Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
I do hope cognitive radio designs will be done responsibly for the spectrum they occupy, and I cite RMS Express as an example of a responsible approach to mitigating interference. And (military) ALE as I've experienced it as the opposite. However, I fear device manufacturers wanting to use spectrum everywhere will not produce radios able to detect weak emissions when their receiver bandwidth is so wide as not to see it above the noise. Among the BPL comments and replies is one manufacturer's assertion that there were no signals to be interfered with -- when his spectrum analyzer noise floor was higher than the level those signals would normally reach. By using only measurement technology to required for Part 15 certification, that manufacturer was able to ignore signals I believe he knew or should have known (as the lawyers say) were or could be present. We must listen first. So should any responsible user of shared spectrum. He must be able to hear *any users authorized* in the spectrum shared, at levels and in bandwidths they are authorized to use. This is not so easy, considering that we often carry on Olivia or Contestia QSOs below the background noise level. It could be made easier by restricting automatic (cognitive) radio to spectrum where weak signal modes will not be encountered. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Bob McGwier rwmcgw...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/16/2009 12:54:35 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;? Cortland Richmond wrote: One problem with cognitive radio is that it seems it will be designed to detect only emissions similar to those it is meant to receive. Therefore, it is best used in spectrum particularly allotted to just those kinds of emissions. This rather defeats the purpose of white space. RMS Express by way of contrast has a busy detector that will prevent transmitting over many kinds of modulation different than it uses. Compare this with (say) ALE, whose polling (encountered on MARS frequencies) takes no account of voice or even Olivia on channels it happens to select. Cortland KA5S This is not correct in my experience. In all serious systems under development, the CR is looking to characterize all energy to some degree or another, irrespective of whether it is a matched filter to a particular waveform. The purpose is to find a channel that works. Energy on the channel is an indicator it would not as the source would be cochannel interference and with some high degree of probability, the interference would be mutual. Dislike for any particular system which automates channel usage but does not behave responsibly is not to be used to condemn responsible digital system developers. The enforcement of this responsibility is done by pressure (peer) and performance (being interfered with by those not detected). Bob N4HY
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Good point Cortland. Cognitive radio offers national regulators the opportunity to adopt a much lighter touch to regulation. They could do away with rigid frequency allocations - the users radio will just look for an unused frequency and use it. As you say the problem lies in what is considered an occupied frequency. We may well find that a signal 10 db above the prevailing noise floor would be considered noise and thus available for use. On 2.4 GHz technologies such as Bluetooth and Wifi adapt to interference. I'm sure as cogitive techniques develop we'll see large chunks of the spectrum operated in a similar manner to 2.4 GHz, eg license exempt with the Equipment (users won't necessarily realize it's a radio) choosing the lowest interference frequencies to carry out the required task. European Union RSPG report on Cognitive Technologies http://www.southgatearc.org/news/november2009/rspg_report_on_cognitive_technologies.htm 73 Trevor M5AKA --- On Wed, 16/12/09, Cortland Richmond k...@earthlink.net wrote: I do hope cognitive radio designs will be done responsibly for the spectrum they occupy, and I cite RMS Express as an example of a responsible approach to mitigating interference. And (military) ALE as I've experienced it as the opposite. However, I fear device manufacturers wanting to use spectrum everywhere will not produce radios able to detect weak emissions when their receiver bandwidth is so wide as not to see it above the noise. Among the BPL comments and replies is one manufacturer's assertion that there were no signals to be interfered with -- when his spectrum analyzer noise floor was higher than the level those signals would normally reach. By using only measurement technology to required for Part 15 certification, that manufacturer was able to ignore signals I believe he knew or should have known (as the lawyers say) were or could be present. We must listen first. So should any responsible user of shared spectrum. He must be able to hear *any users authorized* in the spectrum shared, at levels and in bandwidths they are authorized to use. This is not so easy, considering that we often carry on Olivia or Contestia QSOs below the background noise level. It could be made easier by restricting automatic (cognitive) radio to spectrum where weak signal modes will not be encountered. Cortland KA5S [Original Message] From: Bob McGwier rwmcgw...@gmail.com To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Date: 12/16/2009 12:54:35 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;? Cortland Richmond wrote: One problem with cognitive radio is that it seems it will be designed to detect only emissions similar to those it is meant to receive. Therefore, it is best used in spectrum particularly allotted to just those kinds of emissions. This rather defeats the purpose of white space. RMS Express by way of contrast has a busy detector that will prevent transmitting over many kinds of modulation different than it uses. Compare this with (say) ALE, whose polling (encountered on MARS frequencies) takes no account of voice or even Olivia on channels it happens to select. Cortland KA5S This is not correct in my experience. In all serious systems under development, the CR is looking to characterize all energy to some degree or another, irrespective of whether it is a matched filter to a particular waveform. The purpose is to find a channel that works. Energy on the channel is an indicator it would not as the source would be cochannel interference and with some high degree of probability, the interference would be mutual. Dislike for any particular system which automates channel usage but does not behave responsibly is not to be used to condemn responsible digital system developers. The enforcement of this responsibility is done by pressure (peer) and performance (being interfered with by those not detected). Bob N4HY Suggested frequencies for calling CQ with experimental digital modes = 3584,10147, 14074 USB on your dial plus 1000Hz on waterfall. Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Pages at http://www.obriensweb.com/sked Yahoo! Groups Links digitalradio-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com
[digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
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
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
-Original Message- From: Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 Time: 05:43:46 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 Hi Andy, I wondered that too. These may help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_radio http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1234390 Google for Congnitive Radio Systems for many more references. -- 73 Ian, G3NRW
AW: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Snip. Just what is considered to be a cognitive radio system ? Snip... A intelligent radio . If you say one of the bad words like terrorism, bomb, president ... etc The qso is stored as mp3 file . now if there is a cellphone repeater or a wlan net available, the radio connects to cia and rings a big alarm bell .. Just kidding Dg9bfc Sigi
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
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
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
DANNY DOUGLAS wrote: 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. It seems, to me, that the predictions of the death of Amateur Radio have been around since well before I obtained my licence in the early 1980s, and I've seen articles in magazines going back to the 1930s predicting the imminent demise of the hobby for various reasons as well... In fact, maybe what we are saying is that my interpretation of what the hobby is to others is either going to have to change, or die? At various times new modes or ways of communicating have been deemed to be 'not Amateur Radio' or 'not in the spirit of Amateur Radio'. Often, about ten or twenty years latter it seems to me, those people new to the bands who were using the new fangled modes or systems are, themselves heard to bemoan new modes or systems in use as being not what they joined the hobby for. Digital modes, such as AX:25 and even PSK31 were treated with a great deal of suspicion when they came out. I remember people who didn't like them questioned whether they were 'illegal' codes or cyphers. But, here we are decades later still with predictions of the death of Amateur Radio. Dave (G0DJA)
RE: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
There's much more to amateur radio than just operating - at least over this side of the pond. Here self-education is important. Despite all the code I've written there's nothing I enjoy more than listening to 160m CW. Simon Brown http://sdr-radio.com From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DANNY DOUGLAS It seems to me that this is all in preparation of dehumanizing amateur radio as we know it.
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
I first heard of cognitive radio systems when efforts were underway to make use of the 'white space' in the television broadcast bands. The whole idea is to make more efficient use the the spectrum by putting situational awareness in to the client device. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsectionssc=emergingtechid=16471 http://www.commsdesign.com/news/tech_beat/www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18700443 philw On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Andy obrien k3uka...@gmail.com 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
OT!!! Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Same here. I do not operate digital modes at all personally, even those I helped to create and/or improve. I operate 160m and 40m CW almost exclusively. That does not stop me from conducting experiments, doing design work, and using the brain I was given to learn and expand knowledge. I believe this is in the highest tradition of amateur radio and should continue. When that stops, I have lost interest. Simon and I and many others like us write lots of code and do lots of experiments. And rather than look at the development of all of this as dehumanizing, I view it as humanist in the extreme. It is an enabler of new things by the HUMANS using the new capabilities. I think we should leave philosophy and concentrate on digital radio here probably. CR is here to stay as is SDR which has been around for a long time. In my case, I was doing SDR for work two years before Mitola popularized the term. I am happy amateur radio OPERATORS are benefiting now from that experience and effort. Bob N4HY Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's much more to amateur radio than just operating - at least over this side of the pond. Here self-education is important. Despite all the code I've written there's nothing I enjoy more than listening to 160m CW. Simon Brown http://sdr-radio.com *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *DANNY DOUGLAS It seems to me that this is all in preparation of dehumanizing amateur radio as we know it. -- (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
RE: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
I doubt whether amateur radio has ever been more alive than it is at present. Simon Brown http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:digitalra...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Ackrill It seems, to me, that the predictions of the death of Amateur Radio have been around since well before I obtained my licence in the early 1980s, and I've seen articles in magazines going back to the 1930s predicting the imminent demise of the hobby for various reasons as well...
