third party
modules, or need support for a board and the company is out of
business? Who do you expect to put up the money to develop the first
units? Do you think the prototype will work so well that you can ship
it? How many man-years of development do you want to pay for? How many
do you expect to sell? What happens when they change the buss type or
speed, again? Have you ever done any PC or commercial RF design?

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Yes, the young deserve a better future--one only has to hear the past to be
reminded of that...

Cheaper is better? Yes and no. If it means a superior product and more
affordable and provides the means of putting more radios into more
hands--yes, quite an improvement I would say...

"Planned obsolescence", well, that is one way to look at it--the car
replacing the horse and buggy is another....

Or, you mean we have the technology right now to build and market the
processor we will be using in 10 years? 5 years? 3 years? I think
not--this world is changing much faster than just a decade ago, before this
year has ended--faster yet....

Somehow, the point is being missed, providing such a platform "empowers"
many more minds to contribute... that is really what the IBM clone and
standard case/power supply did--otherwise, there was/is the Mac... ten
years ago I used a 486-100 Mhz, the Pentiums were still pretty new and I had
not upgraded yet, today a 3+ Ghz machine--I think you give "them" far too
much credit if you think that was "planned obsolescence", however, the
faster machine was indeed planned...

If your argument is that I can open the case of my transceiver and start
hacking away--well, I guess I could--but, much better if it were designed so
that the changes were not permanent, could be revoked, or could be changed
again, and back, and quickly...

But, I do keep getting a clearer and clearer answer to why there has been no
progress...

How many here are younger than I? Younger than 40? Younger than 30?
Younger than 20? How many here ask "Why not?" as opposed to "Why?"
Etc...

You know, such an idea is NOT revolutionary, did you notice I really mocked
"innovation" in the first reference?... it isn't innovation really, it is
leaving the stone age after watching others drive by in cars, for years!

This article, over a year old even makes note of similar views...
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2004/05/17/1/?nc=1

What do the younger guys here think? Or, has he already spoken?

Regards,
John


--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

wrote in message
oups.com...
| From: "John Smith" on Sun,May 8 2005 1:39 pm
|
| Exactly my point....
|
| We break into two groups of thought here...
|
| ...which seems to be YOUR whole point... :-)
|
| Halt at this point, and lay all plans on that halting (and, if ALL the
|
| others don't agree--be bypassed anyway)...
|
| Nihilism. Tsk, tsk...
|
| Or, stay with the pack, realizing if that day ever comes (technology
| ceases
| to innovate/obsolete)--we will regret it...
|
| What "pack?" What "regrets?" What "ceasing?!?"
|
| Progress, obsolete equip., is the most desirable thing I can imagine!
| It is
| a given, not all will agree... Indeed, at 52 years of age, my place
| in the
| "scope of the world" is becomming smaller--it only gets worse from now
| on--I
| am not ready to quit and attempt to force others to that "quitting"
| with
| me...
|
| Tsk. Then your card doesn't seem to be plugged in to
| the right slot. I have 20 years on you and began in
| HF radio communications 52 years ago. What you have to
| understand is that EVERYTHING can be made "obsolete"
| in the marketplace...HF is NOT used nearly as much for
| communications now as back a half century ago. So, you
| are "suddenly realizing" your "place in the world" is
| getting smaller? Pass me your TS card and I'll punch it.
|
| When the "Dick Tracy Wrist Radio" is finally designed and
| implemented--perhaps there will be a "death of homebrewers" (I myself
| am NOT
| much of a 'watchbuilder')--but until then we can have fun!
|
| I'm wearing one right now. Made by La Crosse. Cost all
| of $30 with shipping. "Tunes in" every night to WWVB
| and sets itself to the correct time from a kilomile away,
| even adjusts for Daylight Savings time. shrug
|
| I'm not sure what everyone is talking about in this thread
| but, like Roy and a few others, I've seen some innovative
| (and sometimes inventive) work in the many and various
| disciplines of "radio" and electronics in the past half
| century.
|
| You want "modularity" a la a PC? WHY?!? Because it is
| "familiar?" Because it is "cheap?" Here's a clue: This
| newsgroup is NOT a "production design and marketing
| newsgroup." It isn't a political science discussion
| place to whine and moan over some middle-aged anguish
| angst attack.
|
| MODULARITY has been going ON in electronics ALL OVER
| since the designers stopped trying to use transistors as
| if they were vacuum tubes. I have a nicely working Icom
| R-70. It is VERY modular, built NOTHING like what a PC
| is, NOR SHOULD IT BE. A cast frame and cover that has
| a rectangular box form...for convenience on a desk ...but
| everything inside is MODULAR, grouped to take different
| boards for different models, different functions. Those
| MODULES are mostly soldered together, those MODULES
| "sitting" in unlikely positions within that box. I have
| another receiver, a National NC-57, all tubes, all boat-
| anchor, purchased in 1948 with my own money (about $95)
| and it works, to be polite, like BADLY in comparison.
|
| Icom has done the MODULAR thing, so has Yaesu, and
| Kenwood, and Collins Radio, and even Heathkit. All did
| it DIFFERENTLY than any IBM-clone PC. I think ALL the
| "radio" makers have done things differently AND done
| the MODULARLY...even those that had only ONE module.
|
| On the other hand, I'm typing away at a "slow" PC which
| has a processor chugging away at 2.4 GIGAHertz with
| memory access rates up in the 100 MEGAHertz range. Now,
| from what I've learned and experienced, such frequencies
| ARE RADIO. With newer PCs the memory access rates go
| above 200 MHz...and the generated RFI is LESS than my
| first "powerful" PC with a 20 MHz clock. Why? Better
| IC transistor junctions taking LESS operating power.
| MUCH LESS. Less power in those state transitions, ergo
| less radiated stray RF. Three thousand cheers for that!
| I'm looking at an LCD flat screen monitor which is far
| better to watch than the old CRT "monitor" and has much
| less RFI than that CRT.
|
| I passed 52 some time ago, had maybe 15 minutes of
| middle-age angst/worry/regret/etc., shrugged my
| shoulders and carried on. There's way TOO MUCH delight
| and wonder of all the new things coming out, the
| wonderful new (some marvelous improvements on the old)
| components, fantastic circuit and system simulation for
| "breadboard" trials, all sorts of SOC (systems on a
| chip) by mail-order from dozens of vendors. It's a
| marvelous fairyland chock full of goodies to use in
| all kinds of hobby construction in new and different
| ways. Why sit around and contemplate radio navels
| and make noises of badness or arouse controversy to
| get your anonymous name "known" in a newsgroup?
|
| A very long time ago I learned a truism: Electrons,
| fields, and waves don't give a @#$%!!! what humans
| think/feel/emote-about. They work by THEIR laws,
| NOT by some emotional advertising copy or glossy
| looking shelf items nor by the "reviews" in hobby
| publications nor by all the cussing at them by
| builders who don't know what they should be doing.
|
| Having said that, I'm going to continue putting
| together an EPROM burner so that I can complete a
| MODULAR SW BC receiver that is single-conversion
| with a 21.4 MHz crystal-filtered IF and has a PLL
| for the LO. "Auto-bandswitching" just for those
| SW BC bands yet the LO tuning range is continuous.
| It's in a little BOX made of double-sided PCB
| stock, 4" x 8" x 8" in size. Not one microprocessor
| in it...done that way on purpose. Could have been
| done a decade ago with nearly the same parts.
|
| There's PROGRESS all over the place. If one keeps
| one's eyes open. shrug
|
|
|

gb wrote:

How many hours over the past year have you worked with middle or high
schools students volunteering your time? Donating materials, time or money
for educational programs targeted for the audience that will make a
difference?


I was a volunteer advisor for the Lake county Florida Vo-Tec
electronics program, till it was shut down. Right now I am trying to
find the money to finish repairs to my four car garage and convert it
into a 1200 sq ft electronics shop to teach basic electronics to the
kids who are still interested. Its not easy when you're 100% disabled
and living on a tiny pension, but I don't give up too easy.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

You miss the point, I expect the cards to cover the planet... our present
way of thinking enslaves us to "our beloved componet" or, "our beloved
manufacturer", time for a change...

I suspect, in the future problems will arise and be delt with--just recently
I had to do a "kludge" and replace a 6cw4 with a fet... who knows what
"fixes" will be forced on those of the future...

