I appreciate both your views and Brian's and am not trying to be merely cantankerous.
Your points about digital are very well taken. I suppose to a great extent it will become a matter, in the minds of many operators, of data communication (in whatever mode) versus the process of making data communication possible. I can see thousands of contesters feeling chagrined if DX becomes ancient history and they can no longer justify their antenna farms and throbbing super-amps. I would suggest that in most paradigm shifts that are described as revolutionary, the description is more apparent than real. My own take is that systems evolve to the point that they suddenly look different or behave differently or both and that is taken for revolution. For instance, I think it can be argued that the movement from the Elecraft or contemporary TenTec radios (which really are software-defined though the software is buried in EPROMS and transparent to the user) to the WinRadio, the Perseus, the Kachina, and the Flex was an evolution that looked like a revolution. The same situation obtains in other industries. The iPad, for example, is an evolution, however much Apple wishes to proclaim it revolutionary. My expertise, such as it is, is in different fields but I will watch you bonafide experts with great interest. Bill On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Neal Campbell <[email protected]> wrote: > The safest prediction is that 2020 will not look like anything we expect it > to, IMO. > > I share Brian's belief that the 2020 radio very well might not use the > "virtual transceiver" approach that we enjoy today. After 10 years of not > using the legacy black box, the next generation of hams will not be so tied > to it. It will resemble how graphical email systems used to look like paper > letters and today barely resemble that unless you print it (so we could > shift to the paradigm of yesteryear). > > Being mainly a digital op, I think of signals more as diembodied data > streams in the aether rather than frequency slices of bandwidth. To me, all > I care about is my station DNS constantly being updated via dxclusters and > reverse beacon networks and data streams. I also only want to avoid > collisions with other data streams so in synchronous qsos we can use the > same freq but in congested waters my data stream needs to find a spot the > other guy can find. So maybe instead of calling frequencies, we need a "dns > channel" every 20 KHz where we can broadcast where we are and our software > constantly listens to as many of these channels as possible for > redirection/discovery. > > All paradigm shifts occur in violent starts with evolution occurring > inbetween them. We have seen a paradigm shift with the virtual radio. How > long will this phase of evolution last before the next one. I myself have a > pretty clear idea of what I want it to look like, but probably 20 others on > this list have a different view. It will surely not look like any one of > these ideas. > > I think DI needs to continue the evolvement of the SDR but stay out of the > paradigm business for the moment. We haven't solidified (yet) this stage and > deciding to blow the doors off again (please reference Apples Newton) before > we get the experience of a wide customer experience is going to backfire. > > Just my opinion! > > 73 > Neal Campbell > Abroham Neal Software > www.abrohamnealsoftware.com > (540) 645 5394 NEW PHONE NUMBER > > Amateur Radio: K3NC > Blog: http://www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/blog/ > DXBase bug reports: email to [email protected] > Abroham Neal forums: http:/www.abrohamnealsoftware.com/community/ > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:31 AM, William H. Fite <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You advance some interesting ideas, Brian. You certainly don't have to >> defend yourself to me as a futurist. I am, in large measure, paid my >> modest >> wage to be exactly that. And I agree that others often have no clue what >> people like us are blathering about. >> >> That being said, there is, to my knowledge, very little empirical evidence >> that futurists are either particularly accurate or particularly >> influential >> in predicting/enacting the future that we so gleefully envision. One can >> think of exceptions, of course. >> >> (I have to throw this in...) Hello Brian! The oil spill is BOTH an >> engineering problem, AND a political problem. It would be naive to think >> otherwise and you do not strike me as naive. >> >> The attitude you express here, "What this says (to me) is that the >> end-users >> don't really see what they need or want out to the 5-year time frame" >> typifies a frequent IT developer response to end users: "You really don't >> know what you want/need, but we do." And, without wishing to be >> offensive, >> I find that position hubristic, at least when speaking of marketable >> products. The vast majority of high tech devices today are evolutionary >> rather than revolutionary products no matter how glibly media flacks >> employ >> the latter term. >> >> Now, there is nothing in the world wrong with old men telling tales and >> young men dreaming dreams of things like 100-antenna diversity receivers, >> and filtering algorithms that require no operator intervention, and demods >> that can decide for me whether I want to work PFSK or Olivia, although one >> might question whether hams, the ultimate tinkerers, will be pleased to >> have >> their radio experience reduced to that of using a telephone. But in the >> meantime, the bulk of development efforts--again, in the >> marketing/selling/making-a-living sector--do need to focus on delivering >> the >> product that the Visa card holder wishes to buy. >> >> I will, however, follow your explorations into the world on radio-2020 >> with >> great interest. >> >> 73 from one old curmudgeon to another! >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Brian Lloyd <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 8:21 AM, William H. Fite <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Two questions, Brian, and with my tongue only slightly in my cheek. >> >> >> > >> > That is OK with me. In my old age I have lost all pretext to political >> > rhetoric. That is just another way of saying, "I have become an >> annoying, >> > irascible, irreverent curmudgeon." For some reason that seems to get >> > people's hackles up. ;-) >> > >> > >> >> 1. How do you sort the genuinely clueful people from those who are >> >> >> merely persuaded that they are clueful? I'm quite sure that in >> software >> >> development, as in all areas of human endeavor, the latter >> generously >> >> outnumber the former. >> >> >> >> In my experience of many years of developing protocols for the >> internet, >> > the biblical phrase, "By their works you shall know them," applies quite >> > aptly. >> > >> > In any group you have only 10% of the people who actually do anything so >> > that helps to clear things up. Time helps you here. The lookie-loos >> > generally drift away. You also have some (hopefully small) percentage >> who >> > hope to bend the process for their own self-aggrandizement. These people >> > shall be known as Politicians and are usually found chattering on about >> > "consensus", "organization," "process," etc. They are going to organize >> your >> > organization right out from under you while garnering accolades for >> their >> > good works. The only problem is, they don't care if anything actually >> gets >> > done, only that they appear to be in the lead. There seems to be a lot >> of >> > that about on the TV right now. >> > >> > (Hello Washington! The oil spill is an ENGINEERING problem, not a >> POLITICAL >> > problem. Oh yeah, you want to be reelected so you have to appear to be >> doing >> > something. <sigh>) >> > >> > >> >> >> >> 1. Where does consultation with the end users figure into this? All >> >> >> >> of us who are non-IT people are wayyyy too familiar with, "Don't >> bother us >> >> with what you want; we'll tell you what you are going to get." My >> beloved >> >> spouse (a PhD in quantum information theory) and I have been round >> and round >> >> about that. >> >> >> >> I presume that is #2. I suspect you added #1 as an afterthought. ;-) >> More >> > below. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Of course, if the initiatives under discussion are merely for the >> >> entertainment and edification of the would-be developers, then neither >> of my >> >> questions is particularly relevant. >> >> >> > >> > In some ways it is relevant and some ways not. For much of my life I >> have >> > lived focused about 5-10 years out. It gives me a very strange view of >> the >> > world. Most people just think I am nuts because nothing I say seems to >> make >> > sense ... for about 5 years. What this says (to me) is that the >> end-users >> > don't really see what they need or want out to the 5-year time frame. So >> > asking users what they want only gets you the tactical advantage, i.e. >> > winning the current, immediate, marketing battle, but doesn't really >> help in >> > gaining the strategic advantage, i.e. winning the marketing war. The >> latter >> > only happens when you are able to think far enough ahead to that you >> already >> > standing in the middle of the road when the wandering masses finally >> arrive, >> > five years later. >> > >> > Here is the thing -- most of what I hear people talking about WRT >> PowerSDR >> > is how to do the things we already do, better. It is a discussion of >> things >> > like noise blankers, noise limiters, VFOs, memories, filters, >> interfacing to >> > digital mode programs, etc. It is an evolutionary thought process that >> is >> > the logical follow-on to the KWM2. If you look at most radios today, and >> I >> > include the Flex radios in that via PowerSDR, they are still KWM2 >> analogs. >> > Other than better filtering and computer control of the knobs, (and >> tuning a >> > tube PA), the ham from 50 years ago has to make very little transition >> to go >> > from the KWM2 to the Flex 5000. Yes, there are lots of fiddling details >> but >> > the basic operating concepts have not changed appreciably. (Yes, the >> Flex >> > 5000 has plenty of knobs, you just can't touch them short of using a >> mouse.) >> > >> > Using the horse-and-buggy-to-automobile analogy, we are at the point >> where >> > we have the internal combustion engine (SDR) but we are using it to make >> a >> > self-propelled horse-and-buggy. It is immediately familiar to someone >> who >> > has driven a horse-and-buggy. But the internal combustion engine (SDR) >> has >> > the ability to enable the airplane. The paradigm shift from >> horse-and-buggy >> > to airplane is revolutionary, not evolutionary. The SDR I am beginning >> to >> > see take hazy shape in my mind bears little resemblance to the KWM2. >> > >> > Here are some of the things that seem to be coalescing in my mind: >> > >> > 1. It will be normal for the radio to decode *all* transmissions it >> hears >> > on *all* modes *all* the time. You won't pick the mode you are >> operating, >> > only the channel to which you wish to pay attention. >> > >> > 2. CODECs will tell the RF/IF deck what the operating parameters should >> be. >> > The operator will not mess with filters or other settings needed to >> optimize >> > reception. That will be a fully automatic process. >> > >> > 3. Receivers will be "ganged" across the network. If you think that >> Bob's >> > dual-receiver diversity reception is cool now, wait 'till you see it >> being >> > done by 100 receivers connected across the Internet. In fact, all the >> > available receivers will be ganged together to enable improved >> reception. >> > You can kiss QSB and the need for large amplifiers good-bye. >> > >> > So, for the sake of argument, imagine the above is true. What do you >> think >> > the radio front-panel needs to look like? Me? I don't know either. But I >> am >> > pretty sure it won't look like a KWM2 or PowerSDR. >> > >> > So coming back from the geostationary world-view to ground-level >> reality, >> > what does that mean for the design of DI? I am still thinking about it. >> But >> > it does seem to require a blank sheet. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL >> > 3191 Western Dr. >> > Cameron Park, CA 95682 >> > [email protected] >> > +1.931.492.6776 >> > (+1.931.4.WB6RQN) >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> The proportions and relations of things are just as much facts as the >> things >> themselves. >> _______________________________________________ >> Flexedge mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexedge_flex-radio.biz >> This is the FlexRadio Systems e-mail Reflector called FlexEdge. It is >> used for posting topics related to SDR software development and >> experimentalist who are using alpha and beta versions of the software. >> > > -- The proportions and relations of things are just as much facts as the things themselves. _______________________________________________ Flexedge mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexedge_flex-radio.biz This is the FlexRadio Systems e-mail Reflector called FlexEdge. It is used for posting topics related to SDR software development and experimentalist who are using alpha and beta versions of the software.
