It seems to me that this is all in preparation of dehumanizing amateur radio as we know it. Technology moves on, and maybe that is one of the reasons we seem to be getting older and older. Young people look at it, and ask why they need to bother to learn code, or even electronics, since they can just push a button someone else has put in front of them.
It does sound exciting for our military, government, commercial businesses to have and be able to communicate, since they really are not interested in anything other than the capability to move data as easy and quick and cheaply as possible. As for me, this is a hobby, and I want to be in charge of my own thinking, and thankfully there are still going to be radios that allow me to push buttons, turn knobs and press switches to choose my own operating band, and modes. It is great to have technology available to help me make those decisions; such as propagation forecasting, RSID etc. but then those still require ME to make the final selection of where I want to transmit and how I want to operate. I believe we are getting out of the decision making process with too much technology and might as well forget about contests etc. when having to compete with such technological forward stations as you mention here. As an individual with limited financial means, who will never be able to afford the "best and most powerful" technology I am, even today, depressed when I tune around and find the big contest stations giving out numbers in the hundreds,within an hour or so the beginning of the contests, mainly due to the technology of the day. Expeditions seem to be in the same "numbers" mode, attempting to work as many contacts as possible, no matter that they may be working the same operator 30 or more times, to the expense of the actual number of hams who are able to get thru. This all may sound like sour grapes to those who are pushing these innovations, but I do really worry about the future of this hobby, and where it is heading, but I have heard others saying the same things. As one who has enticed young people into the hobby, taught classes and encouraged operating: I am having more and more problems convincing them that this is something that they want. They already have computers, cell phones, blackberries, whatever berries, so why do they need radio? I could let them read about cognitive radio systems, but I still wonder if that is enticement, because they can already pick up the phone, or key the keyboard and talk anywhere in the world, without worry about sun spots. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB All 2 years or more (except Novice). Short stints at: DA/PA/SU/HZ/7X/DU CR9/7Y/KH7/5A/GW/GM/F Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred, I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for those who do. Moderator DXandTALK http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DXandTalk Digital_modes http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digital_modes/?yguid=341090159 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob McGwier To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;? Andy and others: I think you mean that the people who programmed today's radios are smart. They have written excellent DSP algorithms to process the signals YOU select for the radio. Suppose we have a radio capable of doing any kind of waveform we wish to do (gnuradio is a step in the right direction). http://gnuradio.org/trac But suppose we built radios with algorithms in them to do sensing, measurement, of the environment for interference, large signals that will not be co-channel but can generate intermodulation distortion which does result in inband interference, estimates the quality of the path, etc. Some systems do something like this in rudimentary form already. HF Automatic Link Establishment was set up to replace the smart operator, which a smart radio. It sounds the channel repeatedly and if two radios operating using HF ALE wish to connect to exchange information, the two radios, based on the data gathered from the sensing algorithms from a pool of frequencies assigned by the system administrator. This is radio with some artificial intelligence in it, that does not need a software defined radio behind it. But let us go much further. Let's get the FCC to pass rules that allow almost any waveform within reason and assign this operation to "any vacant television channel", i.e., the so called white space rules now being put into place. Such a radio system will be equipped with a complex set of sensing algorithms. These algorithms have one job: fine the best set of parameters to put into our software defined radio to allow us to communicate with (say) the internet. The radio is COMPLETELY in charge once it has been informed by settings, databases, sensors, etc. about the channel(s) it is going TO CHOOSE to operate on from the restricted set we as administrators allow. The optimality criterion is a balance of maximize channel capacity (data rate if you will) without causing harmful interference. That is a service coming into existence now. Now suppose you are a military unit about to be dropped into hostile territory. You are outfitted with a radio whose first job when you enable it is to sense the environment FOR EXISTING radio systems and figure out its parameters so you can use it for your own communications. The combination of a) sensors for determining everything within reason about the channel. b) a set of goals to be achieved: 1) construct a waveform that will allow me to communicate using the channel 2) minimize interference to others 3) determine if the desired end of the conversation is reachable on this channel 4) ????? c) communicate until done, modifying waveform, channel, etc. as needed to maintain communications and minimize interference. This is a form of cognitive radio. It has been under intensive study for nearly 15 years since Mitola coined the term. Having done several years of research in both software and cognitive radio fields, this is a very exciting time for me personally. Contributing to implementations in Flex Radio, GnuRadio, etc. has really been enjoyable. I have to say that for many in amateur radio, this will not seem like radio at all and they will object strongly to its existence because it does indeed move more stuff between the operator and the radio. Let's just say that I don't see why the two visions necessarily should be in conflict. I am heading off to W2GD/2 in Tuckerton, NJ this weekend to prepare for the remainder of the 160 meter contest season. This year we are introducing software radios of various types. But it will still be my teammates and I that sit in front of the radio and wield the paddle to make the contact. The SDR and limited CR will aid this but will not replace it. Every major contesting group is now using or planning to use SDR and CR to enhance their work because the competition is definitely going to use it. Bob N4HY Andy obrien wrote: > The ARRL Newsletter mentioned .. > > > One of the major topics of discussion at the AC meeting involved the > upcoming WRC-12, the World Radiocommunication Conference in 2012. The > AC adopted preliminary IARU positions on the WRC agenda items that > relate to amateur radio or may impact the amateur radio service. The > most significant agenda items are: > > > > 3. AI 1.19 - Software-defined radio and cognitive radio systems; > > Just what is considered to be a "cognitive radio system" ? Most > radios these days are pretty "smart", maybe the next generation will > think more ? > > Andy K3UK > > -- (Co)Author: DttSP, Quiktrak, PowerSDR, GnuRadio Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. "the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles" Kerouac Twitter:rwmcgwier Active: Facebook,Myspace,LinkedIn
