+++++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "John Clifford" To: Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:23:24 -0700 Subject: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? How hard would it be to replace the K2/100's serial interface (and/or the KIO2) with a USB interface? Would much in the way of firmware changes be necessary? USB seems like a much simpler, better, and less-hassle interface (from the user's point of view). - jgc John Clifford KD7KGX Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9 Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2 ...waiting _eagerly_ for KPA2! Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1 email: kd7kgx at arrl.net +++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:36:12 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: johnclif at ix.netcom.com Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? John Clifford wrote: > How hard would it be to replace the K2/100's serial interface (and/or the > KIO2) with a USB interface? Would much in the way of firmware changes be > necessary? > > USB seems like a much simpler, better, and less-hassle interface (from the > user's point of view). Depends on the user and his OS. USB is also somewhat more demanding techincally to implement. You can always use a serial/USB adaptor, if your OS won't let you have enough serial ports. . 73 de Maggie K3XS -- -----/___. _) Margaret Stephanie Leber / "The art of progress / ----/(, /| /| http://voicenet.com/~maggie / consists of preserving/ ---/ / | / | _ _ _ ` _AOPA 925383/ order amid change and / --/ ) / |/ |_(_(_(_/_(_/__(__(/_ FN20hd / change amid order." / -/ (_/ ' K3XS .-/ .-/ ARRL 39280 /___ --A.N.Whitehead ___/ /____ICQ 7161096_(_/_(_/__AMSAT 32844____/ +++++++++++++++++ From: "Rich Lentz" To: , Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 18:42:25 -0500 The following web site http://www.elektronikladen.de/en_usb08.html has a USB evaluation board that seams like it would do everything the KIO2 does (and more if you fed some of the signals into the right place). Could easily control the K2, measure K2 temperature, provide a display of AGC, output power, etc. AND probably drive a relay to turn on/off the K2. I have been looking at this very seriously but can't justify it yet or have the time to reprogram the basic program provided to do this, let alone have the necessary compilers. Rich KE0X ++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 19:42:44 -0400 To: Margaret Leber , johnclif at ix.netcom.com From: Ed Tanton Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net I strongly agree with Maggie, John. A serial-to-USB card is not expensive, much easier to interface, and furthermore, most-if not-all-interface software almost regardless of application, is written for serial ports-not USB (more's the pity!) 73 Ed Tanton N4XY Ed Tanton N4XY 189 Pioneer Trail +++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:00:15 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: Ed Tanton Cc: johnclif at ix.netcom.com, elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Ed Tanton wrote: > I strongly agree with Maggie, John. A serial-to-USB card is not > expensive, much easier to interface, and furthermore, most-if > not-all-interface software almost regardless of application, is written > for serial ports-not USB (more's the pity!) Speaking as a developer of a cross-platform, open-source (not yet released) rig control program, I can say right now cross-platform support of a USB rig would be a nightmare for me. Java support for USB devices is still in its infancy, I've got 16 serial ports on the computer in my shack...no problem here. And you backpacking guys can plug a PalmPilot into a serial-port rig...I sometimes use my Palm as a console for my TNC when portable. 73 de Maggie K3XS JavaDoc for JHamTune is readable at: http://www.geocities.com/MaggieLeber/JHamTune/doc/index.html ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:19:30 -0400 To: , "Margaret Leber" From: Ed Tanton Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Cc: Oh don't get me wrong, John... I LOVE USB. From the cpu end it's fabulous compared to the old serial port. The serial port here on my main cpu has almost nothing plugged into it. My mouse, DSL modem-sharer, and scanner are USB. My negative (film/slide) scanner is SCSI. My printer plugs into the LPT1 printer port. The ONE use I have for the serial port is my digital camera... and the current ones are all USB-if anything. However, that said, there simply isn't anything existing to use USB for ham radio. No RTTY TUs; no Packett TUs; and what got this started: no rigs either. Then there's software. Ham radio: nada. SWL: nada; RTTY: nada; and Packet: nada. With the state of the state, so to speak, I don't expect that to change. I completely agree with the superiority of USB... I just do not believe it is economically feasible for the manufacturers to go to the trouble to change over. 73 Ed Tanton N4XY Ed Tanton N4XY 189 Pioneer Trail Marietta, GA 30068-3466 website: http://www.n4xy.com ++++++++++++++++++ From: "Rich Lentz" To: , "'Ed Tanton'" , "'Margaret Leber'" Cc: Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:34:41 -0500 How true this is!! Most of the new computers have only USB or Firewire. Many don't even have a serial port and a decent serial port sells for over $90. Some of the naysayers should look at the WEB page I referenced. This is a complete evaluation board for not much more than the cost of the KIO2. It should not be to hard to build a competitive IO board that out performs the KIO2. The Evaluation board could easily be programmed to provide the K2TX and K2RX signals, the ALC signal could be monitored, a signal provided for T/R switching, a relay provided to turn on/off the