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Simon HB9DRV wrote: There's much more to amateur radio than just operating - at least over this side of the pond. Here self-education is important. Despite all the code I've written there's nothing I enjoy more than listening to 160m CW. And that's why the predictions of the death of Amateur Radio often fall down, in my experience, Simon. Like a lot of hobbies people start on one thing but then move onto other things. Some of these other things may be older modes of communication like using Morse code or Hellscriber etc. I can think back to people who started out with an FM only 2M radio bolted into the car and chatting on the local 2M repeater in the 80s. Often decried as 'not Amateur Radio' but many moved onto HF and alot even onto CW on the HF bands. I've also heard the arguments about mobile phones and other modern technologies like VoIP 'killing' the hobby but I think this misses the point, for me anyway, of Amateur Radio. For me it isn't just about talking to someone a long way away, it's the fact that it isn't always possible to do it and finding why it isn't possible some times but possible at others. It's not even about always communicating only with someone I already know either. I'm not knocking the development of systems that allow communication to occur by finding the best frequency as some work has to go into developing it and implementing it. I've heard the arguments that the people who eventually use the system didn't put in that work, but like the 2M FM repeater system example it might get someone talking to someone else about the delights of using some other mode, or making a sked to try something else just to see if it might work. Like most hobbies and interests, Amateur Radio will always develop and change and one mode or system of communication is not going to persuade everyone, or even every new comer, to use only that mode of communication. Otherwise, they wouldn't use Amateur Radio, they would use a mobile phone or VoIP... Personally, I do enjoy a whole range of different digital modes. I'm not really set up for fast band hopping and I tend to use the Internet to arrange skeds, but I don't see them as the ultimate threat to Amateur Radio either. I also do think that it would be just as bad to have everyone, say, on 20M all at the same time, or any other band come to that. A range of different modes and interests keeps everyone spread out a bit. Dave (G0DJA)
RE: OT!!! Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Indeed they are: here's a video of N9VV using my radio over the internet... http://www.sdr-radio.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DYGMyXoqIS8%3dtabid=178; mid=1016 Simon Brown http://sdr-radio.com -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com I am happy amateur radio OPERATORS are benefiting now from that experience and effort.
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
I first heard of cognitive radio systems when efforts were underway to make use of the 'white space' in the television broadcast bands. The whole idea is to make more efficient use the the spectrum by putting situational awareness in to the client device. One example we're discussing is how to use the repeater channels (over allocated - under used) for data when the repeaters aren't in use. Cognitive radios could learn which channels had the least use and make more use of them. There are issues to be resolved but the concept is promising at the very least. Yes - ham radio has never been so alive. We have incredible tools (toys) there but for the using. 73 Bill - WA7NWP
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
So long as vanity repeaters are put up by people who are willing to become litigious, this is a war that will have MANY casualties. We are not the government (anywhere in the world, not just US) and have the right of eminent domain over spectrum, property, etc. I would love to see repeater coordination bodies grow a set of . guts. Bob Bill V WA7NWP wrote: I first heard of cognitive radio systems when efforts were underway to make use of the 'white space' in the television broadcast bands. The whole idea is to make more efficient use the the spectrum by putting situational awareness in to the client device. One example we're discussing is how to use the repeater channels (over allocated - under used) for data when the repeaters aren't in use. Cognitive radios could learn which channels had the least use and make more use of them. There are issues to be resolved but the concept is promising at the very least. Yes - ham radio has never been so alive. We have incredible tools (toys) there but for the using. 73 Bill - WA7NWP -- (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
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
One problem with cognitive radio is that it seems it will be designed to detect only emissions similar to those it is meant to receive. Therefore, it is best used in spectrum particularly allotted to just those kinds of emissions. This rather defeats the purpose of white space. RMS Express by way of contrast has a busy detector that will prevent transmitting over many kinds of modulation different than it uses. Compare this with (say) ALE, whose polling (encountered on MARS frequencies) takes no account of voice or even Olivia on channels it happens to select. Cortland KA5S - Original Message - From: Phil Williams To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: 12/15/2009 1:21:30 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;? I first heard of cognitive radio systems when efforts were underway to make use of the 'white space' in the television broadcast bands. The whole idea is to make more efficient use the the spectrum by putting situational awareness in to the client device. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsectionssc=emergingtechid=16471 http://www.commsdesign.com/news/tech_beat/www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18700443 philw
Re: [digitalradio] cognitive radio systems;?
Cortland Richmond wrote: One problem with cognitive radio is that it seems it will be designed to detect only emissions similar to those it is meant to receive. Therefore, it is best used in spectrum particularly allotted to just those kinds of emissions. This rather defeats the purpose of white space. RMS Express by way of contrast has a busy detector that will prevent transmitting over many kinds of modulation different than it uses. Compare this with (say) ALE, whose polling (encountered on MARS frequencies) takes no account of voice or even Olivia on channels it happens to select. Cortland KA5S This is not correct in my experience. In all serious systems under development, the CR is looking to characterize all energy to some degree or another, irrespective of whether it is a matched filter to a particular waveform. The purpose is to find a channel that works. Energy on the channel is an indicator it would not as the source would be cochannel interference and with some high degree of probability, the interference would be mutual. Dislike for any particular system which automates channel usage but does not behave responsibly is not to be used to condemn responsible digital system developers. The enforcement of this responsibility is done by pressure (peer) and performance (being interfered with by those not detected). Bob N4HY -- (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
