A computer in your radio
John Rippey (W3ULS)
on
December 6, 2002
View comments about this article!
It seems to me that writers of personal computer software for amateur radio functions have it backwards. At present, the computer rules and the radio takes a back seat. This is ___ backwards. I would much rather spend quality time with my radio rather than having to spend 1/2 or more of my time working at a computer keyboard with the radio serving as little more than an adjunct of the computer.
Within a generation or so the PC will be an artifact ready for the Smithsonian like the old Continental Morse code sounders on display today. This is because the PC ties the user to a machine through which all commands must go. I am waiting for the time when the radio amateur is liberated from being tied to a computer and in effect can have the functions he/she wants carried out by their radios, via internal chips, software, or whatever.
Furthermore, it should be possible to have our rigs respond to voice commands as well as keyed-in data, so that once again we can concentrate on using our radios as radios and not as poor cousins of the ubiquitous PC. The trouble with software authors today is that they seem hidebound in their devotion to the computer, and apparently think only in terms of how the computer can be made to function instead of considering what functionality is required for a particular task and how to provide it in a way most convenient for users. With the latter approach, any solutions most certainly will not involve a PC, an item which is nearing obsolescence as we speak.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by N2YZS on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I understand the author's point, but would like to make one myself. I think that the reason that computers are being tied to radios today is that, with the advent of DSP, software is needed to operate them. Since most shacks today have a PC in them, and there are many programmers out there for PCs because of their widespread use, it is easier and cheaper to use the PC and software written for a PC to control the radios than it is to add microprocessors, memory, and what ever else is needed, to the radio. If these are added to the radio, specialized programming for the discreet processor/memory/hardware would be required, driving the price of radios into the ionosphere. Technology marches on, unfortunately. Software defined radios (whether tied to a PC or otherwise) are the wave of the future (starting now). Vern N2YZS
|
| |
|
Much ado about nothing...
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What's the difference where the computer is... in the radio or separate? What's the difference if an operator spends his time typing on a keyboard hooked up to a computer, or typing on a keyboard hooked up to a radio?
The keyboard (and the computer itself) is merely another interface... just as the speaker, the mike, and the paddle are interfaces to either get information to, or receive information from, the radio.
Re PCs being obsolete... I guess that sure, today's PC will be obsolete (they often already are 'obsolete' by the time they're released!). But there will always be a device that provides the functionality of a PC, just as almost 100 years of evolution still leaves us with a telephone.
I see an even greater integration between the computer and the radio. A decade from now the top-end rigs will have built-in digital voice and Ethernet, and will come with driver and application software to tie them in to our computers. Your PC display will have a bandscope, SWR/RF and AF power meters, etc., on it. You will be able to adjust the equalization of your audio on-screen... and you will be able to see a spectral display of both the transmitted and received signal. Your computer will handle the IF from your rig and use the soundcard for DSP, outputting the audio to your computer speakers. Your computer will monitor the DX Packet Cluster and be able to automatically tune, and work(!) any DX spots you need... and it will also update your log, send out an eQSL, and interface to the ARRL to ensure you get DXCC credit! A decade from now there will be no middle-of-the-road rigs in production. It will either be computerized-to-the-max, or basic rigs along the lines of the new Argonaut V, SGC 2020, FT-817, or Elecraft K2.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by N0JVT on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll have to admit that i prefer todays computer controlled radios to what i could afford when i 1st entred the hobby
the features that i have in my sub $700 radio ( FT-817 ) is a lot more than what i would have been able to afford if the readio had been built as a standalone rig.
setting up and operationg the radio via computer is a lot easier for me than trying to memorize menus nested inside menus just to change a mode or band.
all my radios i currently have are CAT enabled and will remain so here and i could'nt be happier
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by KB6NU on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are computers, and then there are computers.
The first kind are standalone, personal computers, and these are the computers that the author is referring to. They're cheap and widely used, and it's relatively easy to develop application programs for them.
That is why software authors are concentrating their efforts on these computers. Overall, it's not difficult to interface them with today's rigs, and because new models are generally backwards compatible with older models, hardware/software obsolescence is not a big problem.
