Date   

AW: AW: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Ok ok ... I justwas thinking out loud ...

Just thought with a different tuner chip it would be A LOT better

And now in these sdr days ... it should be an easy task (yes not as easy as
baking cakes ... but can be solved)

....

So we use the udr as "user digital radio" (70cm only) ... and next release
will be 3budr (or something like that) for "sysops" :-)

...

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von n0jy
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 22:07
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon
radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)



I think if I were the car manufacturer I would say "lets design another
car around that new motor, and get this model out the door on schedule.
People have signed up for this model and are waiting for it! Some will
wait to buy the new model, others will like this model and then want a
second car."

The new motor may require a new transmission, a different drive train, a
smaller gas tank, different exhaust system, blah blah etc etc.
And a retooling of the assembly line to handle the installation of the new
motor.
So we would never have any new products, because the model keeps being
delayed to make it "better".

I'm not knocking your idea Siegfried, just looking at it from my
capitalist point of view. I'll buy a bigger and better one if I decide to
later! ;-)

Jerry
N0JY


On 5/2/2014 4:13 PM, siegfried jackstien wrote:




Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release
it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey
boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower
gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say
: man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new
model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that
more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate,
smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same
radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on
13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that
data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing)
about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil
Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-
Horizon radar
> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."
>
>





Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Mark L Friedlander <marklfriedlander@...>
 

Sigi,

You asked what other group members think so I tell you what I think.

Your design suggestions may very well be good ones. I don't know, but the UDRX is a commercial product for sale by what appears to be a group of Ham radio operators who:

1) Are really interested in advancing the state of the art.

2) Have made substantial investments of time, effort and I imagine not an insignificant amount of $$$$ over an extended period of time

It seems to me that the UDRX is their vision to complete and it's pretty clear that your suggestions may be considered for future efforts but not for this one. You might want to give this topic a rest and let the UDR folks do what they set out to do.

73 Mark KV4I



On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, siegfried jackstien <siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar
> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."
>
>



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Jim Kusznir <jkusznir@...>
 

As an R&D lab manager, I frequently have to address questions like this and weigh the answers.  I'm not involved with the project itself, but from what I understand of where they're at in the process, and my understanding of similar projects, if I were the project manager, I'd have to say:

Not this release (it will continue as planned), but we will look at it for inclusion into the next release.

Its more than just a causal change of the tuner chip...They have already had protoypes made, extensive bench testing of the design, and are very near releasing it for manufacturing.  If this had been brought up 6 months ago, I'd give it a serious consideration.  But given the costs in labor, further release delays, further prototyping, and possible invalidation of any manufacturing contracts under negotiation, etc., its too late to make a change like this...At this phase, I would ONLY be allowing changes for "bug fixes", and this doesn't constitute a bug.  And they would have to be very small changes or very, very large bugs.

If you do want to see the tuner chip replaced, I'd say help make this release a success (lots of purchased radios), and have as many of the BUYERS request that feature so that it becomes a priority for the next version.  It just doesn't make sense to delay an initial release further after all that has already been delayed in this one....

--Jim, K7LL


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:13 PM, siegfried jackstien <siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?



Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar

> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."
>
>



Re: AW: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

n0jy <n0jy@...>
 

I think if I were the car manufacturer I would say "lets design another car around that new motor, and get this model out the door on schedule.  People have signed up for this model and are waiting for it!  Some will wait to buy the new model, others will like this model and then want a second car."

The new motor may require a new transmission, a different drive train, a smaller gas tank, different exhaust system, blah blah etc etc.
And a retooling of the assembly line to handle the installation of the new motor.
So we would never have any new products, because the model keeps being delayed to make it "better".

I'm not knocking your idea Siegfried, just looking at it from my capitalist point of view.  I'll buy a bigger and better one if I decide to later!   ;-)

Jerry
N0JY

On 5/2/2014 4:13 PM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar
> - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep
>
> "It is generally considered harmful
> ."
>
>



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@...>
 

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???
Yes - of course!

But.....

I want a basic single band single feature (data!!!) radio yesterday!
We can get more bands and more features with product updates..
Changes add months to the release cycle and we (Ham radio) can't
afford to wait... One step at a time...

Bill, WA7NWP

PS. I was very happy to have Argent Data release their low power UHF
data radio even though there was a major issue with the receiver.
That release means we all can be working with different aspects of the
new technology and not waiting...


AW: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Haa ha nice answer .. but does not help here

I asked a serious question and also told a reason for changing

...

If car manufacturer has made a new model ... and just before release it on
the next car show one of his engineers comes to him and says ... hey boss
... we have now a better motor with double the power and lower gasoline
needs ... what would the boss say?!? Scope creep??? Or would he say : man
... how fast can you add that motor to our production line /new model ???

....

If the designers would have asked ... I would have said earlier that more
bands in the upper range is better (more bandwidth, higher bad rate, smaller
antennas ... grin)

... so ... WHAT DO OTHER GROUP MEMBERS THINK???

Would you like a 3 band radio (70cm, 23cm 13cm) ???

If you wanna build a "ham-net" hot-spot ... you could use the same radio(s)
for the user end on 70 cm and for the back-end to other stations on 13 or
23cm

....

Yes I know it would mean a rebuild of the tuner and rf part of that data
radio ... but I think it is worth thinking (and maybe discussing) about that
... right?!?

Dg9bfc

sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Phil Frost
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 15:50
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: AW: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar
- shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)





On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:




Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

"It is generally considered harmful
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful> ."


Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Mathison Ott <mathisono@...>
 

LOL!


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Phil Frost <indigo@...> wrote:
 


On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
 

Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

"It is generally considered harmful."



Re: AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Phil Frost <indigo@...>
 


On 05/02/2014 11:00 AM, siegfried jackstien wrote:
 

Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

"It is generally considered harmful."


AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Is it possible to change the design and use a different chip?!?

There are so nice chips that go 300-3 gig ... so then we would "loose" 2m
(but that is not good for wideband data anyway) ... but we would GAIN 23cm
and 13 cm (also useable maybe then for 2.4 gig wlan nets with high power
long range)

... yes I know you have a design ready ... but changing "only" the tuner
should not be that difficult ... and as seen above ... it seems worth it

Here in Europe no 220megs band ... so for "us" here it is nothing more then
a single band radio

And with different tuner you would boost it up to a 3 band radio

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von Bryan Hoyer
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 14:39
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

We use the CMX991 IQ Transceiver which can operate from 100MHz to 1GHz,
but that doesn't mean the whole radio design works over that range.

The most likely next band will be 220MHz but as John says, we'll have to
see how sales/revenue go.

Bryan K7UDR

On May 1, 2014, at 11:52 PM, siegfried jackstien
<siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:


Would it be possible to expand the frequency range to 23 cm???

What tuner chip (rx and tx) do you use???

Why restricted to 1000 megs??

(there are now such nice wideband rx tx chips available from 300 megs to 3
gigs ... any plans to "upgrade" the hardware?!?

Or are you already using such a chip (and you had just to change the soft
for a wider tuning range and maybe change a few components)???

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...m] Im Auftrag von John D.
Hays
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 05:45
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)



Richard,

Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.

The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies
in
the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice)
but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we
sell) before approaching other bands.

The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able
to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for
mountain top, radar footprint nodes.



________________________________

John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>





On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:







Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a
PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able
to
operate this radio?





I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital
radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70
cm
band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most
populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the
limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to
reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!





We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the
radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to
prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to
be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote
US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>


image <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Federal Communications Commission
View on transition.fcc.gov <http://transition.fcc.gov/>
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Preview by Yahoo




Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable
future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).




(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with
high speed digital QRP? :-)




- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)




_



Re: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

Bryan Hoyer <bhhoyer@...>
 

We use the CMX991 IQ Transceiver which can operate from 100MHz to 1GHz, but that doesn't mean the whole radio design works over that range.

The most likely next band will be 220MHz but as John says, we'll have to see how sales/revenue go.

Bryan K7UDR


On May 1, 2014, at 11:52 PM, siegfried jackstien <siegfried.jackstien@...> wrote:

Would it be possible to expand the frequency range to 23 cm???

What tuner chip (rx and tx) do you use???

Why restricted to 1000 megs??

(there are now such nice wideband rx tx chips available from 300 megs to 3
gigs ... any plans to "upgrade" the hardware?!?

Or are you already using such a chip (and you had just to change the soft
for a wider tuning range and maybe change a few components)???

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von John D. Hays
> Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 05:45
> An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
> Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
> shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)
> 
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.
> 
> The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies in
> the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice)
> but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we
> sell) before approaching other bands.
> 
> The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able
> to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for
> mountain top, radar footprint nodes.
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> John D. Hays
> K7VE
> PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
> <http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a
> PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to
> operate this radio?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital
> radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm
> band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most
> populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the
> limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to
> reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the
> radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to
> prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to
> be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
> <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> 
> 
> image <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
> <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> Federal Communications Commission
> View on transition.fcc.gov <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
> Preview by Yahoo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable
> future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with
> high speed digital QRP? :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 



AW: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"siegfried jackstien" <siegfried.jackstien@...>
 

Would it be possible to expand the frequency range to 23 cm???

