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

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
|
|

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!

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:

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

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

I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

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

W4ZCB

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

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

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

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


Yoiks, Roy! That was a little caustic wasn't it?

- Mike KB3EIA -


I do tend to be that way. And because of the couple of negative comments
about my posting I've thought it over a fair amount to see if, on
reflection, I think it was out of line.

But I don't think so, unless I mininterpreted what "John Smith" said.
What he seemed to be saying is that he has this great idea, and the only
reason it's not being impelemented is that *the other people* are too
lazy to do it.

welllll, I think there is another reason that it hasn't been
implemented. It is one of those ideas that sound kinda good, but would
end up creating more problems than it would solve.

As one of the "other people", I find it kind of insulting. Do you really
think his is a valid point of view, that everyone else should jump up
and implement his great idea, while this anonymous person's job is to
tell us what we should do?

I dunno. In my fields I get a *lot* of commentary and
suggestions-sometimes things I've tried long ago and discarded because
they simply don't work, or is talking about.

Which reminds me of a story about FDR....

During WWII, FDR had an important meeting with Stalin. Eleanor
Roosevelt often sat in on these meetings. Stalin Told FDR "It is of
vital importance that America increase aid to Russia, and decrease aid
to Great Britain. It is with us that the most important battles are
being fought."

FDR stroked his chin thoughtfully and said, "Josef, you're absolutely
right!"

An hour later, Winston Churchill also had a meeting with FDR. Churchill
noted, " It is imperative that aid to Britain be increased, even if you
have to reduce aid to Stalin. Our front is the most critical of the war".

FDR took a drag from his famous cigarette in its holder, and said,
"Winston, you're absolutely right!"

After Churchill left, Eleanor came over to him in a huff. "Franklin,
those two men came to you with exact opposite demands, and you just told
them both "You're absolutely right." That's wrong!"

FDR looked at her, smiled, and said, "Eleanor, you're absolutely right!"

Point is I could get irritated and angry with them, but there isn't
much point.

I really do think that a caustic comment was appropriate.

You're absolutely right! 8^)

Just kidding Roy!!!!!

I was just a little surprised, because it seemed out of character. No
big deal

- Mike KB3EIA -