K2, monitor the signal strength (AGC), K2 temperature, and other info not provided in the K2 data signal. The advantage of this is that you would not need another interface card like the Rigblaster or Rascal making this interface even more competitive. And as audio could also be sent across the USB line, you could even add a PSK, RTTY, etc. capabilities. As I said I would like to do this but, haven't messed with C since the added the ++. But the programming should be simpler than the Modem, RTTY, Morse code, TNC, etc. programs I wrote in Assembler in the 70's. Had a Heathkit H89 and Z100 which meant that nothing you could buy/download was compatible, but got pretty good at hacking PCDos programs so that they started to work and ended up using them as a model or outline for ones that did. Several links on the referenced web page also lead to public GNU public license code and other needed programming tools. The Elecraft K2 Remote could easily be modified to control the USB port and process the extra data and send the extra signals. Most any program that controls those rigs the use a file to transfer commands could easily also adapt to the K2 controlled by this new interface. (I think the Kachina uses this method.) http://www.elektronikladen.de/en_usb08.html Rich KE0X -----Original Message----- From: elecraft-admin at mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-admin at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of John Clifford Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:30 PM To: Ed Tanton; Margaret Leber Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? I understand all of your points... but ham radio is about advancing the state of the art and not merely making do with what's currently available. RS-232 is eventually going to die, replaced by USB. As a user/developer of RS-232-based solutions since the early '80s, I say "Good riddance!" Maggie, your objections can be overcome merely by someone writing a class that supports USB and porting it to the operating system of choice. This would be a more elegant solution in the long run -- your user wouldn't have to worry about identifying which serial port a particular rig was installed on, and it would give EVERYONE who uses your software the same capabilities you have with your 16-serial port machine regardless of how many comm ports they have. Ideally, I would like to be able to put all of my intelligent ham radio-related gear onto a USB network. This may require changes in the software that runs on my PC/OS of choice... but so what? And, since the KIO2 is already available, adding an interchangeable/additional USB interface is not going to affect what's currently happening software-wise. Rich Lentz' posting gave me some interesting ideas... I may play around with one of these and see what it will allow me to do. Thanks... - jgc John Clifford KD7KGX Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9 Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2 ...trying to schedule time to build my KPA100! Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1 email: kd7kgx at arrl.net +++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:55:24 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: johnclif at ix.netcom.com Cc: Ed Tanton , elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? John Clifford wrote: > Maggie, your objections can be overcome merely by someone writing a class > that supports USB and porting it to the operating system of choice. No...see...the idea behind Java is you *don't* "port" things. The same code runs everywhere. The USB support for Java is still under development. I'm not going to destroy the portability just so you can have a native-code USB module. And don't try to teach granmaw how to suck eggs, boy. :-) USB is not yet a mature technology for anything but consumer electronics (and even there sometimes it's shaky; try some of the early Compaq Pressarios for a demo). But you and Rich are certainly free to go ahead and build a USB interface for the radio yourself...You may even be done by the time the Java USB support for Windows is ready; today it only runs in Linux. :-) And again, there's always those serial USB dongles...$40 a pop. 73 de Maggie K3XS +++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:50:55 -0400 To: , "Margaret Leber" From: Ed Tanton Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Cc: That's exactly my point John... who really wants to do any of that crap? I certainly don't. I don't actually want my CPU to run my radio. If I did, I'd just stick to the Internet and forget Ham Radio. I see very little difference between chat rooms and CPU-controlled radios. But what I want doesn't matter. What DOES matter is how many people want to do a given thing, and what would they do it with, if they could. Certainly with the more-or-less LOSS of serial ports as a standard item on PCs, and the adoption of the USB port as THE current interface standard, it IS possible that manufacturers-such as Elecraft-should think about USB. But you know what? As I said earlier, w/o sufficient demand, and w/o programs, it simply is NOT going to happen. There are many folks who do like to have CPU interfaces for certain applications (obviously I'm not one of them) like real-time-contest-logging and RTTY... but specialized apps are NOT about to get software written for them w/o someone picking up the gauntlet and writing those apps. And it's obvious it'll have to be the guys who WANT those apps to happen. Without them it isn't that there is little likelihood of changing from serial port to USB ports... there is NO likelihood whatsoever. Furthermore, WIN 2000 PRO multi-tasks very nicely, thank you. Even with a DSL-router, one of my college sons home for the summer on the chat room stuff any time he's home, and me with MS Office Shortcut Bar/Eudora Pro/Adobe Photoshop 6/ONTRACK Power Desk Pro/ and Opera 6 open simultaneously, I haven't had the slightest problem opening several DOS windows for other tasks. So, what incentive is there for spending that much hardware-design-change money and software-design firmware-change money for 1 or even for 100 people? Without AVAILABLE software, why would any manufacturer consider spending all that money? That number does not compute-even through a USB port. Lastly, this dead-horse is about flogged to death, I think. I'll try and restrain myself from now on to private communications. 