W2AGN wrote:
Well, mail is easily ignored, and I keep a 12 gauge close by, so I am
not particularly concerned. One who is too gutless to identify himself
is certainly too gutless to show up at my door, and if he did, it would
be unfortunate for him, if he chose to act in a threatening manner.

I'll shoot the ass out of the raccoons, butt I miss sometimes so shooting
ain't my favorite control..the ****ers run off and die someplace else.

I've found trapping to be the most efficient control for raccoons, here in
N Ohio.

Slow Code wrote:
And
then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

SC

Hey slow code, didja give Lelnad your new CB advice?

What's your ham call?

W2AGN wrote:
and if he did, it would
be unfortunate for him, if he chose to act in a threatening manner.

Good point.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:11:39 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:43:09 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit
of sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's like
sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's own
tail for hours on end because it's too dumb to know better. From
reading the posts the really dumb ones stand out from the crowd.
Better they left their mouths shut rather than opening it thus
relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally
got my TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so
I've been busy with another engineer buddy working on some DSP
projects. Nothing like going back to review all the discrete time
system theory, FFT's and z-transform stuff I learned years ago.
It's a lot more interesting than the silly name calling and
baiting to start a flame war going on in this news group lately
and I don't want to waste my time with such crap either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it
together. Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when
A0-40 was still working. I have it collecting dust now, as
soundcard software is easier. Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC
anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier" at
least from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view you're
right about the ease of use, you can't beat it. The main difference
between a DSP board as opposed to sound card software is
performance. And that is a two part issue. One is raw computational
performance and the second is power consumption. The TI 6713 on my
EVM gets barely warm while cranking out 1200 to 1300 MFLOPS. Then
take a look at the monster sized CPU in your PC and it's heat sink.
No contest. A last point DSP chips don't waste transistors on stuff
that isn't needed like virtual memory, privilege levels etc. that
only matters to CPUs running general applications and need to be
protected from other users on the system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for you
is the complex scheduling of the various routines that have time
critical deadlines to meet. If you do the sound card routine,
writing it yourself that is, you have to not only do the application
code but you have to write your own scheduler routine and maybe with
multi-level interrupts you assign to the different threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors
have "C" compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a DSP
BIOS that handles the low level hardware crap so you don't have to
using assembly code. Add on hardware often comes with plug-in
modules containing the required low level code so you don't have to
write it yourself. You just call the low level routines from "C"
using the provided function prototypes in the vendor's "xxx.h" files
and the linker finds the code in the vendor supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core
audiophiles are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom
filter and complex frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some
lively discussions among some of them over which EVM system is best
to use or going a roll-your-own approach is better. Some of them
were looking for doing direct digital to audio applications, some
audio equipment has direct digital outputs, with noise reduction
etc. because they don't like the limitations of the commercial gear
out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent exchange
of messages compared to the infantile crap some others are trying to
get me to waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text book
on DSP theory


My EVM came with five thick books. I went through part of the first
one and realized to write my own software for it, it was going to
take some time to learn things. So I mainly used software written by
others.
Why re-invent the wheel. I still don't have a lot of time to play,
but maybe someday I'll plug it in again and learn a little.

SC

Hey, it's never to late. You stop learning when you're dead in my
view. It sure beats exchanging insults on this news group.

Yup, reusing code written by others is a good idea, why reinvent the
wheel unless you're doing it for self pedagogical reasons. In fact
that's one aim for good software engineering practice; code reuse. Was
that EVM board a stand alone system or was it part of some kit it was
to be used in? I assume you're referring to the Motorola 56000 DSP
chip you mentioned in another post.


Funny talking about DSP in this group. I normally come here to stir a
little when someone says their CB broke. LOL. I know that's mean.

What the heck, you have to play with the kids some time. 8-))


Mine has the motorola DSP56002EVM. TAPR made a kit to use it in. You
can connect a couple radio's to it. It has status lights on the front
you can program to indicate various states like what you would see on a
regular multi-mode TNC. On the back is a programming port and a
communications port. My soldering iron was probably only hot for about
an hour and a half putting it together.
It's really quite neat setup, after you load the modem software you
want
you can use it without having to wire every up again, or switch cables.
It's nice to have two computers hooked to it. One to use as a terminal
for what ever you're doing. PSK, Packet, etc, and the other computer to
load the modem software and program it. If you only have one computer
you have to switch back and forth. One thing I didn't do but wanted to
was burn an Eprom with the different modems on it to switch between
modes faster. What I had to do each time I used it was load what ever
software I wanted to use at the time. There was another way you could
load two different modems in it at the same time but I never did that.

That sounds like a nice kit they put together. They supply any block
diagrams or other documentation explaining how the code worked?

I'll have to look. I think it was covered in one of the books, by
Motorola but TAPR didn't provide one.

