Slashdot Mirror


Developers Disclose Schematics For 50-1000 MHz Software-Defined Transceiver

Bruce Perens writes Chris Testa KD2BMH and I have been working for years on a software-defined transceiver that would be FCC-legal and could communicate using essentially any mode and protocol up to 1 MHz wide on frequencies between 50 and 1000 MHz. It's been discussed here before, most recently when Chris taught gate-array programming in Python. We are about to submit the third generation of the design for PCB fabrication, and hope that this version will be salable as a "developer board" and later as a packaged walkie-talkie, mobile, and base station. This radio is unique in that it uses your smartphone for the GUI, uses apps to provide communication modes, contains an on-board FLASH-based gate-array and a ucLinux system. We intend to go for FSF "Respects Your Freedom" certification for the device. My slide show contains 20 pages of schematics and is full of ham jargon ("HT" means "handi-talkie", an old Motorola product name and the hams word for "walkie talkie") but many non-hams should be able to parse it with some help from search engines. Bruce Perens K6BP

135 comments

  1. HT? by man_ls · · Score: 1

    I've always known HT to be "handheld transceiver", none of this "handie-talkie" nonsense.

    1. Re:HT? by jtara · · Score: 2

      I think HT actually came from Motorola's designation for their hand-held transceivers, e.g. HT-100. And "Handie-Talkie" is the term that Motorola used, check old product literature.

      Motorola trademarked the term (in different forms) in 1948 and 1960.

      http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...

    2. Re:HT? by jerel · · Score: 1

      They are the same thing. Relax. I suspect the true first occurence of the abbreviation HT to mean "handheld transceiver" or "Handie-Talkie" is lost in the mists of time. The Handie Talkie was probably the first two-way-voice handheld transciever, and it entered service in the US military in about 1941. I have always heard HT means "Handie Talkie" but it obviously means "handheld transceiver" too. FWIW, the term "Walkie Talkie" referred to a radio that was so big it lived in a backpack the radioman had to lug around. It was self-contained so you could walk around with it. The Handie Talkie was a huge improvement, and is the handheld radio you see the US Army soldiers using in all the old WWII movies. 73, WT6G

      --
      Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
    3. Re:HT? by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Fair 'nuff, there are many hams out there who've been in the game much longer than I have.

    4. Re:HT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the local hams here refer to HT as 'handie-talkie'. And I am part of an active club and the local ARES/RACES group.

    5. Re:HT? by verifine · · Score: 2

      Sadly, HT has been used publicly as 'handy talkie'. Going back a century or two - when I was in television broadcasting we had the new and 'phenomenal' Electronic News Gathering, or ENG revolution - which meant our reporters were bringing back videotape instead of undeveloped color film. We retired our film processor and installed edit bays. Ikegami - a Japanese camera manufacturer of some repute, marketed the HL-79 camera. HL? Turns out the Japanese (in this case) were doing their research on us Americans.

      Rather than 'HT' (handie-talkie), their cameras were 'HL' (handy-lookie). I always found that description humorous, even with proper respect to those who (for whom English was not their first language) created and marketed the products in question.

    6. Re:HT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marketing was pretty easy in the good-ol-days, eh?

  2. Bruce, finally something worth while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bruce, finally something worth while. I've been reading since the beginning and this is cool. thanks for the contribution. Now more than ever.

    1. Re:Bruce, finally something worth while by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My pleasure. We have a lot of fun with this stuff, and I'll continue to try to stretch the envelope for as long as I can. Chris and I have talked about doing an open-bitstream gate-array after this project.

    2. Re:Bruce, finally something worth while by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Been digging around... this would make a pretty damn fine cross band repeater!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Bruce, finally something worth while by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Actually it makes a good TDMA repeater. That means that it can receive and transmit on the same frequency, in different time slots. And it can carry full-duplex that way too.

      It won't cross-band on its own. The I/Q transceiver chip won't transmit and receive simultaneously, and there's only one VFO.

    4. Re:Bruce, finally something worth while by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      No no, I know, you would need 2 units, but they could be housed in the same case.

      Usually, you need a separate TX/RX antennae, with enough physical separation to keep them from interfering, assuming standard .5 +/- offsets.

      Cross band eliminates the interference so long as you didn't pick a harmonic and allows you to mount the antennae near to each other.
      And they can be ad hoc, not worrying about having a repeater frequency license. (Totally full where I am)

      No idea if TDMA solves any of the issues above with cross band, probably need to read about it more.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:Bruce, finally something worth while by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      TDMA is time-division multiple access. It just means dividing the channel into time-slots, where each is some number of milliseconds. So, say we had two slots, each 20 ms long. We could receive for 20 ms, and then re-transmit what we received in the next 20 ms. No duplexers, no front-end overload, just one frequency. Works really well with digital modems and voice codecs.

  3. Ground Penetrating Radar potential by Jiilik+Oiolosse · · Score: 2

    So most commercial GPRs run in the 25-1000 MHz range. All I need to do is point this thing at the ground and it's worth $30K. Use it to measure ice thickness on ice roads, to look for unexploded ordinance, or find rebar in concrete...

    1. Re:Ground Penetrating Radar potential by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      There was a TAPR paper a year ago from guys who did chirp-mode radar on HF and plotted the entire surface of the earth via ionosphere skip. OK, it was low resolution, but very impressive.

      Yes. SDRs have been used for NMR, CAT, and radar besides the usual communication stuff. One of the issues is whether they will turn from transmit to receive fast enough. If not, you might need two, or one of those cheap stick receivers and a converter.

    2. Re:Ground Penetrating Radar potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 30k for a GPR is for the software to run it and get usable data out. Not the piece parts it's built from.

      There are some other practical details.. antenna design, etc.

      You can turn any of the mini-VNA boxes out there into a GPR just as well, and people have.

    3. Re: Ground Penetrating Radar potential by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      One of the issues is whether they will turn from transmit to receive fast enough. If not, you might need two, or one of those cheap stick receivers and a converter.

      Is there some standard way to manage timing? Does the weekend hacker need to deal with signal/buffer latency from the DAC/ADC or somehow manage timecode synchronization?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re: Ground Penetrating Radar potential by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Is there some standard way to manage timing? Does the weekend hacker need to deal with signal/buffer latency from the DAC/ADC or somehow manage timecode synchronization?

      The DAC and ADC are clocked by the master 10 MHz oscillator, and there's a gate-array that you can program all sorts of hardware timing into. But if you are actually dealing with radar I would expect that you've already joined this mailing list.

  4. Sounds pretty awesome... by werepants · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a pretty cool system to play around with. Do you need a HAM license? I assume you can use it sans smartphone?

    1. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

      It would be possible to use it in a short-range transmit mode or as a receiver without a ham license. That said, I spend several years of my life helping to get rid of the Morse Code test for radio hams, so that smart folks like you could just take technical tests to get the license. They aren't that difficult. It might be worth your time.

    2. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      It would be possible to use it in a short-range transmit mode or as a receiver without a ham license.

      So this will be low enough powered to be certificated as a Part 15 device? And it won't have trivially modifiable software to violate the Part 15 standards so that everyone and their brother can have a cheap, unlicensed high-power (>Part 15 limits) source of interference to all the other licensed users?

    3. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      The first version is marketed as test equipment. Which gets us around the various type-acceptance issues. The second version is focused on end-users rather than developers and will be type-certified for either Amateur or one of the land-mobile bands.

    4. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by JanneM · · Score: 2

      That said, I spend several years of my life helping to get rid of the Morse Code test for radio hams, so that smart folks like you could just take technical tests to get the license.

      I'm currently assembling a Softrock Ensemble receiver just to play with SDR. I'm starting to become interested in more than passive receiving â" but a major part of my curiousity is about Morse, not voice. I can talk to anybody over the net after all, while Morse code communication feels like a very different kind of thing.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first version is marketed as test equipment. Which gets us around the various type-acceptance issues.