73 Ed Tanton N4XY +++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:47:15 +0200 From: Mario Lorenz To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Am 12. Jul 2002, um 16:52:10 schrieb John Clifford: > I'm not thinking about at the computer end, I'm thinking about at the radio > end. The computer end is a no-brainer. Why would that be ? Any USB Device would need a USB driver written for it on the computer end. > Why do I want USB? > > * USB doesn't run into hardware conflicts on Windows boxes (or other boxes) > * USB doesn't have gender/DTE-DCE aspects to worry about Here you are mistaken. USB is a Master-Slave system, with the computer acting as the slave, and many USB chipsets for USB devices (eg. for serial ports) are NOT Master-capable. > * Most modern PCs/operating systems/PDAs support it Yes. PC's as Masters, PDA's usually as slaves only. My iPAQ has USB, but is not Master capable, eg. I can NOT hang any USB->Ethernet or the like gizmos on it (even though I'd very much like to...). On the other hand, on an electrical level, serial ports are completely interchangeable. Connector/ Gender issues can be solved easily, especialy for someone who knows which end of a soldering iron is the hot one... > * USB is Plug and Play on these operating systems Only if a driver for the device exists. That driver would have to be written for all the major platforms... > * USB doesn't require the user to know what serial port he is connected to I regard that to be a disadvantage. Imagine two K2-USB's daisychained on the USB port. It's more difficult to keep them appart in the software, because you cannot simply trace which serial port that K2 is connected to... > * USB allows for daisy-chaining of multiple devices (besides radios) and > would allow > for simpler multi-radio configurations > * USB allows multiple PCs/software to access the K2 simultaneously Can you elaborate on that ? I'm not aware of any setups where two PC's share one ressource via USB (I dont know if thats possible). As for multiple pieces of Software, this is merely a software problem and can be solved for serial ports, as well. > For instance, it would be neat to set up a cheap PDA (used Palmpilot) to act > as a super display/control panel for the K2 while still allowing for digital > HF software (e.g, MixW) to control the K2. Or... build a 'super display' > into the EC2 box that would feature one of the available LCD flat panels for > a super display/control. See above. All those PDA's do have serial ports. Sometimes you need some circuitry to adapt the voltage levels of the serial ports, but other than that the serial port is interoperable and straightforward, whereas I could not name a PDA that can act as an USB master. I know for sure my iPAQ can not. And since this seems to be a limitation of the ARM CPU/Chipset, I doubt any other ARM/SA11xx based PDA's can do that. As for the possibility of hooking up several pieces of equipment ("Super Display", "MixW control", whatever), this is ultimately an issue of the protocoll spoken on the serial port. You can easily daisychain several pieces via the serial wire, protocol permitting. In short, I'm a strong advocate of the serial port, because its way simpler in design. If someone really needs to hook it to a USB because his computer doesnt support "legacy" interfaces anymore, theres always the cheap USB->Serial boxen.. Mario -- Mario Lorenz Internet: Ham Radio: DL5MLO at OK0PKL.#BOH.CZE.EU "Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now ? [ OK ]" ++++++++++++++++ From: Mike Butts To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:13:43 -0700 Reply-To: mbutts at realizer.com Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? I'm surprised no one (that I've noticed) has raised the primary objection I'd have to USB in the K2: RFI! USB is much faster because its signals are in the HF range with faster edges. Wayne and Eric went to quite a bit of trouble just to keep the RS-232 clean. First page of the KIO2 manual: "RS-232 interfaces are often significant sources of RFI (radio frequency interference), which can degrade receiver performance. This is because most RS-232 driver circuits use a 20-200 kHz square-wave RC oscillator to generate the negative DC voltage needed for signal drivers. To minimize RFI, the KIO2's serial interface provides an HF crystal oscillator (operating well outside of any ham band) to generate the negative driver voltage." After all the work it took to clean up my house (alarm system, network, dimmers, etc.) my choice is RS-232, no USB thank you very much. An FCC Class-B qualified RS-232-to-USB adapter at the far end of a serial cable is the best answer for USB in a high-performance HF radio. I'm just now soldering in the RF Board relays on my K2 #2640. What a delight this is to build! And I already have several mode projects in mind for the future (like an AM detector for SWL). Thanks everyone! 