I wouldn't mind looking at it if you find it. I do have an older book from
TI titled "Theory and Implementation of a splitband Modem Using the
TMS32010" if that rings any bells for you.




If you can program yours in a higher language and compile it down to
the EVM, that's a lot better than using an assembler like I got with
mine, though some members of TAPR wrote some apps to make things
easier.

If you look around you may find a compiler released under the public GNU
license agreement that would work for your DSP chip. If you get the bug
again it would be worth the time to look.


Like I said, I'm not doing much with it right now. Time is the
problem. It's easiest to use the soundcard.

I've looked at some of the FFT routines used on some of the software
defined radios being sold. The one I looked at wasn't documented very
well. I wish that people who write code for public release did a better
job at documenting what they did with more in-line comments and
extensive cometary in the header files.


If you develope a new mode, you might have to port it to the PC so
everyone else can use it.

What I'm working on, with another engineer buddy from work, is sort of a
midnight engineering project that's work related but not necessary for
work if you get my meaning. Many companies like to swipe work related
stuff people do and then paten it under the company's name with no
compensation to the employee and that's even if they did all the work on
their own time and at their own expense. There was a magazine published
at one time I've read called "Midnight Engineering" that covered exactly
these sorts of issues with engineers developing ideas on their own at
home. I don't know if the magazine is still published or not.

There are a number of people in Amsat that
are working with DSP for the satellites. Look around for Phil Karn,
he's a good one to bounce ideas off of, and knows who else is
experimenting.

I've seen Phil's name mentioned often.

Also browse TAPR, I don't know what they're doing DSP
wise these days.

They are in to the new thing; software defined radios. They sell a kit
with a home grown DSP board to use with it. Even the professional
community is in to it big time as well.

I was never a member. I only really got into the EVM
& DSP when you couldn't buy an AEA DSP.

I thought that AEA still made DSP modems for packet. At least that's
what I thought I saw at last years Hamvention. They usually set up in a
hallway between a couple of the larger rooms. The rage now is using
commercial WiFi 802.11b gear for extended range. One company I checked
out on the Internet is selling a 2 watt bi-directional 2.4 GHz amp. To
get one you must supply documentation to them proving you're a licensed
Ham before they'll ship one out to you. No proof no amp. As long as the
WiFi stuff is operated on the correct channels the frequencies used fall
in to the 2.4 GHz allocation Hams can use so we can legally run much
higher power with gain antennas that ordinary WiFi users can't. And
here's the kicker operating that way, under Part 97, any interference
ordinary users suffer they can't do much about it since the commercial
WiFi stuff is licensed under Part 15.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO


The AEA unit was the 2232 I think or something like that. I haven't done
wifi but I hear alot of talk about war driving. I have a three foot dish
on the tower that I used on 2.4 ghz when ao-40 was going.

How often did you get on? I was on several times myself but work really
put a damper in to the activities. I live in an apartment so any time I
wanted to get on I had to take the setup out side. The neighbors thought
it looked like something from an episode of the "X-Files" when they saw
it! I have a 40" grill dish for the 2.4 GHz down link in to an UEK300 down
converter, to 2m, from SSB. The up link was on 70 cm, 50 watts in to an 11
element beam from M-Squared. If I needed more power I've got two 10 w in
100 w out 70 cm brick amps I could have used. The rig I use is an
FT-847. The few times I got on it really was fun. The half second delay in
the audio does take some getting use too. I'm waiting for the next one to
go up. I want to do some more sat work.

I downconvert
sigs to two meters. Never tried to see what wifi looked like. If they
had a weatherproof unit minus the antenna, I could plug that on the
helix and point the dish around the neighborhood. It has tight beamwidth
& good gain. LOL, hey, Free broadband. ;-) There's also wireless
internet in the area that operates at 2.4 gig too,

The county here, Oakland Michigan, is setting up a free WiFi county wide
access too. It won't be real fast, something like 128kbps, but it's
better than paying for the same slow crap using a network card through the
cell phone telco's.

it gets down
converted an plugs into a regular cable modem. The company supplies a
grid dish and there is some form of transmitter on it. I always
wondered who made the transmitter and if you could buy one surplus for
experimentation. And then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

If you have a link for that I would like to read about that kind of
setup.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Dr.Death" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Slow Code wrote:
And
then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

SC

Hey slow code, didja give Lelnad your new CB advice?

What's your ham call?

What's his advice Steveo?

Here's his latest tip:

Slow Code wrote:
Your radio is dry and needs
to be lubricated to get the squeal out.

Get some WD-40 (Comes in a spray can) Take the covers off the CB so you
can see the componant side of the PC board. Now completely spray down
everything until the the can is almost empty and then use the last little
bit and spray inside the microphone. Let it soak about five minutes.
Next it's time to remove the excess lubricant. Take the radio out to the
middle of your concrete driveway, and throw a lit match in it. This will
burn away the excess lub. To clean the smoke smell inside, put the CB in
your dishwasher and run on Pots & Pans Cycle.