What tuner chip (rx and tx) do you use???

Why restricted to 1000 megs??

(there are now such nice wideband rx tx chips available from 300 megs to 3
gigs ... any plans to "upgrade" the hardware?!?

Or are you already using such a chip (and you had just to change the soft
for a wider tuning range and maybe change a few components)???

Greetz

Dg9bfc

Sigi

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
[mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] Im Auftrag von John D. Hays
Gesendet: Freitag, 2. Mai 2014 05:45
An: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Betreff: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar -
shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)



Richard,

Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.

The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies in
the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice)
but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we
sell) before approaching other bands.

The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able
to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for
mountain top, radar footprint nodes.



________________________________

John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>





On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:







Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a
PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to
operate this radio?





I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital
radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm
band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most
populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the
limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to
reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!





We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the
radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to
prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to
be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>


image <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Federal Communications Commission
View on transition.fcc.gov <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/us7/>
Preview by Yahoo




Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable
future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).




(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with
high speed digital QRP? :-)




- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)




_


Re: PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Richard,

Our focus right now is getting the 70cm radio out to market.

The radio portion of the architecture can be repurposed to frequencies in the 100-1000 mhz range (not 23cm and we don't think 2m is a good choice) but we have to see the response to the 70cm version (e.g. how many do we sell) before approaching other bands.

The nice thing with this price range of radio is that you should be able to build networks of relay nodes in the valleys without the need for mountain top, radar footprint nodes.



John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  





On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM, <u4gh@...> wrote:
 

Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to operate this radio?


I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!


We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7

OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7
Federal Communications Commission
Preview by Yahoo


Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).


(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with high speed digital QRP? :-)


- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)

_


PAVE/PAWS (Over-The-Horizon radar - shades of the woodpecker - in reverse!)

u4gh@...
 

Does anyone have ideas just how those of us living in the US near a PAVE/PAWS installation (e.g., most of California) are going to be able to operate this radio?


I was really looking forward to getting back into high speed digital radio, but the US government, who have the primary allocation in the 70 cm band is making it next to impossible to do much on 70 cm in the most populous areas of California (including Silicon Valley). 50 W PEP is the limit, but many of the repeaters with any visibility have been told to reduce the power output levels by *57 dB* or more!


We're being warned that we need to keep 70 cm signals 'off the radar', so to speak. We have to be very careful with 70 cm operation to prevent a total shutdown of the band in this area. Ugh. This is going to be a problem for much of the southern US: OET --47 CFR 2.106 Footnote US7


Any hope of a 23 cm (or other band) RF deck in the forseeable future? (I know that 23 cm is still 'DC' to Dennis. :-) ).


(Or will there be a model with no power amp on it to experiment with high speed digital QRP? :-)


- Richard, VE7CVS (/W6)


Re: Yaesu Digital support / Codec2 support

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Vaughn,

NW Digital Radio doesn't have any current project plans to implement either Fusion or Codec-2 on the UDRX-440.

That being said, here are some thoughts for someone who would like to support them.

Yaesu has prepared a document which describes the protocol in detail here. The DV3000 card we have developed should be able to encode and decode the Fusion AMBE stream, both half rate and full rate, and one would need to implement the protocol stack.  Also a C4FM modem would need to be written for the UDRX (preferably in fixed point math).  We would be willing to give integration guidance to a developer wishing to implement the modem using our I/Q interface so that it has a socket interface like our GMSK, MSK, and other modems. (This would allow re-use for other protocol stacks, for example the D-STAR spec is not limited to GMSK or it might be used for Codec-2.)

A DV3000 card and Raspberry Pi would allow someone to start work on the protocol stack ahead of the creation of the modem and release of the UDRX.  

We have been following Codec-2 development and there are a couple of ways to implement it.  Currently, Codec-2 has not defined a VHF/UHF repeater and networking protocol or modulation, the work has been primarily focused on HF to this point.  The digital stream for the vocoder and protocol stack could be run in 3 different ways:
  1. Using an external computer and sending/receiving through the UDRX via a network socket.
  2. Implement it directly on the UDRX.  We are not confident that this will be possible without rewriting the vocoder in fixed point as the UDRX does not have a floating point processor.  It may be possible as some work has been done in Belgium using the Raspberry Pi, but we beleive it has been built using the hardware FP, rather than the software implementation.
  3. Do what DVSI does with the AMBE vocoder and put in on a specialized DSP processor and mate it with the UDRX interface for the DV3000 card. . 
So it should be possible to support these modes on the UDRX, if someone wishes to pursue development.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  






On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Vaughn Phillips <vaughn.w0ulf@...> wrote:
 

Hello all,

Silly question: is anyone out there aware of whether there will be any available Codec2 or Yaesu digital support (From the team or from the community at large) for these formats on the UDRX-440?

