Skip,
You may be missing my point, not sure. Let me try again. I will try, English is
not my strongest subject.
Let me say one thing before I get into it. I really appreciate and enjoy your
posts and you seem to have a even temperament which is getting more rare these
days on reflectors. You also seem to have a lot of expertise in RF, which
always makes me think and I am sure I will learn from you. Thank you for all
your work and posts on this reflector.
Writing code is a different process than creating the specs. There many
software developers who can create beautiful code who did not create the specs
or come up with the idea on what to create. Just like there are people who want
something built and have a great idea but have not the talent to do it. Many
times it takes many people involved with different skills to create a product.
I too have a few patents and did not have enough electronics background to
accomplish my project, but sought the advice and help of others to get the job
done. After many years of teaching myself electronics from the basic to the
advanced I finally succeeded in building the project I wanted and got the
investors to help and factory to build it. The problem is these days as far as
a product as concerned to make money, you have to build a product people are
willing to pay for that is more than it cost to make it. Not easy! A lot of
research goes in to it. Starting with a needs
analysis, that is you have to give them what they want, not what YOU want, and
what they are willing to pay for.
There are many talents involved in creating a good product that will sell. Even
in software, that is software you sell for a profit and is competitive. Often
the idea man, the software developer, and the person who can market the product
are all different people. In very large software projects there may be hundreds
of people all writing different parts of the code who are very specialized in
different areas. Software development is becoming very specialized. These days
I am writing software on ATMEL chips, among some others and am becoming
specialized mainly on this chip manufacture. This is very different from what I
used to do, write software for oil and gas and tele-comms. I majored in Math
and computer science in the late 60's and am still learning every day.
" "This will never work" is just part of the discussion and brainstorming
process, and not necessarily a negative statement. ". I truly understand what
you are saying, believe me I do!
When I was working as manager of software developers I found it helpful to
brain storm when we were involved in an impossible job and let the ideas flow
freely. When harsh criticism came from people from my team as soon as an idea
came out, people shut up and not another idea ever came from these people. Good
ideas are often over looked because of it. Some of the best ideas our company
had came from these silly ideas the critics hated and would never work.
I had a business partner that was always telling me that we should try this and
that and I would tell him that would never work, only days after I thought
about it and did find a way to do it his way, though it was not easy. He was
not a software guy and he had no idea what could be done and not done. I did
the same to him, he was a great electronics engineer and I was always pushing
him harder and harder to go into areas he was not familiar with. We
complimented each other's talents and some how always solved the problem. I am
now involved with RACES in Garland, Texas. There are many people with a lot of
talents I tap into in areas I do not have the expertise in. I am not
experienced in building antennas, so I ask for help. A great guy who helped me
build a Super J-Pole and he did a wonderful job. I demoed his handy work and
showed that his antenna did what the ARRL claimed. There was a jerk who said,
he did not believe it would do any better job than a
simple dipole, even though the antenna has proven itself many many times by
many people and was written up years ago in the ARRL antenna book. There is
always one in the crowd.
In my experience, criticism that is harsh, not constructive is NOT warranted,
EVER. Criticism like this is never helpful and only hurts, and is what the
critic mostly wants, to make himself look good at the your expense. I have
learned the hard way that constructive criticism needs to wait until all the
brainstorming is over, otherwise good ideas are passed over.
I am interested in seeing ham radio advance, and we have a lot of talent in
this country, as shown on this reflector.
Anyway I have said enough, and will not have any more to say on the subject.
73,
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net> wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from Part 97
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 2:52 PM
Warren,
I have several electronics patents and am often asked by laymen how one
invents something, and what to do if they invent something. I advise
them that very few inventors come up with something new and just make
money off the patent royalties or sale itself. Instead, document and
witness the idea, keep it a trade secret, and manufacture the item
yourself. I had to do that when I created the first consumer VHF FM
weather-alert radio in 1974 and, believe me, it was a difficult
struggle, because so many thought the idea was worthless and would not
back it. Nevertheless, I went ahead anyway, designed the radios, and
built a factory to make them. Today, 27 years later, that concept has
blossomed into an entire industry.
With your extensive background in software, maybe people are looking to
YOU to research and provide a workable solution. "This will never work"
is just part of the discussion and brainstorming process, and not
necessarily a negative statement. The idea is to keep throwing out
ideas for criticism and discussion, even if at first glance the idea
may appear to be unworkable to many.
Yes, suggesting a successful solution often takes lots of thought, and
sometimes hard work, if it is to be a reasonably good solution. Saying
something "will not work" often spurs others to want to prove that it
might. So, don't write those comments off as being completely negative
- they just might well become the catalyst of an idea that will work.
I had to go to the extreme step of teaching myself to program in Delphi
just in order to write DigiTalk for the blind ham. Not being very
smart, nor much of a programmer, it took me many months, but in the
end, the program that speaks the PSK31 text as it comes in is in use by
the blind ham community (Courage Hams) and I am almost ready to release
an updated version for XP, VISTA, and W7 that works with Fldigi and
Multipsk.
So, solutions often only come about from long periods of struggle.
Fldigi is open source, so anyone who wants to modify the source to add
a solution and test it is welcome to do so. Maybe YOU can do it, since
you already have a head start with your software experience.