HTH, 73

SC

Steveo wrote in
:

"Dr.Death" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Slow Code wrote:
And
then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

SC

Hey slow code, didja give Lelnad your new CB advice?

What's your ham call?

What's his advice Steveo?

Here's his latest tip:

Slow Code wrote:
Your radio is dry and needs
to be lubricated to get the squeal out.

Get some WD-40 (Comes in a spray can) Take the covers off the CB so
you can see the componant side of the PC board. Now completely spray
down everything until the the can is almost empty and then use the last
little bit and spray inside the microphone. Let it soak about five
minutes. Next it's time to remove the excess lubricant. Take the radio
out to the middle of your concrete driveway, and throw a lit match in
it. This will burn away the excess lub. To clean the smoke smell
inside, put the CB in your dishwasher and run on Pots & Pans Cycle.

HTH, 73


Yes, but for su no more squeal.

SC

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:11:39 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:43:09 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit
of sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's
like sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's
own tail for hours on end because it's too dumb to know better.
From reading the posts the really dumb ones stand out from the
crowd. Better they left their mouths shut rather than opening it
thus relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally
got my TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so
I've been busy with another engineer buddy working on some DSP
projects. Nothing like going back to review all the discrete
time system theory, FFT's and z-transform stuff I learned years
ago. It's a lot more interesting than the silly name calling and
baiting to start a flame war going on in this news group lately
and I don't want to waste my time with such crap either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it
together. Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when
A0-40 was still working. I have it collecting dust now, as
soundcard software is easier. Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC
anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier"
at least from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view
you're right about the ease of use, you can't beat it. The main
difference between a DSP board as opposed to sound card software
is performance. And that is a two part issue. One is raw
computational performance and the second is power consumption. The
TI 6713 on my EVM gets barely warm while cranking out 1200 to 1300
MFLOPS. Then take a look at the monster sized CPU in your PC and
it's heat sink. No contest. A last point DSP chips don't waste
transistors on stuff that isn't needed like virtual memory,
privilege levels etc. that only matters to CPUs running general
applications and need to be protected from other users on the
system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for
you is the complex scheduling of the various routines that have
time critical deadlines to meet. If you do the sound card routine,
writing it yourself that is, you have to not only do the
application code but you have to write your own scheduler routine
and maybe with multi-level interrupts you assign to the different
threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors
have "C" compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a
DSP BIOS that handles the low level hardware crap so you don't
have to using assembly code. Add on hardware often comes with
plug-in modules containing the required low level code so you
don't have to write it yourself. You just call the low level
routines from "C" using the provided function prototypes in the
vendor's "xxx.h" files and the linker finds the code in the vendor
supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core
audiophiles are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom
filter and complex frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some
lively discussions among some of them over which EVM system is
best to use or going a roll-your-own approach is better. Some of
them were looking for doing direct digital to audio applications,
some audio equipment has direct digital outputs, with noise
reduction etc. because they don't like the limitations of the
commercial gear out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent
exchange of messages compared to the infantile crap some others
are trying to get me to waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text
book on DSP theory


My EVM came with five thick books. I went through part of the
first one and realized to write my own software for it, it was
going to take some time to learn things. So I mainly used software
written by others.
Why re-invent the wheel. I still don't have a lot of time to
play,
but maybe someday I'll plug it in again and learn a little.

SC

Hey, it's never to late. You stop learning when you're dead in my
view. It sure beats exchanging insults on this news group.

Yup, reusing code written by others is a good idea, why reinvent the
wheel unless you're doing it for self pedagogical reasons. In fact
that's one aim for good software engineering practice; code reuse.
Was that EVM board a stand alone system or was it part of some kit
it was to be used in? I assume you're referring to the Motorola
56000 DSP chip you mentioned in another post.


Funny talking about DSP in this group. I normally come here to stir
a little when someone says their CB broke. LOL. I know that's mean.

What the heck, you have to play with the kids some time. 8-))


Mine has the motorola DSP56002EVM. TAPR made a kit to use it in.
You can connect a couple radio's to it. It has status lights on the
front you can program to indicate various states like what you would
see on a regular multi-mode TNC. On the back is a programming port
and a communications port. My soldering iron was probably only hot
for about an hour and a half putting it together.
It's really quite neat setup, after you load the modem software you
want
you can use it without having to wire every up again, or switch
cables. It's nice to have two computers hooked to it. One to use as
a terminal for what ever you're doing. PSK, Packet, etc, and the
other computer to load the modem software and program it. If you
only have one computer you have to switch back and forth. One thing
I didn't do but wanted to was burn an Eprom with the different modems
on it to switch between modes faster. What I had to do each time I
used it was load what ever software I wanted to use at the time.
There was another way you could load two different modems in it at
the same time but I never did that.

That sounds like a nice kit they put together. They supply any block
diagrams or other documentation explaining how the code worked?

