Re: USB ports and things - with corrections

[Chris G3SJJ]

Some silly typos in the original, sorry.

A couple of queries. I am currently setting up a new Dell Inspiron
Notebook with several intentions. a) - To use for logging at a second
station in my summer house (log cabin in the garden for non UK
Reflectees!) b) - To use on mini dxpeditions / contests elsewhere, c) -
To replace the current desktop machine in my main station and therefore
integrate with my SO2R set up. Radio 1 is FT1kMP and Radio 2 is
currently a K2, soon to be K3. (Then Radio 1 will be K3 and Radio 2 will
be FT1kMP!!)

So here are my queries :

1 - The Dell has 4 USB ports but no serial ports. I recently bought a
Belkin wireless mouse and keyboard which uses 1 port for the wireless
adapter, that works well. I then added a Winkeyer2 USB Keyer to another
port and that also works. I then got more daring and added a 2 Serial to
USB converter and that also works well with the K2. All very stable and
no inter-reaction. In fact I played in Field Day making 100 Qs and then
later in PVRC Reunion, operating from the summer house until around
midnight UTC. So, the K2 is set up as Comm Port 5, using one of the pair
of Serial connectors, if I plug my FT1kMP into the second one which is
set up as Comm 6, do you think there will be any inter-reaction when
using N1MM Contest Logger in SO2R mode?

2 - If all that works I would then want to connect up my Top Ten DX
Doubler for SO2R control, but this uses LPT for switching keying and
audio to/from the radios. I have been trying to find a true Parallel to
USB converter but have failed so far. I am really only interested in Pin
14 since I do not need things like Band Data as these are taken directly
from the MP or K3. Anyone know of a source of true LPT to USB converters
or, if not, if Pin 14 is converted in the USB port?
3 - Whilst I am asking! My G1000 rotator control box is in the main
shack and has the Rotor EZ card for serial connection to my main PC. I
suspect this is a no-go other than re-routing cabling, but anyone know
if it is possible to control the rotator via Wireless network which is
already in place, from the Notebook? It's a bit of a bind having to go
up to the main shack to turn the beam!

Sorry for the length, I though I would get rid of this one one go!

Chris Burbanks G3SJJ (G8D Contest Call)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[KK7P]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:38:03 +0100
> ... have been trying to find a true Parallel to USB converter but
>have failed so far. ... Anyone
>know of a source of true LPT to USB converters...?

There are none.  Flex had to make one foer their product, and the HPSDR
project had to work out a similar issue.  The cables you can buy are USB to
printer cables, which as you found out is not the same thing.

You can buy PCMCIA or Cardbus to Parallel port adapters for $60 or less.  But
they don't work with many computers.  None of my Dells that lack legacy ports
will recognize any of the available cards (or at least the three that I
located and bougfht); my Dells with legacy ports recognize and use all of them
with no problems, so there is a BIOS issue you must contend with.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news,

73,

Lyle KK7P
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brian Lloyd-6]

On Jun 4, 2007, at 7:24 AM, lyle johnson wrote:

> You can buy PCMCIA or Cardbus to Parallel port adapters for $60 or  
> less.  But they don't work with many computers.  None of my Dells  
> that lack legacy ports will recognize any of the available cards  
> (or at least the three that I located and bougfht); my Dells with  
> legacy ports recognize and use all of them with no problems, so  
> there is a BIOS issue you must contend with.
>
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news,

This is an interesting problem with a common thread. Much software  
has been written to make [mis]use of various interfaces on "standard"  
hardware. The use of a parallel port to control something is typical.

What we really need is a general purpose device that interfaces on  
the network and may be easily addressed by software. In most systems  
software has easy access to the network so it seems to me to make  
sense to put our various bits of I/O into a bit of kit that speaks IP  
and plugs into an ethernet.

Case in point, back in the early days of dial-up internetworking we  
had problems attaching many serial ports to our systems. The solution  
was to build a box (terminal server) that supported many serial ports  
but could be addressed across a network. No reason not to take that  
approach today.