73 de KC7IT ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:15:18 -0700 To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net From: Jeff McLeman Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface Actually, to take the exisiting K2IO module design, and merge in a simple USB slave device (a SPI to USB chip), ad some firmware to the PIC to handle it, and it would work (I have done something similar to other pieces of equipment). Not only does it relieve all the IRQ issues on a WIndows machine, but it allows native interfacing to a MAC (Yes, I was kernel developer on NT, and while I have an affection for it, I truly love the MAC :) ), and native OS X development. (Actually I'd develop it in J2SE so it would run on Windows and MAC and Linux). Jeff W7TTR ++++++++++++++++ Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:55:52 -0500 From: "John A. Rodenbarger" To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] USB one more time I can't speak to the KIO-2, but I have a Pegasus, and a computer with only 1 serial port, which is used for tnc/rascal duties. I'm running the Peggy from the USB port, through one of those "dongles" (a misnomer, since a Dongle is a device that frustrates both techs and software pirates equally) I used a very scientific method to chose the right one for the job. I did a web search for the cheapest one available. 73, John WB9OFG Eric Manning wrote: > I have two new laptops on order - Apple Powerbook and VAIO > Picturebook[Windoze] - and NEITHER ONE has a serial port -- just USB. > > Feel the message? > > Anyways, I soon will find out whether the KIO2 plus a USB <-> serial dongle > will work. (Has anybody tried it?) > > eric VA7DZ > K2 #2561 ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:21:56 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: "John A. Rodenbarger" Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] USB one more time John A. Rodenbarger wrote: > I'm running the Peggy from the USB port, through one of those "dongles" (a > misnomer, since a Dongle is a device that frustrates both techs and software > pirates equally) "Dongle" used to be a term for those software crypto deviced that attached to your parallel port and authenticated your machine to run sme expensive proprietary package. I have to agree with the tech frustration part, having worked for a company who tried those once. But in recent times "dongle" has come to apply to any extra bit of circutry attached to a cable. I've heard it applied to those little PITA gadgets that let you plug an RJ-45 ethernet plug into a PCMCIA card. You know the ones: you leave them in a hotel room and then have to replace them for $80 a pop. http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/dongle.html 73 de Maggie K3XS ++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:51:28 -0500 From: "George, W5YR" Organization: AT&T WorldNet Service To: Bill Coleman Cc: johnclif at ix.netcom.com, elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? I agree with placing the complexity and versatility in the computer/server, but what about the requirements placed on the client/radio? A USB interface there would require much more computing horsepower than the K2 has to spare, I suspect. If the data rate required does not justify changing from serial port architectures, how do we justify the added cost and complexity of USB at the client? I am all for losing RS-232 but gotta be some good reasons for spending that extra money. 73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better! QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735 Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437 Bill Coleman wrote: > > On 7/12/02 7:23 PM, John Clifford at johnclif at ix.netcom.com wrote: > > >USB seems like a much simpler, better, and less-hassle interface (from the > >user's point of view). > > A big AMEN to that. > > A USB interface would require drivers on the host computer -- but it > would result in a functional interface. One that applications could call > and get results. Rather than having applications encode strings to a > serial port, and try to decipher the strings the K2 sends back. > > You could also do interesting things with USB -- like send the receive or > transmit audio to the host computer. There's more than enough bandwidth > for that. > > USB is pretty ubiquitious today. Apple stopped shipping serial ports on > their computers back in 1999. Many PC companies are following suit these > days. ++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:55:22 -0400 From: Margaret Leber Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Bill Coleman wrote: > A USB interface would require drivers on the host computer -- but it > would result in a functional interface. One that applications could call > and get results. Rather than having applications encode strings to a > serial port, and try to decipher the strings the K2 sends back. Uh...don't you think that's how a USB interface would work too? The "S" in USB stands for "serial", you know...it's not ESP. Honest, this stuff isn't magic just because it's in a driver. Somebody has to *write* that driver. And soon you'll have to worry about whether Microsoft *likes* your driver (and your company), and is willing to sign it. And the driver won't be portable to other operating systems. Just get a dongle and be happy. Unless there's too much QRM from the USB, of course. :-) 73 de Maggie K3XS ++++++++++++++++ Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:30:02 -0400 From: Bill Coleman To: , On 7/12/02 7:23 PM, John Clifford at johnclif at ix.netcom.com wrote: >USB seems like a much simpler, better, and less-hassle interface (from the >user's point of view). A big AMEN to that. A USB interface would require drivers on the host computer -- but it would result in a functional interface. One that applications could call and get results. Rather than having applications encode strings to a serial port, and try to decipher the strings the K2 sends back. You could also do interesting