Roy Lewallen ) writes:
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.

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 really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

He gave the impression of being someone who'd been here before,
though at least it wasn't cross-posted to the UK newsgroup.

It just struck me as "well what's it doing here?". This newsgroup
isn't about commercial equipment, though we seem to have a slow
slide to where such things do appear here. Yet the poster seemed
to be talking about commercial equipment, and whether or not
that was the point, making your own equipment shouldn't be quite
about building a copy of something someone else built.

Had he posted in rec.radio.amateur.equipment I think perhaps
the tone of the response should be different. But here, at
the very least it should be a discussion of modularization rather
than subject header that is bound to alienate, and an expectation
of how things should be.

The talk of modularization, which seems better fitted to radio
than "plug in boards", has been discussed quite a bit over the years.
But of course, rather than some universal system (which has had
some articles in the ham magazines) the focus has been on breaking
things down to smaller portions so you can experiment, or you
can change things without having to change everything. And yes,
solid state devices, because of their small size, low price and
even function allows a better implementation. When you can
switch with DC it is much easier to do modularization than if
you have to have everything hanging off a bandswitch.

Michael VE2BVW

Hmmm, I thought it "right in line."

If such equip. was adopted, then just as with computers, you could
buy/cut/etch a "card" with the expectation it could be inserted right into
the bus of that radio and function, taking on responsibilities--for say an
audio amp (just as that EXACT capability exists with a computer bus)....

Indeed, this idea does NOT bypass homebrewers, it encourages them and
provides them MUCH more opportunity to participate in constructing their own
equip.... I see it as EMPOWERING homebrewers--far from the opposite!!!

Indeed, if some were as gifted as all that, they need only buy the case and
some foil boards/components--when they emerged from the basement--I'd expect
to see a radio of their OWN design in their hands!!!

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

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
|
| Roy Lewallen ) writes:
| 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.
|
| 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 really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| He gave the impression of being someone who'd been here before,
| though at least it wasn't cross-posted to the UK newsgroup.
|
| It just struck me as "well what's it doing here?". This newsgroup
| isn't about commercial equipment, though we seem to have a slow
| slide to where such things do appear here. Yet the poster seemed
| to be talking about commercial equipment, and whether or not
| that was the point, making your own equipment shouldn't be quite
| about building a copy of something someone else built.
|
| Had he posted in rec.radio.amateur.equipment I think perhaps
| the tone of the response should be different. But here, at
| the very least it should be a discussion of modularization rather
| than subject header that is bound to alienate, and an expectation
| of how things should be.
|
| The talk of modularization, which seems better fitted to radio
| than "plug in boards", has been discussed quite a bit over the years.
| But of course, rather than some universal system (which has had
| some articles in the ham magazines) the focus has been on breaking
| things down to smaller portions so you can experiment, or you
| can change things without having to change everything. And yes,
| solid state devices, because of their small size, low price and
| even function allows a better implementation. When you can
| switch with DC it is much easier to do modularization than if
| you have to have everything hanging off a bandswitch.
|
| Michael VE2BVW
|
|

I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Quite agree, particularly since the "idea" was so poorly thought out to
begin with. Personally, I'd be glad to own a box that was seriously better
in performance that any current offering, even if it were spread all over
the table and housed in a cardboard box. I'd then be wishing all my
neighbors had one as well so I wouldn't be stuck with THEIR radios
shortcomings. Even be willing to buy the things for the two closest ones.

W4ZCB

.... make sure you see my post, above, it points out what you missed...

