Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution"

2011-01-18 Thread Moeller
On 18.01.2011 12:03, Patrik Tast wrote: > Yes, very important and I like what you are designing, > you bet I will get one if I can get it as already tuned. What is "already tuned"? The design was just a RF/ADC board, without FPGA. But possibly it could be attached to a cheap FPGA development boa

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution"

2011-01-18 Thread Marcus D. Leech
> > Hi Marcus, > > >Practicality is a very important aspect of any project like this, and > >it's one that needs to be explored. > Yes, very important and I like what you are designing, you bet I will > get one if I can get it as already tuned. > Also the the SDR manufacturers are (should be) gra

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution"

2011-01-18 Thread Patrik Tast
Hi Marcus, >Practicality is a very important aspect of any project like this, and >it's one that needs to be explored. Yes, very important and I like what you are designing, you bet I will get one if I can get it as already tuned. Also the the SDR manufacturers are (should be) grateful that an "

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution"

2011-01-17 Thread Marcus D. Leech
Hi All, I've been following the (lowcost) GNU SDR HW development in progress since it started. I sure do not oppose to what you are doing and hope you succeed, but is it practical today? Practicality is a very important aspect of any project like this, and it's one that needs to be explored.

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution"

2011-01-17 Thread Jason Uher
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Patrik Tast wrote: > A comment from Jerry Martes, > "HAM amateurs spend lots more $$ than the cost of a USRP just to get things > a monkey could build.   From what I have observed, there are thousands more > amateurs who buy components that those who are willing t

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution"

2011-01-17 Thread Patrik Tast
" Cc: Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 13:16 Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNUsolution" On 15.01.2011 15:46, Marcus D. Leech wrote: It would be really cool to create a "total GNU" solution for the GNURADIO. GNU EDA tools, GNU-li

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNU solution"

2011-01-16 Thread Moeller
On 15.01.2011 15:46, Marcus D. Leech wrote: >> It would be really cool to create a "total GNU" solution for the GNURADIO. >> GNU EDA tools, GNU-like Hardware (open-source community license), >> GNU FPGA-code, GNU µC-Code, GNU signal processing (the existing Gnuradio), >> GNU operating system, GNU p

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNU solution"

2011-01-16 Thread Moeller
On 15.01.2011 16:17, Marcus D. Leech wrote: >> It would be really cool to create a "total GNU" solution for the GNURADIO. >> GNU EDA tools, GNU-like Hardware (open-source community license), >> GNU FPGA-code, GNU µC-Code, GNU signal processing (the existing Gnuradio), >> GNU operating system, GNU p

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNU solution"

2011-01-15 Thread Marcus D. Leech
> > It would be really cool to create a "total GNU" solution for the GNURADIO. > GNU EDA tools, GNU-like Hardware (open-source community license), > GNU FPGA-code, GNU µC-Code, GNU signal processing (the existing Gnuradio), > GNU operating system, GNU postprocessing (GNU Octave), GNU visualization

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNU solution"

2011-01-15 Thread Marcus D. Leech
> > On 13.01.2011 02:36, Jamie Morken wrote: > > What's your opinion about gEDA? > > It would be really cool to create a "total GNU" solution for the GNURADIO. > GNU EDA tools, GNU-like Hardware (open-source community license), > GNU FPGA-code, GNU µC-Code, GNU signal processing (the existing Gn

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-15 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 01/15/2011 09:15 AM, Moeller wrote: > On 15.01.2011 13:45, Patrick Strasser wrote: > >> For flexibility, being able to bypass stages or feed signals e.g. at the >> ADC would be cheap. Preparing for different transport systems would make >> > I wonder how much noise will be introduced wit

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option, the "total GNU solution"

2011-01-15 Thread Moeller
On 13.01.2011 02:36, Jamie Morken wrote: > I am interested in helping out with making some new gnuradio hardware that is > compatible with the USRP daughterboards. I worked with Matt doing CAD > on the original gnuradio project hardware and have since then made lots more > boards including a cyc

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-15 Thread Moeller
On 15.01.2011 13:45, Patrick Strasser wrote: > For flexibility, being able to bypass stages or feed signals e.g. at the > ADC would be cheap. Preparing for different transport systems would make I wonder how much noise will be introduced with a switch at the ADC. At least I would use 2 different i

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-15 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 01/15/2011 07:45 AM, Patrick Strasser wrote: > > o direct (embedded) > Any chance to transfer via eSATA? Quite common nowadays. > > Maybe. Don't know much about eSATA. > > First, price is one constraint, or one of the features, that would make > such a device attractive to a wide audienc

[Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-15 Thread Patrick Strasser
schrieb Marcus D. Leech on 2011-01-13 04:56: > On 01/12/2011 10:46 PM, Brian Padalino wrote: > I'm increasingly liking the approach where you "demarc" at the digital > output of the ADC that I suggested > earlier where you terminate in something like a LPC-FMC connector or > something equally >