things with USB -- like send the receive or transmit audio to the host computer. There's more than enough bandwidth for that. USB is pretty ubiquitious today. Apple stopped shipping serial ports on their computers back in 1999. Many PC companies are following suit these days. +++++++++++++++++++ Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:37:28 -0400 From: Bill Coleman To: , On 7/13/02 2:13 PM, Mike Butts at mbutts at realizer.com wrote: >I'm surprised no one (that I've noticed) has raised the primary >objection I'd have to USB in the K2: RFI! USB is much faster >because its signals are in the HF range with faster edges. Fooey. I've got unsheilded 100 BaseT cables running all over my house, and I have yet to hear any RFI from that system. And they run a heck of a lot faster than USB does. USB cables are well-sheilded. Many RS-232 cables are not. RFI from USB is not a problem. ++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:51:28 -0500 From: "George, W5YR" Organization: AT&T WorldNet Service To: Bill Coleman Cc: johnclif at ix.netcom.com, elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? I agree with placing the complexity and versatility in the computer/server, but what about the requirements placed on the client/radio? A USB interface there would require much more computing horsepower than the K2 has to spare, I suspect. If the data rate required does not justify changing from serial port architectures, how do we justify the added cost and complexity of USB at the client? I am all for losing RS-232 but gotta be some good reasons for spending that extra money. 73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better! QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735 Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437 Bill Coleman wrote: > > On 7/12/02 7:23 PM, John Clifford at johnclif at ix.netcom.com wrote: > > >USB seems like a much simpler, better, and less-hassle interface (from the > >user's point of view). > > A big AMEN to that. -- snip -- +++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:55:22 -0400 From: Margaret Leber Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Bill Coleman wrote: > A USB interface would require drivers on the host computer -- but it > would result in a functional interface. One that applications could call > and get results. Rather than having applications encode strings to a > serial port, and try to decipher the strings the K2 sends back. Uh...don't you think that's how a USB interface would work too? The "S" in USB stands for "serial", you know...it's not ESP. Honest, this stuff isn't magic just because it's in a driver. Somebody has to *write* that driver. And soon you'll have to worry about whether Microsoft *likes* your driver (and your company), and is willing to sign it. And the driver won't be portable to other operating systems. Just get a dongle and be happy. Unless there's too much QRM from the USB, of course. :-) 73 de Maggie K3XS +++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:00:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Jessie Oberreuter To: Bill Coleman Cc: johnclif at ix.netcom.com, elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Bill Coleman wrote: > A USB interface would require drivers on the host computer -- but it > would result in a functional interface. One that applications could call > and get results. Rather than having applications encode strings to a > serial port, and try to decipher the strings the K2 sends back. The encode/decode process is essentially what a driver does. Also remember that USB is fundamentally a shared high-speed serial port. The PC chipsets just make it look like a PCI bus. If you are looking to write software, the approach should be to define something like an "OpenRadio" interface standard (didn't I see a call for this in QST or QEX a few years back?). This frees application writers from the intricacies of the various hardware interfaces, and provides driver writers with the motivation to implement drivers for available real world radio and physical interfaces. -- Jessie Oberreuter joberreu at moselle.com ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:07:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jessie Oberreuter To: Bill Coleman Cc: mbutts at realizer.com, elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] 10/100 BaseT vs USB On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Bill Coleman wrote: > Fooey. I've got unsheilded 100 BaseT cables running all over my house, > and I have yet to hear any RFI from that system. And they run a heck of a > lot faster than USB does. Heh, 10/100-BT cables are balanced feed twisted pair -- wired correctly, they don't radiate much and can accept a lot of interference. Wired incorrectly and, well, even my 706 will hear the packets :). I used to take down a neighbor's network every time I keyed up -- turned out to be a long, mis-wired net cable... IIRC, USB is semi-balanced: the data goes through push-pull, but much of the signaling is common mode. -- Jessie Oberreuter ++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:37:03 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: Jessie Oberreuter Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Jessie Oberreuter wrote: > If you are looking to write software, the approach should be to > define something like an "OpenRadio" interface standard (didn't I see a > call for this in QST or QEX a few years back?). This frees application > writers from the intricacies of the various hardware interfaces, and > provides driver writers with the motivation to implement drivers for > available real world radio and physical interfaces. There is such a project. See: http://hamlib.sourceforge.net/ It hasn't moved much lately, and nobody I know has