I tried searching the group for anything about these and only ran across some side conversations about these protocols: nothing directly related to whether they'll be "available" for this platform. Please don't shoot me if I missed this somewhere else - but a link to it would be greatly appreciated if I did.

I know we've got a little while before the hardware ships out, so I suppose there's still a chance for this to happen if someone hasn't already made it reality. And no, I'm not volunteering to learn to program well enough to get this done any time soon :P

Thanks!

-Vaughn Phillips
W0ULF
Albany, Oregon, USA

__


Yaesu Digital support / Codec2 support

Vaughn Phillips <vaughn.w0ulf@...>
 

Hello all,

Silly question: is anyone out there aware of whether there will be any available Codec2 or Yaesu digital support (From the team or from the community at large) for these formats on the UDRX-440?

I tried searching the group for anything about these and only ran across some side conversations about these protocols: nothing directly related to whether they'll be "available" for this platform. Please don't shoot me if I missed this somewhere else - but a link to it would be greatly appreciated if I did.

I know we've got a little while before the hardware ships out, so I suppose there's still a chance for this to happen if someone hasn't already made it reality. And no, I'm not volunteering to learn to program well enough to get this done any time soon :P

Thanks!

-Vaughn Phillips
W0ULF
Albany, Oregon, USA


G4KLX at Dayton

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Jonathan Naylor, G4KLX -- developer of the open source D-STAR suite of software and contributor to the Linux AX.25 stack will be coming to Dayton Hamvention this year.

He will be spending some time as a guest of NW Digital Radio in our booth at EH0515.

Please come by to thank him for all of his hard work.

More details to follow.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  


Re: SAW Filter limitations

marklfriedlander@...
 

John,

I have a question in connection with your comment, "Currently, the only DD network implementation is 128 kbps on 23 cm from Icom (ID-1 terminals, and RP-2D access point) and is half duplex (no repeaters).  The UDRX will change this, as it will permit DD at data rates from 4.8k to the top data rate (estimated to reach 100k+) of the radio using 70cm band(s). In the US we are limited to a 100 kHz channel."

Will the DD data rate be user configurable? If so, in what increments?

Thanks & 73
Mark KV4I



Re: Advance Notice: D-STAR DV

"flightresq@..." <flightresq@...>
 

Thanks

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android



From: John Hays ;
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@... ;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Advance Notice: D-STAR DV
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 8:00:03 PM

 

This is the vocoder chip and interface to the Pi or UDRX.  

This chip can vocode for APCO 25 Phase 2, but would require code for the P25 protocol, the modem, and RF chain. NW Digital Radio has no product plan to create the protocol stack for APCO 25 but a 3rd party may. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2014, at 11:36 AM, "flightresq@..." <flightresq@...> wrote:

 

Does this work with project 25

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android


Re: Advance Notice: D-STAR DV

John Hays <john@...>
 

This is the vocoder chip and interface to the Pi or UDRX.  

This chip can vocode for APCO 25 Phase 2, but would require code for the P25 protocol, the modem, and RF chain. NW Digital Radio has no product plan to create the protocol stack for APCO 25 but a 3rd party may. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 20, 2014, at 11:36 AM, "flightresq@..." <flightresq@...> wrote:

 

Does this work with project 25

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android


Re: Advance Notice: D-STAR DV

"flightresq@..." <flightresq@...>
 

Does this work with project 25

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android



From: bhhoyer@... ;
To: ;
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Advance Notice: D-STAR DV
Sent: Thu, Mar 20, 2014 4:56:39 PM

 

We have changed the configuration of our DV3000 add-on board to use the same 26 pin header as the Raspberry Pi. The boards are working in the lab now and are headed off for application integration. Two thirds of our pre-orders expressed interest in D-STAR and half of those would like the add-on board as well.


The AMBE3000 chip only requires the Mini-UART interface, leaving the Pi's I2C and SPI interfaces available for other purposes. RESET is on IO18 and RTS is on 1O17 (There is no CTS).

If you're a Pi developer and have interest, we may have a few units available for early access.
Send an email to support@... and tell us how you would use it and what open source software you would port or write.

Bryan K7UDR