On Dec 3, 3:06*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:



On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:

* With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.

...

Any other comments?

As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.

First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.

Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.
could be done this way.

You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.

It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.

Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.

I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!

Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)

We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ....

Regards,
JS

But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want,
and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most
cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom
become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us
that wish to.

Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology
really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come
the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still
changing fast. End users didn't vote for it.

A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots
of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever
failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for
later repairability.

I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just
one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me
doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service
man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good
deal on 'repairability'.

Dead tvs with boards to take out are relatively cheap.

The last of those tvs i played with had dire soldering, and I
suspected the modularisation was necessary to make such bad soldering
produce a useful percentage of ok boards.


It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have
much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A
quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone
with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor.

I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and
replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state
stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't
work.

I suspect lack of joined up thinking. Designers think it makes the
sets repairable and reduce the pile of dead boards, so implement it.
Then later the parts dept realise they can chanrge a pretty penny for
these little boards, so do. It kills the original idea of course.

Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?

I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer
peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent
on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or
pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card.
It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even
then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the
'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two
'expansion slot(s)', if any.

A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with
signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no
longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's
little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure
out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the
whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface
break.

Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.



NT

The interface question is fairly easy, pick your interface standards
and award use of your system logo to any product that complies with
these standards. You can probably get away with only one standard, and
make match current practice of around 0.1-0.2v 10k at af.

Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of
modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios.
And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for
radios are mostly low.


NT

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers. Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

Regards,
JS

On Dec 14, 8:21*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.

NT

Yeah, like computers. *Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, *a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ... they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

Regards,
JS

Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can
only buy from what's available.


NT

On 12/14/2011 1:38 PM, NT wrote:

...
Its usually the manufacturer that introduces a new line, consumers can
only buy from what's available.


NT

Exactly, right up to and including the death of radio ... people still
buy a seperate TV, then a stereo, etc.

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo ... a few years ago I had
an am/fm radio on a pci card in a computer, it was never "great" but
lead for me to await the development of better ... none has come.
Everyone I had shown it to wanted one, and many ordered and some are
still using them, in my family ...

So, I use my Flex for listening (www.flex-radio.com), and wait, and wait
.... I now think radio is going to have to die and "be rediscovered" ...
but we will see ...

But, the one device for every purpose is as dead as I can make it in my
house ...

Regards,
JS

"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are
modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm
connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any
consumer radio.

The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed
frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about
thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray
and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one
it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket
'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs,
no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature
IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts.

By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on
is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by
the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure
development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out
in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7
MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board
probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei
notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has
eight to twelve layers.

The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another.

Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast
receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they
own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments
and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo

You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago
now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse
it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for
it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go
back there again.

d

On 12/14/2011 10:37 PM, wrote:
"Modular radio" is indeed possible. Almost all GOOD RF test equipment
and professional grade receivers (Watkins Johnson, Racal etc) are
modular in that each section is a tray or block with a 50 ohm
connectorized input and output. But each module costs more than any
consumer radio.

The 10.7 IF module for the IFR 1200 series is basically a fixed
frequency single conversion superhet that has a parts cost of about
thirty dollars, fifteen of which are the connectors and the metal tray
and pan. Last I heard if you were so unfortunate as to need to buy one
it was well in four figures. It is simpler than any AM/FM pocket
'transistor radio' you can get at Radio SHack and contains no ASICs,
no microprocessor, and no custom coils or hybrids. All the miniature
IF cans are Coilcraft catalog parts.

By contrast the total profit in the notebook PC I am typing this on
is probably less than a hundred dollars and that includes that made by
the silicon makers for the chips which constitute nine figure
development budgets. The IF module has a board that could be laid out
in twenty minutes by any competent OrCad operator from a netlist. 10.7
MHz and 455 kHz are trivial to lay out for. The single layer board
probably costs three dollars apiece. he bare board fab in thei
notebook's motherboard is probably considerably more and probably has
eight to twelve layers.

The difference? Several Volume is one. Competition is another.

Very few people are even INTERESTED in radio outside the broadcast
receiver in their car and the various wireless digital gizmos they
own. The market is tiny. And that there is tends to be governments
and such, so the businesses that cater to it are spoiled rotten.

Any mid to high range video card --NVIDIA/ATI/etc. are much more
powerful and would be much more expensive, if they were totally
proprietary and required all other components in their system to be
proprietary and manufactured/sold/marketed by the same corp/company.