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| Well, things have not gone as one would expect...
| And, they may well be due to rules, regulations, and mindsets... and,
| specifically, ones generated from an "American mindset."
| Now, there is the "rest of the world" as we move to "globalization"
these
| ideas here will hardly set the course--I have afraid our part will be
more
| of passenger, as opposed to a captain... the best I can see is, using
our
| "paddle" we are able to affect a slight course change in our favor...
|
| If one of your arguments is, don't propose any ideas until you have a
| complete working design--I see that as more an answer to my original
| observation... progress remains slow-to-halted, that simply being one
of
| the contributing factors...
|
| If you seek to give a list of "why it can't work", that is helpful, but,
| bear in mind, I was looking more for a list of "why it can."
|
| Warmest regards,
| John
|
|
| Microdyne (L-3Com) made telemetry receivers that plugged into EISA,
| PCI and VME busses. They were very expensive due to the problems of
| shielding the modules and having a wad of miniature coax cables and
| connectors running between sections. The RCB-2000 (VME based) system
| was $80,000. You got that kind of money laying around?
|
| What happens when you have compatibility problems between third party
| modules, or need support for a board and the company is out of
| business? Who do you expect to put up the money to develop the first
| units? Do you think the prototype will work so well that you can ship
| it? How many man-years of development do you want to pay for? How many
| do you expect to sell? What happens when they change the buss type or
| speed, again? Have you ever done any PC or commercial RF design?
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

gb:

Nobel pursuit... in my case, I am more self-centered, I like the company
and people around...

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| gb wrote:
|
| How many hours over the past year have you worked with middle or high
| schools students volunteering your time? Donating materials, time or
money
| for educational programs targeted for the audience that will make a
| difference?
|
|
| I was a volunteer advisor for the Lake county Florida Vo-Tec
| electronics program, till it was shut down. Right now I am trying to
| find the money to finish repairs to my four car garage and convert it
| into a 1200 sq ft electronics shop to teach basic electronics to the
| kids who are still interested. Its not easy when you're 100% disabled
| and living on a tiny pension, but I don't give up too easy.
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


I was a volunteer advisor for the Lake county Florida Vo-Tec
electronics program, till it was shut down. Right now I am trying to
find the money to finish repairs to my four car garage and convert it
into a 1200 sq ft electronics shop to teach basic electronics to the
kids who are still interested. Its not easy when you're 100% disabled
and living on a tiny pension, but I don't give up too easy.

Good luck with finding money for your garage. Sorry about Vo-tech
shutting down and your your disability and tiny pension.
Was there anything positive you wanted to say?

-Bill

On Sun, 08 May 2005 10:44:27 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:

The basic difference is that with a digital system you either end up
with a clean signal or a useless signal. In an analog system the
character and purity of the signal must be carefully guarded, at least
until you manage to digitize it. This means that there will be a much
greater chance that adding a new card to the radio will degrade not only
the function of the new card, but the function of all the other cards.

Second, the PC market is a huge one, with great advantages to be derived
from common equipment and software, and much smaller advantages to be
derived from commonality. This is the exact obverse of the radio
market, including homebrew radios. To make a "card" radio would be to
define a basic radio architecture, probably down to the IF frequency (or
at least to the point of forcing you to match your IF and front end).
While improvements could be made within this structure an independent
experimenter couldn't play around with such things as direct-conversion,
different IF schemes, etc., without extensive modification.

I agree that it would be quite hard to make a good quality radio with
some common backplane structure. However, connecting various
functional modules with 50 ohm input and output impedance could be
used to make quite different radios with good specifications. For
instance Mini-Circuits also makes various diode ring mixers,
amplifiers and apparently also VCOs that are boxed and have BNC or SMA
connectors. With each functional module in a metallic enclosure,
controlling the spurious radiation between modules is much easier. I
don't know that anyone would make filter modules, which would be
required to build a complete radio. Also SSB-Electronics sold separate
amplifier, mixer, frequency multiplier and crystal oscillator modules
mainly intended for a 10 GHz transverter.

Unfortunately the cost of these modules is quite high, apparently due
to low production volumes and large amount of manual labour needed to
assemble them. If there would be a large demand for such modules, it
would make sense to design them to require less manual labour to
assemble them and hence get the price to more affordable levels.

While a backplane would not be suitable for running the RF signals, it
would be a good idea to have a common control interface standard. This
might be some sort of serial interface or perhaps a CANbus interface
as used on some AMSAT satellites.

Paul OH3LWR

The fact is that hams, for sure, wouldn't pay all the extra money a well
designed plug in system would cost. Of course, I might be wrong --
anyone who thinks so (one particular person comes to mind) should get busy
designing and developing one. Perhaps there's a fortune to be made.
Certainly there's a market for a much simpler plug in system with much
less versatility than the oscilloscope system I described, as a few
manufacturers have shown. The question is, how far can this be taken
before the market dries up due to the increased cost?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
=========================================
Would a relatively 'low cost ' plug in card system perhaps be possible by
using standard PCI (computer) or similar card connections for the 'non RF'
connections ,with standard 50 Ohms miniature connectors for all RF
connections.
It would mean that all RF card modules would have a standard RF in- and
output connector using 'miniature coax'.
It would of course mean that all the card modules involving RF would have a
universal 50 Ohms in- and output impedance.
The latter is already promoted by looking at designs in the book
'Experimental Methods in RF Design'

The above referred type of PCI card connections (or any other agreed card
standard )could then be standardised with specific 'edge connections' used
for 'ground' , +5V , -5V , +12 to15 V ,-12 to 15 V , etc

The above would facilitate home brewing and make it possible to combine home
brewed modules with specialised commercial modules. It also would enable
testing modules with standardised (impedance wise) test equipment.
Ready made or blank (single or double sided) PCBs would have identical 'card
fingers' also those supplied as part of a complete kit.

I feel that the amateur radio community would very much benefit of such a
standardised card system.

Although the amateur radio market place is relatively small , with modules
physically standardised , there would be an opportunity for a modest
'cottage industry' .

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

All:

Please don't feed the troll.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I am afraid I view "Please don't feed the troll" as "Tim Wescott thinks
everyone not agreeing with him IS a troll"...

That is NOT the proper definition of a "Troll!"

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

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| All:
|
| Please don't feed the troll.
|
| --
|
| Tim Wescott
| Wescott Design Services
| http://www.wescottdesign.com

So we might all get on the same page, here is a list of "troll definitions."

1) a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke
readers; or a person who makes such a post

2) From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb,
to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to
provoke flames.

3) to fish with a bait or lure trailed on a line behind a slowly moving
boat.

4) From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb,
to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to
provoke flames.

5) This is the Scandanavian term for elf. Sometimes they are described as
being hairy and ugly, although they are able to change their shape into
anything they please. They are said to have lots of treasure, and live in
beautiful palaces.

6) SCA term for gatekeeper or door warden at a feast or other event. This
name has no historical basis. "Porter" was atypical medieval name for this
job.

7) a race of giants. They appear in various Northern mythologies. In Norse
mythology Trolls are represented as a type of goblin.

I assume you are meaning definition 1) as your definition of me being a
"troll."

Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
"troll" at the center of every discussion? Is the only discussion without a
"troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and therefore--it
is really a "silent discussion?"

Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?

Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
gleem of its' blade is still seen...

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

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| All:
|
| Please don't feed the troll.
|
| --
|
| Tim Wescott
| Wescott Design Services
| http://www.wescottdesign.com

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
"troll" at the center of every discussion?

No, not all discussions are trolls.

Some of the things which tend to make me consider a posting to be a
"troll" rather than a "discussion", are indications that the original
poster isn't really interested in an honest discussion. Typical signs:

- Poster shows up with a big dose of attitude on his/her shoulder.
Phrases like "You people are all laughable idiots" (fairly common
among spammers posting in the anti-spam newsgroups), or "Obviously,
anybody who has a brain will agree that xxxx is true" are red flags.

- Posters who respond to criticisms of their proposal by ignoring the
technical validity of the criticisms, or by attacking the critic
rather than the criticism (ad hominem responses), or by glossing
over the criticisms without a serious response (hand-waving).

- Posters who seem to fail to "think through" the consequences, and
costs, of their own proposals and ideas.

Is the only discussion without a
"troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and therefore--it
is really a "silent discussion?"

Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?

No. A troll-less discussion is where everyone involved engages in an
intellectually honest debate about the merits, disadvantages, and
costs of the suggested ideas(s). There are plenty of such troll-less
discussions, on USENET and elsewhere, where the debaters disagree
quite strongly!

Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
gleem of its' blade is still seen...

Well, here's a third-party opinion. It's free, take it for what it's
worth to you.

From where I sit, it seems to me that your style of proposal and
debate are somewhere in the middle. They are not blatantly
"troll-ish" (in the sense of someone who is posting purely for the joy
of stirring up a fracas), but neither do they seem to be a completely
serious attempt to discuss the actual merits of your ideas (as
compared to the alternatives).

The somewhat troll-flavored signs I observe: well, there's the rather
inflammatory and biased declaration you made in the subject of "No
progress in decades." I call this trollish, because it *presumes* the
validity of the very idea that you are proposing (i.e. that a modular,
card-based radio architecture is the best one) and because it
ignores all of the progress that radio systems have made in other
areas of implementation. It seemed more inflammatory than
communicative.

I also see your response to some of the criticisms posted (including
my own) as somewhat trollish, because you seem to have responded to
serious counters by either handwaving around them, or by condemning
the poster's effort to respond to you (e.g. your comment that you
"aren't looking for people who'll tell [you] why it won't work, you're
looking for people who'll tell [you] why it will.")

One of the essentials in any scientist (and, I think, in any good
researcher or proponent) is intellectual honesty, including the
ability and willingness to figure out the weaknesses and limitations
of any theory or proposal, as well as the strengths. I think you'd
find your proposals received rather better, if you showed more clearly
that you were willing to think them out to this degree in advance of
posting them, and were open to receiving honest criticism.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave:


Surprisingly, we agree on most of ALL of this!!!



However, do not consider myself a troll if my methods are simply different
than others are accustomed to either; neither do I think I am a troll if I
do not wish to the “standard operating procedure” which some newsgroup of
“good ole buddies” has adopted—secret handshakes, phrases, etc. I have
outgrown…



Although common decency and respect for the right of another to hold an
opinion, belief or view contrary to ones own is necessary—I don’t see these
exchanges—when composed of overly narrow methods of exchange and interaction
as being beneficial to any…



Warmest regards,

John

--
When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| John Smith wrote:
|
| Do you feel anyone opening a discussion is a troll? Is there always a
| "troll" at the center of every discussion?
|
| No, not all discussions are trolls.
|
| Some of the things which tend to make me consider a posting to be a
| "troll" rather than a "discussion", are indications that the original
| poster isn't really interested in an honest discussion. Typical signs:
|
| - Poster shows up with a big dose of attitude on his/her shoulder.
| Phrases like "You people are all laughable idiots" (fairly common
| among spammers posting in the anti-spam newsgroups), or "Obviously,
| anybody who has a brain will agree that xxxx is true" are red flags.
|
| - Posters who respond to criticisms of their proposal by ignoring the
| technical validity of the criticisms, or by attacking the critic
| rather than the criticism (ad hominem responses), or by glossing
| over the criticisms without a serious response (hand-waving).
|
| - Posters who seem to fail to "think through" the consequences, and
| costs, of their own proposals and ideas.
|
| Is the only discussion without a
| "troll" one where no one has made a statement to open it--and
therefore--it
| is really a "silent discussion?"
|
| Is a "troll'less discussion" one where everyone agrees with you?
|
| No. A troll-less discussion is where everyone involved engages in an
| intellectually honest debate about the merits, disadvantages, and
| costs of the suggested ideas(s). There are plenty of such troll-less
| discussions, on USENET and elsewhere, where the debaters disagree
| quite strongly!
|
| Your accusing me of being a "troll" is, in my opinion, really "character
| assassination" on your part--although you cloak this knife in velvet, the
| gleem of its' blade is still seen...
|
| Well, here's a third-party opinion. It's free, take it for what it's
| worth to you.
|
| From where I sit, it seems to me that your style of proposal and
| debate are somewhere in the middle. They are not blatantly
| "troll-ish" (in the sense of someone who is posting purely for the joy
| of stirring up a fracas), but neither do they seem to be a completely
| serious attempt to discuss the actual merits of your ideas (as
| compared to the alternatives).
|
| The somewhat troll-flavored signs I observe: well, there's the rather
| inflammatory and biased declaration you made in the subject of "No
| progress in decades." I call this trollish, because it *presumes* the
| validity of the very idea that you are proposing (i.e. that a modular,
| card-based radio architecture is the best one) and because it
| ignores all of the progress that radio systems have made in other
| areas of implementation. It seemed more inflammatory than
| communicative.
|
| I also see your response to some of the criticisms posted (including
| my own) as somewhat trollish, because you seem to have responded to
| serious counters by either handwaving around them, or by condemning
| the poster's effort to respond to you (e.g. your comment that you
| "aren't looking for people who'll tell [you] why it won't work, you're
| looking for people who'll tell [you] why it will.")
|
| One of the essentials in any scientist (and, I think, in any good
| researcher or proponent) is intellectual honesty, including the
| ability and willingness to figure out the weaknesses and limitations
| of any theory or proposal, as well as the strengths. I think you'd
| find your proposals received rather better, if you showed more clearly
| that you were willing to think them out to this degree in advance of
| posting them, and were open to receiving honest criticism.
|
| --
| Dave Platt AE6EO
| Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
| I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
| boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

From: Paul Keinanen on Sun,May 8 2005 11:54 pm

On Sun, 08 May 2005 10:44:27 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:

The basic difference is that with a digital system you either end up
with a clean signal or a useless signal. In an analog system the
character and purity of the signal must be carefully guarded, at
least
until you manage to digitize it. This means that there will be a
much
greater chance that adding a new card to the radio will degrade not
only
the function of the new card, but the function of all the other
cards.

Second, the PC market is a huge one, with great advantages to be
derived
from common equipment and software, and much smaller advantages to be

derived from commonality. This is the exact obverse of the radio
market, including homebrew radios. To make a "card" radio would be
to
define a basic radio architecture, probably down to the IF frequency
(or
at least to the point of forcing you to match your IF and front end).

While improvements could be made within this structure an independent

experimenter couldn't play around with such things as
direct-conversion,
different IF schemes, etc., without extensive modification.

I agree that it would be quite hard to make a good quality radio with
some common backplane structure. However, connecting various
functional modules with 50 ohm input and output impedance could be
used to make quite different radios with good specifications.

That's already been done in the RF industry for a half
century.

As one example, take the U.S.' AN/PRC-8, -9, -10 series
of manpack transceivers covering high-HF into low-VHF.
Still in the vacuum tube era, all of the IF modules
included the IF tuned circuits as well as the subminiature
tube. If the tube filament burned out, the entire module
was replaced. NO alignment tweaking was required. Design
was done back around 1950.

As for standards on control...start with the ATLAS (for
USAF test equipment) and continue on to the IEEE-488
interface. Those standards worked with "modular"
components capable of testing receiver sensitivity down
to noise level with KNOWN signal levels. By the way,
test equipment for RF has been standardized at 50 Ohms
since WW2 days.

For
instance Mini-Circuits also makes various diode ring mixers,
amplifiers and apparently also VCOs that are boxed and have BNC or SMA
connectors. With each functional module in a metallic enclosure,
controlling the spurious radiation between modules is much easier. I
don't know that anyone would make filter modules, which would be
required to build a complete radio. Also SSB-Electronics sold separate
amplifier, mixer, frequency multiplier and crystal oscillator modules
mainly intended for a 10 GHz transverter.

Unfortunately the cost of these modules is quite high, apparently due
to low production volumes and large amount of manual labour needed to
assemble them. If there would be a large demand for such modules, it
would make sense to design them to require less manual labour to
assemble them and hence get the price to more affordable levels.

Define "more affordable." :-)

"Filter modules" have and are built to order by dozens
(if not hundreds worldwide) of companies. The costs
ARE high because they are built TO specifications and
such have to be TESTED to meet those specifications.
Is there comparable KNOWN/calibrated test equipment
in the average homebrewer's hobby workshop that is
comparable...even at "low" frequencies of HF? Actually,
Kaylie's Mini-circuits DOES use calibrated, automatic
test equipment to check out each module, small
quantities to large quantities. Mini-Circuits doesn't
have the market demand to do production runs in the
10,000-lot quantities.

The mystique on L-C filters is largely that...mystique.
Without some good, calibrated test equipment, it is
very difficult to determine what a "filter module"
has for performance. Synthesis (design) of the values
for a particular filter type was arduous until folks
came out with computer-aided design. I have a working
freeware program for PCs on that...send a message in
private e-mail if you want one transmitted to you.