As an example, Maxim (previously Dallas Semiconductor) makes the  
TINI, a network-enabled interface-on-a-chip. Everything is on the one  
device including ethernet, IP stack, serial, CAN, and bidirectional  
digital I/O. It would be easy to build an interface box using this  
device and use it to control the various components in your station.  
This is a much more elegant solution than trying to force-fit USB  
devices.

>
> 73,
>
> Lyle KK7P
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

73 de Brian, WB6RQN
Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Chris G3SJJ]

Many thanks Brian and Lyle. Been mulling this over whilst grass cutting!
OK, so no real Parallel to USB converter exists. For my purposes I just
need to know when using N1MM Contest Logger if whatever command is
normally sent to Pin 14 on LPT1 (maybe Low for Radio 1 and High for
Radio 2?) actually gets to the USB Port and is so if it then appears on
Pin 14 of the 25 way D socket which plugs in to the DX Doubler.

It also occurred to me that I should really have put this question on
the N1MM Reflector since many of the guys use SO2R and may have gone
through this loop, so apologies to the group for wasting your time.

What is really driving on this one is that if by some lucky chance my K3
arrived a few days before 28 July the IOTA Contest weekend I could
probably run SO2R!!

Exciting times!

Chris Burbanks G3SJJ, G8D



Brian Lloyd wrote:

> On Jun 4, 2007, at 7:24 AM, lyle johnson wrote:
>
>> You can buy PCMCIA or Cardbus to Parallel port adapters for $60 or
>> less. But they don't work with many computers. None of my Dells that
>> lack legacy ports will recognize any of the available cards (or at
>> least the three that I located and bougfht); my Dells with legacy
>> ports recognize and use all of them with no problems, so there is a
>> BIOS issue you must contend with.
>>
>> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news,
>
> This is an interesting problem with a common thread. Much software has
> been written to make [mis]use of various interfaces on "standard"
> hardware. The use of a parallel port to control something is typical.
>
> What we really need is a general purpose device that interfaces on the
> network and may be easily addressed by software. In most systems
> software has easy access to the network so it seems to me to make
> sense to put our various bits of I/O into a bit of kit that speaks IP
> and plugs into an ethernet.
>
> Case in point, back in the early days of dial-up internetworking we
> had problems attaching many serial ports to our systems. The solution
> was to build a box (terminal server) that supported many serial ports
> but could be addressed across a network. No reason not to take that
> approach today.
>
> As an example, Maxim (previously Dallas Semiconductor) makes the TINI,
> a network-enabled interface-on-a-chip. Everything is on the one device
> including ethernet, IP stack, serial, CAN, and bidirectional digital
> I/O. It would be easy to build an interface box using this device and
> use it to control the various components in your station. This is a
> much more elegant solution than trying to force-fit USB devices.
>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Lyle KK7P
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Post to: [hidden email]
>> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>>
>
> 73 de Brian, WB6RQN
> Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ian Stirling, G4ICV, AB2GR]

On Monday 04 June 2007 11:27:17 Brian Lloyd wrote:

> What we really need is a general purpose device that interfaces on  
> the network and may be easily addressed by software.

  It's not widely known that the Linksys WRT54G series wireless
routers have two serial ports that are brought to a board connector
at logic levels. There are no RS-232 level changers on the board
and it follows that Linksys doesn't support them in the firmware.

  http://openwrt.org
 This site has open source GPL firmware that runs an embedded
gnu/linux system, replacing the Linksys firmware.  It runs on many
wireless routers, not only Linksys. The two serial ports are
supported as /dev/ttyS0 and /dev/ttyS1.
  I was disappointed to find that my WRT54G is version 5 and has
only half the flash and ram that versions 1 to 4 have, and consequently
is minimally supported by OpenWRT. So I replaced it with a WRT54GL,
Linksys's acknowledgment that there are tinkerers in the world who
want the original flash and ram back, at a higher price of course.

  There is a serial over Bluetooth standard.
All that's needed is Simon's HRD to invent, or use a serial over Wifi
and connect our serial enabled radios to a router's serial port.
 With the router's firmware open source and clever people so minded,
operating the radio over the network isn't so distant a dream.

