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

"gb" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
| 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!!!!
|
| Your comments are interesting. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the
| amateur market did begin down this road.
|
| Look at: The Heathkit SB-104(A) and the Yaesu FT-ONE. there were a
number
| of "lessons learned" from those experiences - but the "state of the art"
has
| also moved from "thru-hole" construction to surface mount.
|
| This concept is not unique to amateur radio, network equipment
manufacturers
| have gone back and forth between "chassis based" equipment and "appliance"
| at least 5 times over past 20 years. Each has their unique attributes,
| advantages and disadvantages ....
|
| w9gb
|
|

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

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

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

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'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

.... 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
|
|

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