[Yaesu] changes in rigs when CW dropped?

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:39:41 -0500

I see that word "always" a lot in here....
Of course you don't really mean that. A day will come, when this generatio=
n that 
was REQUIRED to know code, will be GONE.

There WILL come a time that CW will be no more.
It may be 15, 25 or 50 years but I would bet that even 
15 years from now there will be VERY little CW on the air.

That does not please me of course and if *I* am still around 
there will probably be morse QSOs taking place on the 
ham bands! (I will call CQ anyway - grin!)

On 23 Nov 2003 at 13:40, Jim Dunbar wrote:

> General Comments on the CW features of future radios:
> 
> There will always be CW modes and all of the associated narrow band
> filters available on future radios.
> 
> Also any additional new digital data modes will also be available.
> 
> So, it doesn't matter if it is AM modulation, SSB, CW, PSK, RTTY,
> AMTOR, PACTOR, or any other newly developed modes, they will always be
> user selectable. Especially with the advancement of DSP, filtering,
> and software selectable modes. In the future, a single button will be
> able to select cw, ssb, pactor, amtor, psk31, rtty, SITOR, Clover, or
> any other desirable modes.
> 
> It doesn't matter what "paper requirements" are eliminated such as a
> code test requirement, there will always be cw operators. Testing has
> never stopped anyone from learning cw and learning it well on their
> own.
> 
> Especially with the increase of cw ops in all of the the major
> contests, such as cw ww, sweepstakes, ARRL cw dx contests.
> 
> CW is also international, and many countries could care less about how
> the USA manages their domestic ham radio licensing systems.
> 
> There are going to be times that cw with a QRP rig out in the boonies
> with a battery is the only means of communications.
> 
> So, with new technology developed rigs, cw will always be there,
> however, there will just be more advanced protocols and modes
> available in the future.
> 
> K4PV
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of David Willmore Sent:
> Sunday, November 23, 2003 1:06 PM To: [email protected] Cc: JAMES
> CLARK; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Yaesu] changes in rigs
> when CW dropped?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Jim.
> 
> > When the code is dropped will all the rigs come without all the nice
> > CW features?
> 
> My take on its is yes and no. :)  I say 'yes' because I do feel that
> we're in for a large shift in the way rigs are designed and used.  I
> say 'no' because it's not going to happen *exactly* then and it will
> not be because of the relaxation of the CW requirement for HF access.
> 
> Rigs with the controls on the front pannel suffer for a number of
> limitations. One is that there is only so much space on the front of
> the pannel.  The pannel is mechanical in nature, so is not flexable. 
> There are only so many controls and displays that can be fitted to
> this resource.  They can only be 'shared' amongst limited variety of
> functions before the user just forgets what all a knob does and when.
> 
> I think we've seen some rigs like this.  I know I've heard the
> complaint that people were sticking with an older rig because the
> newer ones just had too many darn buttons and "der blinkin' lights". 
> Several things have been tried with some success, but not enough to
> solve the problem--large LCD display, 'soft' buttons, etc..
> 
> Also, the processing that occurs in a radio to acheive the level of
> performance that is becoming standard these days takes a lot of CPU
> ability.  It is true that using dedicated DSPs helps, but the flip
> side is the lack of flexability of that processor--it can only do
> signal processing, not your taxes or read your email. :)
> 
> What I see us going to are simpler looking and, in a sense, simpler
> designed radios.  I hate to mention them, but they're ahead in this
> area *minutely*, but Icom has the PCR-100/1000 receivers which are
> more along this line.  But they don't go far enough to take advantage
> of the benefits of the new scheme.
> 
> I see future radios as a 'block' that takes in/puts out RF energy on
> one side and communicates with a computer on the other.  Between the
> computer and the radio is just a digital connection--USB 2.0 would be
> good.
> 
> Here are the bentfits:
> 1) simpler receiver design--no need to take the signal down to an
> analog baseband signal. 2) No big chunk of signal processing necessary
> 3) No display and forest of knobs 4) easier connection to the
> shack--three connections: power, RF, and computer.
> 
> So, radios get cheaper and performance gets better.
> 
> Since most people have/will have a computer, the most expensive chunk
> of this system can be considered a 'given'.  Sure, some people won't
> have one and some people will operate where one is not practical. 
> That's one of the reasons that I say this won't happen instantly.  A
> replacement for the FT-817 using this type of design would be at least
> 5 years behind the FT-1000 version.
> 
> With the use of a computer as the processing and control element in
> the system, you gain a large chunk of flexability in user interface
> and signal format. I'm sure to start with, vendors would ship software
> that displayed a 'virtual faceplace' type of design--like the Kenwood
> TS-2000 does.  But, that's just the first generation to 'bridge the
> gap'.  Don't need too many changes all at once or we'll lose everyone.
> :)  But, in the future things could change and take advantage of the
> advances that are being made in user interface design-- all those
> computer scientists coming through the colleges and universities are
> bound to come up with some interesting stuff so it would do us good to
> be in a position to take advantage of it--which would be hard to do
> with knobs and buttons.
> 
> For the signal processing, well, one of the big limits now on the
> digital modes that are becoming so popular at HF is the bandwidth that
> one can get off and on the air.  It's not as much of a problem at HF
> as we're used to limiting ourselves to SSB bandwidths, but at VHF and
> above, it's signifigant. With the new scheme, we're not bringing in a
> little 3KHz chunk of analog baseband signal.  We could bring in a
> 100KHz chunk or larger (without all the baseband limitations like IM
> products, etc.  Anyone see the IM problems of a strong station in
> PSK31 smearing out the rest of the band?) and do the rest of the
> 'selection' and demodulation in software.  Adding support for new
> modes would be much easier as the hardware would not need to change.
> 
> Oh, and you could still do CW with it.  We might need to add another
> 'port' to the radio 'brick' to plug a key into.  Or someone could hack
> up a little key to USB adapter.  Hmmmm, that sounds like a fun
> project....
> 
> So, to summarize, yes and no. :)  I could go into more detail, but I'm
> very sure I've gone on long enough already.
> 
> Before anyone goes off and says this is impossible, I'll mention that
> all of the fundimental chunks of this system are already done or are
> late in the design stages--from various groups.  GNURADIO is working
> on a software degined radio schema to allow flexable handling of big
> chunks of digitized RF.  They're also working on an RF to USB2.0
> converter (with digital downmixing and filtering).  Linrad is working
> on software for handling large bandwidths of signals and getting
> better performance in weak signal work than top of the line
> conventional radios.  So, this *is* were the hobby is going.  The
> concern is if our vendors (hey, Yaesu, you listening?) are going to
> lead, follow or get lost.  Well, we could say the same for our
> members, but every generation of radios in the past has always stirred
> up a cry of "this is as good as it gets, this is the last radio I'll
> ever buy."  Hi hi. Yeah, right. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> David N0YMV
> 
> Moderator: Ray Brown, KB=D8STN
> _______________________________________________
> Yaesu mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/yaesu
> 
> 
> Moderator: Ray Brown, KB=D8STN
> _______________________________________________
> Yaesu mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/yaesu