--- Mike Manship <w9oj@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> If amateurs were demanding "black box" compter
> operated
> rigs then Icom, Yaesu and Kenwood would have already
> produced one.
The key is ?if? hams were demanding, it is really too
bad that this is the current situation. As such I
worry about the validity of the ham radio part 97
defined ?basis and purpose? claim to ?advance the
radio art?. As for true innovation from the JA
companies you won?t see it, they are rarely ever first
with anything cutting edge. They are however extremely
good at recognizing what the next big mass consumer
electronic fad will be and to then capitalize on it,
(except for computer technology for some inexplicable
reason). So it is no accident that radios from
overseas look and feel so much like all of the other
generic consumer electronic products do.
>I do not want to be forced to have a computer to
operate my rigs.
No one saying this new technology needs to be to the
EXCLUSION of existing designs, all I?m saying is don?t
only make the traditional knobs/panel centric designs
to the exclusion of the more advanced computer/SDR
centric designs. It?s really no different than the
reality that powered construction equipment can never
(or even should) replace every last hand shovel out
there, but there is also no reason to make everyone
have to use a shovel all the time either. With the
basic design approach of all new radio models there
isn?t a good reason anymore why we can?t have it both
ways, the Jupiter/Orion are basic examples of being
both traditional and external computer driven radios.
--- Ken Brown <ken.d.brown@verizon.net> wrote:
> It is possible using computer
> controlled black boxes
> and digital modes to communicate using amatuer radio
> spectrum without
> even learning radio operating skills, and with the
> right boxes and help
> from others we could do that with out learning
> anything about
> propagation, rf systems or much of anything else
> other than what to
> click on.
This exactly the same as it is now, it?s possible now
to use simple analog radios and SSB or CW exclusively
every day and still not learn anything at all about
electronics and radio theory. This basic issue will
not change no matter what new modes or technology that
may be adopted in the future.
> We could set up our stations so we could
> not even distinguish
> their use from just another modem connected to our
> PC. This may appeal
> to some. It does not appeal to me, and I do not
> think that type of
> operation on the ham bands would be a good use of
> the bandwidth it would
> occupy.
Believe it or not it doesn?t appeal to me either,
while the Internet linking stuff is pretty neat on
certain levels it doesn?t turn my crank at all,
neither does HF DX?ing, but so what. My game is to
push the limits of what my station can do, not just to
have top-notch RF performance but to have total band
situational awareness. For me to do this I seek to
build a station that is totally frequency and mode
agile. I want to have the ability to know what is
happening across big chunks of radio spectrum on
several different bands simultaneously and in
real-time, and to then be able to get to any signals
of interest very quickly. None of the current off the
shelf radios will even begin to let me do that. I have
however built up a station ?prototype? of what I
really want to do by using a small fleet of Pegasus
transceivers, as limited as they are they have totally
convinced me of the validity of my ultimate goal.
> I think this is why Kachina is not marketing
> to hams anymore,
> and why Jupiters are sold as well as Pegasus. If the
> computer is doing
> the radio operating, it may as well be on a wire or
> fiber network
> instead, leaving the amatuer spectrum for people who
> like to operate adios...
Arguably the Kachina 505 was ahead of its time. It
also suffered from a lack of software development
support, either because Kachina didn?t grasp the
extreme importance of it, or didn?t have the resources
to achieve it, perhaps a combination of both.
Again it is not about the computer DOING the
operating, far from it, computers and computer
technology can instead be used to provide all of the
information about the bands of interest quickly and
completely so I can operate more, - not less. And I?m
not talking about Internet DX spotting either because
I want to find the new signals FIRST, - not get them
off of a DX cluster. Using computer technology to
display the band signal condition/presence information
that MY OWN ?radio? collects will provide me with so
much more information than spinning a VFO knob (wobbly
or not ;) ) continuously up and down the band could
even begin to do. Additionally the existing radio
panel mounted spectrum displays are all really rather
limited, - but they are a small step in the right
direction.
> My point is that there is perhaps some
> limit to how advanced
> the technology can become before it's just not fun
> anymore, for me at least....
There is no limit, just imagine if all the horse and
carriage enthusiast had managed to keep those "gear
heads" Benz and Ford from playing with that ?advanced?
automobile technology 100+ years ago?
> There are those who
> would rather use a
> high tech modem than operate a radio.
Not at all, instead there those of us who want to have
the option to operate high tech NON traditional
radios; I?ll use the modem for my Internet activities
and to try and stir some passionate debate on email
reflectors :). However of all the major radio
manufacturers I still believe that Ten Tec is the most
likely to break new ground in this area. But we will
have to wait and see.
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
|