An idea that I fielded some time ago, but did not pursue because
of a lack of support, was that we should encourage homebrewing, not
by a range of disparate kits, but by having a set of standard biscuits,
each with a defined input / output interface such that radios from
the very simple to the very complex could be assembled from
a selection of such biscuits.

eg, an RF amplifier, 50 ohm in and out, 12V supply, agc input
to give a gain range from unity to 20dB, to be used as RF or IF
amplifiers.

Now, it is possible that with the onset of SDR, that such an
approach would be obselescent, but SDR itself is already notorious
for being an off-the-shelf Cheque Book (CB) approach both for
the hardware and also the software.

On 05/03/2015 16:04, gareth wrote:

eg, an RF amplifier, 50 ohm in and out, 12V supply, agc input
to give a gain range from unity to 20dB, to be used as RF or IF
amplifiers.

An AGC range of only 20dB?

Now, it is possible that with the onset of SDR, that such an
approach would be obselescent

There's nothing wrong with that (apart from your spelling). This is
amateur radio; it doesn't need to be state of the art, as long as does
the job.

but SDR itself is already notorious

Where is it notorious?

for being an off-the-shelf Cheque Book (CB) approach both for
the hardware and also the software.

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, gareth wrote:

An idea that I fielded some time ago, but did not pursue because
of a lack of support, was that we should encourage homebrewing, not
by a range of disparate kits, but by having a set of standard biscuits,
each with a defined input / output interface such that radios from
the very simple to the very complex could be assembled from
a selection of such biscuits.

But modules are too diverse. Yes, they will have an output, and often an
input, but there may be a third input, and this one might need more
controls and that one less.

Building as modules makes sense, because then it's easier to scrap part of
it if it doesn't work, or reuse it in some other project. But buying off
the shelf modules, I don't see that happening much.


International Crystal in the US used to offer a wide variety of modules
over time. Not just the solid state ones in the late sixties and early
seventies, which were pretty generic (a crystal oscillator, a mixer, a
wideband amplifier, a low power output amplifier), but earlier on, enough
modules to build up complete units. But really, they seemed more about
building up units as described by the company, and it ended up very
costly. It wasn't like trying new things by mixing and matching modules.

Or, there was a company in Germany (was it KVG of filter fame, or a
separate company, I can't remember) that sold some nice preassembled
boards in the early seventies. But those weren't a single stage per
board, they were things like an SSB exciter IF strip (or maybe receive
too). They were very interesting at the time, but also very expensive by
the time they came over to North America.

The job of Modules were taken over by ICs in the seventies. And you see
the same thing. Either something very exotic that could be used for only
one thing, or something very generic, which didn't do that much in itself.



Now, it is possible that with the onset of SDR, that such an
approach would be obselescent, but SDR itself is already notorious
for being an off-the-shelf Cheque Book (CB) approach both for
the hardware and also the software.

THings called SDRs seem to vary. There are shortwave radios out there
that use very flexible ICs, which requires a computer to set up, but I'm
not sure how much you can define. There's the Eton/Grundig G8. One could
modify it for your own microprocessor and get more steps of selectivity,
for instance, but I don't think you can do anything to get SSB on the
receiver, it's not about programming the whole thing.

SOmething like those DTV dongles seem to be more programmable, I don't
know if the A/D conversion is in there or what. But, one now has to learn
so much to program them, and be able to make them do other things.

I think for most, many SDRs are about letting someone else define things.

Michael

On 05/03/15 16:04, gareth wrote:

Now, it is possible that with the onset of SDR, that such an
approach would be obselescent, but SDR itself is already notorious
for being an off-the-shelf Cheque Book (CB) approach both for
the hardware and also the software.

Would you describe gnuradio or Matlab as an "off the shelf"
approach ?

The schematics for the Ettus range of USRPs and daughterboards are
available, anyone so inclined could build their own should they
choose rather than purchasing one. See
http://files.ettus.com/schematics/

I've published examples of gnuradio flowgraphs before, so wont repeat
them, but you can get a DVB dongle for about 6 UKP from ebay, for which
gnuradio has drivers for.

There are plenty of other examples out on the internet, why not give
gnuradio a try ? It really isn't off-the-shelf, and you will have to
twiddle bits and pieces (gain levels, squelch values, filter widths
etc to get things exactly how you want them)

I look forward to comparing your flowgraphs to my own methods


73s

Iain

On 05/03/15 20:27, Michael Black wrote:

THings called SDRs seem to vary. There are shortwave radios out there
that use very flexible ICs, which requires a computer to set up, but I'm
not sure how much you can define. There's the Eton/Grundig G8. One
could modify it for your own microprocessor and get more steps of
selectivity, for instance, but I don't think you can do anything to get
SSB on the receiver, it's not about programming the whole thing.