As already stated, manufacturers will fight to maintain the systems as
they are, and they will damn well use any scare tactic or manufactured
"monster" to cause the status quo to remain untouched and undisturbed.
However, the SW hobby will continue to decline, the media available on
those declining platforms will continue to decline and be limited, etc.

Like I say, this will all have to fall, apparently, to a greater low
than our eyes are reporting at the present time, before someone will
finally stand against the downstream and cause improvements in design
and hardware and software ...

What is happening is obvious, it seems like the only debate is what is
responsible and causing it ... however, no matter what debate and
arguments are posed, it is quite obvious all the WRONG things are being
done at this present time ... but, all the hardware manufactures seem
insane, as they keep churning out the same old, same old antiquated crap
but expecting a different trend ... all we are seeing are the results of
those endeavors ...

TV has gotten a partial reprieve, and probably will be rather short
lived. The big screen TVs, plasma, then LED has kept the focus off the
important question of, "I already have a computer, why don't I just drop
in a card, or hook up an external USB dongle, and use my computer as my
TV -- the big screen HD monitor can then serve as my computer monitor
also?" If you visit a software engineers home, or hardware engineers
home, you are likely to see such systems in use -- it is only for the
general public to realize the benefits before they start doing the same ...

But, those ahead of the curve can, and are, already enjoying this ...
perhaps the rest are simply unwilling or unable ... but I'd suggest the
TV you buy have digital, HD, S-Video, etc. hookups ...

Regards,
JS

On 12/14/2011 11:47 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:17:27 -0800, John
wrote:

I don't, my computer is now my TV and stereo

You have just taken me back to my first ever computer - some years ago
now. The only monitor option was the TV and a royal pain in the arse
it was. I still remember the day I got a proper, separate monitor for
it and the feeling of liberation that came with it. I would never go
back there again.

d

Too high a pixel definition is just wasted with even HD TV, however, it
makes such a TV perfect for use as a computer monitor ... you are
correct, I'd never go back from there, again ...

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 18:08:49 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:

On Dec 3, 3:06*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), NT
wrote:



On Nov 27, 7:27*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 11/10/2011 9:52 PM, wrote:

* With the survivalist market as well as the DIYers who would build a
kit I have given thought to the idea of building a new tube shortwave
receiver as a usable, practical set.

...

Any other comments?

As I once pointed out, long ago, now, in an amateur group, what needs to
be done is to build a radio equiv to how PCs are now done.

First you would have a generic case, these could be made by anyone, in
any design. *The would provide the user with an abundance of choice in
the looks of the rig.

Next, each section of the radio would simply be a plug in card, to a
"mother board." *You would have an rf section, which could cover any and
all bands, depending on construction, it would simple plug into one of
the slots on the motherboard. *Audio, rf, filter, conversion, etc., etc.
could be done this way.

You would have a basic set of all sections, and could expand, or upgrade
as you would have -- or as becomes available.

It would change the face of radio, SW radios would become as numerous as
PCs -- well, almost.

Most any small manufacturer could enter the market, and provide a case,
rf section, audio section, etc. -- and expand from there, if they choose.

I simply can't get enough interest ... but the radio could be just am,
am fm, am-fm-sw, am-fm-sw-vhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf, am-fm-sw-vhf-uhf-shf,
or any possible combination wanted ... this is an idea whose obvious
advantage, for consumers, is simply screaming out for production!

Later, if one wished, he could just buy a larger standard case, move his
receiver components over, buy a larger power supply, and drop in the
appropriate transmitting section(s.)

We simply wait for the radio to leave the age of the horse and buggy ...

Regards,
JS

But.... 99% of radio buyers have little idea what features they want,
and the very slow change in feature sets of each module are in most
cases of close to zero interest to end users. Plus radios seldom
become obsolete - even 1920s sets are still usable, for the few of us
that wish to.

Unit radio did of course exist in the early 20s, when radio technology
really was changing fast, and it made a significant difference. Come
the 30s it was gone though, even though the technology was still
changing fast. End users didn't vote for it.

A slightly similar approach was also tried in tv in the 70s, with lots
of small pcbs that could each be replaced affordably if it ever
failed. But ultimately buyers just wanted the cheapest, not to pay for
later repairability.

I had one of those and when there was a failure discovered that just
one board cost half what the entire TV set had, and that was with me
doing the diagnosis, meaning I didn't have the cost of a 'TV service
man' plowed on top of it. That doesn't strike me as a terribly good
deal on 'repairability'.

Dead tvs with boards to take out are relatively cheap.

Not back then and even if there was one there wasn't an Internet,
Craigslist, and Ebay to find it. And even if you get past all that a
hurricane was on the way and even in this day and age things don't
instantaneously appear on your doorstep.