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

"Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message
news:bUtfe.66752$c24.56615@attbi_s72...
|
|
| I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| Quite agree, particularly since the "idea" was so poorly thought out to
| begin with. Personally, I'd be glad to own a box that was seriously better
| in performance that any current offering, even if it were spread all over
| the table and housed in a cardboard box. I'd then be wishing all my
| neighbors had one as well so I wouldn't be stuck with THEIR radios
| shortcomings. Even be willing to buy the things for the two closest ones.
|
| W4ZCB
|
|

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 -

On Sun, 08 May 2005 12:23:14 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:



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 really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


I don't know about the 'caustic comment', but I believe the OP has a
serious lack of understanding about both manufacturing and marketing.
The radios we use today are extremely complex and sophisticated.
Keeping everything from interacting and interfering with each other
inside seems to be a challenge for engineers. How much more a
challenge would a radio as he suggested be? Also, from a marketing
stand point, has he noticed how Kenwood and Icom connections are so
very different? The manufacturers don't want users using many outside
options. And what about the cost of adding all those connections for
the competitors to add modules? Who gets to pay for all that? If you
do get one, how do you know it won't draw too much current and burn up
something else, interact with another component causing RFI, or
what-have-you?

If there should be progress, it should be in the software operation of
these rigs. I believe there is much progress there, although in
regards to the 706 line, Icom does have some room for improvement.

just my opinion...

Buck
--
For what it's worth.

Ahhhh, the *others* just don't understand you meant that in "the best
possible way", I do...

Actually, I agree with you!!! Well, as long as you didn't include me in
that "*other* lazy bum" of yours... grin

Warmest regards,
John
--
I AM ONE-IN-A-MILLION!!!!!
Too bad the other 999,999 got there first.. frown

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
| . . .
| Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!
|
| Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?
|
| I sure seem to hear that a lot.
|
| Some *other* lazy bum oughtta get off his duff and do it.
|
| Why don't you do it? If the problem is that you don't have the technical
| know-how, well, how do you think those people who have it, got it? By
| being lazy?
|
| Typing a few sentences and hitting Send sure is easier than studying,
| isn't it?
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"John Smith" wrote:

Decades have brought us moon landing, mars landings,masers, lasers, lets,
fets, mosfets, computers, etc...

But the shape of radio equip. has remained virtually stagnant.

One "innovation" would be to just copy what the IBM clone has taught us.

Build a radio of "cards." Just like the computer, a standard case which you
can plugin various power supplies, frontend board "cards", intermediate
board "cards", buffer amp board "cards", IF board "cards", audio board
"cards", xmitter board "cards", final amp board "cards", etc.... I think
you get the pic

One radio case can/could virtually be any radio you can imagine.... new
design in a frontend? Plug in a new front end "card", new audio offering?
Plug in a new audio board "card."

Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!

Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?

Warmest regards,
John

Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be
made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed.

Russ
--
Russ
"Two-fifteen, no ambulance needed!" (G. J. Golden, ECPD)
Subtract all nines to reply

Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!

Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?

Warmest regards,
John

Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be
made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed.

Russ

Actually, sounds a lot more like the Elecraft K2. Nothing new with the
approach. Better spent, would be the time and effort to improve the
operational performance. In-band dynamic range could stand some improvement,
and oscillator phase noise is an abomination both on RX and TX of most every
radio out there. Someone COULD, if only he would. Too busy dreaming up
defunct ideas.

W4ZCB

wrote in message
...
"John Smith" wrote:

Decades have brought us moon landing, mars landings,masers, lasers, lets,
fets, mosfets, computers, etc...

But the shape of radio equip. has remained virtually stagnant.

One "innovation" would be to just copy what the IBM clone has taught us.

Build a radio of "cards." Just like the computer, a standard case which
you
can plugin various power supplies, frontend board "cards", intermediate
board "cards", buffer amp board "cards", IF board "cards", audio board
"cards", xmitter board "cards", final amp board "cards", etc.... I think
you get the pic

One radio case can/could virtually be any radio you can imagine.... new
design in a frontend? Plug in a new front end "card", new audio offering?
Plug in a new audio board "card."

Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!

Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?

Warmest regards,
John

Sounds just like a Drake TR-7. Too bad there isn't enough money to be
made to the ham market to have allowed this to be developed.

Russ

I, too, suspect that it does indeed come down to market forces.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE