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.

wrote:

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.



As far as "John Smith" goes, he's gone. He is just another hopeless
wanabee who doesn't understand anything about the real world.

Len, I have worked from DC to 11 GHz on commercial designs and anyone
that thinks any design is easy just doesn't have any idea what's
involved. Its one thing to hack together an almost working prototype,
but its a whole different animal to design from the bottom up to meet
set specifications, make sure the components will be available, and if
the unit is to be sold, to make sure that it will clear the FCC, UL and
other requirements. If you decide to manufacture the equipment for sale
outside of the US you have the CE certification, and ISO 900X to deal
with.

If i had the money I would put together a nice kit to sell, but other
needs come first.

I designed my first receiver in the late '60s while I was still in
high school. It was mostly tubes, and a modular design so I could
replace sections to update the design. I had it almost done when I was
drafted. When I got out of the service my family had torn down my
workshop and the prototype and all my paperwork was gone. I learned a
lot about receiver design at Microdyne, and their telemetry receivers
were all modular. They had to be, because a customer would need
something special, so we would charge them to redesign a module or two
to adapt a standard product, rather than to design a complete receiver.

It would be interesting to set up a group to develop a modular
system, but getting people to agree on the specs can be more work than
the actual design.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Thurs,May 12 2005 10:16 am

wrote:

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

Way to go! :-)

As far as "John Smith" goes, he's gone. He is just another
hopeless
wanabee who doesn't understand anything about the real world.

Tsk, he's a poseur, an imitator, a wannabe who needs a
"rep." :-)


Len, I have worked from DC to 11 GHz on commercial designs and
anyone
that thinks any design is easy just doesn't have any idea what's
involved.

A problem in discussing things in diverse groups is
that the vast majority does NOT have such experience.

[there's a short pause while a few regulars become
overheated with indignation... :-) ]

The vast majority get their "experience" from READING
about it - AFTER all the development fuss and fury has
been done. If the writers and editors are good at words,
they create the fantasy that the reader has been there
"too." [there's a whole lot of 20-20 hindsight going
on with those readers]

Its one thing to hack together an almost working prototype,
but its a whole different animal to design from the bottom up to meet
set specifications, make sure the components will be available, and if
the unit is to be sold, to make sure that it will clear the FCC, UL
and
other requirements. If you decide to manufacture the equipment for
sale
outside of the US you have the CE certification, and ISO 900X to deal
with.

You said it, brother! :-) The PR splashes and articles
in QST just do NOT go into days, weeks, months, week-
ends, deferred days off, sweaty times on the bench
with "stubborn" things (finding out little annoying
things one might have forgotten to include) or finding
that a component is NOT in tolerance, "fix" days in
having to work around a problem caused by someone ELSE
not doing their job quite correctly and being stuck
with finding the cure. Neither does it include some
total fascination in seeing a creation come to LIFE,
bit by bit and working AS designed, the pride in one's
self for having done so (a quite kind, most
satisfactory, adding one more mark on self-confidence).
It is a satisfaction in having been given an arduous
responsibility and achieving success in meeting it.
Besides, it can be fun! :-)


It would be interesting to set up a group to develop a modular
system, but getting people to agree on the specs can be more work than
the actual design.

Actually, in this rather lengthy thread, which has no
real consequence to hobby electronics, there really
wasn't any "need" to "develop a radio specification."
It was a mild rant by an anony-mouse who hasn't been
there in real life and wanted to become some kind of
newsgroup age Keroac a la four decade old "protest"
movement.

"Putting together specifications" has been done for
centuries. It is never easy because too many chafe
at "being told what to do" or expect that every spec
is "perfect, something that must be adhered to at all
costs!" Those kinds of critics haven't had to BE
there, working it out daily, weekly, monthly in a
sea of contentious differing-opinion souls all of
whom consider themselves "right." :-)

I doubt (sincerely) that there's any NEED to have
"a radio" modular. The 'radio" already has been a
system built of modular circuit blocks for decades.
All those blocks have to work together to make the
"radio" work and the "radio" designer's task is to
integrate those modules, make them work together.
[replace "radio" with "any electronics" and the
same thing is true]