ever written a client that uses it. If I see sufficient reason someday I might include a Hamlib JNI bridge module in JHamTune, but there's not enough functionality in Hamlib to justify doing that as yet. 73 de Maggie K3XS ++++++++++++++++++++ From: Mike Butts Reply-To: mbutts at realizer.com To: Jessie Oberreuter , Bill Coleman Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 20:52:18 -0700 Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] Re: 10/100 BaseT vs USB On Tuesday 16 July 2002 07:07 pm, Jessie Oberreuter wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Bill Coleman wrote: > > Fooey. I've got unsheilded 100 BaseT cables running all over my house, > > and I have yet to hear any RFI from that system. And they run a heck of a > > lot faster than USB does. > > Heh, 10/100-BT cables are balanced feed twisted pair -- wired > correctly, they don't radiate much and can accept a lot of interference. > Wired incorrectly and, well, even my 706 will hear the packets :). I used > to take down a neighbor's network every time I keyed up -- turned out to > be a long, mis-wired net cable... IIRC, USB is semi-balanced: the data > goes through push-pull, but much of the signaling is common mode. Good point, Jessie. And yes, Bill, I have lots of ordinary 100 BaseT here in my shack too. Coax up to the top of the dipole, so RFI isn't too much of a problem. I should have been clearer, sorry. My concern is fast digital signals *inside* the K2's box. The PICs they use in K2 are sweet because they're self-contained, just the control lines and sometimes a short and easily shielded 4 MHz resonator signal are on the PCB. Wayne and Eric took special care with what's on the KIO2 like I said before, to keep even an audio-frequency RS-232 interface RF quiet inside the box. Controlling the K2 is a very low-bandwidth undemanding application, nothing remotely like the printer, scanner and camera that use my USBs. So USB in K2 adds no more function over RS-232 besides convenience. If there was an inexpensive PIC with a built-in USB controller to keep all the noisy PIC-USB interface stuff inside the chip, then *maybe* a "KUSB2" could replace the KIO2 card and still be quiet. I didn't see one in a quick google search. There'd still be some fast digital signals between the PIC/USB and its USB cable buffer chip. It would surely cost more than KIO2, and require a software driver, Windows, Mac and Linux support, etc. Maybe it would end up costing as much over KIO2 as an RS-232/USB adapter, which I've seen around $40. As long as there's an off-the shelf solution available for USB, I'd just as soon see Wayne and Eric apply their unique talents to radio stuff. (You guys are surely reading the mail here. Pretty smart of you to get all this free market research and product engineering! We'd love to hear your thoughts on USB.) 73 de KC7IT ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:07:50 -0400 From: Bill Coleman To: , "Jessie Oberreuter" Cc: Subject: [Elecraft] Re: 10/100 BaseT vs USB On 7/16/02 11:52 PM, Mike Butts at mbutts at realizer.com wrote: >Controlling the K2 is a very low-bandwidth undemanding application, >nothing remotely like the printer, scanner and camera that use my USBs. >So USB in K2 adds no more function over RS-232 besides convenience. To me, there's three issues with regard to USB over serial ports: * Serial ports are being phased out, USB is becoming ubiquitious. Apple hasn't shipped a computer with a serial port in three years. Other computer manufacturers are following suit -- particularly in laptops or other portable computers. Sure, you can use a USB/Serial adaptor in the interim, but the writing is on the wall -- serial ports are no longer ubiquitious. * USB is a functional interface, Serial requires detailed programming. The functional interface means that programs can have positive control over the device, with all the specifics handled by the USB driver. Serial programming requires very meticulous handling of each character on the port. Whereas the USB functional interface can be shared, the Serial interface cannot. If manufacturers would get together and define a class interface for USB-controlled radios, programs could control radios without having to write and test software with each different version of the radio -- the drivers would take care of those details. * USB has a lot more capability than serial. Serial ports top out at around 230,400 bps. USB is either 1.5 or 12 Mbps, perhaps faster. Serial ports are not error-corrected. The higher data rates allow control or data transfer of elements that would not be practical with serial. USB allows several different channels of information to exist concurrantly. On Serial, this is difficult. (While I was at Hayes, I worked on a technology to do this, called AutoStream. It was event patented, but for political reasons, my name wasn't on the patent) So, yea, if all you are concerned with is maintaining the status quo, USB seems like something of overkill. But the reality is -- serial ports are going way. Moving to USB makes sense. And if you go to USB, there are new things that become possible. >As long as there's an off-the shelf solution available for USB, I'd just as >soon see Wayne and Eric apply their unique talents to radio stuff. But USB/Serial adaptors don't address the other factors above. Plus all the distributed costs of software developers who have to write and test code to talk to each and every radio serial interface. Radio manufacturers will go to USB eventually. I'm just suggesting that Elecraft should lead the way. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:37:29 -0400 From: "Mark J. Dulcey" To: mbutts at realizer.com Cc: Jessie Oberreuter , Bill Coleman , elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: 10/100 BaseT vs USB Mike Butts wrote: > > If there was an inexpensive PIC with a built-in USB controller to keep all > the noisy PIC-USB interface stuff inside the chip, then *maybe* a "KUSB2" > could replace the KIO2 card and still be quiet. I didn't see one in a quick > google search. There are the PIC16C745 (28 pin) and 16C765 (40 pin). The smaller one is a bit over $3 in quantity. They only do low-speed USB (1.5 Mbps), but that should be plenty fast. Microchip does have future plans for 18F series chips that do full-speed (12 Mbps) USB. They have not announced delivery dates. ++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:55:08 -0600 To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net From: Larry East Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Ugh At 09:19 AM 7/17/02 -0400, Margaret Leber wrote: >Jerry W. O'Dell wrote: > >>Ye gods. The K2 doesn't even have it, to my knowledge (USB) > >That's what the discussion was about, the desireability or wisdom of a USB >control interface for the K2. Well, some of us obviously just don't care... And for the record, some of are running WinNT which doesn't support USB. L. +++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:37:39 -0700 From: Wayne Burdick Organization: Elecraft To: Bill Coleman Cc: mbutts at realizer.com, Jessie Oberreuter , elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] Re: USB vs. RS232 Thanks, everyone, for your observations on this topic. RS232 is still widely used both in industrial and hobbyist applications, which is why both through-hole and surface-mount RS232 driver ICs are plentiful, widely second-sourced, and inexpensive. It allows for a low-cost hardware implementation that keeps digital noise to an absolute minimum without any shielding, and the firmware overhead is quite low. It takes literally just a few lines of code to implement the driver routines--the PIC's on-chip USART does the rest. USB is certainly a viable alternative that we'll consider supporting in future products. Meanwhile, RS232->USB converters will be the rule for those using newer PCs, not just to talk to their K2s, but to a lot of other ham gear as well. 73, Wayne N6KR ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:04:46 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: Bill Coleman Cc: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Bill Coleman wrote: > With USB, defining and using a driver is pretty much a given, and the > OSes allow for this. Beyond allowing for it, they require it. > Yes, ONE person has to write a driver for A radio on AN operating system. > Compare that to the situation today, where EACH person has to instill > software for EACH program on EACH operating system for EACH radio. Which is exactly why JHamTune is OS-portable, and why HamLib.provides a radio driver architechture. > Fooey. If Micrsoft gets that way, then turn your back on them. There > already exist better alternatives. Of course there are. And in case you haven't noticed it, Microsoft already *is* this way; I've already turned my back on them as far as my home and my shack are concerned. > You folks just don't get it, do you? If this is the state of ham radio, > to eschew anything new and cling to the old, then the hobby isn't long > for the world. Nobody thrives in an engineering endeavor adopting the new simply because it's new. New tech must fill a need, and do so with significant advantages over what's in place. None of the technical and economic factors that make USB a good foundation for consumer devices like mice, keyboards, speakers, digital cams and the like really apply to a radio interface, especially in a non-"appliance" kit product like the Elecraft product line. USB is designed for an environment where the engineering required to support each device is amortized over tens of thousands of units. It would not surprise me to see such an interface in a Yaesu or a Kenwood sometime in the next five years, especially in the kind of commoditized dueling-features market they're selling into. But if you want to bemoan the state of ham radio, consider the end user who posts his desire for a new kit feature online and waits for somebody else to engineer and implement it for him. 73 de Maggie K3XS ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:47:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Jessie Oberreuter To: Bill Coleman Cc: johnclif at ix.netcom.com, elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Bill Coleman wrote: > The whole point is that USB provides the infrastructure for creating just > these kind of driver interfaces. The USB interfaces we've been seeing are almost universally based on existing chipsets that we already have drivers for. From the OS perspective, your USB serial adaptor likely still looks like a 16550 UART -- albeit one with its own unique PCI address space and interrupt vector. When it comes to talking to radios, we don't have anything anywhere near standard enough to code or fabricate a chip against. Were Elecraft to go USB at this time, they would most likely want to export the existing serial interface. Nothing else is going to be useful to actual users. If you really want to see something tailored to rig control, you're going to have to come up with a decent spec, implement adaptor devices for existing rigs, write drivers for Windows at minimum, provide a kick-ass software application to go with it, and pray that the public will like it enough to support it. I don't actually see this as an impossible task: if you created such a standard and sold adaptors for most of the YaeComWood rigs, I'd cut code against it! It is, however, well outside of Elecraft's charter. +++++++++++++++++++ Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:07:38 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Paul Womble wrote: > How 'about we show a little courtesy to people who might have a great > idea...just not the technical know how to make it happen. There's been pretty extensive discussion of many of the technical issues here that I thought the canonical "intelligent layman" could understand. Sorry, but I just got a little peeved by static about how we "just don't get it" and "the hobby isn't long for the world" because of it. Courtesy begets courtesy. 