I'll have to look. I think it was covered in one of the books, by
Motorola but TAPR didn't provide one.

I wouldn't mind looking at it if you find it. I do have an older book
from TI titled "Theory and Implementation of a splitband Modem Using the
TMS32010" if that rings any bells for you.




If you can program yours in a higher language and compile it down to
the EVM, that's a lot better than using an assembler like I got with
mine, though some members of TAPR wrote some apps to make things
easier.

If you look around you may find a compiler released under the public
GNU license agreement that would work for your DSP chip. If you get
the bug again it would be worth the time to look.


Like I said, I'm not doing much with it right now. Time is the
problem. It's easiest to use the soundcard.

I've looked at some of the FFT routines used on some of the software
defined radios being sold. The one I looked at wasn't documented very
well. I wish that people who write code for public release did a
better job at documenting what they did with more in-line comments and
extensive cometary in the header files.


If you develope a new mode, you might have to port it to the PC so
everyone else can use it.

What I'm working on, with another engineer buddy from work, is sort of
a midnight engineering project that's work related but not necessary
for work if you get my meaning. Many companies like to swipe work
related stuff people do and then paten it under the company's name
with no compensation to the employee and that's even if they did all
the work on their own time and at their own expense. There was a
magazine published at one time I've read called "Midnight Engineering"
that covered exactly these sorts of issues with engineers developing
ideas on their own at home. I don't know if the magazine is still
published or not.

There are a number of people in Amsat that
are working with DSP for the satellites. Look around for Phil Karn,
he's a good one to bounce ideas off of, and knows who else is
experimenting.

I've seen Phil's name mentioned often.

Also browse TAPR, I don't know what they're doing DSP
wise these days.

They are in to the new thing; software defined radios. They sell a kit
with a home grown DSP board to use with it. Even the professional
community is in to it big time as well.

I was never a member. I only really got into the EVM
& DSP when you couldn't buy an AEA DSP.

I thought that AEA still made DSP modems for packet. At least that's
what I thought I saw at last years Hamvention. They usually set up in
a hallway between a couple of the larger rooms. The rage now is using
commercial WiFi 802.11b gear for extended range. One company I checked
out on the Internet is selling a 2 watt bi-directional 2.4 GHz amp. To
get one you must supply documentation to them proving you're a
licensed Ham before they'll ship one out to you. No proof no amp. As
long as the WiFi stuff is operated on the correct channels the
frequencies used fall in to the 2.4 GHz allocation Hams can use so we
can legally run much higher power with gain antennas that ordinary
WiFi users can't. And here's the kicker operating that way, under Part
97, any interference ordinary users suffer they can't do much about it
since the commercial WiFi stuff is licensed under Part 15.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO


The AEA unit was the 2232 I think or something like that. I haven't
done wifi but I hear alot of talk about war driving. I have a three
foot dish on the tower that I used on 2.4 ghz when ao-40 was going.

How often did you get on? I was on several times myself but work really
put a damper in to the activities. I live in an apartment so any time I
wanted to get on I had to take the setup out side. The neighbors thought
it looked like something from an episode of the "X-Files" when they saw
it! I have a 40" grill dish for the 2.4 GHz down link in to an UEK300
down converter, to 2m, from SSB. The up link was on 70 cm, 50 watts in
to an 11 element beam from M-Squared. If I needed more power I've got
two 10 w in 100 w out 70 cm brick amps I could have used. The rig I use
is an FT-847. The few times I got on it really was fun. The half second
delay in the audio does take some getting use too. I'm waiting for the
next one to go up. I want to do some more sat work.

I downconvert
sigs to two meters. Never tried to see what wifi looked like. If they
had a weatherproof unit minus the antenna, I could plug that on the
helix and point the dish around the neighborhood. It has tight
beamwidth & good gain. LOL, hey, Free broadband. ;-) There's also
wireless internet in the area that operates at 2.4 gig too,

The county here, Oakland Michigan, is setting up a free WiFi county wide
access too. It won't be real fast, something like 128kbps, but it's
better than paying for the same slow crap using a network card through
the cell phone telco's.

it gets down
converted an plugs into a regular cable modem. The company supplies a
grid dish and there is some form of transmitter on it. I always
wondered who made the transmitter and if you could buy one surplus for
experimentation. And then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

If you have a link for that I would like to read about that kind of
setup.


I haven't seen anything on it. I did a Google search once, but couldn't
find any information on anyone experimenting or hacking it.