  Then there's Tentec's Omni VII, an already network enabled
transceiver with an Ethernet connection, easily added to a consumer
network.

 I think Elecraft missed an opportunity in the design of the K3
regarding networking.

Ian, G4ICV, AB2GR, K2 #4962
--
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N8LP]

I have been controlling my radio, rotator, SteppIR, and a commercial
relay/ADC board over my LAN and internet for 5-6 years now. I now also
control/monitor my own LP-100 wattmeter and LP-Remote relay/logic/ADC
board over the network. I wrote an article several years ago in QST on
how to do this, and there is more info on my website about the process.
The hardware is  not very expensive, especially if you pick it up on
eBay, and the software programs are mostly free downloads on my website
and others.

73,
Larry N8LP
www.telepostinc.com



Ian Stirling wrote:

> On Monday 04 June 2007 11:27:17 Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>  
>> What we really need is a general purpose device that interfaces on  
>> the network and may be easily addressed by software.
>>    
>
>   It's not widely known that the Linksys WRT54G series wireless
> routers have two serial ports that are brought to a board connector
> at logic levels. There are no RS-232 level changers on the board
> and it follows that Linksys doesn't support them in the firmware.
>
>   http://openwrt.org
>  This site has open source GPL firmware that runs an embedded
> gnu/linux system, replacing the Linksys firmware.  It runs on many
> wireless routers, not only Linksys. The two serial ports are
> supported as /dev/ttyS0 and /dev/ttyS1.
>   I was disappointed to find that my WRT54G is version 5 and has
> only half the flash and ram that versions 1 to 4 have, and consequently
> is minimally supported by OpenWRT. So I replaced it with a WRT54GL,
> Linksys's acknowledgment that there are tinkerers in the world who
> want the original flash and ram back, at a higher price of course.
>
>   There is a serial over Bluetooth standard.
> All that's needed is Simon's HRD to invent, or use a serial over Wifi
> and connect our serial enabled radios to a router's serial port.
>  With the router's firmware open source and clever people so minded,
> operating the radio over the network isn't so distant a dream.
>
>   Then there's Tentec's Omni VII, an already network enabled
> transceiver with an Ethernet connection, easily added to a consumer
> network.
>
>  I think Elecraft missed an opportunity in the design of the K3
> regarding networking.
>
> Ian, G4ICV, AB2GR, K2 #4962
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Ian Stirling wrote:

>
> I think Elecraft missed an opportunity in the design of the K3
> regarding networking.

Perhaps they will have an adpater....hard to imagine serial to ethernet....but
here are three humped camels, aren't there?

Thom,EIEIO
Email, Internet, Electronic Information Officer

www.baltimorehon.com/                    Home of the Baltimore Lexicon
www.tlchost.net/hosting/                 Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jeff Stai]

Ian Stirling wrote:
>
>  I think Elecraft missed an opportunity in the design of the K3
> regarding networking.
>

I don't know that I would jump to that conclusion. Given that the K3 can be fully controlled via the
serial port, it would surprise me if an ethernet adapter was not a planned future offering - but
better to get the base rig on the market, don't you think?

73 - jeff wk6i

--
Jeff Stai               [hidden email]
Twisted Oak Winery      http://www.twistedoak.com/
Winery Blog             http://www.elbloggotorcido.com/
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

On 6/4/07, Ian Stirling <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  I think Elecraft missed an opportunity in the design of the K3
> regarding networking.

I don't agree. I think such a feature would be a gimmick, designed to
appeal to the kind of buyers who choose a radio because of the bells
and whistles it has.

Only a small minority of people wish to control their radio remotely
via a network. Such an interface would need nothing that is specific
to the K3, so there is no need for Elecraft to have to develop it.
Lynovation http://ctr-remote.home.att.net/CTR-BlueLync.htm appears to
have a module that will interface to any radio's serial port via
Bluetooth. If there is a real demand for one that uses wi-fi or wired
Ethernet, surely someone will develop one.

As Simon Brown points out, such an interface does nothing to address
the issue of streaming audio in or out. A PC is inexpensive and can do
the whole job, and most people already have one connected to the radio
for when they are not at a remote location.