      Nobody will be able to use this in the ham bands without a ham license, or in the LMR without the appropriate licenses. At least not as a transmitter. It is a really bad idea to suggest to people that they can use a transceiver without the appropriate license. That's why we have license-free CB -- so many people got the idea they didn't need a license for a radio they bought from K-Mart that the FCC had to give up on requiring licenses.

      The second version is focused on end-users rather than developers and will be type-certified for either Amateur or one of the land-mobile bands.

      It should be LMR, since amateur typing won't make use on commercial frequencies legal. Since it's open source software, you will have a hard time claiming that the radio is limited to any specific bands or uses.

      You talk in your slides about how the "big 3" will sell you something and they don't interoperate in digital mode. Yes, that's a problem. (And I, too, wonder what Yaesu was thinking with their C4FM radios.) Your solution is this system. So, you'll need apps that do all the existing digital modes. As soon as someone modifies one of them and starts passing their nifty new app around, you'll have the same interop problem. Even worse -- instead of three main manufacturers to keep track of, there will be potentially hundreds of amateur tinkerers creating new "not-modes" digital ops. Saying the amateur community should come up with the digital standards is like saying a herd of cats should guard the catnip. Herding cats, herding amateurs ...

      You're going to need a master contacts-app that keeps track of who you talk to and what app you need and even then you'll need to know which app they're using at the moment.

      Don't get me wrong. It's an interesting piece of hardware. It's just the idea of saying "without a license" that needs to be controlled. Handing a transceiver to someone that can cover 50-1000 MHz (even at just 2W) and suggesting that they don't need a license to use it, well, I dunno. I think that's dangerous for the future of ham radio, not beneficial.

      By the way, you say that "the AMBE 1000 IP will be unenforceable after Hamvention" (or something like that. ) What does Hamvention have to do with it?

    6. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I'm all for using Morse on the air. Just not on the test. I did specify a paddle input for this device.

    7. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobodies suggesting they don't need a license to operate it. It's just you don't need a license to buy or own a radio.

      I have a basement full of STL UHF radios, 4GHz microwave E3 trunk radios, HF 0.5-30MHz transmitters, and other junk.

      I don't need a license to own any of it, and I didn't need a license to acquire any of it. I also wouldn't deploy or use any of it except into a test load without acquiring the right licenses to operate it.

    8. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Nobody will be able to use this in the ham bands without a ham license, or in the LMR without the appropriate licenses.

      I did not mean to imply that anyone should do anything at all that they aren't legally allowed to do. Type-approval is about FCC requirements for the device, rather than the licensee. Land-mobile licenses just take money and ham licenses are easy enough to get that the regularly-abled don't really have an excuse not to get one. And one can also get the FCC Part 5 Experimental license.

      Astonishingly, Amateur type-acceptance is only for receivers: that they don't operate as cellular scanners, and external amplifiers: that they don't amplify CB. Not for transmitters! After all, it's supposed to be an experimental service.

      We have had softmodems on HF for a long time, so introducing mode and protocol flexibility to VHF/UHF isn't really anything new. The users will work out the interoperability issues among themselves, and if they want to switch to a new mode next year, they can.

      The first-use-in-commerce dates on AMBE 1000 would result in the patents becoming un-enforcable about a week after Hamvention.

    9. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      So, you're behind the Max Headroom Incident.

    10. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong country, but I've certainly got enough gear and infrastructure knowledge to pull something like that off. I've even got an MPEG-2 DVB-S modulator and a K-under uplink block up converter I just repaired sitting on my workbench.

      Guess what I do for a job...

    11. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who recently took the test and afterward started learning Morse code, thank you.

    12. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

      Use the device to modulate a laser diode and enjoy your SDR system, without ever having to do with ham radio.

    13. Re:Sounds pretty awesome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spend several years of my life helping to get rid of the Morse Code test for radio hams....

      Fuck you.

  5. We can call them by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Handroids!

    Won't be long before commodity hardware can do this.

    But I still won't be giving up my Elecraft KX3!

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:We can call them by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      I don't know why it is such a big deal, you buy a Beofeng off Ebay/Amazon and it will do all these things as well, for under $40.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    2. Re:We can call them by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have a KX3 and a CrankIR. I run FreeDV on them.

    3. Re:We can call them by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Baofeng won't do all of the nice digital codecs and apps we would like you to be able to do. Indeed, it does just about what a Motorola tube taxicab radio could do in 1954. We have a lot of new stuff for you to do.

    4. Re:We can call them by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Beofeng is getting there, I expect they will do digital for sub $100 in a year or two.

      I think the win here is that the Maker/hacker community would be fascinated by HAM radio, I know I am.

      This might be the bridge. That and showing them how to make 800w tube amps....

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    5. Re:We can call them by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      For anyone who has not seen an Elecraft kit, they are truly wondrous bit of kit.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  6. HF? by msauve · · Score: 1

    Is there a reason this can't extend down to HF?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:HF? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Yes. Probably through down-conversion. But a different architecture might be better. Some of the FlexRadio 6xxx units put the entire HF band of 0 through 30 MHz through a DAC and ADC all at once. They can actually digitize the entire spectrum and play it back later.

    2. Re:HF? by CityZen · · Score: 1

      What about up-conversion to handle 2.4Ghz and 5.8Ghz ranges?

      Something I'd like to see is a R/C transmitter that can handle all protocols without having to change out radio modules.

    3. Re:HF? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      I guess you could buy transverters from Down East Microwave. This particular chip can transmit up to 1.3 GHz, but we've not tested the receiver at that frequency yet, and we're off the data sheet once we exceed 1 GHz.

    4. Re:HF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention TAPR and all the folks working on HPSDR.

  7. Can't Wait by gavron · · Score: 1

    I want one*.

    E
    N5NEQ

    *And by that I mean one per vehicle and one per office and one per home.

    1. Re: Can't Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree! One on the bike too!

    2. Re:Can't Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto!
      KM4ECU, 73!

    3. Re: Can't Wait by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      With a DIY case, I could make one tough enough for Dual Sport use. Ever since the demise of the Yaesu FTM-10R there are no really good options out there.

      KK6MDB

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    4. Re:Can't Wait by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward giving their callsign....

      *snicker*

      One wonders what the internet would be like if we had to have callsigns on all communications....

      KK6MDB, 73s!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  8. GNUradio? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the difference between this and GNUradio + IQ transceiver please?

    1. Re:GNUradio? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      This is meant to be an entire FCC type-approved transceiver with spurious emissions low enough to amplify to the full legal limit for the band. You can use it with GNURadio, but you can also run the entire system stand-alone through its on-board computer and gate-array without GNURadio. HackRF has turned out not to be a very good receiver, and is not meant to be a legal transmitter regarding spurious emissions. USRP + some daughter boards might work similarly, and have higher performance in some ways, but cost a lot more and don't have low enough power drain to go handheld.

    2. Re:GNUradio? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      This is meant to be an entire FCC type-approved transceiver with spurious emissions low enough to amplify to the full legal limit for the band.

      Does being FCC Type approved mean there are certain frequency bands that are verboten? In other words, is the coverage continuous from 50mHz - 1gHz or are there required gaps?

      I know that communications receivers capable of covering the cellphone bands were made illegal to sell in the US a while back. Just wondering how SDR will deal with such legislation going forward.

      This may be a real concern where a SDR may cover bands where things like cellphones and police/military/air communications live and are heavily regulated and some portions restricted from even reception by unauthorized persons. Aren't many trunked police/fire/EMS radio systems in the 800mHz band, or is that dated? It's been a long time since I held an amateur radio license.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:GNUradio? by CC12123 · · Score: 1

      The receiver has a block on certain cellular frequencies in the 800MHz band. This is the only restriction. The radio can tune to any frequency between 50MHz-1000MHz, otherwise.