I'm not on the Leo's much, but can't wait to try P3E the Germans are
building, and we're building Eagle. Some good satellites coming soon. :-)

SC

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:25:02 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:11:39 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:43:09 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit
of sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's
like sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's
own tail for hours on end because it's too dumb to know better.
From reading the posts the really dumb ones stand out from the
crowd. Better they left their mouths shut rather than opening it
thus relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally
got my TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so
I've been busy with another engineer buddy working on some DSP
projects. Nothing like going back to review all the discrete
time system theory, FFT's and z-transform stuff I learned years
ago. It's a lot more interesting than the silly name calling and
baiting to start a flame war going on in this news group lately
and I don't want to waste my time with such crap either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it
together. Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when
A0-40 was still working. I have it collecting dust now, as
soundcard software is easier. Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC
anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier"
at least from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view
you're right about the ease of use, you can't beat it. The main
difference between a DSP board as opposed to sound card software
is performance. And that is a two part issue. One is raw
computational performance and the second is power consumption. The
TI 6713 on my EVM gets barely warm while cranking out 1200 to 1300
MFLOPS. Then take a look at the monster sized CPU in your PC and
it's heat sink. No contest. A last point DSP chips don't waste
transistors on stuff that isn't needed like virtual memory,
privilege levels etc. that only matters to CPUs running general
applications and need to be protected from other users on the
system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for
you is the complex scheduling of the various routines that have
time critical deadlines to meet. If you do the sound card routine,
writing it yourself that is, you have to not only do the
application code but you have to write your own scheduler routine
and maybe with multi-level interrupts you assign to the different
threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors
have "C" compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a
DSP BIOS that handles the low level hardware crap so you don't
have to using assembly code. Add on hardware often comes with
plug-in modules containing the required low level code so you
don't have to write it yourself. You just call the low level
routines from "C" using the provided function prototypes in the
vendor's "xxx.h" files and the linker finds the code in the vendor
supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core
audiophiles are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom
filter and complex frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some
lively discussions among some of them over which EVM system is
best to use or going a roll-your-own approach is better. Some of
them were looking for doing direct digital to audio applications,
some audio equipment has direct digital outputs, with noise
reduction etc. because they don't like the limitations of the
commercial gear out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent
exchange of messages compared to the infantile crap some others
are trying to get me to waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text
book on DSP theory


My EVM came with five thick books. I went through part of the
first one and realized to write my own software for it, it was
going to take some time to learn things. So I mainly used software
written by others.
Why re-invent the wheel. I still don't have a lot of time to
play,
but maybe someday I'll plug it in again and learn a little.

SC

Hey, it's never to late. You stop learning when you're dead in my
view. It sure beats exchanging insults on this news group.

Yup, reusing code written by others is a good idea, why reinvent the
wheel unless you're doing it for self pedagogical reasons. In fact
that's one aim for good software engineering practice; code reuse.
Was that EVM board a stand alone system or was it part of some kit
it was to be used in? I assume you're referring to the Motorola
56000 DSP chip you mentioned in another post.


Funny talking about DSP in this group. I normally come here to stir
a little when someone says their CB broke. LOL. I know that's mean.

What the heck, you have to play with the kids some time. 8-))


Mine has the motorola DSP56002EVM. TAPR made a kit to use it in.
You can connect a couple radio's to it. It has status lights on the
front you can program to indicate various states like what you would
see on a regular multi-mode TNC. On the back is a programming port
and a communications port. My soldering iron was probably only hot
for about an hour and a half putting it together.
It's really quite neat setup, after you load the modem software you
want
you can use it without having to wire every up again, or switch
cables. It's nice to have two computers hooked to it. One to use as
a terminal for what ever you're doing. PSK, Packet, etc, and the
other computer to load the modem software and program it. If you
only have one computer you have to switch back and forth. One thing
I didn't do but wanted to was burn an Eprom with the different modems
on it to switch between modes faster. What I had to do each time I
used it was load what ever software I wanted to use at the time.
There was another way you could load two different modems in it at
the same time but I never did that.

That sounds like a nice kit they put together. They supply any block
diagrams or other documentation explaining how the code worked?

I'll have to look. I think it was covered in one of the books, by
Motorola but TAPR didn't provide one.

I wouldn't mind looking at it if you find it. I do have an older book
from TI titled "Theory and Implementation of a splitband Modem Using the
TMS32010" if that rings any bells for you.




If you can program yours in a higher language and compile it down to
the EVM, that's a lot better than using an assembler like I got with
mine, though some members of TAPR wrote some apps to make things
easier.

If you look around you may find a compiler released under the public
GNU license agreement that would work for your DSP chip. If you get
the bug again it would be worth the time to look.


Like I said, I'm not doing much with it right now. Time is the
problem. It's easiest to use the soundcard.

I've looked at some of the FFT routines used on some of the software
defined radios being sold. The one I looked at wasn't documented very
well. I wish that people who write code for public release did a
better job at documenting what they did with more in-line comments and
extensive cometary in the header files.


If you develope a new mode, you might have to port it to the PC so
everyone else can use it.

