--- John Rippey <w3uls@3n.net> wrote:
> Well, Ron and Duane, I remain medieval, I guess.
>
> A. I want a radio, not a computer. I enjoy using
> computers about as much as I do cutting grass, i.e.,
> not much.
The key is to not get hung up on the fact that radios
today are becoming more and more computer driven and
less "analog". When properly implemented you should
not even notice that there is a computer driving the
inner workings of the radio but instead that your
"radio" is able to provide you with all the
information and control you may want or need. This is
where the existing radios today are all quite lacking
in my opinion, especially considering that the
inexpensive technology (the generic PC's) is here
today to really change the norm of how our radios (or
ham shacks) "look, work, and feel".
Some of us are already doing this, but we must adapt
hardware that is not truly ideal for what we want to
be doing; nevertheless we achieve a degree of success
that only leaves us wanting more, - much more. However
to get there it requires an ability to "stand back a
few steps" and ask yourself what it is that you
*really* want to be able to do while operating on the
bands. Crucial to this process is to escape the trap
of *only* thinking in terms of how things have
*always* been done. It's kinda like a horse and buggy
driver trying to drive that new fangled automobile
just like a horse and buggy, - it simply doesn't work.
But yet so many in ham radio are trying to do exactly
that when they operate (or think about) a PC centric
radio design just like they would a traditional radio.
Doing so is to have completely miss the point and the
user will experience none of its advantages, they then
often come away from that execise rather disappointed.
So let go of the reins and grab a steering wheel
instead and stomp on the gas peddle for a fun, fast
ride :). After all we don't see all that many horse
and buggies on the roads these days, - especially ones
doing 65MPH ;).
On the other-hand if your interests are *only* casual
rag-chewing, then yes, I completely agree with your
sentiment. In that case there really is no need for
anything more than a basic set of controls and good RF
performance, but then there is already plenty of
proven technology to handle those few tasks very well.
And yes there will always be a place for those kinds
of radios in ham radio, just like there is still a
place for simple regenerative receivers and simple CW
only transmitters to this day. But in the true spirit
of ham radio there is really more of a need for some
advanced concepts, concepts that today's radios simply
can't accommodate. Technology marches on, it must, or
ham radio will stagnate and die.
> B. A well-designed, attractive front panel would be
> welcome, since that's what I look at 90% of the
> time. ...
What is there to see while looking at a typical radio
front panel today? In reality there is very little
information presented there, more or less it's just a
single frequency, mode, and a rudimentary indicator of
signal strength. Radios with band-scopes do give you
some additional information about where the signals
are up and down the band, but still not a whole lot of
historical data. For simple rag chewing that is indeed
all that you really need, but for serious DX'ing and
contesting, no, it is not nearly enough.
For example when I'm hot and heavy into a typical VHF
contest I'm watching the spectrum sweeps for activity
on four separate bands while also simultaneously
listening and/or tuning on two of them, - plus calling
CQ in between the various manual mouse driven tuning
operations. Today there's not a single radio in the
ham market that can provide this level of capability
out of the box at any price, - I've looked. And none
of the traditional panel centric designs can even come
close to providing that level of simultaneous band
operation using a *single* set of controls, - it
simply *requires* a computer to get there.
Operationally I don't even think about the computer
that's sitting in the middle driving the whole lot. I
just have this sense of "immersion" inside each of
those bands themselves which provides me an excellent
situational awareness of what's happening over a total
of 600 Khz worth of spectrum across those 4 bands, -
all continuously within a span of 5 seconds. A VFO
knob, a discrete frequency display, and an S-meter
simply can't provide this kind of situational
awareness period.
And finally the best part of all of this is that the
core RF (several Pegasus radios) and computer parts of
this system cost me less than 2 new Orions and much
less than a IC-7800 to put together :). So it need not
be very expensive either.
Duane
N9DG
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|