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-15 Thread Moeller
On 14.01.2011 22:28, Charly Lima wrote: > What about using an ASIC instead of the FPGA for the DDC, for example AD6652 > from Analog Devices, and connect that directly to the USB 3.0 Controller? > Might > be cheaper? >

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-14 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 01/14/2011 04:28 PM, Charly Lima wrote: > What about using an ASIC instead of the FPGA for the DDC, for example AD6652 > from Analog Devices, and connect that directly to the USB 3.0 Controller? > Might > be cheaper? > > The AD6652 isn't exactly cheap, at $45.00 apiece. But I had also consi

[Discuss-gnuradio] Re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-14 Thread Charly Lima
Jamie Morken shaw.ca> writes: > USB 3.0 transceiver IC or USB 3.0 microcontroller > Altera Cyclone3 FPGA > highspeed DAC/ADC What about using an ASIC instead of the FPGA for the DDC, for example AD6652 from Analog Devices, and connect that directly to the USB 3.0 Controller? Might be cheaper?

[Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-13 Thread B . A . f . H
FYI Have a look at the article[1,2] from James Ahlstrom N2ADR [3]. I think it could be an interessting approach/ point of start. [1] http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/Nov-Dec_2010/Ahlstrom%20NOV-DEC.pdf [2] http://james.ahlstrom.name/transceiver/index.html [3] http://james.ahlstrom.

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-13 Thread William Cox
I like this discussion. Perhaps we could talk to the folks at http://www.oshwbank.org/ about helping sponsor the project (more details: http://antipastohw.blogspot.com/2009/03/introducing-open-source-hardware.html ) Another idea would be to do a Kickstarter campaign to raise some initial funds. A p

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-13 Thread Philip Balister
On 01/13/2011 02:00 AM, Jamie Morken wrote: All "non-commercial use only" clauses most likely restrict most military use, and these are quite common, and are far more restrictive than a "non-military use only" clause. I do follow what you are saying though, but its a choice like "ethical inv

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Jamie Morken
- Original Message - From: Jeff Brower Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:43 pm Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option To: Jamie Morken Cc: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > Jamie- > > > Hi Brian, > > > > That sounds like a pretty good sys

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Moeller
On 13.01.2011 02:36, Jamie Morken wrote: > I am interested in helping out with making some new gnuradio hardware that is > compatible with the USRP daughterboards. I worked with Matt doing CAD > on the original gnuradio project hardware and have since then made lots more > boards including a cyc

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Mark J. Blair
On Jan 12, 2011, at 9:17 PM, Jamie Morken wrote: > That sounds like a pretty good system. I should say right off the bat that > if I am involved to make this I would want to add a clause in the open source > hardware license to not allow the hardware to be used for military > applications. I

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Jeff Brower
Jamie- > Hi Brian, > > That sounds like a pretty good system.  I should say right > off the bat that if I am involved to make this I would want > to add a clause in the open source hardware license to not > allow the hardware to be used for military applications. I > think it is important to stat

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Jamie Morken
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Jamie Morken > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am interested in helping out with making some new gnuradio > hardware that is compatible with the USRP daughterboards.  I > worked with Matt doing CAD on the original gnuradio project > hardware and have since then

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 01/12/2011 10:46 PM, Brian Padalino wrote: > > Agreed on PCIe, though I think less platforms have USB3. > Almost certainly the case right now. > When speaking of noise at baseband (2V driving 50Ohms), assuming you > have a little can over the analog bits, is the noise that high? > > > Not

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Brian Padalino
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: > On 01/12/2011 10:01 PM, Brian Padalino wrote: >> >> Altera Cyclone IV EP4CGX15 FPGA, Analog Devices AD9861 MxFE, USB2 >> microcontroller (for reprogramming the FPGA) in an ExpressCard/34 >> format.  The FPGA has a hard PCIe 1.1 x1 lane wit

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Marcus D. Leech
On 01/12/2011 10:01 PM, Brian Padalino wrote: > > Altera Cyclone IV EP4CGX15 FPGA, Analog Devices AD9861 MxFE, USB2 > microcontroller (for reprogramming the FPGA) in an ExpressCard/34 > format. The FPGA has a hard PCIe 1.1 x1 lane with a hard IP core for > PCIe connectivity. The PCIe interface ha

Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Brian Padalino
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Jamie Morken wrote: > > Hi, > > I am interested in helping out with making some new gnuradio hardware that is > compatible with the USRP daughterboards.  I worked with Matt doing CAD on the > original gnuradio project hardware and have since then made lots more b

[Discuss-gnuradio] re: Low cost hardware option

2011-01-12 Thread Jamie Morken
Hi, I am interested in helping out with making some new gnuradio hardware that is compatible with the USRP daughterboards.  I worked with Matt doing CAD on the original gnuradio project hardware and have since then made lots more boards including a cyclone 3 board. Here is a possible hardware