What I'm working on, with another engineer buddy from work, is sort of
a midnight engineering project that's work related but not necessary
for work if you get my meaning. Many companies like to swipe work
related stuff people do and then paten it under the company's name
with no compensation to the employee and that's even if they did all
the work on their own time and at their own expense. There was a
magazine published at one time I've read called "Midnight Engineering"
that covered exactly these sorts of issues with engineers developing
ideas on their own at home. I don't know if the magazine is still
published or not.

There are a number of people in Amsat that
are working with DSP for the satellites. Look around for Phil Karn,
he's a good one to bounce ideas off of, and knows who else is
experimenting.

I've seen Phil's name mentioned often.

Also browse TAPR, I don't know what they're doing DSP
wise these days.

They are in to the new thing; software defined radios. They sell a kit
with a home grown DSP board to use with it. Even the professional
community is in to it big time as well.

I was never a member. I only really got into the EVM
& DSP when you couldn't buy an AEA DSP.

I thought that AEA still made DSP modems for packet. At least that's
what I thought I saw at last years Hamvention. They usually set up in
a hallway between a couple of the larger rooms. The rage now is using
commercial WiFi 802.11b gear for extended range. One company I checked
out on the Internet is selling a 2 watt bi-directional 2.4 GHz amp. To
get one you must supply documentation to them proving you're a
licensed Ham before they'll ship one out to you. No proof no amp. As
long as the WiFi stuff is operated on the correct channels the
frequencies used fall in to the 2.4 GHz allocation Hams can use so we
can legally run much higher power with gain antennas that ordinary
WiFi users can't. And here's the kicker operating that way, under Part
97, any interference ordinary users suffer they can't do much about it
since the commercial WiFi stuff is licensed under Part 15.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO


The AEA unit was the 2232 I think or something like that. I haven't
done wifi but I hear alot of talk about war driving. I have a three
foot dish on the tower that I used on 2.4 ghz when ao-40 was going.

How often did you get on? I was on several times myself but work really
put a damper in to the activities. I live in an apartment so any time I
wanted to get on I had to take the setup out side. The neighbors thought
it looked like something from an episode of the "X-Files" when they saw
it! I have a 40" grill dish for the 2.4 GHz down link in to an UEK300
down converter, to 2m, from SSB. The up link was on 70 cm, 50 watts in
to an 11 element beam from M-Squared. If I needed more power I've got
two 10 w in 100 w out 70 cm brick amps I could have used. The rig I use
is an FT-847. The few times I got on it really was fun. The half second
delay in the audio does take some getting use too. I'm waiting for the
next one to go up. I want to do some more sat work.

I downconvert
sigs to two meters. Never tried to see what wifi looked like. If they
had a weatherproof unit minus the antenna, I could plug that on the
helix and point the dish around the neighborhood. It has tight
beamwidth & good gain. LOL, hey, Free broadband. ;-) There's also
wireless internet in the area that operates at 2.4 gig too,

The county here, Oakland Michigan, is setting up a free WiFi county wide
access too. It won't be real fast, something like 128kbps, but it's
better than paying for the same slow crap using a network card through
the cell phone telco's.

it gets down
converted an plugs into a regular cable modem. The company supplies a
grid dish and there is some form of transmitter on it. I always
wondered who made the transmitter and if you could buy one surplus for
experimentation. And then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

If you have a link for that I would like to read about that kind of
setup.


I haven't seen anything on it. I did a Google search once, but couldn't
find any information on anyone experimenting or hacking it.


I'm not on the Leo's much, but can't wait to try P3E the Germans are
building, and we're building Eagle. Some good satellites coming soon. :-)

