.... 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
|
|

"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

Tim:



I agree, there is a "divergence" of most other devices, with radio in the
"lag."



The technology of the 1920's-1930's has been bypassed--we are too late to
halt progress at that point--the question is--do we wish to halt radio
technology at this point--realizing--we will NOT halt those around us... in
the end, leaving us, really, no choice anyway...



Name a large business still using calculators and slide rules, as opposed to
the computer, and you will point out that what I am stating is a fallacy...



Warmest regards,

John

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

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
| 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 would think there must be some EXCELLENT argument/reasoning serving as
a
| road block, or else, others are simply going to pass us by...
|
| John
|
| I've considered this sort of a radio before. There are a few problems,
| however:
|
| First, there is a fundamental difference between digital systems and
| analog systems that prevents this sort of thing working with the success
| of a PC.
|
| 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.
|
| In this way the radio market is more like the market for computing
| devices as a whole. The PC market doesn't account for the most
| processors sold, or even the most dollars of all computing devices. The
| largest segment of the market is in embedded computing devices ranging
| from things as visible and obvious as your PDA, through cell phones, and
| down to burglar alarms and TV remotes. Take apart a new home thermostat
| or TV remote and there's a good chance that you'll find a processor that
| implements most of its functionality in software -- but a very slim
| chance indeed that its PC compatible!
|
| --
|
| Tim Wescott
| Wescott Design Services
| http://www.wescottdesign.com

Exactly my point....

We break into two groups of thought here...

Halt at this point, and lay all plans on that halting (and, if ALL the
others don't agree--be bypassed anyway)...

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

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...

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!

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
| 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 -

I can get a TV card for my computer, I can get software to make my computer
a cd/dvd player, I can get hardware/software to replace my stereo,
etc...--I, along with the rest of the world, have not gone this route
yet--perhaps in the future... I am open to this...

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

"Mike Coslo" 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?
|
| 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.
|
| Personally, I don't think that the PC computer paradigm is any way to
| go. It's just how PC's evolved. Despite years of progress, plug and play
| is not universal, and just another PC promise.
|
| - Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

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!!!

As others have (I think) pointed out, there are some very valid
technical and regulatory problems which might make this approach less
than popular.

Here in the U.S., at least, transmitters in most of the radio services
have to be "certificated" (previously "type accepted") by their
manufacturer, demonstrating that they comply with the operational and
emissions rules for that service. In these services, almost any
physical modification of the radio will invalidate the certification,
and make it technically illegal to use it to transmit. Modifications
which don't violate the certification can only be made by technicians
or organizations with a specific license, and (I believe) may require
a significant amount of re-testing to demonstrate that the radio still
meets the requirements.

The FCC rules don't provide for the arbitrary swapping around of radio
cards in such transmitters.

Also, there's a tradeoff between modularity, and cost/performance.
The more modular a radio (or computer) is, the greater the number of
gozintas and comesoutas (i.e. signal connectors, busses, etc.). These
add cost, they decrease reliability (compared to a soldered
connection), and they limit the degree to which one can take advantage
of increasing degrees of device integration at the chip level.

The highly-modular PC infrastructure has gotten to where it is, in
terms of price and flexibility, because of the extremely large number
of units produced - there's a lot of "economy of scale". This is due
in large part to the fact that consumer, business, and industrial
applications can all use the same architectures. People have also
been extremely eager to take advantage of higher-performance
components and have been willing to accept relatively short product
lifetimes as a result... and this increases the demand for a "change
out part of the system and keep the rest" solution which demands
modularity.

I don't think that the same environment exists for radios. Commercial
and public-safety radios have a long lifetime, they have the need for
physical ruggedness which may discourage the use of a "plug-in"
architecture with lots of connectors that can shake loose, they're
rather cost-sensitive, and for regulatory reasons they probably cannot
adopt a "Users may change out components" architecture.

In these radio services, a "You buy it, and it never changes"
shrink-wrapped monolithic radio design simply makes more business and
economic sense.