The last of those tvs i played with had dire soldering, and I
suspected the modularisation was necessary to make such bad soldering
produce a useful percentage of ok boards.

I was being a bit flippant but I think you've hit the target. It's a
lot more likely the reason for modularity was for in house test and
manufacture than a noble notion of home repairability. Someone might
have thrown it in as an additional 'feature' but I doubt it was the
primary factor.


It would, of course, go dead with a hurricane coming so I didn't have
much time and used the "hold in breaker, see what smokes" test. A
quick check of the schematic to see why and what else might have gone
with it and I fixed the thing with a couple of zeners and a resistor.

I often wonder if the 'modular PCB' idea was so 'tube test and
replace' repairmen could use the same technique on the solid state
stuff but a $250 PCB isn't a 3 buck tube. The economics just don't
work.

I suspect lack of joined up thinking. Designers think it makes the
sets repairable and reduce the pile of dead boards, so implement it.
Then later the parts dept realise they can chanrge a pretty penny for
these little boards, so do. It kills the original idea of course.

No company I've been in has been that 'disjointed' and departments
don't get to charge whatever they think a good idea. It's usually a
well planned, from all angles, cost/profit margin analysis including
expected warranty and after sales service revenues.

That doesn't mean they necessarily get it 'right' but if that were
'the plan' they sure wouldn't let some yahoo in the parts department
arbitrarily screw it up.


Does anyone other than John think there's commercial mileage in
modular radio now?

I don't because, for one, the 'computer' analogy is flawed. Computer
peripherals operate parallel on a common bus and they're not dependent
on the others. You can have 'no extras' and still have a computer, or
pick and chose whatever 'extra' things you want, like a TV tuner card.
It's the common, well defined, bus that makes this work but, even
then, it isn't 'free', which is why you see low cost PCs with all the
'typical' things stuffed onto the motherboard and maybe one or two
'expansion slot(s)', if any.

A radio, on the other hand, is essentially serial in operation with
signal coming in one end and out the other. Remove any part and you no
longer have a radio so you 'need them all' to begin with and there's
little reason to later change it even if you could (unlikely) figure
out how to enforce some common 'interface' at every stage through the
whole thing. And then there's the added cost at every single interface
break.

Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.



NT

The interface question is fairly easy, pick your interface standards
and award use of your system logo to any product that complies with
these standards. You can probably get away with only one standard, and
make match current practice of around 0.1-0.2v 10k at af.

Computers cost around 10x as much as a radio. So the extra cost of
modularising is low in percentage terms for pcs, but high for radios.
And the savings of modularisation for pcs are medium to high, but for
radios are mostly low.

Yeah, I just don't see it but, hey, if someone has the guts and
capital then that's what free enterprise is all about.

NT

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:21:58 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

On 12/2/2011 7:06 PM, flipper wrote:

...
Bottom line, for the performance/cost ratio you can't beat solid state
and a robot assembling the stuff at warp speed. And it can be done so
cheaply you're better off to chuck it and buy another one assembled at
warp speed.




NT

Yeah, like computers.

Actually, no, and that was the point. They're not 'like computers'.

Every year I build another, from components ...
however, I usually choose to keep my video card if no major improvements
in them are available ... keep my 1200W power supply--since it still
provide much more power than I am using, keep my network card ...

But, a new motherboard is something frequently upgraded--along with
processor ... maybe memory ... maybe hard disk ... etc.

So do I.

But I wouldn't if, like the 'modular TV' brought up elsewhere (or a
radio), each of the 'modular parts' cost darn near as much as the
whole thing. Or, put the other way, I wouldn't if I could buy a
'whole' new one for only a little more than the cost of a hard drive.

Modularized radio and you could have dozens of audio boards, low to high
end audio, right up to HD ... new dials, new readouts, new 3.0 USB
interface to a computer, etc.

If you're going to replace all that you might as well save the
interface crap and stuff the rest of the parts for a whole radio.

Not to mention there's no reason to 'right up to' HD when the detector
isn't and the band isn't either. So you have to change all that, which
is a whole blooming radio.

No, modular radio simply would be best for consumer and bad for
manufacturers ... who like very proprietary systems ...

"Like a computer," eh?

they would
scream at having to attempt with a generic radio platform which could be
just am or any combination right up to microwave bands ...

Ah yes, the good ole 'industry conspiracy' crap.

But, you did manage to mention the real truth of why it is not demanded
by consumers ... consumers are simply too stoopid to realize the
benefits and ask for them ... end of story.

I can see you're not going to be in the sales department.

Regards,
JS