You and me both! I got bummed out when AO-40 quit. That bird had the
potential to be a communication master piece if everything worked. I
waited until it went up before getting the gear to work it. Even as it was
after the accident it was impressive. I've been on UO-14, before it died,
a few times running mobile but those birds aren't really made for
rag-chewing. Plus there always seemed to be some overpowered station
hogging the pass nearly every time. You get a window of what 8 to 10
minutes per pass. With AO-40 you had at least a couple of hours to talk on
SSB without having to chase the bird all over the sky constantly to stay
on target with the antennas like you do with some of the LEO sat's.
Readjusting the antennas by hand anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes was
normally good enough for AO-40. Another high orbit sat is what I like to
see and the one they're building now is what I'm waiting for too.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:25:02 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:11:39 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:43:09 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit
of sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's
like sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's
own tail for hours on end because it's too dumb to know better.
From reading the posts the really dumb ones stand out from the
crowd. Better they left their mouths shut rather than opening it
thus relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally
got my TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so
I've been busy with another engineer buddy working on some DSP
projects. Nothing like going back to review all the discrete
time system theory, FFT's and z-transform stuff I learned years
ago. It's a lot more interesting than the silly name calling and
baiting to start a flame war going on in this news group lately
and I don't want to waste my time with such crap either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it
together. Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when
A0-40 was still working. I have it collecting dust now, as
soundcard software is easier. Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC
anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier"
at least from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view
you're right about the ease of use, you can't beat it. The main
difference between a DSP board as opposed to sound card software
is performance. And that is a two part issue. One is raw
computational performance and the second is power consumption. The
TI 6713 on my EVM gets barely warm while cranking out 1200 to 1300
MFLOPS. Then take a look at the monster sized CPU in your PC and
it's heat sink. No contest. A last point DSP chips don't waste
transistors on stuff that isn't needed like virtual memory,
privilege levels etc. that only matters to CPUs running general
applications and need to be protected from other users on the
system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for
you is the complex scheduling of the various routines that have
time critical deadlines to meet. If you do the sound card routine,
writing it yourself that is, you have to not only do the
application code but you have to write your own scheduler routine
and maybe with multi-level interrupts you assign to the different
threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors
have "C" compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a
DSP BIOS that handles the low level hardware crap so you don't
have to using assembly code. Add on hardware often comes with
plug-in modules containing the required low level code so you
don't have to write it yourself. You just call the low level
routines from "C" using the provided function prototypes in the
vendor's "xxx.h" files and the linker finds the code in the vendor
supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core
audiophiles are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom
filter and complex frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some
lively discussions among some of them over which EVM system is
best to use or going a roll-your-own approach is better. Some of
them were looking for doing direct digital to audio applications,
some audio equipment has direct digital outputs, with noise
reduction etc. because they don't like the limitations of the
commercial gear out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent
exchange of messages compared to the infantile crap some others
are trying to get me to waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text
book on DSP theory


My EVM came with five thick books. I went through part of the
first one and realized to write my own software for it, it was
going to take some time to learn things. So I mainly used software
written by others.
Why re-invent the wheel. I still don't have a lot of time to
play,
but maybe someday I'll plug it in again and learn a little.

SC

Hey, it's never to late. You stop learning when you're dead in my
view. It sure beats exchanging insults on this news group.

Yup, reusing code written by others is a good idea, why reinvent the
wheel unless you're doing it for self pedagogical reasons. In fact
that's one aim for good software engineering practice; code reuse.
Was that EVM board a stand alone system or was it part of some kit
it was to be used in? I assume you're referring to the Motorola
56000 DSP chip you mentioned in another post.


Funny talking about DSP in this group. I normally come here to stir
a little when someone says their CB broke. LOL. I know that's mean.

What the heck, you have to play with the kids some time. 8-))


Mine has the motorola DSP56002EVM. TAPR made a kit to use it in.
You can connect a couple radio's to it. It has status lights on the
front you can program to indicate various states like what you would
see on a regular multi-mode TNC. On the back is a programming port
and a communications port. My soldering iron was probably only hot
for about an hour and a half putting it together.
It's really quite neat setup, after you load the modem software you
want
you can use it without having to wire every up again, or switch
cables. It's nice to have two computers hooked to it. One to use as
a terminal for what ever you're doing. PSK, Packet, etc, and the
other computer to load the modem software and program it. If you
only have one computer you have to switch back and forth. One thing
I didn't do but wanted to was burn an Eprom with the different modems
on it to switch between modes faster. What I had to do each time I
used it was load what ever software I wanted to use at the time.
There was another way you could load two different modems in it at
the same time but I never did that.

That sounds like a nice kit they put together. They supply any block
diagrams or other documentation explaining how the code worked?

I'll have to look. I think it was covered in one of the books, by
Motorola but TAPR didn't provide one.

I wouldn't mind looking at it if you find it. I do have an older book
from TI titled "Theory and Implementation of a splitband Modem Using the
TMS32010" if that rings any bells for you.




If you can program yours in a higher language and compile it down to
the EVM, that's a lot better than using an assembler like I got with
mine, though some members of TAPR wrote some apps to make things
easier.

If you look around you may find a compiler released under the public
GNU license agreement that would work for your DSP chip. If you get
the bug again it would be worth the time to look.


Like I said, I'm not doing much with it right now. Time is the
problem. It's easiest to use the soundcard.

I've looked at some of the FFT routines used on some of the software
defined radios being sold. The one I looked at wasn't documented very
well. I wish that people who write code for public release did a
better job at documenting what they did with more in-line comments and
extensive cometary in the header files.


If you develope a new mode, you might have to port it to the PC so
everyone else can use it.

What I'm working on, with another engineer buddy from work, is sort of
a midnight engineering project that's work related but not necessary
for work if you get my meaning. Many companies like to swipe work
related stuff people do and then paten it under the company's name
with no compensation to the employee and that's even if they did all
the work on their own time and at their own expense. There was a
magazine published at one time I've read called "Midnight Engineering"
that covered exactly these sorts of issues with engineers developing
ideas on their own at home. I don't know if the magazine is still
published or not.

There are a number of people in Amsat that
are working with DSP for the satellites. Look around for Phil Karn,
he's a good one to bounce ideas off of, and knows who else is
experimenting.