As to cost, just look at a cellular telephone handset.
Those can cost around US$ 50 each, new. They work in
a band roughly centered at 1.0 GHz. Microwaves.
Complete microwave Rx-Tx with synthesized tuning.
For half a hundred US dollars here. A mere 30 years
ago that would be almost inconceivable. Three years
ago the U.S. Census Bureau said that one in three
Americans have a cell phone subscription. That's
roughly 100 MILLION units either out there or waiting
to be used. Market quantity and competition in that
market are the key to bringing down costs. Radio
hobbyists just cannot possibly get close to such
market quantities.

While a backplane would not be suitable for running the RF signals, it
would be a good idea to have a common control interface standard. This
might be some sort of serial interface or perhaps a CANbus interface
as used on some AMSAT satellites.

Who says a "backplane would not be suitable?" :-)
Those PC backplanes carry terribly broad spectra of
RF...from (literally) DC on up to the low microwaves.
No "perhaps" about it. Thing is, the layout can NOT
be done as if it were wire-wrap; i.e., in random
order of wire placement. With broadbanding anything,
every single adjacent trace becomes a COUPLER and
unwitting layouts can produce remarkable crosstalk
effects. Designers have known that for decades and
handle it...all kinds of Application Notes and info
out in public access available for anyone...just too
specialized for the "weekender" small-project
assembler hobbyist.

The IEEE-488 is a mature standard for control and
interface for computer-controlled, interconnected
systems. Would be a bit TOO all-inclusive for a
special-purpose new design. The "interface" does
NOT have to be some kind of "new" thing used on the
latest whatever out in space. It's just a control-
and-response avenue carrying signals of a standardized
kind...a few wires/traces perhaps...laid out properly
if required to be broadbanded or broad in dynamic
signal range. Not a big thing, but needs some
THOUGHT before becoming hardware.

I have checked the local walmart shelves, nope, nothing like I have
mentioned...

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
| From: Paul Keinanen on Sun,May 8 2005 11:54 pm
|
| On Sun, 08 May 2005 10:44:27 -0700, Tim Wescott
| wrote:
|
| The basic difference is that with a digital system you either end up
| with a clean signal or a useless signal. In an analog system the
| character and purity of the signal must be carefully guarded, at
| least
| until you manage to digitize it. This means that there will be a
| much
| greater chance that adding a new card to the radio will degrade not
| only
| the function of the new card, but the function of all the other
| cards.
|
| Second, the PC market is a huge one, with great advantages to be
| derived
| from common equipment and software, and much smaller advantages to be
|
| derived from commonality. This is the exact obverse of the radio
| market, including homebrew radios. To make a "card" radio would be
| to
| define a basic radio architecture, probably down to the IF frequency
| (or
| at least to the point of forcing you to match your IF and front end).
|
| While improvements could be made within this structure an independent
|
| experimenter couldn't play around with such things as
| direct-conversion,
| different IF schemes, etc., without extensive modification.
|
| I agree that it would be quite hard to make a good quality radio with
| some common backplane structure. However, connecting various
| functional modules with 50 ohm input and output impedance could be
| used to make quite different radios with good specifications.
|
| That's already been done in the RF industry for a half
| century.
|
| As one example, take the U.S.' AN/PRC-8, -9, -10 series
| of manpack transceivers covering high-HF into low-VHF.
| Still in the vacuum tube era, all of the IF modules
| included the IF tuned circuits as well as the subminiature
| tube. If the tube filament burned out, the entire module
| was replaced. NO alignment tweaking was required. Design
| was done back around 1950.
|
| As for standards on control...start with the ATLAS (for
| USAF test equipment) and continue on to the IEEE-488
| interface. Those standards worked with "modular"
| components capable of testing receiver sensitivity down
| to noise level with KNOWN signal levels. By the way,
| test equipment for RF has been standardized at 50 Ohms
| since WW2 days.
|
| For
| instance Mini-Circuits also makes various diode ring mixers,
| amplifiers and apparently also VCOs that are boxed and have BNC or SMA
| connectors. With each functional module in a metallic enclosure,
| controlling the spurious radiation between modules is much easier. I
| don't know that anyone would make filter modules, which would be
| required to build a complete radio. Also SSB-Electronics sold separate
| amplifier, mixer, frequency multiplier and crystal oscillator modules
| mainly intended for a 10 GHz transverter.
|
| Unfortunately the cost of these modules is quite high, apparently due
| to low production volumes and large amount of manual labour needed to
| assemble them. If there would be a large demand for such modules, it
| would make sense to design them to require less manual labour to
| assemble them and hence get the price to more affordable levels.
|
| Define "more affordable." :-)
|
| "Filter modules" have and are built to order by dozens
| (if not hundreds worldwide) of companies. The costs
| ARE high because they are built TO specifications and
| such have to be TESTED to meet those specifications.
| Is there comparable KNOWN/calibrated test equipment
| in the average homebrewer's hobby workshop that is
| comparable...even at "low" frequencies of HF? Actually,
| Kaylie's Mini-circuits DOES use calibrated, automatic
| test equipment to check out each module, small
| quantities to large quantities. Mini-Circuits doesn't
| have the market demand to do production runs in the
| 10,000-lot quantities.
|
| The mystique on L-C filters is largely that...mystique.
| Without some good, calibrated test equipment, it is
| very difficult to determine what a "filter module"
| has for performance. Synthesis (design) of the values
| for a particular filter type was arduous until folks
| came out with computer-aided design. I have a working
| freeware program for PCs on that...send a message in
| private e-mail if you want one transmitted to you.
|
| As to cost, just look at a cellular telephone handset.
| Those can cost around US$ 50 each, new. They work in
| a band roughly centered at 1.0 GHz. Microwaves.
| Complete microwave Rx-Tx with synthesized tuning.
| For half a hundred US dollars here. A mere 30 years
| ago that would be almost inconceivable. Three years
| ago the U.S. Census Bureau said that one in three
| Americans have a cell phone subscription. That's
| roughly 100 MILLION units either out there or waiting
| to be used. Market quantity and competition in that
| market are the key to bringing down costs. Radio
| hobbyists just cannot possibly get close to such
| market quantities.
|
| While a backplane would not be suitable for running the RF signals, it
| would be a good idea to have a common control interface standard. This
| might be some sort of serial interface or perhaps a CANbus interface
| as used on some AMSAT satellites.
|
| Who says a "backplane would not be suitable?" :-)
| Those PC backplanes carry terribly broad spectra of
| RF...from (literally) DC on up to the low microwaves.
| No "perhaps" about it. Thing is, the layout can NOT
| be done as if it were wire-wrap; i.e., in random
| order of wire placement. With broadbanding anything,
| every single adjacent trace becomes a COUPLER and
| unwitting layouts can produce remarkable crosstalk
| effects. Designers have known that for decades and
| handle it...all kinds of Application Notes and info
| out in public access available for anyone...just too
| specialized for the "weekender" small-project
| assembler hobbyist.
|
| The IEEE-488 is a mature standard for control and
| interface for computer-controlled, interconnected
| systems. Would be a bit TOO all-inclusive for a
| special-purpose new design. The "interface" does
| NOT have to be some kind of "new" thing used on the
| latest whatever out in space. It's just a control-
| and-response avenue carrying signals of a standardized
| kind...a few wires/traces perhaps...laid out properly
| if required to be broadbanded or broad in dynamic
| signal range. Not a big thing, but needs some
| THOUGHT before becoming hardware.
|
|
|

I don't think much of the discussion has looked very closely at what I
think is envisioned here -- a mainframe which would accept various
"cards" from numerous vendors. As I detailed in an earlier posting, it's
tough enough (and costly) to make a robust interface when a single
company has full control of the mainframe and plugins. But let's think a
little about the problems of making a mainframe which could accommodate
cards from various vendors -- cards which have different performance
characteristics.

The first question is, who will define the interface? Who will dictate
modifications as they become necessary?

Then let's consider a vendor who wants to make, say, an audio amplifier
card. It has digital signal processing with a dozen different modes.
Each mode has considerable adjustment range, for example the width of a
bandpass filter. The interface would have to have pins dedicated to
these functions, and the front panel would have to have switches and
controls for them. How about an oscillator? One might be digitally
tuned, another analog. There are bandspread and RIT to accommodate in
addition. What do we do about T/R switching and timing if it's to be
used in a transceiver? How about shielding specifications so it won't
interfere with other cards?