      To get optimal performance, you do want to have an appropriate bandpass filter in the filter bank (you can set 4 bandpass filters). They can be swapped by you to get good performance on whatever band you care about.

      Testa KD2BMH

    4. Re:GNUradio? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The receiver has a block on certain cellular frequencies in the 800MHz band. This is the only restriction. The radio can tune to any frequency between 50MHz-1000MHz, otherwise.

      Is this block implemented in software or hardware? Could it theoretically be bypassed/removed by someone technically oriented?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:GNUradio? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      We implement it as a chip that intercepts the serial bus to the VFO chip, and disallows certain frequencies. On FCC-certified equipment we might have to make that chip and the VFO chip physically difficult to get at by potting them or something. This first unit is test-equipment and does not have the limitation.

    6. Re:GNUradio? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      We implement it as a chip that intercepts the serial bus to the VFO chip, and disallows certain frequencies. On FCC-certified equipment we might have to make that chip and the VFO chip physically difficult to get at by potting them or something. This first unit is test-equipment and does not have the limitation.

      My main interest in this SDR project would be as part of a home-brew RF/digital test/research bench for a variety of mobile cell-based equipment and development of new types of devices for new uses.

      How does a company like Harris Corp. get away with manufacturing/selling Stingrays for use in the US, and can this project possibly use the same technical exceptions used by Harris Corp. to negate the requirement to artificially cripple it?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:GNUradio? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Test equipment is allowed to transmit and receive on those frequencies. If it looks like a radio, it can't. I have a number of cellular testers hanging around here that can act like base stations, mostly because I buy them used as spectrum analyzers and never use the (obsolete) cellular facilities. Government has different rules regarding what it can and can't do in the name of law enforcement, although FCC has been very reluctant to allow them to use cellular jammers.

      If you can afford it, something from Ettus would better suit your application.

  9. FHSS, DSSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it be capable of doing spread spectrum?

    1. Re:FHSS, DSSS by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      You will be able to do direct-sequence spread spectrum within about 1 MHz. Frequency-hopping spread-spectrum is also possible, but is limited by the speed at which the PLL locks.

  10. 50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most hams (including myself) are interested in HF (and others are interested in SWL and the new below-AM BCB ham frequencies.)

    50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes. Many of these upper bands are almost dead -- I've not heard anyone on 2 meters or 70 cm around here in the last year -- but 10 through 160 meters (28 MHz through 1.8 MHz) are busy as heck, and of course all the SW spectrum in between.

    Worse, we're almost certain to be about to slide down the sunspot curve, making the already mostly dead-by-choice bands completely dead-by-nature, propagation-wise.

    RFSPACE's upcoming new unit is .009 (9khz) through 50 MHz. That's a lot more attractive to me. Both to use, and to support.

    Then there's funcube dongle pro plus... 50 khz through 1.8 GHz, albeit without adequate filtering up front. But it's reasonably cheap, so there's that. (and I already supported it, PITA though it was, so it's not subject to the no-more-USB-devices rule.)

    Well, whatever they end up with, I sure hope it's ethernet-connected and uses the standard SDR protocol as do Andrus, AFEDRI and RFSPACE. I've supported my last black sheep USB device (every darned OS has radically different USB interfacing and requirements... building my free cross-platform SDR software is most tricky with regard to USB issues. Ethernet, by comparison, is almost identical on all platforms -- the same SDR protocol / interfacing code works fine across linux, Windows and OS X.)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by dbc · · Score: 1

      Ummmm I'm not so sure you can say most hams are HF focused. I think there are a lot more technician class shack-on-a-belt types than hard core HF types. Although, the shack-on-a-belt ham isn't likely to be an experimenter. Then again, the CW-or-die HF crowd isn't really doing bleeding edge experiments either. It seems to me that 50-1000 MHz scores a bulls-eye on most true experimenters.

      In any case, there already a zillion options in HF SDR's -- how many are you running now? Personally, I'm annoyed that it doesn't go up to 1.2GHz, that's where I want some hardware to play with.

    2. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by wolrahnaes · · Score: 2

      Most hams (including myself) are interested in HF (and others are interested in SWL and the new below-AM BCB ham frequencies.)

      50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes. Many of these upper bands are almost dead -- I've not heard anyone on 2 meters or 70 cm around here in the last year -- but 10 through 160 meters (28 MHz through 1.8 MHz) are busy as heck, and of course all the SW spectrum in between.

      What's the point of a fancy SDR on the lower bands though? At least in the States most of the amateur bands with any kind of useful propagation are so narrow that one of the brain dead simple sound card SDR rigs can cover the majority of your band of choice. 200kHz on 160, 500kHz on 80, five narrow channels on 60, etc. One of the simple sound card based "ghetto SDR" rigs gets you enough TX bandwidth to monopolize a good part of the band. Since transmitting even that wide of a signal would be generally frowned upon for hogging the band or in some cases illegal, what's the point in having more capability down there? If you just want to RX the whole band the RTL TV dongle SDR hacks have over 2MHz bandwidth and readily available upconverters and/or mod information to support those frequencies.

      The first band that's wider than half a MHz is 10 meter which is often a wasteland of CB "freeband" types, making 6 meter the first place where a TX-capable SDR with bandwidth that actually interests people would make sense. 2 meter and 1.25 both have about the same bandwidth available, then 70cm and up are where things really get interesting with double digit MHz available to play in.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    3. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      For local communications 2 meters is hard to beat. Sure decent hf rigs/antennas can speak to the world. But sometimes you only want to speak to your neighbours (like a local radio club).

    4. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the mid-bands are all dead, then I guess I have all these repeaters to myself...
      http://www.artscipub.com/repeaters/

    5. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's the point of a fancy SDR on the lower bands though? At least in the States most of the amateur bands with any kind of useful propagation are so narrow that one of the brain dead simple sound card SDR rigs can cover the majority of your band of choice.

      This is going to be long-winded; there's quite a bit to cover. Sorry. :)

      Cover, yes. Cover well, no. You need lots of bit depth for adequate dynamic range without filters, bit depth almost no one offers, and if you don't have adequate bit depth, then you really need front end filtering and probably a stepped attenuator as well. You need EM protection because HF antennas tend to be large and prone to large induced voltages. You need good frequency linearity if you want to use the SDR to get accurate measurements (even the s-meter.) For the ham bands, it's also nice if the SDR supports a sample rate of 400 khz or better, which is tough for a sound card SDR. Then there is frequency accuracy and stability, not to mention external reference sources (there all kinds of cool things you can do with a very stable SDR, like this AM graveyard band carrier forest), and then we get into multiple front ends for diversity reception and noise reduction. If you want to remote the SDR for any reason, you really need ethernet, and if you need ethernet, you need some smarts. And you need ethernet anyway, because USB bloody sucks (speaking as a cross-platform developer.) So If you want a good SDR, you just don't end up with a "brain dead simple" SDR.

      As to narrow ham bands in the HF range, well, not really. 160 meters is 200 kHz. 80 meters is 500 kHz. 20 meters is 350 KHz. 15 meters is 450 kHz. 10 meters is 1.7 MHz. The WARC bands are all pretty tiny. Also, for SWL, some of those are quite wide, and even more so if you include the out of band regions where the pirates are. Pirates being quite unpredictable, you want them in the spectrum so you can see them when they pop up, so bandwidth is quite relevant if they are of interest (personally, I find them fascinating.) Come to that, if you want to see what overall prop/activity is looking like, you need 30 MHz of bandwidth to do it live.

