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:

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...


I didn't "Flip-Flop" I know what's involved, including the million
dollar plus expense involved in designing one configuration of a modular
radio.

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...


Are you trying to misdirect things again?

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...


Close to a troll? No, I've never met you.

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!!!


You need to think with the other head, troll.

You have your head up your sorry ass, and I'm through wasting time
with your nonsense. Its obvious that you don't know a dam thing about
design when you compare the Apple II to a real design project. You need
to get an education in design and stop trying to blow smoke up
everyone's ass.

PLONK


--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

You my friend, are crude, rude--most likely blued and tattooed... I am sure
other more "intellectual types" will benefit from your form and method of
words and exchange more... goodday!

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

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
|
| 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...
|
|
| I didn't "Flip-Flop" I know what's involved, including the million
| dollar plus expense involved in designing one configuration of a modular
| radio.
|
| 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...
|
|
| Are you trying to misdirect things again?
|
| 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...
|
|
| Close to a troll? No, I've never met you.
|
| 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!!!
|
|
| You need to think with the other head, troll.
|
| You have your head up your sorry ass, and I'm through wasting time
| with your nonsense. Its obvious that you don't know a dam thing about
| design when you compare the Apple II to a real design project. You need
| to get an education in design and stop trying to blow smoke up
| everyone's ass.
|
| PLONK
|
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| Michael A. Terrell
| Central Florida

From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Wed,May 11 2005 9:50 am

John Smith wrote:

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...

I didn't "Flip-Flop" I know what's involved, including the million
dollar plus expense involved in designing one configuration of a
modular
radio.

Michael, don't let this POSEUR bother you. That
anony-mouse "John Smith" hasn't been there, hasn't
done it. He wants to be "Instant Guru" and wants
a "rep" without doing any work for it. From what
he states - all in generalities, no specifics -
he can't think things out close to necessary detail.

You were right to "plonk" him.


You have your head up your sorry ass, and I'm through wasting time
with your nonsense. Its obvious that you don't know a dam thing about
design when you compare the Apple II to a real design project. You
need
to get an education in design and stop trying to blow smoke up
everyone's ass.

Way to go! :-)

At some other time I wouldn't mind having a friendly
argument with you on the Apple ][...but not with this
anony-mouse hanging around trying to intrude and
smoke up the place. I still have my 1980-purchase
Apple ][+ and had a lot of fun with it...including
lots of calculations (Applesoft had 10-digit
accuracy with 5-byte FP variables, muy better than
4-byte single precision). I've gone into the hard-
ware and analyzed it thoroughly, scoped it, written
it up...submitted it as a manuscript only to find out
Howard W. Sams was already in production on a similar
book! :-)

In many ways, the PRODUCTION version of the Apple ][
was the forerunner of the IBM PC out of Boca Raton.
But designed (or rather re-designed) about two years
prior to the IBM PC. Uncanny similarity between the
two in basic structure, expansion slots, and - yes -
"open architecture." PRODUCTION planning went into
the ][ and it wasn't much like the original board-
only Apple.

But, the ][ on up to the Apple //gs were terrific RF
generators! :-) By contrast, a similar structure
using only three main chips (CPU from Western Design,
64K EPROM, 64K/128K Static RAM) can be very nice and
quiet RF wise because of the internal transistor
structures in those chips. [I've already done a
preliminary breadboard setup to verify that] Such a
controller system can adapt itself to many kinds of
"radio controller" applications without any of the
RF coupling problems. It's been done before by the
big three in Japan using older microcontrollers in
many different transceivers, all without disturbing
the receiver or the transmitter specifications.

Too many of the older hams are oriented towards a
"legacy radio" structure...mostly analog. That
just doesn't adapt to "plug-and-play" ease of adding
or modifying an SDR. Trying to use a common PC as
a "model" for an SDR is a bunch of nonsense. The
"bus" and "interface structure" is an analogue only
the broadest sense of the term. Doesn't apply,
either technically or organizationally.

Decades have brought us moon landing, mars landings,masers, lasers, lets,
fets, mosfets, computers, etc...

But the shape of radio equip. has remained virtually stagnant.

One "innovation" would be to just copy what the IBM clone has taught us.

Build a radio of "cards." Just like the computer, a standard case which you
can plugin various power supplies, frontend board "cards", intermediate
board "cards", buffer amp board "cards", IF board "cards", audio board
"cards", xmitter board "cards", final amp board "cards", etc.... I think
you get the pic

One radio case can/could virtually be any radio you can imagine.... new
design in a frontend? Plug in a new front end "card", new audio offering?
Plug in a new audio board "card."

Someone really should get off a dead duff somewhere and DO IT!!!!

Kinda makes ya wonder why not? Doesn't it?

Warmest regards,
John

Not sure how restrictive your idea is, but it ain't new.

You can even find the odd receiver on e-bay with cards for each function
plugging into a bus - try Plessey for example. Even the ancient Davco DR-30 and
the first solid-state heath transceiver (SB401 IIRC) used plug in RF, IF etc
cards.

Several modern scanners, especially portable ones have a selection of optional
plug in cards for things like, extra channels, digital decoders, tone squelch
etc. etc.

I had an early Yaesu VHF/UHF receiver which had an optional plug in card video
decoder. My Kenwood R-5000 has provision for a plug in VHF front end.

I used to have a RACAL receiver, old enough to be antique now, which used plug
in front ends for various coverage options, and I seem to recall it was a fairly
common idea in those days.

Dave

"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!