[Elecraft] Give us a network interface

[Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF]

Hi everyone,
Personally I have a problem with putting an ethernet connection into a radio transceiver. (Any transceiver but more particularly, an Elecraft K3)
Why you ask, the answer is simple.............NOISE.
I do NOT want my wonderful K3 receiver compromised by having a noisy (and they all are) 10Mbit/sec  or worse, 100Mbit/sec  Ethernet transceiver IN THE SAME BOX.
Sure, it may be convienient but why introduce so much noise into the same box as an otherwise quiet receiver?
The RS232 interface is a much better idea, its cheap, its easy to implement and above all, its relatively RF quiet.
Even USB is noisy as it is capable of 12Mbit/sec at least (480MBits/sec in the case of USB 2.0) and as a result has a high speed (RF) clock which generates as much or more noise in and around the transceiver.


Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF
Innisfail, QLD, Australia
Elecraft K3# 4257

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Martin Sole 
  To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net 
  Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 10:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Give us a network interface


  I'll admit to not having a horse in this race directly so far as it relates
  to Elecraft radios. I do see that Ethernet as the interface medium is
  becoming more widely used and one way that this affects commercial equipment
  but does not seem to have been picked up here is that the use of Ethernet
  brings other possible functions to the party. For work I am involved in Air
  Traffic communications and one of the changes currently being implemented on
  the infrastructure side is to move from analogue voice interfaces to digital
  voice interfaces. This seems primarily driven by Telco's wishes to cheapen
  their networks perhaps but is a reality nonetheless. Faced with this radio
  equipment is being essentially forced into providing the necessary
  interfaces to work with what Telco's are willing to provide. Traditionally
  this was a 4 wire analogue line circuit with separate signalling interfaces.
  As the infrastructure moved to digital PDH and SDH other functions became
  available such as channels on links catering for RS232 etc. Today direct
  interfacing to a higher level such as E1 is almost mandatory as Telco's
  pursue a desire to reduce investment in hardware by not providing the
  de/multiplex functionality. More recent changes are the move to IP based
  systems, typically Ethernet, through a standard that allows this in the
  commercial Air Traffic communications world. Clearly there are benefits when
  installing and maintaining a large system whereby one essentially generic
  hardware interface, CAT-X/RJ, fits all and additionally allows integration
  of multiple services.

  Typically ham radios have various and different interfaces with their
  attendant level and matching variances. Whilst RS232 or some such remains
  the de-facto standard this will likely remain. A move to an IP interface
  would remove the need for much of this hardware. One port for all, control,
  signalling (PTT/FSK), audio. Any sort of audio and communications interface
  in a radio like a K3 could easily be exchanged for one do-everything port.
  Since any on board CODEC would be designed to suit the radio, interfacing of
  audio would become almost a thing of the past, as much as dipping the plate
  :)

  Nobody 'wants' to do this. Talk to any hardware or software provider and
  they will all roll out many reasons not to do it. In the commercial world
  the costs drive it and Telco's demand for an ever fatter bottom line is what
  drives it in that sphere. At the amateur level it really should be coming
  from another angle altogether. Ask a manufacturer of any product to add such
  new untested and essentially innovative functionality is unlikely to be
  successful, they too are in it for the money. Providers of free software,
  N1MM, DX-lab, HRD etc, are another matter, more driven it seems to provide
  functionality and expand on the various hardware capabilities for everyone's
  enjoyment but they are really the cart behind the horse.

  I don't know the hardware that well but looking at the rear of the K3 I see
  the audio interfaces and the RS232 as well as the multi-function ACC
  connector are on one panel. I wonder if they share a common interface? This
  would naturally lend itself to being removed and replaced with an Ethernet
  port. Hey maybe this is why they are all together? Dunno! I think from a
  field and expedition point of view Ethernet makes sense if fully implemented
  including control, signalling and voice. You only need carry an Ethernet
  cable and having been to some of the world's most out of the way places I
  can assure you Ethernet cables, made up or in component parts are available
  anywhere, PC headsets too are universally available. Today everything from a
  netbook to a desktop and every portable computer in between has an Ethernet
  port. There seems little reason not to do it other than entrenched views and
  catering to a market led by users whose demands seem to rarely expand beyond
  a basic set of wishes.

  I'd add my voice to the call for Ethernet and on several fronts. Interface
  simplicity for the user, this means the hardware and software providers have
  to get it right to make it simple but that should be the challenge. Greater
  flexibility with multiple connections sharing one interface. Near ubiquity
  of Ethernet on all other system parts, pc's. A more elegant interface
  scheme, products like the radio, add on panadaptor, computer, SteppIR
  controller, rotator, other semi intelligent hardware, all connected to a
  router operating as a mini radio network all able to talk to each other and
  arbitrate control.

  Martin, HS0ZED



  ______________________________________________________________
  Elecraft mailing list
  Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
  Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
  Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net

  This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
  Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html