--
Julian, G4ILO
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[dj7mgq]

> Lynovation http://ctr-remote.home.att.net/CTR-BlueLync.htm appears to
> have a module that will interface to any radio's serial port via
> Bluetooth. If there is a real demand for one that uses wi-fi or wired
> Ethernet, surely someone will develop one.

EtherNuts might be of interest for doing this:

http://www.ethernut.de/
http://www.ethernut.de/en/hardware/medianut2/index.html


vy 73 de toby
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brian Lloyd-6]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 1:34 AM, Julian G4ILO wrote:

> On 6/4/07, Ian Stirling <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>  I think Elecraft missed an opportunity in the design of the K3
>> regarding networking.
>
> I don't agree. I think such a feature would be a gimmick, designed to
> appeal to the kind of buyers who choose a radio because of the bells
> and whistles it has.

Not necessarily. More below.

> Only a small minority of people wish to control their radio remotely
> via a network.

Perhaps. I think that is mostly because they have not done it.

> Such an interface would need nothing that is specific
> to the K3, so there is no need for Elecraft to have to develop it.

It is more than just controlling the radio. It is about building a  
system.

> Lynovation http://ctr-remote.home.att.net/CTR-BlueLync.htm appears to
> have a module that will interface to any radio's serial port via
> Bluetooth. If there is a real demand for one that uses wi-fi or wired
> Ethernet, surely someone will develop one.

Probably.

We tend to think of our radio as being a monolythic stand-alone  
device. After all, it is a black-box that has only one function.  
OTOH, given that most people here have or are buying Elecraft radios  
they already have the idea of the radio as a building block toward  
something that is customized for a given purpose.

As our building blocks become more and more complex we begin to need  
some way for the blocks to communicate with each other. In the past  
such communications was limited to one function per wire. We had  
things like an ALC line, a PTT line, an audio output line, a signal  
input line, etc. Control functions were limited to what we could do  
with our fingers on switches and knobs.

But as things become more complex and automatic we needed to transfer  
more information between devices. We want to know operating  
frequency, operating mode, bandwidth, passband center frequency, etc.  
Controlling these parameters or querying them is a low-data-rate  
operation -- now. In the future it might not be so.

We are moving more and more toward digital communications mode. We  
already have things like PSK31, MFSK, and PACTOR. PSK31 is, frankly,  
more spectrum efficient than CW and capable of operating at S:N  
ratios equal-to the best we can do with CW. Digital voice is on its  
way. After all, we have been using digital voice for quite some time  
now in our handheld mobile telephones.

> As Simon Brown points out, such an interface does nothing to address
> the issue of streaming audio in or out. A PC is inexpensive and can do
> the whole job, and most people already have one connected to the radio
> for when they are not at a remote location.

This is an excellent point. Imagine I am using a digital mode with a  
K3. The K3 performs all modulation and demodulation in DSP, i.e. in a  
computer. Does it make sense to generate a signal digitally in my PC,  
convert it to analog, transfer it to the K3 which converts it to  
digital, translates it to the first IF digitally, and then converts  
it back to analog again? How silly! But that is *precisely* what we  
are going to be doing when running sound-card modes with a K3. Why  
not just keep the signal in the digital domain and transfer it  
directly to the D:A in the K3. That eliminates noise pickup, phase  
shift, quantization artifacts, aliasing, etc.

Now let me think a bit more about my communications system in my  
shack. Let's say I want to use one of the satellites. That requires  
that you manage your antenna position, correct for doppler, and  
communicate. It takes some getting used-to and if you are working a  
satellite in low earth orbit (LEO) you will find yourself busier than  
a one-armed paper hanger.

But much of this is easily handled by computer. If you are doing  
satellite you already use a computer to determine antenna direction.  
Let's just let the computer handle that. But since the computer knows  
the satellite's orbit, it also knows its velocity. That means the  
computer can know the doppler shift and tune the radio. If both ends  
do doppler shift correction independently and do it for both uplink  
and downlink separately, the operator can have a doppler-free  
communications.

