<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Have you even been reading this thread?<br>
<br>
First, I don't even understand your "swamp" the Lan comment. If
you don't use any features that will cause Hermes to send more
data, then the same amount of data would still be sent on the lan,
it would just be sent in shorter bursts. However, even without
using any more data, it would cut latency down if you had an end
to end gigabit connection between Hermes and your PC. If you have
a WIFI connection in between, the WIFI wouldn't see any difference
at all.<br>
<br>
Second, let me explain in more detail my previous post, which
covered at least two other reasons why Gigabit ethernet would be
useful:<br>
<br>
1) The current max per receiver bandwidth is 384 Khz. This can
cover the entire bandwidth of most of the HF Ham bands (160m,
60m, 40m, 30m, 20m, 17m, and 12m), but not all of them, i.e. 80m
(500 Khz wide, 15m (450 Khz wide) , 10m (1700 Khz wide) and 6m (4
Mhz wide). It's nice to be able to see the entire band in the
waterfall. PowerSDR supports stitching multiple receivers to come
closer to this, since it doesn't support simultaneous waterfalls.
CUSDR does not. There's support in the firmware source (not
currently enabled) to support ~1Mhz bandwidth per receiver, but
since the protocol doesn't allow different sample rates for each
receiver, if you wanted that bandwidth (and the feature was
enabled) for even one receiver, you would require a gigabit
connection. Note that this is only referring to current software.
Having the wider bandwidth per receiver is a base feature that can
enable more interesting features in the future.<br>
<br>
2) Phil and others are actively working on a new protocol where
the DSP processing is done off board. In order to do this they
need a fat pipe in order to pass an extra wide band signal (I
believe they are planning for 30Mhz currently) to the external
processor. That will require a gigabit connection.<br>
<br>
I am very interested in both of the above possibilities. Perhaps
you don't care about those features, but that is still a far cry
from people just wanting it just to say it uses it.<br>
<br>
73,<br>
<br>
John<br>
AC0ZG<br>
<br>
On 4/30/2015 2:46 PM, Neal Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOx8i93LyivqLtEYPDa=-Toqd0V8_vteUwfEYLJ2PdRNjSs1ww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">***** High Performance Software Defined Radio Discussion List *****
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">I think that gigabit ethernet is a "gee-whiz"
feature that, if it worked to its billing, would swamp the lan
not to mention wifi users.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I understand the excitement of wondering if something can
be done but its just not a feature that will benefit anyone
but the geekers who want to say it uses it!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>JMHO!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>73</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Neal Campbell</div>
<div>Abroham Neal LLC<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>