      I will grant you that someday, we may be able to put a 48 bit, multiple Gs/s A/D on a chip with a full ethernet interface cheap enough for anyone to own; but not right now. Until that day, good SDRs will not be "brain dead simple."

      More on frequency range: If you want to use the SDR for a panadaptor for an existing receiver (very common use), then it has to cover one of the IF frequencies and associated bandwidth of the receiver, which tends to be in the HF range (not always, though.) Then there are cray-cray folk like myself; among other things, I use my SDR to monitor bats in our attic. To do that, the SDR has to be able to do a good job with the first 100 KHz, also true of experimentation with sonar and other audio ranging and detecting tech.

      I'm not saying there isn't stuff up higher than HF; of course there is. Some of the really cool stuff (wifi, for instance) is as high as 5 GHz. Satellites, public utilities, etc. Any motion video needs to be up pretty high (but it also needs very significant bandwidth.) But HF has a huge amount of interest, it's where most hams actually hang out, and as it's a very challenging reception environment, higher end designs are of great interest. So are hackable designs one can get at. For instance, if you built yourself a multi-stage filter bank for the various HF bands, you could have them switch automatically as you tune. Likewise you could control add-on attenuators, RF preamps, and switchable transverters (which can give a nominally lower freq range SDR excellent access to higher bands.)

      I have a variety of SDRs, and switching is simply a matter of prodding a menu. I have access from about 1 Hz to 3 GHz across the group, with varying features as described above. In the end,

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this TRANSCEIVER doesn't cover your favourite band, and you suggest a couple of RECEIVERS as a substitute???

    7. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by CC12123 · · Score: 1

      I have the utmost respect for the Sport of Ham radio on HF; but I built this device with a different intention in mind vs competing for DXpedition mind-share. VHF/UHF radios are the workhorse of modern communication, and my goal is to experiment with what you can do there. The possibilities are very different between 6m, 2m, 70cm, and 23cm (for instance). Transverters with a HF SDR are a viable option, but not for your pocket, yet.

      To answer your question about connectivity, the device has 10/100 Ethernet with the Linux networking stack built in. It also has USB-OTG, and I already know WiFi and USB Sound Cards work with no additional work.

      73,
      Testa KD2BMH

    8. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analog designer here. 48 bits ADCs (SARs or Flash or even Sigma-Delta) coming? NOPE! Not coming. Never coming.

      The reason is the limiting factor is how well you can control analog component values which is generally no better than 3.5-4.5 digits of accuracy (a resistor tolerance of 0.1% is 3 digits; a 0.01% is 4 digits) combined with system noise. 4.5 bits works out to (wait for it): 16- bits. And with some games you can manage 8 digits (which is 24-bits) using integration (e.g. sigma-delta or SAR with filtering tricks).

      Now consider a typical ADC front-end at 0-2V full scale; what is the resolution of that at 24 bits? 2V / 2^24 is ~ 1 V.

      Why 2V? Because of hot carrier injection (HCI) and bias temperature instability (BTI) limitations that force Vcc values downwards. Otherwise, if you run the part at higher voltage, the part lasts weeks to months instead of years to decades! The higher the bit count the more transistors required and the smaller the process node required. Shrinking process nodes kills reliability/lifetime and creates new operating boundaries. Key is dropping Vcc from 5-10V to 3.3V to 2.5V to 2V and soon 1V.

      Ok, then, where is the thermal noise floor hovering around? Well that's sqrt 4 pi k T BW R. Let's assume 50 ohms and 300K and our noise is 45 V @ 250 MHz, 14 V @ 25 MHz, 4.55 V at 2.5 MHz and 1.44 V at 250 KHz. So even 24 bits is dicey, losing low end bits (getting less than 24 bits) in most typical bandwidth situations.

      Now imagine a 48-bit ADC. You are already at the noise floor (assuming your front-end amplifiers don't add anything - but they do) with 24-bits. Pretty much the entire remaining 24 new bits of the 48-bit ADC are wasted because they are below the noise floor.

      Hence, the reason we have 24 bit ADCs but only in specific cases and nothing above it is because of the limits of physics and manufacturing control.

    9. Re:50 Mhz lower limit? Ouch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resolution and noise values are all microvolts - Slashdot is NOT Unicode compliant apparently!

  11. Eventually, up to 6 bands in one radio! by jerel · · Score: 2

    I went through the whole presentation, and I really want one! I live in California, and we use the 1.25m band (220 MHz) a lot in my area. Nobody includes this band, even in the big expensive All-Band All-Mode mobile radios. You can get a single-band radio, but I don't drive a van or a truck, and my space for radios in the car is strictly limited. I would love to have one tri-band radio with 2m, 1.25m, and 70cm (144, 220, and 440 MHz) bands without using a transverter, and be able to do SSB on 2m. Now THAT would be a radio to have! I already have an SDR, one of the of the greatest radios on the market, the Elecraft K3, and I love it! With this I could have a fantastic mobile and another for base. Very cool! 73, WT6G

    --
    Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.
    1. Re:Eventually, up to 6 bands in one radio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem with 220 is that it's not legal in most countries other than North America which is why there are so few radios that include it.

    2. Re:Eventually, up to 6 bands in one radio! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have one of those european TV dongles that you can use a driver for that will tune from 50-2200 mhz, works beautifully too! Mines a RTL2832U based chip, and its quite nice! THere is a gap from about 1100-1200 mhz, but thats pretty much a non issue as my uniden scanner covers that range and there is really little there. I use SDR# though there are plenty of linux programs too. I did get SDR# working in Mono under LInux but it was very slow and barely useable.

      Anyway, poke around on ebay and you can probably still find these RTL2832U dongles out there. I paid $20 for mine, totally worth it! With SDR# and virtual audio cable and some other software, I can even decode digital broadcasts that most of the police are using now, so long as they are unencrypted.

  12. Bye bye Uniden by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

    Your product line stagnated and your latest effort was seemingly launched to no end of trouble. I said this would come and now it has.

    I'm really looking forward to scanners that finally have nice UIs with modern features like GPS built-in, recording, RR db access, and communities developing for them for additional protocol support.

    1. Re:Bye bye Uniden by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      I haven't really been thinking about scanners. Yes, I guess you could make some really good Open Source software for scanning with this. We could make a receive-only version. It would just be less parts on the board. Unfortunately it would have cellular-lockout, at least until we can fix that portion of ECPA. It's not like cell phones are unencrypted any longer.

  13. awesome! by lkcl · · Score: 1

    congratulations to you and chris. do you think it would do as a base for implementing 802.22 whitespace broadband? i have a draft version of the spec available. and what would one of these boards cost?

    1. Re:awesome! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      The hardware would do it, you would have to write software and maybe MyHDL code for the gate array.

      If we manufacture this in the U.S. and source all of the parts in the U.S. and take a reasonable margin, it will come out to $500. We don't want to go to Asian manufacturing and parts or make a lower-cost edition with some parts removed until the initial version is salable. We figure that it will take a lot of time for us to learn about Asian manufacturing, and we don't want you to have to wait.

    2. Re:awesome! by laing · · Score: 1
      Bruce,

      How will this rig differ from HackRF One? (I bought two of those last year.) I see that one of the goals is to get FCC type accepted so I guess it will probably have better filtering to reduce QRM. (HackRF doesn't have much of anything.) The HackRF goes from 30MHz to 6GHz with 20MHz of bandwidth and has an 8-bit ADC/DAC.

      I'm also curious what one would use to operate an SDR transceiver. I haven't found any suitables application that make it easy to transmit with the HackRF. There are plenty of SDR receiver apps, but nothing that makes transmitting easy. Do you know of anything?

      Best regards,

      Jeff N6TPN

    3. Re:awesome! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We figure that it will take a lot of time for us to learn about Asian manufacturing, and we don't want you to have to wait.