(For those of you wondering about the details, you correct the  
doppler in the uplink to fix your signal in the satellite's passband.  
That way the receiver only needs to correct the doppler in the  
downlink. That would allow two stations that don't know their  
combined doppler ahead of time to do their own half of the correction  
and have an apparently doppler-free QSO.)

And as I add more radios and more devices to my station, why should I  
have to add lots more wires? This is a problem that afflicts the  
cockpit of an aircraft. Consider all the radios and all the devices  
that must work together in a cockpit. You have comm radios, nav  
radios, GPS, INS, engine sensors, multiple displays, etc. You need to  
integrate all this. You may find this hard to believe but Airbus has  
standardized on good old ethernet as the way to make all the devices  
talk to each other.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to add a radio or add a station  
accessory and just plug in one wire in order to integrate it with  
everything else? If I have a set of control messages for my radio I  
can send them over ethernet. If I have a set of control messages for  
my rotator I can send them over the ethernet. If I have an antenna  
tuner I can send control messages to it over the ethernet. If I want  
to control everything from my computer I just do it over one wire --  
my ethernet. If I use multiple radios as the same time (cross-band  
operation) I can control the two radios as one by letting the  
computer do the integration for me.

And ethernet has plenty of bandwidth to move large amounts of data if  
necessary. Most people don't realize that their sound-card interface  
represents a huge data rate. The typical sound card running at CD  
audio rates (44.1Ksps x 16 bits) is transferring 705Kbps of data for  
just one channel. If we increase that to the new standard of 96Ksps  
and 24 bits we are now up to 2.3 *Megabits* per second. You can't do  
that over an RS-232 connection. Now multiply that by all the radios  
that you have! OTOH, 100Mbps ethernet can do that without even  
breathing hard.

So there is more to this "ethernet in the radio" than meets the eye.

I would love to have a universal interface that would plug into the  
ethernet and let me sample and control things in my shack. I want to  
control my antenna switch. If I am doing weak-signal microwave stuff  
I need to coordinate the sequencing of my IF radio, my transverter,  
my preamp and power amp switching, etc. Lots going on. I might want  
to let the DSP in the radio perform the low-level modulation and  
demodulation while letting my computer perform more of the high-level  
protocol functions.

So, as digital communications evolves we are going to want more  
flexibility to use our radios as components in a larger system rather  
than as just standalone devices. Having a single good, fast, reliable  
interface for everything will make future functionality much easier  
to achieve. If we adopt the universal interface that supports a very  
high level of peer-to-peer multiplexing ahead of time, we will not  
have to worry about changing that hardware in the future. Now all the  
new features can be implemented in software because the hardware is  
already there. Think of the possibilities!

>
> --
> Julian, G4ILO
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???

73 de Brian, WB6RQN
Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Simon (HB9DRV)]

My current digital software project is DM780 - some screenshots here:
http://gallery.ham-radio.ch/main.php?g2_itemId=9832

I will write a remote agent which sends the digital data over the network,
the UI will select the agent instead of the soundcard.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <[hidden email]>

>
> This is an excellent point. Imagine I am using a digital mode with a  K3.
> The K3 performs all modulation and demodulation in DSP, i.e. in a
> computer. Does it make sense to generate a signal digitally in my PC,
> convert it to analog, transfer it to the K3 which converts it to  digital,
> translates it to the first IF digitally, and then converts  it back to
> analog again?
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone]]

   From: Brian Lloyd <[hidden email]>
   Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:36:11 -0700

   I would love to have a universal interface that would plug into the  
   ethernet and let me sample and control things in my shack. I want to  
   control my antenna switch. If I am doing weak-signal microwave stuff  
   I need to coordinate the sequencing of my IF radio, my transverter,  
   my preamp and power amp switching, etc. Lots going on. I might want  
   to let the DSP in the radio perform the low-level modulation and  
   demodulation while letting my computer perform more of the high-level  
   protocol functions.