The second kind of computer is the embedded computer. Most new radios have a computer of this type that controls the radio and provides a variety of functions.
Unfortunately, it's not so easy to develop programs for the embedded computer. The software is proprietary, and the development tools are not readily available. That being the case, it would be very difficult for a developer to write programs for a radio's embedded computer. And even it were possible, the software would only run on rigs from a particular manufacturer, or in the worst case, on a particular rig.
Now that I think about it, maybe what we need is an "open source" radio, much as Linux is open source software. We could take a popular rig, such as the FT-817, and re-engineer the software, paying close attention to making it extensible.
Then, we publish the programming interfaces, so that amateurs could write their own software to add features. Also, someone would have to write some development tools (which would run on the aforementioned PCs or Linux boxes) or adapt some commercially available development tools.
This doesn't seem so far-fetched to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone isn't doing this already. Anyone know of a project like this?
Dan KB6NU
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by W5MIT on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Software defined radios will save ham radio in my opinion. Not only could an open source software radio dramatically lower costs by taking IC-756 type features into the free domain, but it would allow hams to further innovate (which many hams whine about the lack of).
In the old days hams used to be able to build their own rigs. Try building a IC-756 Pro II..... But with a software defined radio, it becomes reasonable to actually program your own radio that beats the functionality of anything the Pro II can offer.
The future of electronics is software anyway, hams better get on board before the train passes them by.
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by AB2KT on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html
73
Frank
AB2KT/VE7
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree the most with W3ULS. I like having real knobs and switches. Also I like having a choice of a multitude of crystal and mechanical filters, in my Kenwood TS-850sat. Filters in two I.F. stages.
Some DSP is just audio stage processing. DSP has a way to go. It is good to have both 2 stage crystal I.F. filtering and DSP. I am all for a computer interface. Use it or do not. I have tried some custom filter programs(freeware). It was fun to have a filter with all sorts of notch'es and peaking.
I just hope future rigs will still leave in 2 stagextal I.F. fixed filters. Simple Audio stage DSP is a quick,cheaper,and an inferior alternative to 2 stage xtal I.F. Some rigs like then higher end Kenwoods. the DSP is in one I.F. stage.
I do agree though that laptops will be a obsolete in the not too distant future. I guess Hams will use their PDA's or maybe a watch!(A large one of course)
The same way many hams will only operate a tube rig.
One of the many good things about hams, diversity!
If I had the Bux, I would have a tube rig. A non DSP
ultrafilterd rig,a factory fresh TS-2000, and an Icom 706-II. I know I will keep my TS-850SAT, perhaps the last of the 2 stage multi-xtal I.F. I wish I held on to
a certain tube rig.
Wireless laptop control is nice. However I love to tweek the real knobs.
Best holiday wishes, MIKE WA2JJH
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by N5XM on December 7, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I certainly understand what you are getting at; yet, if we look at it in such a manner, shouldn't we just go back to breadboarding? Look at all the circuit boards in radios today...they've been around for several decades. What's the difference between all those boards in your computer, and the ones in your rig? I'm not being critical of the thread, in a sense it is true. I look at it as the flip side of the coin that is modern day technology. Everything just seems to be more complicated. I think maybe that is why I enjoy my Tec Tec radios so much. On the other hand I really love my FT-1000 MP. Go figure.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by W1JQ on December 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Having just written some software to control my relatively late-model Icom radio, I have some thoughts (probably more than is reasonable) on this thread.
First, assuming the Icom interface is typical, what you can do in a control program is pretty limited--the interface gives you a mediocre clone of the front panel. Useful, but nowhere near as useful as it could be. My logging program can now read the frequency, band, and mode from the rig, set split operation (I'd much rather type >7230 to work split-freq DX on 40m than dial for the tx frequency by hand), and manipulate the memories.) Like I said, useful, but not really exciting.
As a few people have said, what's going to blow this field wide open will be the ability to upload your own DSP software to the radio. I don't think the real leaders in this field are the GNU Radio guys--the people really doing magic are W7PUA and K1JT. But regardless of who the learders are, that's where the future lies.