Things may become a bit more friendly in this regard, at least for
base stations, with the newer "software defined radio" architectures.
However, in commercial and business services, the FCC insists that the
systems be designed and built in a way which prevents users from
making arbitrary changes to the configuration which could violate
regulations. One example of this is the Atheros 802.11a/b/c wireless
radio cards... their behavior is very strongly defined by their
firmware, and the vendor says that they *cannot* release the firmware
or low-level drivers in source-code form for fear of violating the
FCC's software-radio rules.

Frankly, I think that the amateur radio service is probably one of the
few services (and perhaps the only one) in which a general-purpose
"radio card plug-in" architecture or system could be generally useful,
and the resulting radios would probably be significantly more
expensive than monolithic-board or proprietary-bus radios of similar
capabilities.

Due to the limited size of this market (compared to business and
public safety) I doubt that you'll see the big manufacturers invest
the time and money required to develop and promote and market such an
architecture. No sense in their doing so. Without the leverage of
being able to use the same technology in other radio services, it's be
a big investment for no return.

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!!!

And there, I think, you've defined the only market to which such an
architecture would be strongly attractive - hobbyists.

There might be enough of a community there to support the development
of such an architecture, just as there are communities supporting the
GNU software radio, the RockMite, and other specialized radios.

Feel free to propose a design, John Smith! If it's as overwhelmingly
good an idea as you seem to think, maybe it'll take over the world by
storm!

In short, John, I don't think it's fair to say that there has been "no
progress". Rather, I'd say that things haven't gone in the direction
you suggest, because your solution is one which solves a problem which
most people don't feel is worth solving, and comes with a cost that
most people don't care to pay.

--
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!

Is it "open source" and do they encourage others to innovate off their
platform, if not, totally different idea then what I present/envision...
can you buy just a case and basic powersupply?

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

"Pipex News Server" wrote in message
...
| 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
|
|

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

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| John Smith wrote:
|
| 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!!!
|
| As others have (I think) pointed out, there are some very valid
| technical and regulatory problems which might make this approach less
| than popular.
|
| Here in the U.S., at least, transmitters in most of the radio services
| have to be "certificated" (previously "type accepted") by their
| manufacturer, demonstrating that they comply with the operational and
| emissions rules for that service. In these services, almost any
| physical modification of the radio will invalidate the certification,
| and make it technically illegal to use it to transmit. Modifications
| which don't violate the certification can only be made by technicians
| or organizations with a specific license, and (I believe) may require
| a significant amount of re-testing to demonstrate that the radio still
| meets the requirements.
|
| The FCC rules don't provide for the arbitrary swapping around of radio
| cards in such transmitters.
|
| Also, there's a tradeoff between modularity, and cost/performance.
| The more modular a radio (or computer) is, the greater the number of
| gozintas and comesoutas (i.e. signal connectors, busses, etc.). These
| add cost, they decrease reliability (compared to a soldered
| connection), and they limit the degree to which one can take advantage
| of increasing degrees of device integration at the chip level.
|
| The highly-modular PC infrastructure has gotten to where it is, in
| terms of price and flexibility, because of the extremely large number
| of units produced - there's a lot of "economy of scale". This is due
| in large part to the fact that consumer, business, and industrial
| applications can all use the same architectures. People have also
| been extremely eager to take advantage of higher-performance
| components and have been willing to accept relatively short product
| lifetimes as a result... and this increases the demand for a "change
| out part of the system and keep the rest" solution which demands
| modularity.
|
| I don't think that the same environment exists for radios. Commercial
| and public-safety radios have a long lifetime, they have the need for
| physical ruggedness which may discourage the use of a "plug-in"
| architecture with lots of connectors that can shake loose, they're
| rather cost-sensitive, and for regulatory reasons they probably cannot
| adopt a "Users may change out components" architecture.
|
| In these radio services, a "You buy it, and it never changes"
| shrink-wrapped monolithic radio design simply makes more business and
| economic sense.
|
| Things may become a bit more friendly in this regard, at least for
| base stations, with the newer "software defined radio" architectures.
| However, in commercial and business services, the FCC insists that the
| systems be designed and built in a way which prevents users from
| making arbitrary changes to the configuration which could violate
| regulations. One example of this is the Atheros 802.11a/b/c wireless
| radio cards... their behavior is very strongly defined by their
| firmware, and the vendor says that they *cannot* release the firmware
| or low-level drivers in source-code form for fear of violating the
| FCC's software-radio rules.
|
| Frankly, I think that the amateur radio service is probably one of the
| few services (and perhaps the only one) in which a general-purpose
| "radio card plug-in" architecture or system could be generally useful,
| and the resulting radios would probably be significantly more
| expensive than monolithic-board or proprietary-bus radios of similar
| capabilities.
|
| Due to the limited size of this market (compared to business and
| public safety) I doubt that you'll see the big manufacturers invest
| the time and money required to develop and promote and market such an
| architecture. No sense in their doing so. Without the leverage of
| being able to use the same technology in other radio services, it's be
| a big investment for no return.
|
| 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!!!
|
| And there, I think, you've defined the only market to which such an
| architecture would be strongly attractive - hobbyists.
|
| There might be enough of a community there to support the development
| of such an architecture, just as there are communities supporting the
| GNU software radio, the RockMite, and other specialized radios.
|
| Feel free to propose a design, John Smith! If it's as overwhelmingly
| good an idea as you seem to think, maybe it'll take over the world by
| storm!
|
| In short, John, I don't think it's fair to say that there has been "no
| progress". Rather, I'd say that things haven't gone in the direction
| you suggest, because your solution is one which solves a problem which
| most people don't feel is worth solving, and comes with a cost that
| most people don't care to pay.
|
| --
| 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!

John Smith wrote:


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-

I don't know you "Mr. Smith" or have any bone to pick with you but I use
filters to avoid what I find as either offensive or provocative.
I invoke enough cat-fights of my own on Usenet and don't need to be
drawn into others. Some posters have a tendency to attract fire, and I
have a weakness to jump in sometimes. I'd really rather just avoid it.
My sanity and blood-pressure will be the better. So, thats why I
filter out the provocateurs if I feel that strongly.

My filters don't prevent anyone from saying what they want to say. But
historically, some posters can be counted upon to say what I'd rather
not have to read and wind up being diverted from the topic or grappling
to bite my tongue, etc. Its easier just to filter them away. Call me
Ostrich-Man. Its my means of finding satisfaction with Usenet.

For my part, feel free to choose to speak. And respect my freedom to
choose whether or not to listen.

-Bill M

Ohhh, well, you are correct. I am rather blind to "politics" and come from
areas where new thought, conversation--indeed, even argument and debate are
encouraged and viewed as "good things."

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...

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...

A silent discussion is beneficial to no one... and certainly don't view
such as desirable!

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

"-exray-" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
|
| 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-
|
| I don't know you "Mr. Smith" or have any bone to pick with you but I use
| filters to avoid what I find as either offensive or provocative.
| I invoke enough cat-fights of my own on Usenet and don't need to be
| drawn into others. Some posters have a tendency to attract fire, and I
| have a weakness to jump in sometimes. I'd really rather just avoid it.
| My sanity and blood-pressure will be the better. So, thats why I
| filter out the provocateurs if I feel that strongly.
|
| My filters don't prevent anyone from saying what they want to say. But
| historically, some posters can be counted upon to say what I'd rather
| not have to read and wind up being diverted from the topic or grappling
| to bite my tongue, etc. Its easier just to filter them away. Call me
| Ostrich-Man. Its my means of finding satisfaction with Usenet.
|
| For my part, feel free to choose to speak. And respect my freedom to
| choose whether or not to listen.
|
| -Bill M