We're getting pretty close to that with USB now, and I suspect
Ethernet equivalents aren't that far away.  Of course, some people are
going to want Bluetooth instead (which might happen first).  But given
the state of flux of the world, I think Elecraft has made a good, if
conservative, decision.  It might even be practical to add an Ethernet
to serial interface internally.  I've done a trivial mod to add
internal USB to a Z90, and it certainly looks possible to add internal
Ethernet to that unit.  But that takes software and perhaps some
administration.  I note that my printer is connected by Ethernet, but
required a driver for that.

In the meantime, look at what N8LP has done.

73, doug
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brian Lloyd-6]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:17 AM, Simon Brown (HB9DRV) wrote:

> My current digital software project is DM780 - some screenshots  
> here: http://gallery.ham-radio.ch/main.php?g2_itemId=9832
>
> I will write a remote agent which sends the digital data over the  
> network, the UI will select the agent instead of the soundcard.

Sounds pretty interesting. Care to share more about the protocols?

Just another comment. One of the things that made the Internet  
successful was to standardize on the protocols going over the wire  
rather than standardize on the software. That means that anyone can  
write software to implement the protocol and be compatible with  
everyone else.

To be quite frank, I would probably opt to use SNMP to provide  
control and monitoring of the devices in my shack. It is a standard  
so there is a lot of code already available to use. We would just  
need to cook up the ham-shack MIB (management information base) to  
include objects like:

antenna
        operating frequency upper bound
        operating frequency lower bound
        azimuth
        elevation

Rig
        transmit frequency
        receive frequency
        passband upper bound
        passband lower bound
        input selection
        transmitter on/off

etc.

It provides for gets (read) and sets (write). Some parameters are  
read-only. Others are read/write.

We also need something standardized for the transmission of AF and IF  
data over the network. This requires more thought as we are  
addressing layering. I have protocols for the physical layer  
(modulation, control), link layer, etc. Splitting functionality  
between rig and computer is going to be more of a challenge but  
certainly doable.

I have been out of this scene for a *LONG* time. Perhaps someone can  
tell me if anyone has addressed this in the TAPR/AMRAD digital  
conference? (Lyle?)

>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-
> [hidden email]>
>
>>
>> This is an excellent point. Imagine I am using a digital mode with  
>> a  K3. The K3 performs all modulation and demodulation in DSP,  
>> i.e. in a computer. Does it make sense to generate a signal  
>> digitally in my PC, convert it to analog, transfer it to the K3  
>> which converts it to  digital, translates it to the first IF  
>> digitally, and then converts  it back to analog again?
>
>

73 de Brian, WB6RQN
Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Simon (HB9DRV)]

[1] The agent will be shipped with source code, it'll use the HB9DRV
protocol #1957 (still being developed).
[2] SNMP is based on UDP which by definition is not reliable.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <[hidden email]>

>
> Sounds pretty interesting. Care to share more about the protocols?
>
[choppo]
>
> To be quite frank, I would probably opt to use SNMP to provide  control
> and monitoring of the devices in my shack. It is a standard  so there is a
> lot of code already available to use. We would just  need to cook up the
> ham-shack MIB (management information base) to  include objects like:

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brian Lloyd-6]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Doug Faunt N6TQS [phone] wrote:

>    From: Brian Lloyd <[hidden email]>
>    Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:36:11 -0700
>
>    I would love to have a universal interface that would plug into the
>    ethernet and let me sample and control things in my shack. I  
> want to
>    control my antenna switch. If I am doing weak-signal microwave  
> stuff
>    I need to coordinate the sequencing of my IF radio, my transverter,
>    my preamp and power amp switching, etc. Lots going on. I might want
>    to let the DSP in the radio perform the low-level modulation and
>    demodulation while letting my computer perform more of the high-
> level
>    protocol functions.
>
> We're getting pretty close to that with USB now,

The problem is, USB is a bad choice in this situation. It is a short-
range master-slave system. It is intended to have a single master  
controller control a few attached devices. That works for peripherals  
on your PC but it is not general purpose for our shack. We really  
want something that is peer-to-peer and has no limitations. There may  
be times when I want several devices on the network controlling  
several other devices. I might have two computers, three radios, two  
antenna controllers, a couple of amplifiers, etc. The system should  
not place arbitrary limits on what I might dream up.

