I'll admit the average ham, or even most hams would have a problem
understanding computer source code, but all it take is little studying
of the particular language used to follow it. OTOH there are some very
complex programs out there that contain thousands of line of code, that
the guys who wrote it have a problem reading it ten years later and I'm
one of them. Yes I have a degree in CS with work toward a masters, but
those are not necessary to understanding what that code is going to do.
It does often require reading at least part of a book on the particular
language. I did say would take a little study as does every facet of
Ham Radio.
Once you learn the basics, understanding well written source code can be
relatively easy to follow, BUT like mechanical aptitude, not everyone
will become proficient, or even grasp the concepts and there is a LOT of
code that is not well written.
I was raised on a farm, many years ago when it was a different world.
Improvisation was a key to fixing things when you didn't have the
correct parts, or couldn't afford them. It required that you had a
fundamental understanding of the equipment at an early age. Worn out
bearings? You made a wood block fitted to the steel bearing form, put it
on the shaft and poured Babbitt metal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babbitt_(alloy) into it giving a form
fitting bearing, much like rod bearings in an engine although far more
crude. Amateur radio was the same.
One thing I disagree with is SSB and transceivers were developed close
together although the smaller and lighter SSB rigs certainly aided the
practical development of the transceiver. SSB was around quite a while
before transceivers became popular. Originally SSB was accomplished with
adapters on AM rigs. We went through several generations of those before
separate transmitters and receivers with SSB capabilities turned up.
Collins 75AXX receivers and the KWS-1 transmitter (I had both
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat1.htm ), Hallicrafters HT32
series ( http://www.rogerhalstead.com/ham_files/boat8.htm ). Then the
S-line, and less expensive equipment like HT37 turned up and suddenly
sweep tube finals to be followed by amplifiers using sweep tubes became
a relatively inexpensive rout to the latest technologies., but rigs were
still relatively simple. with the CW and SSB modes being by far the most
popular. SSB generation was relatively simple, using either phasing, or
filter generation. USB and LSB were selected by simply moving the carrier.
I would add that BOTH Collins and Hallicrafters produced transceiver
along with separate transmitters and receivers for quite a while. Just
the last generation of top end rigs and SDRs have been capable of
reaching the clean signals of those S-lines. Unfortunately, they also
gave hams access to stages that let them turn that excellent signal
capability into garbage!
The sweep tube generation was the point where signal quality began the
slide with the new, bipolar transistors adding to the decline.
Unfortunately there are many hams including old timers that do not
understand why so many of us want to see the signal quality cleaned up.
Yet if all the rigs had a signal as clean as the old Collins S-line we
could squeeze more stations onto crowded bands with far less QRM
Schematics and programs tell me a lot about a rig and particularly if
the program is open source with the source code. (source code=the
program before it's compiled)
To me the SDRs are the easiest to follow with the source code, even if I
have to back up and create a diagram. Yes, it's time consuming, but IF
the source code is laid out properly with "internal documentation"
(internal documentation= complete explanation as to what that piece of
code does and how it does it). This should be included in ever source code.
I will add that I've spent many hours reorganizing programs written by
engineers to make them readable and added the documentation. I've also
fought battles with department heads who read a book on programming and
concluded they knew how to program.unfortunately some were higher up the
food chain than I. Those are the worst to decipher, or to get other
programs to work with them.
In the end, SDRs may turn out to be the easiest to understand, second
only to the old SSB / CW rigs, but they will require a different mind set.
73, Roger (K8RI)
On 4/28/2017 8:37 AM, Catherine James wrote:
Unless they provide you with the firmware/software, the schematic may not tell
you everything you need to know anyway. They will become ever more true as the
industry moved to SDR.
--------------------------------------------
<wlfuqu00@uky.edu> wrote:
Oh, I forgot, most radios don't come with schematics these days. You have to
purchase a service manual. I like to see what is in my radios.
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|