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

John Smith wrote:

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...


You can't see the forest for the trees. There isn't a big enough
market for what you want to EVER bring the price down to a reasonable
level. You can't do anything without some initial specifications. You
have to do research on available parts, cost to tool up the metalwork,
and liability for your design. You mention a "PA" implying a transmitter
module. You talk about "manufactures of the modules" This brings the
FCC, UL, and other testing costs and problems. You have no idea what you
are talking about, unless you have worked to design a modular system.
It can easily triple the cost of the design. Then there is software
compatibility. You have to set strict standards for each module, or one
"X" module won't work with someone else's "Y" module. How about the
GUI? who is going to write a new one for every combination of modules?
Or do you plan on having a couple dozen separate programs on screen at a
time for each function?

have you ever designed a complete radio system?

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...


I'm all too familiar with finding replacements for obsolete parts.
Both in manufacturing and repair. There is a mature product on the
production line. Purchasing comes running to the production manager to
tell them that the last manufacturer of a line of components has just
dropped the whole line, and we missed the "Lifetime buy" option by a
couple days. Do you drop the product, or do you redesign it? DO you
spend days or weeks tracking down surplus parts through a broker that
may or may not be good, and risk bad PR when they have a high failure
rate in the field? Been there, done that. The tee shirt was NLA.

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


There is your problem. You want a fast cure for every perceived
problem.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer before
they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers, techs,
scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...

You mean, China, Russia, India, USA, Canada, So. American, Mexico, etc--and
every gov't, business, private individual, ham and cb'er... is not a big
enough market... these things would be manufactured in China yanno!!!

Kinda like Mac's and IBM's, yanno.

Lets face it, it is most difficult to buy American computer boards, memory,
etc--these radios would be the same... the computers are already made there,
we would just be giving them one more task...

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| 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...
|
|
| You can't see the forest for the trees. There isn't a big enough
| market for what you want to EVER bring the price down to a reasonable
| level. You can't do anything without some initial specifications. You
| have to do research on available parts, cost to tool up the metalwork,
| and liability for your design. You mention a "PA" implying a transmitter
| module. You talk about "manufactures of the modules" This brings the
| FCC, UL, and other testing costs and problems. You have no idea what you
| are talking about, unless you have worked to design a modular system.
| It can easily triple the cost of the design. Then there is software
| compatibility. You have to set strict standards for each module, or one
| "X" module won't work with someone else's "Y" module. How about the
| GUI? who is going to write a new one for every combination of modules?
| Or do you plan on having a couple dozen separate programs on screen at a
| time for each function?
|
| have you ever designed a complete radio system?
|
| 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...
|
|
| I'm all too familiar with finding replacements for obsolete parts.
| Both in manufacturing and repair. There is a mature product on the
| production line. Purchasing comes running to the production manager to
| tell them that the last manufacturer of a line of components has just
| dropped the whole line, and we missed the "Lifetime buy" option by a
| couple days. Do you drop the product, or do you redesign it? DO you
| spend days or weeks tracking down surplus parts through a broker that
| may or may not be good, and risk bad PR when they have a high failure
| rate in the field? Been there, done that. The tee shirt was NLA.
|
| Warmest regards,
| John
| --
| When Viagra fails to work--you are DOOMED!!!
|
|
| There is your problem. You want a fast cure for every perceived
| problem.
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

John Smith wrote:

I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer before
they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers, techs,
scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...


Have you ever looked at the schematic for the Apple II? It was bases
on the MOS technology 6502 processor and support chips. Its probably
the simplest "Computer" ever sold and most of the design was in the IC
data books, just like the original IBM PC was quite close to a sample
design published by Intel. The only real difference was that the design
was broken up into modules. Neither of the original designs were
anything to brag about. Monochrome displays, Apple's half assed
"custom" floppy disk interface that threw away most of the capacity to
keep it cheap. The PC was shipped with a cassette interface and no
floppy drive. It had BASIC in ROM, and was fairly useless until floppy
and hard drives were available to do any real work.

If you think this is an easy project its time to put up, or shut up.
Design your simple, "It'll sell billions" project and prove everyone
wrong, or just shut up.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

So, although your original argument was how difficult a bus and keeping
analog seperate from digital which would share various signals--would be,
then, when the argument was made that someone just picked up a bunch of
on-the-shelf items and went ahead and done it... you flip-flop--to where now
it was so obivious someone should have done such a simple thing LONG before
them...