> and I suspect Ethernet equivalents aren't that far away.

That would be good.

> Of course, some people are
> going to want Bluetooth instead (which might happen first).

The key is to be able to run higher-layer protocols over it.  
Bluetooth can do that better than USB can but WiFi is an even better  
choice. Still, I would much rather have wire, especially in a shack.  
Less radiation to deal with. With 100Mbps ethernet each cable can run  
100Mbps. The more connections I make, the more capacity I have (using  
switched ethernet). With WiFi and Bluetooth all my devices have to  
share the same capacity and they are subject to RFI, something not  
all that unusual in a shack. And if the ham is trying to "work the  
bird" or do EME on 2.3GHz, they are NOT going to want WiFi and  
Bluetooth cruft floating around causing interference.

> But given
> the state of flux of the world, I think Elecraft has made a good, if
> conservative, decision.

Given the cost of serial and the cost of Ethernet I would tend to  
disagree. Other than perhaps some backward compatibility there is no  
real advantage to serial RS-232 over Ethernet and a lot of  
disadvantages.

> It might even be practical to add an Ethernet
> to serial interface internally.

No, that would be a bad decision as it would not make anything any  
better. Ethernet provides multiplexing already. Serial does not.  
Ethernet provides 1000 Mbps. Serial does not. I could go on and on.  
Ethernet-to-serial is just a band-aid. Better to put the ethernet  
controller right on the processor's bus where it belongs then you  
have all the features of Ethernet. And you can still emulate a serial  
interface if you really want to.

> I've done a trivial mod to add
> internal USB to a Z90, and it certainly looks possible to add internal
> Ethernet to that unit.  But that takes software and perhaps some
> administration.

Yes, and this is not a bad thing. (More below.)

> I note that my printer is connected by Ethernet, but required a  
> driver for that.

That is because most printer manufacturers try to move the processing  
into the computer rather than putting the printer processing in the  
printer where it belongs. This is a poor engineering decision based  
on reducing costs. You will find that good printers use a standard  
protocol on the wire and do all the processing local to the printer.

And yes, it takes software. When doing something it takes effort to  
do the the right way the first time and doing it the right way is  
probably not the easy way. OTOH, once you have done it the right way  
it pays big dividends in the long run as you can build great things  
on a common base.

If you want a perfect example, look at the Internet. When we were  
designing the protocols for the Internet we tried to make things as  
simple, general, and expandable as possible so that we could make new  
things in the future as we thought of them. Look at all the cool  
things that have come from that sort of thinking. It should be  
applied to our other communications systems as well.

>
> In the meantime, look at what N8LP has done.
>
> 73, doug
>

73 de Brian, WB6RQN
Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bill Coleman-2]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 12:57 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> The problem is, USB is a bad choice in this situation. It is a  
> short-range master-slave system. It is intended to have a single  
> master controller control a few attached devices. That works for  
> peripherals on your PC but it is not general purpose for our shack.  
> We really want something that is peer-to-peer and has no limitations.

FireWire.

> Given the cost of serial and the cost of Ethernet I would tend to  
> disagree. Other than perhaps some backward compatibility there is  
> no real advantage to serial RS-232 over Ethernet and a lot of  
> disadvantages.

Yes. But, Ethernet is just the physical layer. What you really need  
is a set of higher-level protocols that run over a high-speed  
connection.

The single-connection aspect of serial ports is the source of the  
limitation. (Although I did work on an multi-connection serial  
protocol while I was at Hayes called AutoStream)

> No, that would be a bad decision as it would not make anything any  
> better. Ethernet provides multiplexing already. Serial does not.  
> Ethernet provides 1000 Mbps. Serial does not. I could go on and on.  
> Ethernet-to-serial is just a band-aid. Better to put the ethernet  
> controller right on the processor's bus where it belongs then you  
> have all the features of Ethernet. And you can still emulate a  
> serial interface if you really want to.

Yup. Sounds like a good idea.

To me, though, whether Ethernet, USB or FireWire, you'd get this  
advantage.


Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: [hidden email]
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
             -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com