I also think the "shape" of both computers and radios are going to change a lot over the next few years. I don't think we'll end up with the omnipotent PC screen staring at everyone, though that's sort of how things look now. I think we'll see many many more smart devices that talk to each other over networks. So if you're sitting in the back yard, you could pick up your cell phone, dial your rig, and operate from your easy chair next to the pool. Or operate your home station from a mini-console in your car. (Tired of those mobile antennas that never really work well? Pick up your controller and dial into your stacked monobanders on a 200' tower.) Or, for that matter, you're sitting at your rig ragchewing on 160m, but you'd like it to spend its spare time tuning across 20, listening to what's there, doing DSP and speech recognition to identify "rare DX" and notify you when a country pops up that you haven't worked. Or--for that matter--why should we limit ourselves to SSB and CW? Why not new digital modes, both for data and voice?
We could be a lot closer to this state of affairs than we are now. The vendors are, unfortunately, not really on top of things--except for TenTec. (The announcement of a transatlantic Ham QSO using OFDM digital voice is *VERY IMPORTANT*: www.arrl.net/news/stories/2002/12/04/100/?nc=1). I REALLY WANT ethernet in my radio--I hear that the TenTec Orion will have it. But we're a long way from seeing a commercial rig that will let me write my own DSP software and upload it. And home-brewing W7PUA's DSP-10 is far beyond my capabilities (and, if you're honest about it, probably far beyond yours. Ever try hand-soldering surface mount? Not fun--I'm amazed that *anyone* can do it). So for the time being, I'm still waiting and making do with what I have. But that's what the future looks like.
73,
Mike W1JQ
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by KD7EZE on December 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The assumption that most hams have a computer in their shack, is just that, an assumption. I have a computer in my home office, but wouldn't even consider putting one in my shack, TMI-too much interference. As far as computer controlled radios go, I think this is wrong. Convenient, yes, but wrong. Have you looked inside a newer radio lately? Would you attempt to repair or modify it? Probably not. I cringe at the thought of having to send a radio in for repairs, because of the microscopic SMT parts or computer chips. I guess the days of experimenting with or repairing your own gear are gone by the wayside. This is what they call progress
......baloney! This instant gratification has turned alot of people off. Seriously, you already pay out the wazoo just to purchase the radio (or other gear), then if it breaks down, you have to spend more money to get it fixed....bulls**t! They've computerized everything these days; ham gear, cars, etc. Next thing you know they'll wanna put computer chips in people. Life is complicated enough, without the "computerization is the future" attitude. It takes away from people's pride, not being able to repair your own gear. Maybe I'm living in the past, but, why would anyone want to own something they can't repair themselves? Convenience? Sad! Even my new car and truck have been stripped of their computer circuits, wires, sensors, etc. they run just fine, and now I can repair them. This makes me feel good about myself. It's the "pride" thing again, or self satisfaction. If computerization is what you want, fine, just don't try to stuff it down the throats of those who don't!
'73 de KD7EZE/5
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by N9DG on December 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By and large hams think too small, and therefore most of them have completely miss the point of integrating computer technology into radios. It really is a sad state of affairs that the computer control/integration for most of the current generation radios is still about the same as it was 15+ years ago. It is also unfortunate that we are still having to use add-on boxes and/or interfaces for sound cards to handle the various digital modes. Those should already be handled in the radio’s DSP itself and then transferred to the host computer by Ethernet.
Today’s amateur radio software writers have to funnel everything through a sloooow RS232 serial connection, use incomplete command sets that typically only control a few things, and/or use a kludge of analog audio/MIC/PTT/CW wiring. This is why the perception that the amateur radio software writers “have it backwards” is true; but only because the radio designers generally think of computer control as an “add-on” and don’t make it integral to the radios design. They need to rethink their design strategy from scratch and then provide ways to handle natively “in-the-radio” the various digital signals or any other kind of signal, it must be however be user definable. And they must also build the “radio” around higher level computer languages and technology instead of only thinking in terms of using embedded microprocessor to emulate what has already been done for years. Now they are essentially still building radios to do the exact same thing that we have been doing for 40+ years. And in the end manufactures will only build what people will buy, we need to demand it, so the onus is on us as users for real change, not the radio manufactures and software writers.