      Don't worry, if this becomes in any way successful, the Chinese will happily take care of all the "Asian manufacturing" without you having to do anything at all. They'll drop the price to $100 or less. That fact of life is why I wondered why you commented on preventing Chinese knock-off production, especially for an open-source/open-hardware system.

    4. Re:awesome! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      We're not giving them everything they need to clone the device. It's Open Source software and respects your freedom, but the hardware is under a bit less than Open Hardware licensing. None of the terms effect Amateur Radio, but they do protect our land-mobile market, which is where we expect most of the money to come from.

    5. Re:awesome! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      Michael's a good guy, but HackRF One is not a communications transceiver. He made it for hacking RFID. The receiver isn't that good and the transmitter is not FCC legal when amplified.

    6. Re:awesome! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      And sorry, I don't know about the HackRF apps.

    7. Re:awesome! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We're not giving them everything they need to clone the device. It's Open Source software and respects your freedom, but the hardware is under a bit less than Open Hardware licensing. None of the terms effect Amateur Radio,

      This sounds very much like Icom's way dealing with their "open" D-Star protocol. The protocol definition is open but the chip to actually implement is it closed and single-sourced.

      And I hate to say, if it's open for hams, then the Chinese will have it before most hams do. Do you ever wonder why the early Chinese amateur knock-offs worked very much like existing amateur radios? And why FTDI felt compelled to release a windows driver update that bricked a lot of USB/serial adapters? (I.e., whatever part of your hardware is closed they'll just reverse engineer.) It would be a shame if you have to dedicate a large part of your income from this to paying lawyers to deal with Chinese IP infringement.

    8. Re:awesome! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The D-STAR issue is not really ICOM's fault. JARL designed D-STAR (not ICOM) and put the AMBE codec in it because nobody believed that you could have a good open codec at the time. We now have Codec2 (a project I evangelized and recruited the developer) which is fully open. And we do have a software AMBE decoder in Open Source, although the patents won't let us use it. That is why I am working on the patent issue (as noted in the last slide of the presentation).

      I know about the counterfeit FTDI chips, and Matt Ettus told me what has happened with the Chinese clone of USRP. We know what to do.

  14. Open hardware is back in style in amateur radio? by chihowa · · Score: 1

    It's really nice to see some amateur experimenters releasing the schematics for their designs again. Ever since I've been playing with radios, the scene has been very concerned with keeping designs secret. So much of the ham software is non-free (both libre and gratis), and the developers end up retiring, dying, or abandoning their work without ever releasing the code. Finding schematics for hardware is even more difficult and I've spent much of my time redesigning circuits (or reverse-engineering them from bought products or web pictures when I get stumped!).

    Bruce, in your slides you mention that "The platform should be as close to Open Source and Open Hardware as possible without allowing Chinese cloners to eat our lunch – or we won't be motivated to make it." How much is this going to affect what is shared with the amateur community? Are you more concerned with making money off a product than pushing the state of the art in amateur radio. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a special circle of hell for people that see Open Source as a marketing term. Which doesn't seem to apply to you at all, Bruce, but it may still apply to this venture.)

    One of the things that is holding back wider adoption of SDR is that SDR equipment from the new wave of manufacturers is often outrageously expensive for what is contained in the box. Will this be another $2000 SDR radio with $15 worth of parts inside it? (I know development costs money, but why must hams always charge for their hobby?)

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  15. Very good points by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    The presentation is spot on about the lack of innovation with the current big 3 ham equipment makers. Thank you for pushing the envelope in a hammy way. I'm impressed by the current crop of SDR, but it comes at a price and this promises to do more with less. Come out with a moderate power HF rig before china finally gets it's act together and spits them out....

  16. Many are leaving ham radio too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I spend several years of my life helping to get rid of the Morse Code test for radio hams, so that smart folks like you could just take technical tests to get the license.

    Actually, many "smart folks like us" obtained amateur radio licenses only to leave the hobby in dismay after a decade or two. Hitting one's head against restrictive regulations just became too painful, especially the disallowing of encryption and content restrictions on carrying Internet traffic.

    Until a few decades ago, an amateur license provided the operator with abilities which were totally unavailable to the unlicensed man in the street. That situation has reversed dramatically now. Wifi and cellphones far outperform almost all forms of digital communication available to the radio amateur, and they provide near-total freedom of content.

    It's a very sad state of affairs, and what makes it even sadder is that the majority of old hams are in denial that this even matters. "No freedom of RF speech and we love it that way" seems to be the most common attitude among old timers. Well that just doesn't work for the younger generation who love RF but want it to be useful as well.

    Today's youngsters are born into a world where the Internet is as fundamental as running water, and this places high expectations on amateur radio. It is expected to provide useful communications, not just a quaint technical passtime. "Useful" is defined by comparison to what they already have and use in their daily lives without needing a license.

    The telephone shaped today's amateur radio regulations, and that antiquity shows. As a result, today's road to amateur radio is a two-way street, as not everyone stays in the hobby once it becomes clear that the old regulations are hostile to normal Internet communications. The rules are deliberately disempowering to the license holder, for whom a comms link that is not allowed to carry Internet traffic is, in 2015, about as useful as a bicycle to a fish.

    1. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with everything you wrote. One argument in favor of amateur radio is that it allows experimenters to test new radio technology without licensing; but this is actually not very practical, since the end goal of some radio engineering project is to end up with equipment that can be deployed on commercial bands.

      I found it a lot more convenient to build an RF dungeon in the basement, and use that for testing equipment designed to commercial standards. For setting up links I use my privilege as an ARE (NZ) to issue my own licenses for any PtP links I need ($50 a license).

      Amateur radio is a farce, but I'm glad this sort of technology exists, as it is useful for AREs like myself, and it's also useful for radio anarchists/pirates, who are an absolute delight when they're not fucking with other people's shit, and a bane when they're fucking with my shit.

    2. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, I led the fight to continue to disallow encryption on the Amateur bands just last year. I evangelized a lot of people to comment in opposition, and even dragged a reluctant ARRL into commenting when their original intent was not to do so. You'll notice that I am cited in the FCC ruling. It was only proposed to allow it for emergency communications, anyway.

      You already have many different radio services where encryption is allowed. The shared, self-regulating nature of Amateur Radio makes encryption a disaster, as does the international nature. You can't self-regulate when you can't understand their communications. Nobody wants to see dxpeditions and HF communicators in general treated as spies by various nations, more than they already are.

      We're perfectly happy with how useful Amateur Radio is, and it is not denial. Use the Internet and other services when you need encryption.

    3. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes it is willful denial, and even worse, it is accompanied by an astounding attempt at rationalization of that denial with the most illogical and vacuous of excuses.

      The many virtues of (digital) amateur radio would still be available if there were no visibility of the content that it transports at all. You can regulate encrypted communications perfectly well, because the thing that is licensed and which needs to be regulated is spectrum utilization in terms of power and bandwidth, not the nature of the content which has no spectral relevance whatsoever.

      In fact, all the problems commonly associated with arbitrary content arise only when the payload is transmitted in the clear, and would vanish entirely if encryption of payloads on digital links were made mandatory. Link-level frames carrying transmitter identification in the clear are entirely sufficient for the task of regulating that spectrum utilization is compliant with the licensed physical parameters.

      Although in most aspects of the hobby you are a great asset Bruce, in respect of encryption people like you represent the problem that is dragging amateur radio down. You are intent on destroying the utility of amateur radio as a useful communications medium, and thus you are making it less and less attractive to new generations instead of making the license an empowering asset. You seem to entirely miss the little detail that while the technical aspects of the hobby are very interesting, its purpose in the digital arena is to achieve effective communication links, which you are impeding.

