Wes Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote:


Roy Lewallen wrote:

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?

So it would appear is attacking another's comment .


Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired
of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any
software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental
filter.

You might want to check out the idea of filtering. Cleans up the
newsgroups right fine.

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
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...

When there are as many functional radios (or "cards") hitting the dumpster
as there are functional computers and related equip. (replaced with
upgrades) we will know the right idea has prevailed and radio has come
home...

I hope you are kidding, John. That is the absolutely worst part of the
PC paradigm. Thousands of perfectly good electronics thrown out, often
made obsolete due to software that is bloated and poorly written (mostly
OS software. At least old radios are still useable

I would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as a
road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by...

The PC paradigm is a poor one, and not to be emulated. PC's will
finally be mature when we don't have to replace them on almost a yearly
basis. At that point, software writers will be able to write good software.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:23:22 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote:

Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired
of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any
software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental
filter.

You might want to check out the idea of filtering. Cleans up the
newsgroups right fine.

I use Free Agent. It doesn't do filtering, but as I said, I turn on my
mental filter that says, "When you see a post by 'John Smith'", ignore
it. I used the same filter for "Fractenna." Works fine.

You can get a software defined radio. Front end, and pipe it into your
computer, and there ya go! Ten Tec also manufactured the Pegasus a few
years back, close to what you are thinking of.
=======================
The Ten Tec Pegasus is very much alive . It is now called Jupiter ( the
Pegasus with 'knobbed' front panel and a display and a nice enclosure like
other traditionally looking radios)

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

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

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

To make a positive posting about why the "board" receiver doesn't exist.
.. . First, I consider my PC. While my very first PC had a bunch of
cards, my current one has none except the RAM. The video adapter,
Ethernet capability, sound system, modem, serial, parallel, and USB
ports are all on a single board, built in.

Why? Simple -- it's cheaper.

I worked at Tektronix for many years. During that time, Tek made both
portable scopes and laboratory scopes, the latter having a mainframe and
plug in modules. For a given configuration with the same features, the
lab scope was always considerably more expensive than the equivalent
portable. Why? Well, the lab scope was always overdesigned for any
particular job. The bandwidth of the interface had to handle the highest
frequency plugin. The power supplies had to handle the highest current
plugins, in any combination -- enough current at 5 volts for a digital
analyzer plugin, enough higher supply voltage current for a spectrum
analyzer plugin, and so forth. There had to be enough connector pins and
supporting circuitry to handle all possible controls on all possible
plugins. No single configuration ever used more than a fraction of the
built-in mainframe capability. While the portable scope's stages could
have optimal gain, in the lab scopes, the signals always had to be
normalized to the levels specified for the interface. This often
required an extra stage or two for each of the signals being passed
(vertical, Z axis, horizontal, and many controls). Power supplies had to
be decoupled in each plugin at the interface. And finally, good quality,
reliable connectors are much more difficult to find, much more expensive
to buy than you'd think -- and even so, they can easily be the least
reliable components in the system.

Then there's the problem of trying to predict what would be developed in
the future when you design the mainframe, so you can build in the
necessary interface circuitry. And every new plugin (I've designed them)
has to be compatible with every tweak and trick used by all plugins in
the past which it might be used with.

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

Yes, I use my filter too--and support and expect others to use them as they
see fit... I certainly do mine!!! I can help if some are having
difficulty; I support filtering and have an understanding how to apply
them...



However, the very vocal ones--I am always left wondering if they really are
remarking about filtering their own content--or their wish to filter the
content of others (and, for what purpose would they do this?)... if that
goes on too far (controlling others), yanno, it leads to attempted thought
control--a guy wrote a book about that--George Orwell... Was that in 1984,
or was that about 1984? .. anyway, if you ask me--he was more a prophet,
some have already grown to accept what he (we?) feared...


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

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 08 May 2005 14:23:22 -0400, Mike Coslo
| wrote:
|
| Wes Stewart wrote:
| On Sun, 08 May 2005 18:39:36 +1000, atec wrote:
|
| Perhaps it is because Roy is, like your's truly, getting a bit tired
| of seeing "John Smith's" conversations with himself. I don't use any
| software filters on my newsreader but I've sure engaged a mental
| filter.
|
| You might want to check out the idea of filtering. Cleans up the
| newsgroups right fine.
|
| I use Free Agent. It doesn't do filtering, but as I said, I turn on my
| mental filter that says, "When you see a post by 'John Smith'", ignore
| it. I used the same filter for "Fractenna." Works fine.
|
|

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
|
|