SOmething like those DTV dongles seem to be more programmable, I don't
know if the A/D conversion is in there or what. But, one now has to
learn so much to program them, and be able to make them do other things.

I think for most, many SDRs are about letting someone else define things.

Checkout gnuradio. You can literally write your own radio. It will work
with those "DTV" dongles, the FCD dongles, as well as the Ettus range
of USRPs when you are ready to "graduate" (they are not cheap), as well
as many other hardware devices

A Pi 2, a soundcard, a 60k-ish receiver, and gnuradio could easily be
used to receive MSF, DCF, WWVB etc. (and the 60kHz receiver is only
needed if the wolfson board filters above audio frequencies, I must
acquire one to test that, my onboard PC's doesn't so it does LF duties)

A HF upverter added to the front end, and you are all set.


73s

Iain

"Iain Young, G7III" wrote in message
...

An awful lot of evidence by citing off-the-shelf solutions for both
the hardware and the software of SDR.

On 05/03/15 23:04, gareth wrote:

"Iain Young, G7III" wrote in message
...

An awful lot of evidence by citing off-the-shelf solutions for both
the hardware and the software of SDR.

Then a) your definition of "off-the shelf" is different to mine,
and b) you should have no problems producing a flowgraph for whatever
particular purpose you choose. Do share, I would be interested in what
techniques you would use within the software sphere.

gnuradio is only a toolkit. It lets you build any transceiver, receiver,
or transmitter you want, hardware permitting.


73s

Iain

On 3/5/2015 8:40 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
"Iain Young, G7III" wrote:
On 05/03/15 23:04, gareth wrote:

"Iain Young, G7III" wrote in message
...

An awful lot of evidence by citing off-the-shelf solutions for both
the hardware and the software of SDR.

Then a) your definition of "off-the shelf" is different to mine,
and b) you should have no problems producing a flowgraph for whatever
particular purpose you choose. Do share, I would be interested in what
techniques you would use within the software sphere.

gnuradio is only a toolkit. It lets you build any transceiver, receiver,
or transmitter you want, hardware permitting.


He could always write his own software, after all he is on record as saying
amateurs should do so and not use commercial software or run software on
commercial hardware. He also claims to have written an OS. It is all in the
archive, around the time he last suggest his biscuit idea.


ROFLMAO! He couldn't count to 10 in ANY programming language. He
doesn't even know what an OS is - much less having written one.

I wonder how many of the biscuits he has designed, built, and has put on
air since then? He still seems to be running commercial software, almost
certainly on commercial hardware. I suppose we will have to wait, it was
only a decade or so ago.

;-)


Yea, going to take another couple of centuries. He hasn't even gotten
the spark gap he started in 1907 working yet.

Anyway, time to turn the radios off and get some sleep.



--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 3/5/2015 8:40 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
"Iain Young, G7III" wrote:
On 05/03/15 23:04, gareth wrote:

"Iain Young, G7III" wrote in message
...

An awful lot of evidence by citing off-the-shelf solutions for both
the hardware and the software of SDR.

Then a) your definition of "off-the shelf" is different to mine,
and b) you should have no problems producing a flowgraph for whatever
particular purpose you choose. Do share, I would be interested in what
techniques you would use within the software sphere.

gnuradio is only a toolkit. It lets you build any transceiver, receiver,
or transmitter you want, hardware permitting.


He could always write his own software, after all he is on record as saying
amateurs should do so and not use commercial software or run software on
commercial hardware. He also claims to have written an OS. It is all in the
archive, around the time he last suggest his biscuit idea.

I wonder how many of the biscuits he has designed, built, and has put on
air since then? He still seems to be running commercial software, almost
certainly on commercial hardware. I suppose we will have to wait, it was
only a decade or so ago.

;-)

Anyway, time to turn the radios off and get some sleep.

Brian, Gareth is being nice, isn't saying anything stupid and so far all
has been civil. You seem to be trying to find something to hit him over
the head with. Please don't turn this into another argument with him...

--

Rick

On 06/03/2015 05:15, rickman wrote:

Brian, Gareth is being nice, isn't saying anything stupid and so far all
has been civil. You seem to be trying to find something to hit him over
the head with. Please don't turn this into another argument with him...

You must be new here.....

Andy