I've seen Phil's name mentioned often.

Also browse TAPR, I don't know what they're doing DSP
wise these days.

They are in to the new thing; software defined radios. They sell a kit
with a home grown DSP board to use with it. Even the professional
community is in to it big time as well.

I was never a member. I only really got into the EVM
& DSP when you couldn't buy an AEA DSP.

I thought that AEA still made DSP modems for packet. At least that's
what I thought I saw at last years Hamvention. They usually set up in
a hallway between a couple of the larger rooms. The rage now is using
commercial WiFi 802.11b gear for extended range. One company I checked
out on the Internet is selling a 2 watt bi-directional 2.4 GHz amp. To
get one you must supply documentation to them proving you're a
licensed Ham before they'll ship one out to you. No proof no amp. As
long as the WiFi stuff is operated on the correct channels the
frequencies used fall in to the 2.4 GHz allocation Hams can use so we
can legally run much higher power with gain antennas that ordinary
WiFi users can't. And here's the kicker operating that way, under Part
97, any interference ordinary users suffer they can't do much about it
since the commercial WiFi stuff is licensed under Part 15.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO


The AEA unit was the 2232 I think or something like that. I haven't
done wifi but I hear alot of talk about war driving. I have a three
foot dish on the tower that I used on 2.4 ghz when ao-40 was going.

How often did you get on? I was on several times myself but work really
put a damper in to the activities. I live in an apartment so any time I
wanted to get on I had to take the setup out side. The neighbors thought
it looked like something from an episode of the "X-Files" when they saw
it! I have a 40" grill dish for the 2.4 GHz down link in to an UEK300
down converter, to 2m, from SSB. The up link was on 70 cm, 50 watts in
to an 11 element beam from M-Squared. If I needed more power I've got
two 10 w in 100 w out 70 cm brick amps I could have used. The rig I use
is an FT-847. The few times I got on it really was fun. The half second
delay in the audio does take some getting use too. I'm waiting for the
next one to go up. I want to do some more sat work.

I downconvert
sigs to two meters. Never tried to see what wifi looked like. If they
had a weatherproof unit minus the antenna, I could plug that on the
helix and point the dish around the neighborhood. It has tight
beamwidth & good gain. LOL, hey, Free broadband. ;-) There's also
wireless internet in the area that operates at 2.4 gig too,

The county here, Oakland Michigan, is setting up a free WiFi county wide
access too. It won't be real fast, something like 128kbps, but it's
better than paying for the same slow crap using a network card through
the cell phone telco's.

it gets down
converted an plugs into a regular cable modem. The company supplies a
grid dish and there is some form of transmitter on it. I always
wondered who made the transmitter and if you could buy one surplus for
experimentation. And then experiment with a little with a cable modem.

If you have a link for that I would like to read about that kind of
setup.


I haven't seen anything on it. I did a Google search once, but couldn't
find any information on anyone experimenting or hacking it.


I'm not on the Leo's much, but can't wait to try P3E the Germans are
building, and we're building Eagle. Some good satellites coming soon.
:-)

You and me both! I got bummed out when AO-40 quit. That bird had the
potential to be a communication master piece if everything worked. I
waited until it went up before getting the gear to work it. Even as it was
after the accident it was impressive. I've been on UO-14, before it died,
a few times running mobile but those birds aren't really made for
rag-chewing. Plus there always seemed to be some overpowered station
hogging the pass nearly every time. You get a window of what 8 to 10
minutes per pass. With AO-40 you had at least a couple of hours to talk on
SSB without having to chase the bird all over the sky constantly to stay
on target with the antennas like you do with some of the LEO sat's.
Readjusting the antennas by hand anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes was
normally good enough for AO-40. Another high orbit sat is what I like to
see and the one they're building now is what I'm waiting for too.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



You don't have HF privileges.

U-Know-Who wrote:
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:25:02 +0000, Slow Code wrote:

massvie snip
You and me both! I got bummed out when AO-40 quit. That bird had the
potential to be a communication master piece if everything worked. I
waited until it went up before getting the gear to work it. Even as it was
after the accident it was impressive. I've been on UO-14, before it died,
a few times running mobile but those birds aren't really made for
rag-chewing. Plus there always seemed to be some overpowered station
hogging the pass nearly every time. You get a window of what 8 to 10
minutes per pass. With AO-40 you had at least a couple of hours to talk on
SSB without having to chase the bird all over the sky constantly to stay
on target with the antennas like you do with some of the LEO sat's.
Readjusting the antennas by hand anywhere from 15 to 20 minutes was
normally good enough for AO-40. Another high orbit sat is what I like to
see and the one they're building now is what I'm waiting for too.

Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



You don't have HF privileges.

so what, AO-40 was better than HF in many ways.

my concern over the german bird in that they will over do the
complexity and repate what I suspect (with no real proof) was the cause
of loseing AO-40