      This refusal by the old guard to allow amateur radio to stay relevant is why so many licensed amateurs end up leaving an otherwise absolutely awesome hobby.

    4. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Actually the nature of the content does have relevance. It absolutely must not be commercial. Now, give me a way to regulate that when I can't break the encryption.

      And if you are about to tell me that you should be allowed to do commercial stuff on Amateur Radio, you won't gain any sympathy. That's what your cell phone and a dozen other radio services are for. This was never meant for you to check your gmail, etc.

      I think you should assume that your desires were simply incompatible with the service, and that both you and the hams are better off that you're not participating.

    5. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your definition of "useful" is wrong. I define useful as life saving communications during a disaster while normal communications don't work. If asshats such as yourself are clogging available bandwidth just to secretly check facebook while search/rescue/etc coordination efforts are unable to get through, then I whole-heartedly agree with Bruce. Specifically: you do not understand the point of holding an amateur license and should not be allowed on the air. Go play with your "useful" cell phone (when it eventually starts working again... magic!) and shut up.
      My 2c.

    6. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

      Except that you're wrong. Amateur radio licenses are at an all-time high. The last two years saw an increase of 13% and 15%. That's huge growth. You're trying to compare amateur, experimental communications with a commercial offering. I specifically took up amateur radio because I think computers and cell phones have become a boring turn-key consumer experience, unless you're writing code.

      --
      Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
    7. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rules barring the use of amateur bands for particular kinds of activity are arbitrary artifacts imposed by your masters, nothing more. They have nothing whatsoever to do with ensuring that the RF medium is used within licensed limits of bandwidth and power.

      You are clearly happy to accept those arbitrary chains imposed upon you. Others licensed amateurs are not, especially younger ones for whom the Internet is foundational and who expect a ham license to give their daily networking content additional reach, not be limited by an arbitrary decree that has no physical basis.

      You've proved the point about the old guard blocking any advance in amateur radio for the Internet age very effectively. You do nothing but repeat age-old restrictions as if they were engraved on tablets of stone, but they are not. They were created by old men with limited vision and strong agendas of control, not by democratic process. We can do better than this.

      The situation is reminiscent of slaves standing up and proudly proclaiming how well they are being treated by their caring masters and that there is no need for slavery to be abolished. Well that's not how everyone saw it, and thankfully those "caring chains" were broken. Amateur radio has its own legacy chains and its own happy slaves rationalizing away their state of slavery, but their happiness doesn't make it right.

      Amateur radio would be given a renaissance by removing those ancient shackles and allowing it to ride upon the shoulders of the Internet age, but that cannot be done without encryption. In an age when security and privacy have become big issues and there is widespread concern over the excesses of the surveillance state, you defend that surveillance instead of seeking to make amateur data communications secure.

      It's simply wrong, and inappropriate for today's age, and that is why people are leaving.

    8. Re: Many are leaving ham radio too by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's the problem - Encryption and / or allowing "useful" content would quickly lead to the kind of "spectral" issues you are concerned with. Though a nice compromise might be to allow such things in certain bands only.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    9. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      That's easy. If the content is commercial, the cryptographic keys must be either sold or published at some time. Otherwise there wouldn't be any money in there.

    10. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The internet really sucks and we don't want another one on ham radio. Nor could we possibly have the bandwidth to support one. The entire HF spectrum fits in just a few WiFi channels.

      To satisfy the demands of the "it should be anything goes" crowd, we have CB radio. And there are all of the common carriers, etc.

      So, I can't sympathize, and even if I did, there are not the technical resources there.

      Sorry.

    11. Re: Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Though a nice compromise might be to allow such things in certain bands only.

      That is why there are different radio services. Hams really only have a few corners here and there of the radio spectrum. There really is a service for everyone, although you should be aware that the entire HF spectrum would fit in a few WiFi channels, and all of the Amateur HF spectrum would fit in one. So, we don't really have the bandwidth at all. And people who want the bandwidth on UHF already have WiFi and the various sorts of RF links, etc.

    12. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      And it's because of No-Code. We looked at the licensing statistics and thought we'd preside over the end of Amateur Radio in our own lifetimes. That's the main reason I worked on no-code. There was really strong opposition among the old contingent, and ARRL fought to preserve the code for as long as they could. Someone even asked me to let Amateur Radio die with dignity rather than sully it with no-code hams. Gee, I am glad that fight is over.

    13. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

      Thank you so much for No-Code. If I ever meet you in person, I'll but you a beer (or your beverage of choice).

      --
      Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
    14. Re: Many are leaving ham radio too by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of something in the UHF or microwave bands which would allow me to run relatively long distance encrypted data links, for internet link or remote control, but yeah, I guess these days you can just get a bunch of high-powered Chinese WiFi equipment and do it anyway.
      It might be interesting, however, to "incentivize" use of some portion of certain underused VHF or HF bands by loosening up restrictions. At least the "idiots" might be useful beacons! Or are all the bands full down in CA and back East?

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    15. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet really sucks

      You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to make such a judgement on behalf of anyone else. A significant proportion of the human race values the Internet, irrespective of what you may think of it.

      and we don't want another one on ham radio.

      You don't want it, but again, it's your own opinion. You don't get to speak for anyone else.

      Nor could we possibly have the bandwidth to support one.

      There is near-infinite short-hop bandwidth at microwave frequencies. It's just as well that nobody listens to Physics According to Perens or there would be no wifi.

      The entire HF spectrum fits in just a few WiFi channels.

      You must be the only person who thinks that HF is relevant in this context.

      To satisfy the demands of the "it should be anything goes" crowd, we have CB radio.

      You need to learn to use the prefix "In my opinion" a lot more. It seems that you've been around for so long that you think amateur radio revolves around your personal preferences, but fortunately it doesn't.

      It has been a very illuminating discussion, but not in a way that does you credit.

    16. Re:Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If you want that nearly infinite microwave spectrum, you have the Part 15 and ISM services. Absolutely nothing is stopping you. Power is not the issue with those frequencies, it's line of sight and Fresnel zones.

      No, I absolutely do not have to prefix my words with anything. You do that by posting as an anonymous coward. I use my real name to indicate that I stand behind my words.

    17. Re: Many are leaving ham radio too by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      You have the Part 15 and ISM services for that. You really can buy a microwave link that's metropolitan-distance and legal to use.

      We lost much of our 440 capability to PAVE PAWS in California. Remember, Amateur Radio is not the primary service on many bands. The military is on 440.

  17. Useful propogation over 50MHz by davidwr · · Score: 3, Informative

    50 MHz means 6 meters and above -- basically, nothing that has any regularly occurring usable propagation modes.

    Moon-bounce and ham-sats occur regularly enough to be useful. Granted, hamsat passes are so short-duration and so sought-after that they aren't useful for much more than bragging rights, and moon-bounce is too technically challenging to be useful for routine communications, but they are there.

    RF-based repeater networks on the 2m (~146MHz) and 70cm (~440MHz) bands are common in the United States. They offer communications over hundreds of miles without using anything but the airwaves. Ditto some mountaintop- and very-high-tower-based repeaters. A single repeater that covers a 50-mile-or-more radius is more convenient and therefore frequently more useful in an emergency than an HF-based NVIS net (NVIS is a way of setting up your HF antenna for "short range" communications of about a few hundred miles or less. Unlike typical antenna setups, they do not have any "skip", which is very useful in an emergency).

    In situations where the Internet infrastructure is still up (which is almost always except during emergencies, and frequently during emergencies as well), repeaters that link to the Internet can provide worldwide communication on any band.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  18. Unlike copyrights, patents expire. by tepples · · Score: 1

    What does Hamvention have to do with it?

    It depends on when AMBE was introduced. Patents on math expire on the twentieth anniversary of filing.