It is a good idea - now show us the solution! ;-)
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
I have used this Video ID myself after I have seen others
do it. Some are using it to show the mode you are in, your Call sign,
CQ CQ and just 73's. It is pretty effective. I have started using both
RSID TX and Video ID. I have seen many that will use video ID but do
not use or refuse to use RSID.
The issue I see on many post is negative. "That will never work
because..."
I guess negative posts are easier than suggesting a possible solution.
Maybe guys are not suggesting solutions because they think someone will
shoot it down anyway so why try?
It is better to try and fail than not try at all. I had a boss one time
a long time ago tell me that it is easy to tell when a man is not
working, he never makes any mistakes.
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 1:40 PM
Trouble is, many digital ops may not listen to the band,
and CW is not
easily read visually on a waterfall, except at very slow speeds.
FWIW - some food for thought - I spotted an old friend, PJ2MI, using
MFSK16 on 17M a couple of days ago, only because he was sending a CQ
using video ID with both his call and mode. I would probably not known
he was there if the had not sent the video ID, as I was in Olivia at
the time. I had not worked 17m before and was looking for Olivia
stations, not MFSK16. Of course the MFSK16 footprint is recognizable,
but not who it is.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Warren Moxley wrote:
"something
simple like “QRL”
in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)"
At least this is an idea.
Let's here more brain storming, even ones that sound silly at first
might or can be modified to a solution or cause someone else to think
in an entirely new way.
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft. com>
wrote:
From: Dave AA6YQ <aa...@ambersoft. com>
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 9:58 AM
(unless the
“Universal QRL signal” is something simple like “QRL”
in CW, or 3-seconds of carrier at ~1 khz.)
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi
o...@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf
Of Dave AA6YQ
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:55 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC -
Delete all
Emission Types from
Part 97
Unless you can
convince the transceiver
manufacturers to include the capability in each unit, someone operating
without
a computer connected to his transceiver – e.g. a phone operator -- will
be
unable to generate the “universal QRL” signal.
73,
Dave, 8P9RY
From:
digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:digitalradi
o...@yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf
Of Warren Moxley
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:36 AM
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC -
Delete all
Emission Types from
Part 97
Skip,
"since there is no way to cross-communicate to resolve mutual
interference. "
This is a very interesting topic. I have been a software engineer for
over 35 years and have heard there is "no way" a lot of times only to
come up with a solution a few days later either by myself or others on
my team.
It seems to me that the problem of cross-communication can be solved by
using an already used technique via RSID. RSID is fast becoming a
defacto standard. Maybe we can solve this by modifying the RSID
protocol. Currently we are using it to just let others know what mode
we are in. Maybe more information can be put in the the RSID packet,
for example, Call sign and some reserved bits for the purpose of QSY.
Like codes that mean, please QSY, this frequency is already in use and
many other codes that can be expanded for this use.
Hey guys, come on, there are a lot of smart people and great problem
solvers on this reflector who can expand this protocol or come up with
a solution. Let's use our brains and solve this problem for the good of
the hobby. I am ONLY making and example for the purpose of brain
storming. RSID expansion may or may not be a good idea. Do not take my
RSID packet expansion as what we should do but as a point of discussion
on how to solve a problem. That's the real point here. Let's take my
simplistic example as start and let's go from here. Let's not get
bogged down on who is right and who is wrong, who has the better mode
and it is just too hard of a problem to solve.
Warren - K5WGM
--- On Mon, 3/8/10, KH6TY <kh...@comcast. net>
wrote:
From: KH6TY <kh...@comcast.
net>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] 1976 FCC - Delete all Emission Types from
Part 97
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com
Date: Monday, March 8, 2010, 8:14 AM
Trevor,
The problem with such a regulation is that, unless CW is required as a
common mode, there is no way for a phone QSO, being able to request an
interfering digital signal to QSY. Our frequencies are shared, and
accidental transmission on existing QSO's in unavoidable, but the
mitigation is the ability for the user of one mode to be able to
communicate with the user of another mode. The problem already exists
between digital operators, but the regulations were written long ago
when essentially there was only phone and CW and everyone was required
to know CW.
I don't know what the solution to the current problem is, but the
problem with solely "regulation by bandwidth" is NOT a solution,
especially between phone and digital, since there is no way to
cross-communicate to resolve mutual interference. This is why the ARRL
"regulation by bandwidth" petition to the FCC was withdrawn after
already once being denied by the FCC. There have been arguments that
bandwidth-only regulation works in other countries (perhaps with less
ham population density), but it definitely will not work here. That is
why legal separation between data and phone has been maintained at all
costs, and data kept separate from phone. CW usage may be declining,
and therefore using less space, leaving more for digital modes to use,
but use of digital modes is still very small compared to CW and phone.
Since it is possible to create a digital mode that is very spectrum
inefficient for the benefit it brings, there will probably have to be a
future restriction of digital mode bandwidths in proportion to the need
and benefits of the mode. Digital modes will probably have to
restricted by bandwidth in the future, but there still needs to be a
"common language" for frequency use mitigation.
73 - Skip KH6TY
Trevor . wrote:
Following the recent discussions about the
US
license restrictions I was looking through the archive of QST mags at
www.arrl.org
On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report (page
June 1976) says
"Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission
said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners'
requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific
emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the
Commission continued, "to replace the present provisions with
limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may
occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised
limitations any emission would be permitted."
It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly
what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should be
asked to re-introduce Docket 20777
Trevor