What seems to be operative in this thread is that
some look at a PC and its very-mass production
"module" pricing and the "plug-and-play" concept
and sales phrase popularized by Microsoft and think
it applies to all electronics. It doesn't. Those
same imaginerers probably would get totally lost
in trying to figure out how a "simple" plug-in card
on a PC works; all such cards nowadays are little
subsystems, complex, a few being little "computers"
all by themselves (if using a microcontroller).
They only look at the overall card specifications
and THINK they "know all about it." [all they've
done is to memorize some data items about the
product...well after the development tasks' end]

Three decades ago, radio amateurs got a taste of
"radio modules" in the burgeoning use of handheld
transceivers. A single Tx-Rx that could be held
in one hand, complete with antenna. A full radio.
(first done about 1940 for the U.S. Army and
dubbed "the handie-talkie") One "module."
A stand-alone communications tool. "Integration"
of that module didn't need other electronics.

Now with Software-Defined Radios, non-thinkers
want to make those like the millions of cheap
personal computers. Most don't know the basics
of either receiving or transmitting radio signals
or how to handle modulation, yet they want to talk
AS IF they did. :-)

[more righteous indignation by some readers here
as they chafe at the bit wanting to vent against
the statement above...heh heh]

SDR is a terrible problem for the FCC in its task
of regulating technical characteristics of civil
radios...and will be for all other radio regulating
agencies internationally in the immediate future.
A very different problem.

The thing is that SDR is ALREADY HERE and has been
for decades...BEFORE the advent of the micro-
processor and microcontroller. [that's a whole
new area of discussion whose birth might have
been in the transition of the regnerative receiver
with audio amplifier into Ed Armstrong's "super-
heterodyne" right after World War One] That the
modern "radios" use "software" (actually digital
control signals) instead of hard-wired manual
control operation lines doesn't matter to the
"radio's" circuit blocks. Those circuit blocks
still have to be integrated to make the whole
"radio" system. Their theory of operation has
NOT changed.

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

I'm still doing that...but not at regular office
hours...and prefer my own lab/workshop area. :-)

Funny, I think I am a guy looking for sources of info./ideas/exchange which
are worth my time--too bad I am so ignorant I can't recognize 'em when I see
'em--well, according to some...

Warmest regards,
John
--
Marbles can be used in models with excellent results! However, if forced
to keep using all of mine up... I may end up at a disadvantage... I seem
to have misplaced some!!!


wrote in message
ups.com...
| From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Thurs,May 12 2005 10:16 am
|
| wrote:
|
| From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Wed,May 11 2005 9:50 am
|
| Way to go! :-)
|
| As far as "John Smith" goes, he's gone. He is just another
| hopeless
| wanabee who doesn't understand anything about the real world.
|
| Tsk, he's a poseur, an imitator, a wannabe who needs a
| "rep." :-)
|
|
| Len, I have worked from DC to 11 GHz on commercial designs and
| anyone
| that thinks any design is easy just doesn't have any idea what's
| involved.
|
| A problem in discussing things in diverse groups is
| that the vast majority does NOT have such experience.
|
| [there's a short pause while a few regulars become
| overheated with indignation... :-) ]
|
| The vast majority get their "experience" from READING
| about it - AFTER all the development fuss and fury has
| been done. If the writers and editors are good at words,
| they create the fantasy that the reader has been there
| "too." [there's a whole lot of 20-20 hindsight going
| on with those readers]
|
| Its one thing to hack together an almost working prototype,
| but its a whole different animal to design from the bottom up to meet
| set specifications, make sure the components will be available, and if
| the unit is to be sold, to make sure that it will clear the FCC, UL
| and
| other requirements. If you decide to manufacture the equipment for
| sale
| outside of the US you have the CE certification, and ISO 900X to deal
| with.
|
| You said it, brother! :-) The PR splashes and articles
| in QST just do NOT go into days, weeks, months, week-
| ends, deferred days off, sweaty times on the bench
| with "stubborn" things (finding out little annoying
| things one might have forgotten to include) or finding
| that a component is NOT in tolerance, "fix" days in
| having to work around a problem caused by someone ELSE
| not doing their job quite correctly and being stuck
| with finding the cure. Neither does it include some
| total fascination in seeing a creation come to LIFE,
| bit by bit and working AS designed, the pride in one's
| self for having done so (a quite kind, most
| satisfactory, adding one more mark on self-confidence).
| It is a satisfaction in having been given an arduous
| responsibility and achieving success in meeting it.
| Besides, it can be fun! :-)
|
|
| It would be interesting to set up a group to develop a modular
| system, but getting people to agree on the specs can be more work than
| the actual design.
|
| Actually, in this rather lengthy thread, which has no
| real consequence to hobby electronics, there really
| wasn't any "need" to "develop a radio specification."
| It was a mild rant by an anony-mouse who hasn't been
| there in real life and wanted to become some kind of
| newsgroup age Keroac a la four decade old "protest"
| movement.
|
| "Putting together specifications" has been done for
| centuries. It is never easy because too many chafe
| at "being told what to do" or expect that every spec
| is "perfect, something that must be adhered to at all
| costs!" Those kinds of critics haven't had to BE
| there, working it out daily, weekly, monthly in a
| sea of contentious differing-opinion souls all of
| whom consider themselves "right." :-)
|
| I doubt (sincerely) that there's any NEED to have
| "a radio" modular. The 'radio" already has been a
| system built of modular circuit blocks for decades.
| All those blocks have to work together to make the
| "radio" work and the "radio" designer's task is to
| integrate those modules, make them work together.
| [replace "radio" with "any electronics" and the
| same thing is true]
|
| What seems to be operative in this thread is that
| some look at a PC and its very-mass production
| "module" pricing and the "plug-and-play" concept
| and sales phrase popularized by Microsoft and think
| it applies to all electronics. It doesn't. Those
| same imaginerers probably would get totally lost
| in trying to figure out how a "simple" plug-in card
| on a PC works; all such cards nowadays are little
| subsystems, complex, a few being little "computers"
| all by themselves (if using a microcontroller).
| They only look at the overall card specifications
| and THINK they "know all about it." [all they've
| done is to memorize some data items about the
| product...well after the development tasks' end]
|
| Three decades ago, radio amateurs got a taste of
| "radio modules" in the burgeoning use of handheld
| transceivers. A single Tx-Rx that could be held
| in one hand, complete with antenna. A full radio.
| (first done about 1940 for the U.S. Army and
| dubbed "the handie-talkie") One "module."
| A stand-alone communications tool. "Integration"
| of that module didn't need other electronics.
|
| Now with Software-Defined Radios, non-thinkers
| want to make those like the millions of cheap
| personal computers. Most don't know the basics
| of either receiving or transmitting radio signals
| or how to handle modulation, yet they want to talk
| AS IF they did. :-)
|
| [more righteous indignation by some readers here
| as they chafe at the bit wanting to vent against
| the statement above...heh heh]
|
| SDR is a terrible problem for the FCC in its task
| of regulating technical characteristics of civil
| radios...and will be for all other radio regulating
| agencies internationally in the immediate future.
| A very different problem.
|
| The thing is that SDR is ALREADY HERE and has been
| for decades...BEFORE the advent of the micro-
| processor and microcontroller. [that's a whole
| new area of discussion whose birth might have
| been in the transition of the regnerative receiver
| with audio amplifier into Ed Armstrong's "super-
| heterodyne" right after World War One] That the
| modern "radios" use "software" (actually digital
| control signals) instead of hard-wired manual
| control operation lines doesn't matter to the
| "radio's" circuit blocks. Those circuit blocks
| still have to be integrated to make the whole
| "radio" system. Their theory of operation has
| NOT changed.
|
| --
| Former professional electron wrangler.
|
| I'm still doing that...but not at regular office
| hours...and prefer my own lab/workshop area. :-)
|
|
|

Well, I don't respond well to personal attacks, character assassinations,
juvenile exchanges--I really just don't have time--nothing to be gained
really--but, if you must, proceed at your desire...

rec.radio.cb has made me aware of such exchanges on newsgroups--and
thickened my skin... grin

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
| 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.
|
|
|

Len Anderson gets it right. Roy gets it right. Several others show that
they understand. He is an anonymous provocateur who has nothing but free
time and spends it on causing foam.

Can not give any credence to someone who does not give their real name.
Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:

wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

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! :-)

snip

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