The only possible way I can see something like this being even possible
is for a virtual "front panel" being done in software and appearing on a
PC screen; only in that way could each card be sure that the necessary
controls would be present. Some sort of serial bus with expandable
protocol would be used for all controls.

Then the question becomes, who will define, develop, and maintain the
software? I can tell you from experience that it's no easy matter to
keep any software working properly as new operating systems, protection
software, and hardware appear. Add the necessary hardware interface to
the equation and the job gets tougher yet. Oh, and what do you do when
key components of the interface become obsolete and no longer available?

It's common for people who've never had to design something which will
be reproducible by the thousands and operate without error, to say how
easy something will be. As one of those people who spent a career
designing just such equipment, I'd bet serious money that the cost of
development and maintenance of the interface would never pay itself back
in sales. Unless, of course, it's done by volunteers. My question is:
Why don't folks like "John Smith" get off their duffs and do it?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy:



Like Linux, a superior operating system when compared to windows--it would
mainly be done by "the community"... all the hardware guys would have to do
is make known the ports, address, etc... they are really un-needed from
there--but, it would speed the takeoff of the "system" if they did provide a
beginning point... and, one can always run a de-compressor (if they have
compressed the executable), then a disassembler to asm, then a converter to
"C" and, if you can program, you can now "tweak" the code anyway you would
like... you will have a copy of it!!!!



If the "hardware guys" didn't know how to provide a software interface,
there are "linux hams" who would, most likely, if asked, "sponsor" such a
effort on the Linux platform--hopefully--the interface to such a radio would
bypass BOTH Mac and Windows, why these OS's are sufficient for home users,
non-technical business and gov't--the technical mind deserves more, the
power of linux (unix really) would serve them much better...



However, the "system" we are speaking of would ONLY require a software
interface if you inserted that card/module which allowed computer control,
otherwise it would be using the analog card/module and associated
faceplate...



I think most here start right out trying to "limit" this "system" I have put
forward--there would be no limits to it... if you can see a limit, that is
only a bug which needs designed around...



The homebrew community might be the best place to design, develop and
introduce this from... as, if you allow too greedy a manufacturer
control--it will just end up dying from his/her attempts to squeeze too much
blood from the turnip!!! That is what has happened in the past...



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

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
|I don't think much of the discussion has looked very closely at what I
| think is envisioned here -- a mainframe which would accept various
| "cards" from numerous vendors. As I detailed in an earlier posting, it's
| tough enough (and costly) to make a robust interface when a single
| company has full control of the mainframe and plugins. But let's think a
| little about the problems of making a mainframe which could accommodate
| cards from various vendors -- cards which have different performance
| characteristics.
|
| The first question is, who will define the interface? Who will dictate
| modifications as they become necessary?
|
| Then let's consider a vendor who wants to make, say, an audio amplifier
| card. It has digital signal processing with a dozen different modes.
| Each mode has considerable adjustment range, for example the width of a
| bandpass filter. The interface would have to have pins dedicated to
| these functions, and the front panel would have to have switches and
| controls for them. How about an oscillator? One might be digitally
| tuned, another analog. There are bandspread and RIT to accommodate in
| addition. What do we do about T/R switching and timing if it's to be
| used in a transceiver? How about shielding specifications so it won't
| interfere with other cards?
|
| The only possible way I can see something like this being even possible
| is for a virtual "front panel" being done in software and appearing on a
| PC screen; only in that way could each card be sure that the necessary
| controls would be present. Some sort of serial bus with expandable
| protocol would be used for all controls.
|
| Then the question becomes, who will define, develop, and maintain the
| software? I can tell you from experience that it's no easy matter to
| keep any software working properly as new operating systems, protection
| software, and hardware appear. Add the necessary hardware interface to
| the equation and the job gets tougher yet. Oh, and what do you do when
| key components of the interface become obsolete and no longer available?
|
| It's common for people who've never had to design something which will
| be reproducible by the thousands and operate without error, to say how
| easy something will be. As one of those people who spent a career
| designing just such equipment, I'd bet serious money that the cost of
| development and maintenance of the interface would never pay itself back
| in sales. Unless, of course, it's done by volunteers. My question is:
| Why don't folks like "John Smith" get off their duffs and do it?
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL

.... I forgot to mention, that while the minimal OS of the radio itself would
be a minimal linux kernal--a USB, TCP, serial, parallel, etc hardware
interface could be chosen so windows users would find it transparent--and
they access the radio either through a GUI or commandline interface... when
using the digital capabilities...

The most basic starter of this radio might be a regen receiver (or TRF) and
a one watt xmitter board and analog of course... great for new
"bootstrapping" hams...

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

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
| Roy:
|
|
|
| Like Linux, a superior operating system when compared to windows--it would
| mainly be done by "the community"... all the hardware guys would have to
do
| is make known the ports, address, etc... they are really un-needed from
| there--but, it would speed the takeoff of the "system" if they did provide
a
| beginning point... and, one can always run a de-compressor (if they have
| compressed the executable), then a disassembler to asm, then a converter
to
| "C" and, if you can program, you can now "tweak" the code anyway you would
| like... you will have a copy of it!!!!
|
|
|
| If the "hardware guys" didn't know how to provide a software interface,
| there are "linux hams" who would, most likely, if asked, "sponsor" such a
| effort on the Linux platform--hopefully--the interface to such a radio
would
| bypass BOTH Mac and Windows, why these OS's are sufficient for home users,
| non-technical business and gov't--the technical mind deserves more, the
| power of linux (unix really) would serve them much better...
|
|
|
| However, the "system" we are speaking of would ONLY require a software
| interface if you inserted that card/module which allowed computer control,
| otherwise it would be using the analog card/module and associated
| faceplate...
|
|
|
| I think most here start right out trying to "limit" this "system" I have
put
| forward--there would be no limits to it... if you can see a limit, that
is
| only a bug which needs designed around...
|
|
|
| The homebrew community might be the best place to design, develop and
| introduce this from... as, if you allow too greedy a manufacturer
| control--it will just end up dying from his/her attempts to squeeze too
much
| blood from the turnip!!! That is what has happened in the past...
|
|
|
| Warmest regards,
| John
| --
| When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!
|
| "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
| ...
||I don't think much of the discussion has looked very closely at what I
|| think is envisioned here -- a mainframe which would accept various
|| "cards" from numerous vendors. As I detailed in an earlier posting, it's
|| tough enough (and costly) to make a robust interface when a single
|| company has full control of the mainframe and plugins. But let's think a
|| little about the problems of making a mainframe which could accommodate
|| cards from various vendors -- cards which have different performance
|| characteristics.
||
|| The first question is, who will define the interface? Who will dictate
|| modifications as they become necessary?
||
|| Then let's consider a vendor who wants to make, say, an audio amplifier
|| card. It has digital signal processing with a dozen different modes.
|| Each mode has considerable adjustment range, for example the width of a
|| bandpass filter. The interface would have to have pins dedicated to
|| these functions, and the front panel would have to have switches and
|| controls for them. How about an oscillator? One might be digitally
|| tuned, another analog. There are bandspread and RIT to accommodate in
|| addition. What do we do about T/R switching and timing if it's to be
|| used in a transceiver? How about shielding specifications so it won't
|| interfere with other cards?
||
|| The only possible way I can see something like this being even possible
|| is for a virtual "front panel" being done in software and appearing on a
|| PC screen; only in that way could each card be sure that the necessary
|| controls would be present. Some sort of serial bus with expandable
|| protocol would be used for all controls.
||
|| Then the question becomes, who will define, develop, and maintain the
|| software? I can tell you from experience that it's no easy matter to
|| keep any software working properly as new operating systems, protection
|| software, and hardware appear. Add the necessary hardware interface to
|| the equation and the job gets tougher yet. Oh, and what do you do when
|| key components of the interface become obsolete and no longer available?
||
|| It's common for people who've never had to design something which will
|| be reproducible by the thousands and operate without error, to say how
|| easy something will be. As one of those people who spent a career
|| designing just such equipment, I'd bet serious money that the cost of
|| development and maintenance of the interface would never pay itself back
|| in sales. Unless, of course, it's done by volunteers. My question is:
|| Why don't folks like "John Smith" get off their duffs and do it?
||
|| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
|

I'm eagerly awaiting the block diagram and system specification which I
assume you'll be working on. I'm sure it won't take you long. Good luck!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

John Smith wrote:
Roy:



Like Linux, a superior operating system when compared to windows--it would
mainly be done by "the community"... all the hardware guys would have to do
is make known the ports, address, etc... they are really un-needed from
there--but, it would speed the takeoff of the "system" if they did provide a
beginning point... and, one can always run a de-compressor (if they have
compressed the executable), then a disassembler to asm, then a converter to
"C" and, if you can program, you can now "tweak" the code anyway you would
like... you will have a copy of it!!!!