Yanno, you are pretty obivous here--you are like what has been "the standard
method of operation." A long list of why it can't be done--but if someone
can--its' easy!!!

Or, first it is impossible, then, once someone has done it--it is nothing...

Now, that is comming close to a "Troll!" And, that would be proven if once
this is pointed out to you--you use that for a reason to spur more
conflict...

Arguments and debates for the purpose of looking over what is available--of
reaching a logical and organized ideas--are good--argument for conflict is
not...

While some may take pride in finding all the reasons why something is
difficult--or may end up to be "un-do-able" right at the immediate time...
It is the guys who ignore all this and go ahead and do it which are
remembered...

For every thing we have in this world today--there stands inventors,
engineers, technicans, etc.. who could have easily decided it was either too
hard or impossible and given up--thank gawd they were of a different
breed...

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer
before
| they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers,
techs,
| scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...
|
|
| Have you ever looked at the schematic for the Apple II? It was bases
| on the MOS technology 6502 processor and support chips. Its probably
| the simplest "Computer" ever sold and most of the design was in the IC
| data books, just like the original IBM PC was quite close to a sample
| design published by Intel. The only real difference was that the design
| was broken up into modules. Neither of the original designs were
| anything to brag about. Monochrome displays, Apple's half assed
| "custom" floppy disk interface that threw away most of the capacity to
| keep it cheap. The PC was shipped with a cassette interface and no
| floppy drive. It had BASIC in ROM, and was fairly useless until floppy
| and hard drives were available to do any real work.
|
| If you think this is an easy project its time to put up, or shut up.
| Design your simple, "It'll sell billions" project and prove everyone
| wrong, or just shut up.
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer before
they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers, techs,
scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...

Which Apple computer do you mean? The Apple II? Steve & Steve built the
Apple I before then (you can do see one down at the Computer History Museum in
the bay area if you'd like) and I'd bet a nickel they had built other folks'
designs prior to that (e.g., the old Rockwell KIM, perhaps some of the popular
S-100 machines available at the time, etc.). It was "revolutionary" in a
sense, but much more evolutionary from a dry, engineering perspective... but
then again, almost everything is if you look closely enough!

Well, I am not even ready to argue that point...

You missed the point... what I propose is simpler... it is a radio--not a
computer... and still can be done by those who ignore the nay sayers, no
matter how loudly these nay sayers attempt to shout down progress...

I feel like a pimp in an old age home with hookers, no takers and everyone
there wonders why I am there proposing the ideas I am... grin

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
| I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer
before
| they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers,
techs,
| scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...
|
| Which Apple computer do you mean? The Apple II? Steve & Steve built the
| Apple I before then (you can do see one down at the Computer History
Museum in
| the bay area if you'd like) and I'd bet a nickel they had built other
folks'
| designs prior to that (e.g., the old Rockwell KIM, perhaps some of the
popular
| S-100 machines available at the time, etc.). It was "revolutionary" in a
| sense, but much more evolutionary from a dry, engineering perspective...
but
| then again, almost everything is if you look closely enough!
|
|
|

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I don't think the "apple boys" had ever designed a complete computer before
they did--indeed, don't remember anyone else (or team of engineers, techs,
scientists, etc...) doing a desktop before then...

You mean, China, Russia, India, USA, Canada, So. American, Mexico,
etc--and
every gov't, business, private individual, ham and cb'er... is not a big
enough market... these things would be manufactured in China yanno!!!


Nope the entire world wide population of hams is NOT enough. The US has
just under 700,000. Japan has somewhere around 1 million (there numbers are
hard to determine due to their licensing system). The remainder of the
world combined has right around the same total of the US. This gives a
worldwide ham population of under 2.5 million. So starting from that
rough estimate, let's look at some figures. Very, very few people buy a new
HF rig annually. Just using the people I know, it's more like every 5 to 10
years. So let's use an average of 7.5 years. That means a total of 333,000
new radios (rounding off the answer) sold in any given year. Now split that
between 3 makers, yielding 111,000 units per maker. That's pretty low
volume to undertake radical development. We're probably lucky that we get
any new features.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE