"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,

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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...

Have you ever heard the saying to the effect that the beginner sees only one
option, which the experienced designer sees many? It really is something of a
curse. :-)

By all means do keep pursuing your interests, but by the same token you might
want to start learning more about RF design and understand where some of the
other posters are coming from. Addressing your original idea, there ARE
"modular" radios out there -- I know I've seen some guy's web site where he
takes this approach -- but the idea that a modular radio can somehow offer the
same performance as a more integrated one is about the same as claiming that
you can build a CPU with the same performance and price of a 3GHz Pentium by
using discrete modules for the ALU, memory controller, cache controller,
instruction decoder, etc. -- it just isn't going to happen. On the other
hand, you certainly COULD build some "many MHz" sort of microcontroller with
this approach, and the sames of microcontrollers today swamps that of Pentiums
anyway. Hence, I think there would be a market for your modular radio
design -- especially within the amateur radio community -- but I doubt you'll
be getting calls from Nokia any time soon.

Software defined radios accomplish a significant amount of the
"reconfigurability" that I think you're looking for, and with ever-increasing
ADC/DAC speeds and DSP horsepower, it probably won't be too long before most
radios digitize directly at RF or IF and the rest is software (oftentimes
highly non-trivial software, however). Even so, you'll always need someone
who understands traditional RF engineering to get the signal from the antenna
to the DAC while preserving the best SNR possible.

---Joel

I have watched a hundred intellectuals fail where one brave man succeeds...

Einstein said, to the effect--genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration...

Difficulty is expected, only cowards refrain...

In the end, such a radio is not only desirable, it is exactly what is
needed... no argument will change that...

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

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
| John,
|
| "John Smith" wrote in message
| ...
| 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...
|
| Have you ever heard the saying to the effect that the beginner sees only
one
| option, which the experienced designer sees many? It really is something
of a
| curse. :-)
|
| By all means do keep pursuing your interests, but by the same token you
might
| want to start learning more about RF design and understand where some of
the
| other posters are coming from. Addressing your original idea, there ARE
| "modular" radios out there -- I know I've seen some guy's web site where
he
| takes this approach -- but the idea that a modular radio can somehow offer
the
| same performance as a more integrated one is about the same as claiming
that
| you can build a CPU with the same performance and price of a 3GHz Pentium
by
| using discrete modules for the ALU, memory controller, cache controller,
| instruction decoder, etc. -- it just isn't going to happen. On the other
| hand, you certainly COULD build some "many MHz" sort of microcontroller
with
| this approach, and the sames of microcontrollers today swamps that of
Pentiums
| anyway. Hence, I think there would be a market for your modular radio
| design -- especially within the amateur radio community -- but I doubt
you'll
| be getting calls from Nokia any time soon.
|
| Software defined radios accomplish a significant amount of the
| "reconfigurability" that I think you're looking for, and with
ever-increasing
| ADC/DAC speeds and DSP horsepower, it probably won't be too long before
most
| radios digitize directly at RF or IF and the rest is software (oftentimes
| highly non-trivial software, however). Even so, you'll always need
someone
| who understands traditional RF engineering to get the signal from the
antenna
| to the DAC while preserving the best SNR possible.
|
| ---Joel
|
|

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I have watched a hundred intellectuals fail where one brave man succeeds...

Yeah, but for every brave man's successs, there are thousands of failures too.
:-)

Einstein said, to the effect--genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration...

I think that was Edison? Einstein said something like, "Creativity is more
important than knowledge," which unfortunately a lot of people seem to want to
interpret as "Hence, knowledge is unimportant," which is not at all what he
meant.

In the end, such a radio is not only desirable, it is exactly what is
needed... no argument will change that...

Well John, there's nothing stopping you from desgining and building the thing.
Even in the post-Internet boom era here, though, you'll probably have a much
easier time finding venture capital from a bunch of businessmen than from a
bunch of engineers.

I do think it's true that, in various areas, amateur radio now plays
technological "catch up" to commercial technologies. IMO, this is a
reflection of the fact that (unlike 40 years ago) designing a "modern radio"
(such as a cell phone) costs literally tens to hundreds of millions of dollars
and hundreds of man years. There's just no way companies like Icom, Yaesu,
etc. can invest that sort of effort when you look at the sales volumes of
their radios (and the fact that -- unlike cell phones -- amateur radio usage
doesn't provide them with any revenue!). A lot of the most interesting
advancements in amateur radio in the past couple of decades have come from the
likes of Doug DeMaw, Bob Larkin, Rick Campbell, Roy Lewallen, Wes Hayward,
etc. -- all of whom, insofar as I'm aware, spent some of their professional
lives performing RF design for well-funded companies. I don't think that's a
coincidence.

---Joel

Joel:

Well, great men have come and gone, what are some younger names which will
be taking on these challenges of the future? A history lesson does not
serve as innovation or chat about new ideas which are needed...

I don't expect people in their 50's on up to be the innovators, it is the
younger crowd who has been educated in universities, with access to the
newest state of the art labs available which will be taking on these
projects--that is a given, I never though different... if you didn't have
access to a computer by jr. college, you are probably not in this group of
new engineers...

The men in their 20s to 30s are the ones with the access to industry and
design labs where these ideas can be taken to... the ones on the cutting
edge--the ones able to introduce new ideas and get them looked at... the
ones to build one and take it around to demonstrate...

I was just hoping there were some here, maybe not...

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 have watched a hundred intellectuals fail where one brave man
succeeds...
|
| Yeah, but for every brave man's successs, there are thousands of failures
too.
| :-)
|
| Einstein said, to the effect--genius is 1% inspiration and 99%
| perspiration...
|
| I think that was Edison? Einstein said something like, "Creativity is
more
| important than knowledge," which unfortunately a lot of people seem to
want to
| interpret as "Hence, knowledge is unimportant," which is not at all what
he
| meant.
|
| In the end, such a radio is not only desirable, it is exactly what is
| needed... no argument will change that...
|
| Well John, there's nothing stopping you from desgining and building the
thing.
| Even in the post-Internet boom era here, though, you'll probably have a
much
| easier time finding venture capital from a bunch of businessmen than from
a
| bunch of engineers.
|
| I do think it's true that, in various areas, amateur radio now plays
| technological "catch up" to commercial technologies. IMO, this is a
| reflection of the fact that (unlike 40 years ago) designing a "modern
radio"
| (such as a cell phone) costs literally tens to hundreds of millions of
dollars
| and hundreds of man years. There's just no way companies like Icom,
Yaesu,
| etc. can invest that sort of effort when you look at the sales volumes of
| their radios (and the fact that -- unlike cell phones -- amateur radio
usage
| doesn't provide them with any revenue!). A lot of the most interesting
| advancements in amateur radio in the past couple of decades have come from
the
| likes of Doug DeMaw, Bob Larkin, Rick Campbell, Roy Lewallen, Wes Hayward,
| etc. -- all of whom, insofar as I'm aware, spent some of their
professional
| lives performing RF design for well-funded companies. I don't think
that's a
| coincidence.
|
| ---Joel
|
|

Hi John,

Well, great men have come and gone, what are some younger names which will
be taking on these challenges of the future?

I think Rick Campbell has gotta be 30-something or 40-something? I know one
of his former professors, and that professor has only been a teacher for
something like a decade now...

To some degree, younger folks are out there working at their day jobs. Not
that I'll know for another few decades, but I expect that retirement gives one
a lot of time to 'catch up' on their favorite ham persuits. Bob Larkin
designed the DSP-10 software defined radio back in 1999 and -- while I'm
making a lot of guesses here -- I believe that was not too long after Celwave
(now defunct) bought his small company where he was designing and producing
cell phone base station equipment and thereby allowed him a little more free
time to design and publish for the amateur community.

I don't expect people in their 50's on up to be the innovators, it is the
younger crowd who has been educated in universities, with access to the
newest state of the art labs available which will be taking on these
projects--that is a given, I never though different...

Colleges today are a very different place than they were, say, 30 or more
years ago. At least here in the US, it's pretty much "expected" that everyone
at least attempts to receive a higher education, and this has caused a large
change in college curriculum. To put it bluntly, it's become dumbed down and
a shockingly large percentage of the students there really don't _want_ a
highly challenging, rigorous five years -- they want a decent income in a
reasonably secure industry (computers and electronics). Industry goes along
with this because, realistically, what they need are predominently technician
level employees and not true innovators or researchers.

Of course, for people truly interested in learning and innovating, there are
probably more opportunities now than ever before (think of what Einstein could
have done if he had been born in 1980...). What I'm arguing here is that it
shouldn't be surprising that an increase in the number of college students and
the availability of high quality test equipment doesn't translate into some
phenomenally large spike in the innovation seen in amateur radio.

There is plenty of innovation going on in amateur radio right now. Winlink
2000 is a good example: many of the people who support it are the younger set,
and many of the people who oppose it are the 'geriatric' crowd! Some of the
true technical problems with WL2K -- such as the lack of busy detectors, best
performance being obtained only with the proprietary PACTOR 3 modems, etc. --
have spurred additional innovation with results such as SCAMP. I actually
find it quite surprising that the most "digital radio" innovation seems to
occur on the HF bands rather than VHF or above, but I expect this will change
in the not so distant future. (I've mentioned before that personally I'm
eyeing the 220MHz band -- very much neglected for many years now -- as prime
territory for digital experimentation...)

---Joel

"Joel Kolstad" ) writes:

I think that was Edison? Einstein said something like, "Creativity is more
important than knowledge," which unfortunately a lot of people seem to want to
interpret as "Hence, knowledge is unimportant," which is not at all what he
meant.

You can't really be creative unless you understand the situation. On the
other hand, people can spout things but be unable to do anything with
it because they aren't extracting from the situation.

Creativity is an extrapolation. A good example is Charles Kitchin's
work with regen and superregen receivers. He went back, looked at early
material, understood it, and then implemented solid state versions.

Michael VE2BVW

"You can't really be creative unless you understand the situation."

Ohh, now I see--we are all just waiting for "that guy/gal"....

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

"Michael Black" wrote in message
...
|
| "Joel Kolstad" ) writes:
|
| I think that was Edison? Einstein said something like, "Creativity is
more
| important than knowledge," which unfortunately a lot of people seem to
want to
| interpret as "Hence, knowledge is unimportant," which is not at all what
he
| meant.
|
| You can't really be creative unless you understand the situation. On the
| other hand, people can spout things but be unable to do anything with
| it because they aren't extracting from the situation.
|
| Creativity is an extrapolation. A good example is Charles Kitchin's
| work with regen and superregen receivers. He went back, looked at early
| material, understood it, and then implemented solid state versions.
|
| Michael VE2BVW