If the "hardware guys" didn't know how to provide a software interface,
there are "linux hams" who would, most likely, if asked, "sponsor" such a
effort on the Linux platform--hopefully--the interface to such a radio would
bypass BOTH Mac and Windows, why these OS's are sufficient for home users,
non-technical business and gov't--the technical mind deserves more, the
power of linux (unix really) would serve them much better...



However, the "system" we are speaking of would ONLY require a software
interface if you inserted that card/module which allowed computer control,
otherwise it would be using the analog card/module and associated
faceplate...



I think most here start right out trying to "limit" this "system" I have put
forward--there would be no limits to it... if you can see a limit, that is
only a bug which needs designed around...



The homebrew community might be the best place to design, develop and
introduce this from... as, if you allow too greedy a manufacturer
control--it will just end up dying from his/her attempts to squeeze too much
blood from the turnip!!! That is what has happened in the past...



Warmest regards,
John

Hmmm, you know, basically just two guys built the first apple desktop
computer--you think it is that much more difficult? Well, maybe!

I think one can begin with at least a mental pic...

....all the voltages which are to be used run on a common bus, the digital
lines are there to, without the "motherboard card", these are pretty much
unused... the audio lines can be hear for digital cards (on the bus for the
audio amp card)--very low level rf might have access though a proper
connector, of some sort (maybe on a shelf now, maybe need to do new specs
for one), there is a bnc/so-239, etc... which "floats" in a slot, capable of
sliding along to gain access to all cards (why limit where the PA will be
inserted?)...an analog bus with connectors available to each card lays on a
line which is also available to any cards requiring it, and provides
connection to a plug which is accessible if an analog panel is used--on this
analog panel are standard components (which may be all there, or added one
at a time, as needed)--meter, vol, squelch, rf gain, tuning (variactor card,
or old variables if room) lcd readout, etc...

Certainly one would just begin with the case, power supply, and the bus(s)
providing everything one can imagine a "card designer/builder" would require
in the future--and put some flexibility in it, just in case you want to do a
case revision/upgrade in the future, maybe you start out with too big a case
right now--looking forward to future times when it would be desirable to
have it smaller, etc...... rf out, rf in?, audio, etc lines--duplicate most
everything in both digital and analog-- ... then "analog panel"/"digital
panel" connectors... maybe expect the case to house no larger than a
100-500 watt PA... larger power through an external unit...

You point is well taken that my bench, time and abilities are limited--I am
trying to finish putting three boys through college...

.... even my overpaid colleges at work just wanna sip beer on the weekends
and watch the game or dvds, or plan the next cruise--could be a sign of my
generations age or decline... my access to real "innovators" is limited...
so is this countries...

.... but, as has been pointed out--this newsgroup is read in other
countries... countries where innovation is not dying but, rather just
blooming...

And, placed beside the first apple desktop (built by, basically, two boys in
a college lab and a garage)--I think most would say "IT IS DO-ABLE!"

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

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
| I'm eagerly awaiting the block diagram and system specification which I
| assume you'll be working on. I'm sure it won't take you long. Good luck!
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| John Smith wrote:
| Roy:
|
|
|
| Like Linux, a superior operating system when compared to windows--it
would
| mainly be done by "the community"... all the hardware guys would have
to do
| is make known the ports, address, etc... they are really un-needed from
| there--but, it would speed the takeoff of the "system" if they did
provide a
| beginning point... and, one can always run a de-compressor (if they have
| compressed the executable), then a disassembler to asm, then a converter
to
| "C" and, if you can program, you can now "tweak" the code anyway you
would
| like... you will have a copy of it!!!!
|
|
|
| If the "hardware guys" didn't know how to provide a software interface,
| there are "linux hams" who would, most likely, if asked, "sponsor" such
a
| effort on the Linux platform--hopefully--the interface to such a radio
would
| bypass BOTH Mac and Windows, why these OS's are sufficient for home
users,
| non-technical business and gov't--the technical mind deserves more, the
| power of linux (unix really) would serve them much better...
|
|
|
| However, the "system" we are speaking of would ONLY require a software
| interface if you inserted that card/module which allowed computer
control,
| otherwise it would be using the analog card/module and associated
| faceplate...
|
|
|
| I think most here start right out trying to "limit" this "system" I have
put
| forward--there would be no limits to it... if you can see a limit, that
is
| only a bug which needs designed around...
|
|
|
| The homebrew community might be the best place to design, develop and
| introduce this from... as, if you allow too greedy a manufacturer
| control--it will just end up dying from his/her attempts to squeeze too
much
| blood from the turnip!!! That is what has happened in the past...
|
|
|
| Warmest regards,
| John

Well, most of this requires VERY little innovation and only DUPLICATION...

Many manufacturers make motherboards, hd's, cd's, video cards, audio cards,
tv cards, radio cards, network cards, port expansion cards, home security
cards, security cams, credit card readers, security readers (finger print,
eye retina, etc) etc, etc...

.... That many manufactures share one case with great ease--is made obvious
by the computer on your desktop--indeed--on excellent motherboards, they are
NOT picky about even the processor!!! Intel, Cyrix, AMD, IBM, VIA, etc
(even providing sockets with different pin configurations for different
processors!)... (Some no longer available--they come and they go)

Don't go name brand junk: HP, Dell, Toshiba, Sony, etc--but go generic IBM
case and the world of computer manufacturers is available to you... and
look at the laptop--you know why EVERYONE in the world doesn't have one?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO GENERIC CASE!!!! You are stuck with proprietary junk!!!

Both in rec.radio.amateur.antenna and here there are far more focused on why
something can't be done, than why it can--I think if one ignores this--it
can be done!... this is interesting... and is why I began a thread on
progress.... especially since so many thought there was no reason to even
mention it...

One more thing, just make a generic case for a laptop platform, make the
platform available to support other manufacturers components--guess what...

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

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
|I don't think much of the discussion has looked very closely at what I
| think is envisioned here -- a mainframe which would accept various
| "cards" from numerous vendors. As I detailed in an earlier posting, it's
| tough enough (and costly) to make a robust interface when a single
| company has full control of the mainframe and plugins. But let's think a
| little about the problems of making a mainframe which could accommodate
| cards from various vendors -- cards which have different performance
| characteristics.
|
| The first question is, who will define the interface? Who will dictate
| modifications as they become necessary?
|
| Then let's consider a vendor who wants to make, say, an audio amplifier
| card. It has digital signal processing with a dozen different modes.
| Each mode has considerable adjustment range, for example the width of a
| bandpass filter. The interface would have to have pins dedicated to
| these functions, and the front panel would have to have switches and
| controls for them. How about an oscillator? One might be digitally
| tuned, another analog. There are bandspread and RIT to accommodate in
| addition. What do we do about T/R switching and timing if it's to be
| used in a transceiver? How about shielding specifications so it won't
| interfere with other cards?
|
| The only possible way I can see something like this being even possible
| is for a virtual "front panel" being done in software and appearing on a
| PC screen; only in that way could each card be sure that the necessary
| controls would be present. Some sort of serial bus with expandable
| protocol would be used for all controls.
|
| Then the question becomes, who will define, develop, and maintain the
| software? I can tell you from experience that it's no easy matter to
| keep any software working properly as new operating systems, protection
| software, and hardware appear. Add the necessary hardware interface to
| the equation and the job gets tougher yet. Oh, and what do you do when
| key components of the interface become obsolete and no longer available?
|
| It's common for people who've never had to design something which will
| be reproducible by the thousands and operate without error, to say how
| easy something will be. As one of those people who spent a career
| designing just such equipment, I'd bet serious money that the cost of
| development and maintenance of the interface would never pay itself back
| in sales. Unless, of course, it's done by volunteers. My question is:
| Why don't folks like "John Smith" get off their duffs and do it?
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On 9 May 2005 15:08:07 -0700, wrote:

From: Paul Keinanen on Sun,May 8 2005 11:54 pm

While a backplane would not be suitable for running the RF signals, it
would be a good idea to have a common control interface standard. This
might be some sort of serial interface or perhaps a CANbus interface
as used on some AMSAT satellites.