    1. Re:Unlike copyrights, patents expire. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The first-use-in-commerce date is actually earlier than the date on the patents. Thus, the patent would not be expired, but could no longer be enforced.

  19. Schematics drawn in closed-source, 7K EDA program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talking about open source is nice, but you used the commercial EDA package Altium to do your schematic capture (and presumably layout). Altium Designer costs $7K and is onerously licensed. What's wrong with real open-source EDA programs like Kicad or gEDA?

  20. Open source radios by afarhan · · Score: 1

    My BITX has been in open source for more than ten years now. (www.phonestack.com/farhan/bitx.html). It has an active community that mods it, a large number of websites dedicated to it as well. It goes exactly in the opposite direction from the proposed radio. It uses very generic electronic components, it can be put together for less than 10 dollars without requiring anything beyond a soldering iron.
    Open source hardware cannot mean hard to get chips, multi-layer boards and computer/phone that costs a few hundred dollars. And even after all that, the performance of this proposed rig is questionable. It has almost no strength on the front-end, the transmission is without the mandatory filters needed for the -50dbc limit on spurious emissions as per the FCC norms. The chips are not available on ebay.

    --
    The purpose of all philosophers was to impress women
    1. Re:Open source radios by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Very nice project.

      There are healthy projects like OpenHPSDR that incorporate all of those things you don't like. Our radio does for VHF/UHF what OpenHPSDR does for HF.

      We're trying to create the platform that can host a decade of software innovation. Thus, we do pay the cost of being on the leading edge. There will definitely be cheaper radios.

      We're not selling kits. Either working PCBs, or complete radios. The hardware isn't under an Open Hardware license, although it's close.

      The filter board slots are in the slides. Only one of the filter boards is shown. That one is meant to get spurious 60 dB down, but we've not tested it yet.

      We have all of the right test equipment. Our main spectrum analyzers are Rohde and Schwarz FSIQ's, we have a high-end Agilent frequency generator, an HP Vector Network Analyzer with S-parameter test set, a GPS disciplined oscillator for the house frequency standard, a Faraday cage and an RF anechoic chamber, a lot of surface-mount assembly equipment, etc. I bought it all for cents on the dollar from companies like Nokia and Motorola that were shutting down R&D, the U.S. Government, etc.

      By using gate-arrays, we get around some of the problems of unobtainable chips. We can move our design into different chips.

      This particular design has an I/Q transceiver chip, and that's the only non-general-purpose chip. There are other IQ transceiver chips to which we could port our design.

  21. Merge with PSDR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love it?, but how about combining the best of both worlds. This project with the HF PSDR?

    I think that would make one sweet rig... Oh, sorry HT. :)

    1. Re:Merge with PSDR by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If we put in every feature, we'd never get done. Maybe we'll have a 0-to-SHF radio eventually.

    2. Re:Merge with PSDR by CC12123 · · Score: 1

      The PSDR is a cool kit; I'm glad it had the Cinderella Story and met the funding goal in the last few hours.

      I've been working on the Whitebox project since before the PSDR; None of the kickstarter SDRs existed when I started my project... The reason why I'm taking longer to launch is that our design is going to be legal to transmit with amplification; and have a fully fleshed out receive chain. This is a tall order to achieve, but we're getting close.

      Testa KD2BMH

  22. Cell phone jammer? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Will I need a linear to jam cell signals more then 100 meters from my location? How many kW?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Cell phone jammer? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If you work for a government and pay me, I'll be happy to answer that question. :-)

  23. I absolutely LOVE this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the product. I love the concept. I love the initiative. I love that its open source. Long, long overdue. Excellent work.

    I presently have a Fun Cube Pro+ SDR. I love it. For those that aren't aware, its a receiver only. Just the other day I was wishing it was a transceiver. Looks like its on its way !

    This thing would be awesome with gnuradio.

    Is there a kickstarter ? I'll buy 3 or 4 if the price is right.

    1. Re:I absolutely LOVE this. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      If everything goes right, we will crowdfund an assembly run in a few months. But it's got to be working completely first and through a short manufacturing run. We won't crowdfund and then make you wait while we design and debug it, as some other projects have.

  24. Re:Open hardware is back in style in amateur radio by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

    Everything is shared with the Amateur community, but we have some terms that protect our land-mobile market.

    The software is Open Source, but the hardware is going to be slightly less than Open Hardware, and we will be careful not to mismarket it.

    It's going to start out as a $500 SDR with not enough software, and you get to write it. That is with U.S. manufacture and U.S. parts sourcing.

  25. Re:Schematics drawn in closed-source, 7K EDA progr by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    I think Javier Serrano at CERN wants to fund improvements in Kicad and gEDA. I don't know enough about them myself. Chris has his favorite PCB program and I didn't force him to use something else.

    But you think that's bad? The gate-array has a proprietary bitstream. You need a zero-cost but proprietary program to make it. That's the one that really irks me. We hope to work on that issue eventually.

  26. How about international versions? by ukoda · · Score: 1

    It was intersting to read that part of the design will be locked down, to meet FCC requirements. The celluar band lock out has never been a requirement in many countries, such as here in New Zealand. While I dont care about those bands I do wonder if it will lock out out other non-amature band uses in the name of FCC compliance, that we don't need?

    For example us hams who are also like 4WD outings find that some UHF ham rigs can serve a dual role as a UHF CB, saving one extra transciever in the vehicle. In that case we are transmitting at 477MHz with a 5W limit, which while legal here would be illegal in the USA. Actully we have the reverse problem, imports from China on the USA FRS/GMRS channel being offered localy dispite being commerical frequencies here. Also it's nice to be abe to listern to commerical channels. The cheap Boefeng is great in a vehicle as it can replace 5 other radios (2M, 70cm, UHF CB, Marine and a scanner). That may not be a big deal if you have a huge Jeep but we typically use smaller 4WD such as the Suzuki Jinmy were 2 transceivers as about all you can fit.

    I think an SDR such as this would be great in such an enviroment, if it could get down to 26MHz it could replace the NZ and USA HF CB rig as well allowing one box to do everything, feed it to the car stereo aux input and control it with the same Android tablet used for naviagation. It would make the ultimate communictions solution for a smaller vehicle. I really like the possiblities it opens for new modes or just embeddeding a bit of digital data in the current modes, such as the location of the transmitting station and a call sign etc.

    Even as currently defined it seems like a great peice of gear, hope it goes well for Bruce.

    1. Re:How about international versions? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Anyone who is good at electronics can get around regulatory lockouts. We're not allowed to make it easy. But nor are we technically able to make it impossible.

      U.S. regulation only allows Part 95 certified radios to be used on GMRS, and Part 95 requires that the radio be pretty well locked down. But all of those Asian imports are certified for Part 90 and there are lots of users putting them on both Amateur and GMRS. If FCC wanted to push the issue with any particular licensee, they could.

    2. Re:How about international versions? by ukoda · · Score: 1

      Sounds similar to the situation here. While legally I think NZ HF and UHF CB service should on be on type approved (RTA) devices I doubt many of the Chinese imports have been through this process. I have dealt with local governement body and they seem to have adopted a fairly pragmatic approach, focusing mainly on stopping the sales of devices on commerical frequencies and addressing interference issues as they arise. I doubt they are worried about hams also operating on other public bands, such as CB and marine, provided you are using the correct modes, appropriate power levels and following the correct etiquite for that service.

  27. Why custom punched end panels ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you use custom punched end plates when you could just use PCBs. Not only cut, but printed, with minimal tooling cost.

    1. Re:Why custom punched end panels ? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The case selection was so that we'd have at least one case that would work. We did not take much time on it. We'd be happy to have other people designing and selling cases.

      The version after this one requires cases that look like real radios. That is going to be a bigger problem. We don't yet have a mold-design partner, etc.