Another area of technology that is woefully under exploited is using graphical displays for current band conditions and activity levels, most existing exercises in computer interfacing with radios have been simply drawing a picture of a traditional radio on a computer screen. I’ll be first to agree that approach is generally pretty pointless. What I want from my computer interface is a way to monitor large segments of the band visually, then use the existing user interface designs that are already optimized for computer use. If properly implemented this kind of display can provide you a way to truly immerse yourself into the current band and monitor conditions for the entire band. With today’s radios all you have to work with are tiny little slices of radio spectrum that are defined by IF filters. The only way to know what is happening up or down the band is to twist the VFO around, and if you really think about it is just plain clunky. While knobs and frequency display methodologies of today’s radios made sense in the past they have now become a real obstacle to being able to really effectively perceive/visualize/maneuver around the radio spectrum. Only Icom and Ten Tec have pursued the oft derided spectrum displays, while a first step in the right direction, they are hampered by their small screen display size and the need to use a knob to get to the signals that you do see. These spectrum displays need to be much larger and provide much more real-time and historical data about band conditions/usage. When this integration of the computer and radio is done correctly you shouldn’t even be aware that there is a computer in the middle doing the work, all you should really experience is a total band situational awareness - literally like being “inside the band”.
Again it all comes back to hams actually demanding this kind of technology instead of getting all gushy and wobbly in the knees every time a manufacture comes out with yet another “stylish” box with a ton of buttons and another new batch of trivial bells and whistles.
|
| |
|
RE: Much ado about nothing...
|
|
|
by KC8Y on December 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i agree, totally, with this viewpoint...i am an electrical engineer & have been licensed since 1968...
true, there will always be advancements in technology...
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by W1JQ on December 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG is right on. If all we're thinking about is perpetuating 40 or 50-year old ways of doing things, we're not going to get anywhere, and we certainly aren't going to be able to justify our rather large frequency allocations (close to 10% of all the spectrum under 10 GHz). I've got no problem with people who like old radios--I've never sold a piece of radio gear, and still have my HT-37 and 2B. But ham radio is the original "high tech" hobby--and it's looking increasingly like time is passing us by. Radios need to be redesigned from the inside out, so we have the ability to experiment again.
But I'm writing mostly to say that I was incorrect in my earlier posting. I checked out the TenTec specs for the Orion, and it doesn't have an Ethernet interface. So we're even farther from where we want to be.
Mike, W1JQ
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by W3ULS on December 8, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks to some knowledgeable commenters, this discussion has moved in a very constructive direction, IMHO. At the time I sent in my original posting to eHam.net many weeks ago, I was not aware of an excellent article in October 2002 QST by Mike Marcus, N3JMM/7J1AKO, entitled, "Linux, Software Radio and the Radio Amateur." This gives a comprehensive overview of where software radio in hamdom stands today, and describes the very significant barriers that face hams who want to experiment with currently-available radios and their proprietary embedded software. In short, there are rich possibilities, but there also is substantial resistance. Marcus also takes note of such efforts as the GNU Radio project (also cited above).
Thanks to all,
John, W3ULS
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by KG6NJW on December 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Here's a point I haven't heard yet - like many of us, I work in a field that requires me to use a computer all day. After spending 8+ hours a day trying to get the computer, printer, PC fax, etc. to all work at the same time, the last thing I want to do when I get home is to spend my free time fiddling with yet another computer. I got interested in ham radio and SWL because they are something I can do without a computer, without software, and without a nest of cables connecting a bunch of tempermental and only semi-compatible hardware. In some ways, ham radio is actually somewhat of a "retro" hobby, in that it takes us back to the days of manual controls, soldering irons, building things yourself, and perhaps even understanding how the darned thing works.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by K0RGR on December 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think we're about to see another 'great divide' in ham radio, similar to the transtition from spark to CW and AM to SSB.