Who says a "backplane would not be suitable?" :-)
Those PC backplanes carry terribly broad spectra of
RF...from (literally) DC on up to the low microwaves.
No "perhaps" about it. Thing is, the layout can NOT
be done as if it were wire-wrap; i.e., in random
order of wire placement.

The PCI signals must run on transmission lines, since the receiver is
not activated by the for forward wave, which is reflected by the
mismatched end of transmission line and the receiver is only activated
by the combination of the forward and reflected wave. So indeed, the
layout is critical to get the signal through, even if no crosstalk
problems would exist.

With broadbanding anything,
every single adjacent trace becomes a COUPLER and
unwitting layouts can produce remarkable crosstalk
effects. Designers have known that for decades and
handle it...all kinds of Application Notes and info
out in public access available for anyone...just too
specialized for the "weekender" small-project
assembler hobbyist.

In a PC, the signals are all around a few volts, thus the crosstalk
problems are not so bad. In a radio receivers, the signal levels vary
from less than a microvolt to several volts, so the crosstalk issues
are much more demanding. Microstrip transmission lines would hardly be
enough, at least striplanes with grounded traces between the signal
conductors in the middle layer would be required, so the minimum would
be a 3 layer PCB.

The IEEE-488 is a mature standard for control and
interface for computer-controlled, interconnected
systems. Would be a bit TOO all-inclusive for a
special-purpose new design. The "interface" does
NOT have to be some kind of "new" thing used on the
latest whatever out in space.

The IEEE-488 requires a lot of signals and a complex handshaking, so
in practice, you would need an interface chip anyway.

The CANbus has been used in the automobile industry for more than a
decade. The CANbus has a nondestructive collision system, so this
makes it possible to have a true peer-to-peer communication system,
without complex protocols (such as token passing).

The AMSAT thing I was referring to is a standard PCB, with a size
about a D connector, with an interface chip on it and it has a few
digital signals. It is included in every module on the bigger AMSAT
birds. This bus structure greatly simplifies the wiring between
modules.

Paul OH3LWR

On Mon, 09 May 2005 16:17:59 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Then the question becomes, who will define, develop, and maintain the
software? I can tell you from experience that it's no easy matter to
keep any software working properly as new operating systems, protection
software, and hardware appear. Add the necessary hardware interface to
the equation and the job gets tougher yet. Oh, and what do you do when
key components of the interface become obsolete and no longer available?

There are large, well established operating system created and
maintained by volunteers. The problem with some special hardware is
often that the hardware interface specification is not publicly
available (as with some 3D graphics cards).

Writing a device driver for some radio modules would not be that hard,
provided that the module control is designed in a somewhat sensible
way. As long as the hardware interface specs are available for these
modules, the software is not going to be the show stopper.

Paul OH3LWR

From: Paul Keinanen on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

While a backplane would not be suitable for running the RF signals,
it
would be a good idea to have a common control interface standard.
This
might be some sort of serial interface or perhaps a CANbus interface

as used on some AMSAT satellites.

Who says a "backplane would not be suitable?" :-)
Those PC backplanes carry terribly broad spectra of
RF...from (literally) DC on up to the low microwaves.
No "perhaps" about it. Thing is, the layout can NOT
be done as if it were wire-wrap; i.e., in random
order of wire placement.

The PCI signals must run on transmission lines, since the receiver is
not activated by the for forward wave, which is reflected by the
mismatched end of transmission line and the receiver is only activated

by the combination of the forward and reflected wave. So indeed, the
layout is critical to get the signal through, even if no crosstalk
problems would exist.

But...there CAN be COUPLING there and that is, very
definitely, part of the layout. When mixed with
analog signals - as would be the case in a "radio" -
the layout can be critical.

In a PC, the signals are all around a few volts, thus the crosstalk
problems are not so bad.

Look again at the 3.3 V logic thresholds. :-)

In a radio receivers, the signal levels vary
from less than a microvolt to several volts, so the crosstalk issues
are much more demanding.

I will disagree on radio receivers on such wide dynamic
ranges. "Several volts" INTO a receiver front end?
No. Such levels aren't encountered in practical
locations and would, definitely, cause enough IM
that would create much distortion and spur products.

In radio transmitters, YES, but those stages can be
individually shielded and thus isolated...do NOT
need to be close to the control lines...or even need
control lines (in the case of an amplifier block).

Microstrip transmission lines would hardly be
enough, at least striplanes with grounded traces between the signal
conductors in the middle layer would be required, so the minimum would

be a 3 layer PCB.

Not the case in practical RF structures done in
the last three decades. [been there, done that,
got lots of T-shirts] It is BETTER to have good
stripline and microstrip as opposed to "ordinary"
PC layout, but that isn't an absolute necessity.


The IEEE-488 requires a lot of signals and a complex handshaking, so
in practice, you would need an interface chip anyway.

That was cited solely as an example of something
that IS mature and used daily in radio-electronics
testing.

The CANbus has been used in the automobile industry for more than a
decade. The CANbus has a nondestructive collision system, so this
makes it possible to have a true peer-to-peer communication system,
without complex protocols (such as token passing).

IF and only if this SDR of the future NEEDS micro-
computer control...or even modular microcontroller
sub-systems.

Trying to use an EXISTING computer interface system
isn't always good because that system has worked for
a decade-plus. While automotive computer interface
system speeds are increasing with increasing control
demands, radios aren't quite vehicles. The control
needs aren't quite the same.

The AMSAT thing I was referring to is a standard PCB, with a size
about a D connector, with an interface chip on it and it has a few
digital signals. It is included in every module on the bigger AMSAT
birds. This bus structure greatly simplifies the wiring between
modules.

I've had hands-in on earlier unmanned spacecraft but
understand the principles...which are similar to the
interface chips for things like USB adapters to work
with Serial or Parallel port peripherals with PCs.
One SOC (System On a Chip) that is essentially a
dedicated mircocontroler is all that is needed.
[FTDI makes those chips, Mouser sells them]

What you describe is more like an outgrowth of the
existing microcontroller adaptation to amateur
radio (and, more, to commercial radio) equipments.
The front panel controls are coupled (mostly) via
DC lines to the actual signal controls on PC boards
to reduce the mechanical complexity...which allows
greater freedom of layout and compactness.
[positive attributes for spacecraft as well]

My "ancient" Icom R-70 receiver has a central
microprocessor doing a great number of control
tasks...and does have some external control
capability through a rear connector. At about
two decades old, that's just one example of what
already existed - in radios - some time ago and
still does. Modern amateur transceivers usually
have two microcontrollers. Some of those allow
external control and a few are entirely controlled
externally. The basics have already been laid
down for the SDR system on what CAN work.

What is lacking is STANDARDIZATION. That can't be
worked out in newsgroups, but requires much more
organization...and willingness to compromise
(almost impossible in newsgroups, heh heh). See
any of the industrial standards (EIA, AES, etc.
in the USA) which are the first steps towards
making ANYTHING "plug and play." Example: The
Cannon "D" connector was on the market in the
early 1950s. A combination of factors made it a
practical connector line used in many electronic
things. Eventually, it became so common in the
USA that it was Standardized in shape, materials,
dimensions, etc., despite the original company
changing in corporate evolution. Wide use made
it "standard." The 25-pin and 9-pin D connectors
are on practically every PC today...as they were
in the beginning of the PC in 1981.

Standardization isn't anywhere close to reality
for SDR now. Nobody can seem to agree on WHAT
range of control is needed, let alone details of
the controlling interface signals. :-) That
might work itself out later.

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

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 KØCJ

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 KØCJ

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.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

-exray- wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:


I was a volunteer advisor for the Lake county Florida Vo-Tec
electronics program, till it was shut down. Right now I am trying to
find the money to finish repairs to my four car garage and convert it
into a 1200 sq ft electronics shop to teach basic electronics to the
kids who are still interested. Its not easy when you're 100% disabled
and living on a tiny pension, but I don't give up too easy.

Good luck with finding money for your garage. Sorry about Vo-tech
shutting down and your your disability and tiny pension.
Was there anything positive you wanted to say?

-Bill

In case you missed it, I was saying that I don't let these things get
me down. I find something to keep me busy. I could be like a lot of
people I've met recently who throw up their hands and give up on
everything, but I'm not like that.

The diabilty stops me from climbing ladders or carrying anything
heavy so I bought a large cart to move things around the shop and house.