  28. HackRF, Ham it up, and the TV on a stick chips. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got the Ham it up (125Mhz xtal version), and TV rtlsdr on a stick receiver.

    software
    in linux gqrx
    in win rtlsdr or sdrsharp

    I still use my uniden trunk tracker as you may got the spectrum analyzer in the SDR, but you ain't got the trunk freqs and patterns needed to have coherent listenin.

    Radioreference sub will help fix with that, but nobody has hacked the
    GnuRadio to actually put such things to use.

    Dont forget your Discone Antenna from the Guy in El Dorado Hills.

    IN light of how hard it is to get a HACKRF I think it's a great idea.
    Kids need to get back into this stuff, and I even HEar HEATHKIT is coming back.

    Hit the Auctions, Hit the Garage sales, and get back into CB and HAM! Especially in light of this fascist AT&T and NSA spy crap.

    We ought to have 11 Meter Radios with pll chips who are fast enough to pop/ trunk freq's at this point. We ought to have DATA on CB as well.

    Half the fools reading this don't even/never have own/ed a soldering iron.

    With the Radio Shacks goin out, now there's only NTE, Mouser, Newark and couple players left to get stuff from. Without a HEATHKIT and RAT SHACK, the kids are going to grow up as a throw away plastic zombie society.

    Forget visualizing power and frequency, or understanding that the FCC was only supposed to REGULATE power and frequency in the public interest.

    Today it's regulated in a FASCIST INTEREST.

    and it's VERY STUPID and DANGEROUS ultimately.

    FUCK THESE COMMIES...
    GET YOUR HEADS OUT of your ASSES.
    I have a wall of radios from the fucking floor to the ceiling, BOXES of parts for days.
    from 2000 to 2015 are what I CALL the WASTED YEARS... You might as well have been doing METH during that time!
    All this fake ass war on terror, now it's FOCUSED ON CITIZENS instead ot Foreign Terrorists. They're a bunch of liars.
    This government is so fucked up right now. You ought to be interested in this stuff for when it all comes crashing down.

    Come on, Basic Electronics at least!

    1. Re:HackRF, Ham it up, and the TV on a stick chips. by speedlaw · · Score: 1

      I find it fascinating that everyone now carries a digital spread spectrum, full duplex device. When I was a kid, messing with (yes) 11 meters, and later graduation to ham, this was a fantasy from sci-fi. When the first brick cell phone came out, hams had already been "phone patching" to local repeaters for years. Try to explain to someone why they can or cannot get a signal, basic propagation knowledge, and you get a blank stare. No one has a clue how any of this works. We have seen Heinlein's Law in my lifetime !

    2. Re:HackRF, Ham it up, and the TV on a stick chips. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, we have amazing communication devices, not only DSS full-duplex, but with more computing power and a better display than my first 2 or 3 computers!

      I've googled "Heinlein's Law" and find mostly stuff about how to write sci-fi.

      I think you mean "Clarke's Laws" most specifically the one "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"; is that right?

      By the way, we are all ignorant, just on different subjects (Will Rogers). So perhaps you and I would be just as clueless about how many and which type of capacitors are necessary on CPUs, or the average size and mass of galaxies, even though we all are surrounded by computer chips and look up at the night sky.

  29. Re:"Proprietary So I Get Paid", from Bruce Perens? by CC12123 · · Score: 1

    I'm not releasing this design under a 100% Open Hardware license (No gerbers, No project files). There will be a very detailed service manual with schematics and description of how the device works, like a Heathkit manual. To advance the hobby, I want to explain to everyone how a device like this works, and what Sound Engineering means in practice when building a transceiver. Giving someone Gerbers doesn't teach them these things.

    No components in the design are under an NDA, and the board has LOTS of test points, so it should be very possible for the homebrew ham to modify the board to their heart's content.

    All of the source code (FPGA, ARM uClinux, smartphone Android) is already up on github with an Open Source license. One part, the cellular-lockout gateway will not be Open Source. This is so that way we can actually sell the device as Amateur/Commercial equipment, not just test equipment.

    I originally wanted 100% Open Hardware, but the business model doesn't work well with the FCC. It's taken me time to accept that. I chose to work with Bruce because he's an expert on how to get commercial entities to work with Open Source. If there's a chance that we could actually move to more Openness in type safe transceivers, this is a good next step to make.

    Testa KD2BMH

  30. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that a ham radio?

    Nope! Chris Testa.

    Did I just get a new smartphone?!

    Nope! Chris Testa.

    Look! That man's texting while driving!

    Nope! Chris Testa!

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

    (All in good fun; I actually love this idea and look forward to seeing where it goes.)

  31. Cryptographic keys by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    I am afraid that's not the way it works. Public-key encryption doesn't really give you the capability to decode the communication of two other parties unless you get the secret (rather than public) key, which they have no reason to give you. There is also a session key that is randomly generated and lives only for the duration of the connection, and there is the potential for VPNs or tunneling that further obscure the actual communication. It's actually very difficult for a monitoring station to even get 100% of the packets reliably, although the two stations in the communication do get them. So you may not be able to reconstruct all of the bits in the stream, and this will break decryption too.

    All of this adds up to so many technical hurdles that in practice you have to be NSA to decode the communication, hams who are attempting to self-regulate will not have the appropriate resources.

    1. Re:Cryptographic keys by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      In fact, I didn't think about peer to peer communications, just broadcasting.

    2. Re:Cryptographic keys by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Yes. The usual mechanism here would be WiFi security, with HTTPS or SSL inside of it.

  32. This is great news by cozytom · · Score: 1

    I've been following this project for a while, and there seemed to be little new information since Dayton 2013.

    Kits or fully populated boards would be awesome.

    Lets do it, and get the volume up, maybe the price can come down.

    1. Re:This is great news by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      We think after we build this new PCB we can go for the croudfunded manufacturing run. It's mostly surface-mount, and we expect to sell assembled boards in this run, and then the next version will be fully-packaged radios.

  33. Re:"Proprietary So I Get Paid", from Bruce Perens? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Hi AC,

    Matt Ettus has a story about a Chinese cloner of the USRP. The guy tells Chinese customers that it is illegal for them to buy from Ettus, they must buy from the cloner instead. Then, when they have problems and require serivce, he tells them to get it from Ettus. Who of course made nothing from their device sales and can not afford to service them.

    This is not following the rules of Open anything. It's counterfeiting.

    So, sometimes it is necessary to change the license a little so that you will not be a chump. I discussed the fact that the hardware is fully disclosed but not Open Hardware licensed with RMS, the software is 100% Free Software, and there is a regulatory chip you can't write. We can go for Respects Your Freedom certification that way..

    I've paid my dues as far as "Open" is concerned, and Chris has too. This is all we can give you this time.

  34. SDR details and support by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    To answer your question about connectivity, the device has 10/100 Ethernet with the Linux networking stack built in.

    That's excellent. Did you build your own protocol, or did you use the mechanism RFSPACE, Andrus, AFEDRI and the various USB-to-Ethernet servers have established?

    I try -- hard -- to support all ethernet based SDRs for which I can obtain protocol information.

    It also has USB-OTG, and I already know WiFi and USB Sound Cards work with no additional work.

    Sound card I/Q is no problem for SdrDx -- that gets the RF in, and of course I support that. The problem with the rest is controlling the SDR's settings: center frequency, attenuator, sample rate, and so on. This is because of the radical differences in USB interfacing from platform to platform.

    Having said that, if you've got a working command line utility that talks to the control systems on your SDR, then SdrDx emits information via TCP that can be used to drive the command line client from a script. We've pulled this off with the Peabody and Softrock SDRs pretty well. Again, though, we run into the issue of which platform(s) the utility is available for, seeing as how they'd have to be radically different from one another.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.