Digital signal processing is indeed improving the overall performance of our radios, simpifying the construction of the radios while complicating the design of the software. Have you seen a 'Warbler' low powered PSK rig? I've worked a lot of these little wonders and it's truly amazing what you can do with a few watts from rig so simple.
At the same time, the announcement today of a successful transatlantic test of a digital voice mode that occupies the same bandwidth as an SSB signal with 'near-FM' audio quality is very exciting. How long before we can have a giant HF roundtable on 40 meters at night with 'FM quality' for everybody? If this happens, we'll soon find the necessary computing hardware built into most ham gear.
We will need to guard against the creep of complexity, however, where it creates reliability issues. We still need to be able to beat two wires together or talk over an analog transmitter when the "chips are down" (pun intended -sorry).
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by N5POW on December 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree wholeheatedly with KG6NJW. I got interested in radio as a teenager in the 70's but girls and computers distracted me and I didn't get liscensed. As a hobbiest I built them from scratch in the late 70's and have owned several. But when I began having to use them in my day-to-day work, I no longer wish to play with them. The last thing I want it to have to boot up Windows to play radio! I want a good receiver, a clean transmitter, and knobs and buttons to operate it with. This is just an emotional response but a lot of hams feel this way.
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by N5POW on December 9, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree wholeheatedly with KG6NJW. I got interested in radio as a teenager in the 70's but girls and computers distracted me and I didn't get liscensed. As a hobbiest I built them from scratch in the late 70's and have owned several. But when I began having to use them in my day-to-day work, I no longer wish to play with them. The last thing I want it to have to boot up Windows to play radio! I want a good receiver, a clean transmitter, and knobs and buttons to operate it with. This is just an emotional response but a lot of hams feel this way.
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by WA4BWO on December 10, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well, I'm going to archive this entire section, save it on my PC for my grandchildren, and let them get a kick out of reading all the comments in about ten years or so. They will enjoy reading about how the PC is helping/ruining, assisting/hindering, adding joy to/making miserable the hobby and our lives. It is, at least for me, a joy just to read the comments and find the variety in all hams. Oh yea, didn't we all use a computer to enter the comments? Happy hamming and PCing. The world is the HAMS oyster! I just had to say that!
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by W3ULS on December 10, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another addendum: The November 2000 issue of CQ Magazine contains an excellent article on software defined radios by Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, entitled, "The Coming Revolution in Ham Radio--Part II."
As to hams interfacing with their rigs, it does seem that as software gradually replaces analog circuitry, we inevitably face a future of looking at a screen and communicating via a mouse and keyboard--after all, it soon will be just bits and bytes. Of course, there is the option to stick with the current analog-dependent rigs, and many will. It does seem, though, that at the high end, anyway, we will in the next 5-10 years see ham transceivers being introduced with less and less analog circuitry and more and more built-in computer capability. As several posters have noted, the issue then becomes whether the software is open architecture or continues to be proprietary.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by KE4NYV on December 10, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have read through just about all of these threads and I had to just stop and write this response...
<RANT>
The cranky old timers need to stop bitching. You want big tube rigs you can work on? Drop by any hamfest and weed through the tables upon tables of used tube and even some solid state gear. There is plenty out there to work on. I have been programming since I was about 10 and I have never saw the computer as a replacement for radio. I even have been one to speak out against things like Internet Repeater Linking, cool idea, but defeats the whole purpose of our hobby.
On the other hand, I have been programming microprocessors and other embedded devices for a few years now and I have to say without them, there is no way we could have the great equipment we have today. You like that micro HT that you almost forget is there? Try doing that with a handful of transistors and caps. SMT is the future.
I have to help re-inforce there is a huge difference in a computer that sits on the desk next to your rig and one that is built into the rig. I am a big supporter of Packet and APRS, have been since I got my license at 12. I am one of those guys that will not accept the statement "Packet is dead."
Those who don't want the new advanced equipment, don't buy them. Find yourself an old Heathkit and go to town. And vise versa.
