Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Any GE Progress Line Units Still Around? | Boatanchors | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1394 - April 30, 2004 | General | |||
Why do hams always stand in the way of progress? | Scanner |