[hpsdr] Call for Comments and Discussion - OzyII

Wed Jul 22 01:13:32 PDT 2009

Hi Henry,

You can buy USB to Ethernet converters (with TCP/IP) off the shelf. Will 
they work for HPSDR? Dunno. If so then you can remote HPSDR right now 
without a computer.

Murray VK6HL

Henry Vredegoor wrote:
> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>
> Hi Larry,All,
>
> I like to disagree.
>
> Having for instance your own remote controlled radio's at remote sites
> connected via the internet would require a PC at each site.
> Not a cheap and keep-it-simple solution.
> Also think of power requirements at remote sites or portable/mobile use that
> you would like to keep low.
>
> Having to (remote) hassle with routing or configuration setups at remote
> sites without having access to the full functionality that TCP/IP/Linux(or
> other OS) offers is difficult, not to say a p.i.t.a. 
>
> I think not to implement the possibility of a full TCP/IP stack if it could
> be done at a reasonable price would be a missed chance for future (remote)
> applications of HPSDR.
> And if you don't want to use TCP/IP, you could simply configure the
> OzyII/radio to use only Ethernet or just what layers you want.
> It should maybe also have one or more USB interfaces for legacy reasons or
> peoples preferences for that matter.
>
> I think it won't make that much of a difference in hardware costs once you
> decided to use a modern capable processor or maybe even better use/integrate
> a ready made small and cheap microprocessor-board.
> Like you said there are a bunch of them around, but integration into Ozy and
> adapt that combo to the specifics of our HPSDR hardware would make it "more
> than the sum of parts" IMHO.
>
> I agree with you and others that OzyII should do the task as a
> communications processor only, no other frills and thrills.
> Maybe I confused people on this by mentioning the BeagleBoard as an example
> for a plug-in microprocessor board for a test setup.
>
> 73's,
>
> Henry.
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hpsdr-bounces at lists.openhpsdr.org 
>> [mailto:hpsdr-bounces at lists.openhpsdr.org] On Behalf Of Larry Gadallah
>> Sent: woensdag 22 juli 2009 7:53
>> To: hpsdr at lists.openhpsdr.org
>> Subject: Re: [hpsdr] Call for Comments and Discussion - OzyII
>>
>>
>> ***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
>>
>> 2009/7/21 Paul Cecil <bikerpaul at suscom-maine.net>:
>>     
>>> As I said there are a lot of great ideas being voiced but I 
>>>       
>> am afraid that
>>     
>>> OZY II will become infected with "bloat", and the attempt 
>>>       
>> will be made to
>>     
>>> make it a do everything card. If we make it too complex 
>>>       
>> then that can delay
>>     
>>> its release, and in the end make it too expensive. And with 
>>>       
>> that thought we
>>     
>>> need to keep this in mind. If we want to see more people 
>>>       
>> involved with HPSDR
>>     
>>> then we will need to watch our costs. We have all seen the 
>>>       
>> "HPSDR boards for
>>     
>>> sale" ads that have popped up. And a number have admitted 
>>>       
>> the additional
>>     
>>> expense to complete the HPSDR to a usable radio was one of 
>>>       
>> the factors. Just
>>     
>>> something else to think about.
>>>
>>> Lets keep OZY II simple!
>>>
>>>       
>> I also agree with Paul. There is a famous quote somewhere that goes
>> something like "simplicity is the ultimate sophistication...". In my
>> humble opinion, a significant detraction from many of the currently
>> shipping SDRs is the heavy reliance on a stack of (sometimes unstable)
>> USB hardware and software. If there is a faster, cleaner way to get
>> data from the ADC/CIC into a user's computer where the interesting
>> processing is going to happen, I'm all for it. I also suspect that the
>> more complex the FPGA code and logic becomes, the less likely people
>> are going to understand it and modify and innovate with it.
>>
>> I concur with all of the comments about being able to "remote" the
>> receiver "head" using Ethernet, and it is indeed much more flexible to
>> be able to do a bunch of TCP/IP plumbing to route data here and there,
>> but I don't think the TCP/IP stack needs to be in the radio itself.
>> The radio can communicate with the host computer using Ethernet MAC
>> frames, and the host computer can talk to the rest of the world via
>> TCP/IP (on a separate interface if need be). Computing appliances of
>> every kind that speak TCP/IP are now ubiquitous and cheap, and
>> available in any imaginable format. We don't need to re-invent another
>> one here.
>>
>> We would do well to remember the time-tested UNIX philosophy for
>> partitioning work amongst modules: Do only one thing, and do it well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- 
>> Larry Gadallah, VE6VQ/W7                          lgadallah 
>> AT gmail DOT com
>> PGP Sig: 917E DDB7 C911 9EC1 0CD9  C06B 06C4 835F 0BB8 7336
>> _______________________________________________
>> HPSDR Discussion List
>> To post msg: hpsdr at openhpsdr.org
>> Subscription help: 
>> http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org
>> HPSDR web page: http://openhpsdr.org
>> Archives: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> HPSDR Discussion List
> To post msg: hpsdr at openhpsdr.org
> Subscription help: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/listinfo.cgi/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org
> HPSDR web page: http://openhpsdr.org
> Archives: http://lists.openhpsdr.org/pipermail/hpsdr-openhpsdr.org/
>
>   

 1248250412.0