</RANT>
73's
Jason KE4NYV
www.ke4nyv.com
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by AE9B on December 11, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm not sure we've even scratched the surface of what radios and computers CAN do. Amateur radio used to pride itself on cutting edge technology. I hope some current hams try to keep up with let alone generate new technology.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on December 11, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ten Tec had it right in the late 60's-70's. They had all sorts of modules. You could roll your own. Maybe if the computer was not Windows based, people might like it. They do have those "Stamp" modules," that you can program in Basic One could then really build thier own CPU rigs. Also they would have total knowledge of the programing and the RF THEORY.
Also from mini-circuits, one can purchase all sorts
of multi-octive VCO"s, mixers, and amps. My favorite is one chip they sell for under $2.oo! It will amplify
from D.C. to 4GHZ. It will output 100mW. One can use it for an IF stage,RF out, AF to a small speaker,and agc, N.B. and yes DSP. Almost no external componants.
I am designing something now.
I know it might be too much to ask if we used a standard for a bus,CPU,programming and I.F.'s.
I just feel what is accomplished by shooting someone down on what type of radio they want to use!
I built the Tuna-tin 2 back in 1978. How ever sure, I sometimes want to use a wireless controlled laptop rig.
I also like my TS-850SAT. IF a DSP/RF/IF programming standard comes along, I would be interested. Then again .If a Collins rig came my way, I would keep it
rig came my way, I would keep it.
BEST HOLIDAY WISHES MIKE WA2JJH
I also think it is not productive to label any ham anything! Their is a charm to be able to fix your own radio.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by K8DIT on December 12, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We are heading in the right direction. I wouldnt change a thing improving radio through changes in technology. I like to revel in the right now stuff and the old stuff and marvel at the difference, knowing that current technology has a shelf life and will in time be the old stuff. At 55 years old the challenge is not to become old stuff myself. A losing battle.
My view of the ham radio phenomena is that there are currently an unknown number of youngsters getting bitten by the bug while the folks my age decry the
death of our hobby. There is no way for the youngsters to organize and let us know that we neednt fear for the promulgation of the hobby, so we think what we want. So, for those who don't get ham radio, there is no further impetus for its progress. Those who think ham radio died with incentive licensing are hopeless romantics for which an opera or at least a Broadway
play should be written. Hey, I've got some old costumes
up in the attic...
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio--no thanks!
|
|
|
by WB5OAU on December 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most of my radios were built when Eniac was just
a dream, and I prefer it so. Every layer of computer
just buries the "radio" part of radio that much more.
To each his own...after working on a CRT tube all day long, I prefer the gentle glow of my 30s-60's gear...all 15 or 20 stations worth!
Besides...it seems the higher the computerization of a station, the less LISTENING one does!
John wb5oau
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio--no thanks!
|
|
|
by WB5OAU on December 13, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most of my radios were built when Eniac was just
a dream, and I prefer it so. Every layer of computer
just buries the "radio" part of radio that much more.
To each his own...after working on a CRT tube all day long, I prefer the gentle glow of my 30s-60's gear...all 15 or 20 stations worth!
Besides...it seems the higher the computerization of a station, the less LISTENING one does!
John wb5oau
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by KC7MMI on December 15, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have to admit, having a radio with an open source code CPU would be great. Any time a person wants to change the function of the radio, they can write the new code and FLASH it to the radio. If this were to happen, then the manufacturers could concentrate on the RF section and the owners could concentrate on the control section...altho a "starter kit" would be nice so a new owner could get on the air immediately. Just a thought.
-Benjamin
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by KY6R on December 16, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Cell phones are wireless computers (especially the WAP enable ones). GPS receivers are wireless computers. GPS and FRS have been combined in the new Rhino line from Garmin. We will only see more of this convergence, not less.
My TS-2000 has a com port - and that's fantastic. My old Hallicrafters receivers are also fantastic.
One is not better than another - they are different tools for different jobs. They make life more interesting (and expensive).
Have fun - choose whatever tools make you happy.
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by AA6YQ on December 20, 2002
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The point of the original article -- that software developers "seem hidebound in their devotion to the computer, and apparently think only in terms of how the computer can be made to function instead of considering what functionality is required for a particular task and how to provide it in a way most convenient for users" -- is demonstrably incorrect.
Amateur radio software developers create software that runs on PCs rather than within transceivers because they have no choice. There is no commercial ham transceiver available today that enables end-users to augment or replace its internal software.
As for the charge that developers fail to take a "task-oriented" approach, I offer DXLab as a counterexample. DXLab is a freeware suite of applications optimized for DXing. Its design was driven by the use cases -- scenarios -- encountered during DXing. See www.qsl.net/dxlab .
The state of the art in transceiver design is clearly to implement all signal processing digitally, for the many reasons expressed in previous comments. This poses an interesting business challenge for manufacturers like Icom, Kenwood, and Yaesu: their ability to differentiate and add value shrinks dramatically unless they maintain proprietary control of the signal processing software. Ultimately, non-CPU transceiver hardware shrinks to a fast A/D, a fast D/A, a couple of mixers, and a power amp. The A/D, D/A, mixers, and CPU will come from semiconductor companies -- no differentiation there. Can Kenwood stay in business selling $99 transceiver boxes that hams make functional with home-brew DSP software downloaded from the web? How will they convince you that their $99 box is better than Icom's when both use equivalent componentry in the same circuit configuration?
One way or the other, the transition will occur. The only question is whether the current manufacturers will exploit it, or succumb to it. Either way, hams will have more freedom to innovate than we've had since the days of Marconi -- but the tools of the trade will be software, not hardware.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
|
| |
|
A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Up until 3 months ago I had largely been inactive for over 20 years. Since I have gotten active again in Ham radio I have noticed several things.
1. Many Hams have computer phobia. Just the posts on eham.net alone show numerous examples of that. A computer is just a tool folks. I use many tools with my Ham radio station and the computer is just one more.
2. Many Hams that are NOT 'computerphobic' still use antiquated computer systems and routinely underutilize their computers.
3. Many Hams have internet phobia. The internet is just a communication tool and does NOT directly compete with Amateur Radio. It can be an asset and an assistance to it. If Ham Radio ever dies out - it won't be because of the internet or computers.
4. Many commercial Ham Radio web sites are pathetic. I think this reflects the truth mentioned in the above 3 items ...
5. Many Ham programmers don't know how to program well for Windows. Many Ham programs are fine BUT many more show a lack of understanding for how Windows and Windows users operate AND an ignorance of the standard programming practices used in a windowed environment.
I hope Hams get in gear and embrace new technologies and tools. Embracing ONLY the past is the surest way to extinction.
BTW, I read an article on PSK31 on the web 3 months ago and THAT is what got me back into ham radio ..... and I am really enjoying myself and Ham radio again!
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by WA5ZNU on February 27, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing that worries me is devices that *require* PC software to operate, and have don't offer the source code to the application. In a few years, when Windows 2010 comes out, or even sooner if the author looses interest in the software, any device that requires such a program to operate will be useless.
I think hams who buy equipment that requires a computer to operate (spectrum analyzers, system monitors, antenna analyzers, etc.) should prefer products that come with the source code for the PC side of the application, so that we will be protected against the device being made unusable.
If any of you are old enough to remember "potted circuits," it's a similar issue. Potted circuits were boxes with components inside, then filled up with glue, so if it broke, there was no way to fix it. Closed source PC applications are like potted circuits, except you know that the PC is going to change and break things irretrievably.
|
| |
|
RE: A computer in your radio
|
|
|
by IV3SBE on March 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's been quite a long waiting but finally the radio that feature the " CTRL+ALT+DEL " has arrived.
Let's our radio away from embedding a PC inside, albeit it would be a nice idea, it will decrease the value of your rig at the speed of light, unless you keep on updating the Hardware at least once a year.
Nasty side.....
No-coders says: "How about an HDD inside, a modem, a sound card so you get instant Echolink?"
I respond: " You are sitting in front of one! it's called chatting on PC!"
Definition: ECHOLINK
" A good way of communication developed by a poor Aerial installer."
" Have an Undefragmented Day won't you?"
Enrico li Perni
Iv3sbe
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
EchoLink
The Future of Digital Radio
Why I'm an Amateur Radio Operator
Radio 'Slack' Strikes Out Again!
When Your Radio Has Saved You
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