The small pension makes me consider what I want to spend money on
rather than just write a check while knowing that I had a wad of money
in the bank to cover it, so it didn't matter.

Life goes on, if you let it. :-)

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Michael,

If you don't mind my asking, what sort of professional electron wrangling did
you do prior to becoming disabled?

Good luck on converting your garage... I think there's a good chance you can
get a decent amount of equipment and supplies donated once it's clear (to the
outside world) that you're serious about what you're doing.

----Joel

John Smith wrote:

You miss the point, I expect the cards to cover the planet... our present
way of thinking enslaves us to "our beloved componet" or, "our beloved
manufacturer", time for a change...


You can't see the forest for the trees. There isn't a big enough
market for what you want to EVER bring the price down to a reasonable
level. You can't do anything without some initial specifications. You
have to do research on available parts, cost to tool up the metalwork,
and liability for your design. You mention a "PA" implying a transmitter
module. You talk about "manufactures of the modules" This brings the
FCC, UL, and other testing costs and problems. You have no idea what you
are talking about, unless you have worked to design a modular system.
It can easily triple the cost of the design. Then there is software
compatibility. You have to set strict standards for each module, or one
"X" module won't work with someone else's "Y" module. How about the
GUI? who is going to write a new one for every combination of modules?
Or do you plan on having a couple dozen separate programs on screen at a
time for each function?

have you ever designed a complete radio system?

I suspect, in the future problems will arise and be delt with--just recently
I had to do a "kludge" and replace a 6cw4 with a fet... who knows what
"fixes" will be forced on those of the future...


I'm all too familiar with finding replacements for obsolete parts.
Both in manufacturing and repair. There is a mature product on the
production line. Purchasing comes running to the production manager to
tell them that the last manufacturer of a line of components has just
dropped the whole line, and we missed the "Lifetime buy" option by a
couple days. Do you drop the product, or do you redesign it? DO you
spend days or weeks tracking down surplus parts through a broker that
may or may not be good, and risk bad PR when they have a high failure
rate in the field? Been there, done that. The tee shirt was NLA.

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


There is your problem. You want a fast cure for every perceived
problem.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

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!!!

Kinda like Mac's and IBM's, yanno.

Lets face it, it is most difficult to buy American computer boards, memory,
etc--these radios would be the same... the computers are already made there,
we would just be giving them one more task...

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| You miss the point, I expect the cards to cover the planet... our
present
| way of thinking enslaves us to "our beloved componet" or, "our beloved
| manufacturer", time for a change...
|
|
| You can't see the forest for the trees. There isn't a big enough
| market for what you want to EVER bring the price down to a reasonable
| level. You can't do anything without some initial specifications. You
| have to do research on available parts, cost to tool up the metalwork,
| and liability for your design. You mention a "PA" implying a transmitter
| module. You talk about "manufactures of the modules" This brings the
| FCC, UL, and other testing costs and problems. You have no idea what you
| are talking about, unless you have worked to design a modular system.
| It can easily triple the cost of the design. Then there is software
| compatibility. You have to set strict standards for each module, or one
| "X" module won't work with someone else's "Y" module. How about the
| GUI? who is going to write a new one for every combination of modules?
| Or do you plan on having a couple dozen separate programs on screen at a
| time for each function?
|
| have you ever designed a complete radio system?
|
| I suspect, in the future problems will arise and be delt with--just
recently
| I had to do a "kludge" and replace a 6cw4 with a fet... who knows what
| "fixes" will be forced on those of the future...
|
|
| I'm all too familiar with finding replacements for obsolete parts.
| Both in manufacturing and repair. There is a mature product on the
| production line. Purchasing comes running to the production manager to
| tell them that the last manufacturer of a line of components has just
| dropped the whole line, and we missed the "Lifetime buy" option by a
| couple days. Do you drop the product, or do you redesign it? DO you
| spend days or weeks tracking down surplus parts through a broker that
| may or may not be good, and risk bad PR when they have a high failure
| rate in the field? Been there, done that. The tee shirt was NLA.
|
| Warmest regards,
| John
| --
| When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!
|
|
| There is your problem. You want a fast cure for every perceived
| problem.
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

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.

Then there's the Feature Creep character, who specifies user
requirements to people like Dilbert... and Roy.

Dilbert: "Your requirements list includes 400 features.
No human would be able to use a product with that level of complexity."

FC: "Good point. I'd better add 'Easy to use'."


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)

http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek... temporarily offline while changing ISP

On 10 May 2005 13:59:13 -0700, wrote:

From: Paul Keinanen on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

In a radio receivers, the signal levels vary
from less than a microvolt to several volts, so the crosstalk issues
are much more demanding.

I will disagree on radio receivers on such wide dynamic
ranges. "Several volts" INTO a receiver front end?
No. Such levels aren't encountered in practical
locations and would, definitely, cause enough IM
that would create much distortion and spur products.

Look at a multitransmitter contest site with one transmitter on each
band, the voltage induced to the receiving antennas for other bands
can be quite large. Of course, in a competent receiver design only the
frequency band of interest is filtered out before processing. However,
if the antenna is connected directly to the backplane and the modules
do their own filtering, the large composite signal on the backplane
will radiate all around the system.

In non-contest sites large wire or log-periodic antennas can collect a
quite large signal voltage (in the order of 0 dBm, 220 mV or more).

Also if the final IF is within or below the receiver tuning range and
a diode ring mixer is used as the SSB demodulator with +7 or +17 dBm,
you must keep this BFO signal and harmonics from entering the front
end.

The CANbus has been used in the automobile industry for more than a
decade. The CANbus has a nondestructive collision system, so this
makes it possible to have a true peer-to-peer communication system,
without complex protocols (such as token passing).

IF and only if this SDR of the future NEEDS micro-
computer control...or even modular microcontroller
sub-systems.

Trying to use an EXISTING computer interface system
isn't always good because that system has worked for
a decade-plus. While automotive computer interface
system speeds are increasing with increasing control
demands, radios aren't quite vehicles. The control
needs aren't quite the same.

Even the SDR is going to need some switchable front end band pass
filters in order to survive in the hostile RF environment these days
with a lot of strong signals even in ordinary sites.

In transceivers, there would be several points that would need
switching.

I used the CANbus as an example, since the cable can be tens or
hundreds of meters long depending on speed and thus, it could be used
to control some internal points in a transceiver as well as wire all
devices in the ham shack as well as in the tower. For instance, the
same controller could control the antenna rotator, command the antenna
preamplifier to bypass mode, turn the transvertter into transmit mode,
select the VFO frequency for transmit (in split operation) and finally
turn the transmitter on.


examples of previous control systems deleted

The basics have already been laid
down for the SDR system on what CAN work.

What is lacking is STANDARDIZATION.

This is definitely a big problem.

That can't be worked out in newsgroups,

A newsgroup is a good place for open ended discussions between people
with experience in quite different fields. This can generate quite
different ideas (some useful, most less usable) than a "business as
usual" attitude. It is a good idea to have a lot of new ideas to chose
from than having no new ideas at all.

but requires much more organization...

Writing a formal specification may require some formal organisation,
but on the other hand quite a few successful RFCs in the IT sector are
written by a single person or a small group.

and willingness to compromise

That is the problem in formal committees, in which most delegates from
various vendors have large commercial interests in the subject and in
order to be able to produce even some kind of standard, all features
from various vendors are included. This makes the final standard hard
to implement properly or each manufacturer is implementing only a
subset of the complex standard and thus, there is no real guarantee
that two devices would actually communicate, even if both claim
compatibility with xxxx standard (remember the RS-232 "standard" :-).

Paul OH3LWR

John Smith wrote:

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...


Have you ever looked at the schematic for the Apple II? It was bases
on the MOS technology 6502 processor and support chips. Its probably
the simplest "Computer" ever sold and most of the design was in the IC
data books, just like the original IBM PC was quite close to a sample
design published by Intel. The only real difference was that the design
was broken up into modules. Neither of the original designs were
anything to brag about. Monochrome displays, Apple's half assed
"custom" floppy disk interface that threw away most of the capacity to
keep it cheap. The PC was shipped with a cassette interface and no
floppy drive. It had BASIC in ROM, and was fairly useless until floppy
and hard drives were available to do any real work.

If you think this is an easy project its time to put up, or shut up.
Design your simple, "It'll sell billions" project and prove everyone
wrong, or just shut up.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida