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