73 de Maggie K3XS +++++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:24:41 -0400 From: Doug Netherton Reply-To: doug.netherton at sympatico.ca To: Elecraft Email Subject: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? I've enjoyed this discussion... Its good to look ahead at possibilities !! Two points. Chicken and Egg scenario. Technical Requirements. First, the Chicken and Egg point. Most popular ham software uses the serial interface from computer to ham gear. Easy to address, easy to write an application because of the legacy of base software. Lets not forget all those old computers we hams use to work with our ham gear also... The serial interface has been around for almost forever (in computer terms), so all the standards are in place. So, if you want to write an application that will get used, you use standard serial interface. Now look at USB. Its an extension of serial in a way, but how does addressing work? Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever attached two identical USB connected printers to one computer? How do the supplied drivers / windows software tell them appart??? When you attach a USB to serial dongle, the first thing that happens is a virtual serial port address is assigned so that your program can use it. What addressing scheme do you use to attach two K2's using USB connections to your computer. How about a K2 and a Yaesuicomwood? NO STANDARDS. No defined technical requirements as yet. I suspect that Elecraft isn't in the position to put R&D money into that kind of project, since the return on their investment would be nebulous at best. (Thats why they picked the Kenwood command set as a base for the K2 command set, so that they could take advantage of all the software out there written for Kenwood.) All that being said, you have to start somewhere if you want something. First, you need to create requirements (e.g. unique addressing per radio). Then, Margret's point that you need hardware if you want to write and test software. Being human, we won't be satified with the first interation, requirements will have to be refined until we think we have it right (or we run out of inititive). We then have to publish application interfaces to the world in hopes that others will use it and it becomes a standard. (Ah, new Chicken and Egg) Doug, VE3MCF K2 #1322 +++++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:56:14 -0600 From: Phillip Townsend Cc: Elecraft Subject: [Elecraft] USB Port I have not owned a computer that uses a serial port for years... But I would think the Firewire protocol is far easier to implement than USB or that "new" USB that no one uses... Firewire is so easy... But then I am a Mac user... Love that new UNIX OS that lives just inside of that Gorgeous OSX interface... Phil #01264 + 100 ++++++++++++++++++ Reply-To: From: "John Clifford" To: "Jessie Oberreuter" , "Bill Coleman" Cc: Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:44:23 -0700 There are two major themes in this 'discussion'.... Those who question the utility of USB over RS-232 offer up the 'dongle' approach. Sure... if the only reason for USB support is because you don't have enough serial ports on your computer. I started this thread because I believe that USB offers some real advantages over RS-232. In order to utilize those advantages, we are going to have to change the paradigm of 'rig control' to something beyond what it is now. We all know that some rigs excel in certain areas, while others show different strengths. The Holy Grail of rig control programs (the One True Program or OTP) would allow the user to use the transmitter from one rig, and the receiver from one (or more) other(s). Perhaps different transmitters could be used depending upon mode. How about a PSK program being able to simultaneously monitor QSOs on several different bands... and being able to conduct simultaneous QSOs on several different bands? These are just some of the things that USB could facilitate. Sure... a good programmer can make anything do anything... but why fight RS-232 when you can switch to USB? The stepping stone would be to define a meta-control language, provide USB/RS-232 interfaces with onboard firmware (or allow for downloading of rig-specific drivers) to translate the meta-language into rig specific variants, and then create the USB/rig support class(es) for the various popular OSes. Eventually, when the rig manufacturers see the light (and support USB and the meta-language directly) the stepping stones go away. - jgc John Clifford KD7KGX Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9 Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2/KPA100 Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1 email: kd7kgx at arrl.net ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 08:14:46 -0700 To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net From: Jeff McLeman Subject: re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? USB is a protocol. I have written USB host stacks and USB client support. Doing one for the K2 isn't all that hard. (Other than PIC code and the actual hardware). The host side (the PC if you will), a simple class driver could present a virtual com port to the user. Existing software could be used. In addition, other classes can be established. Think of hooking receive audio and transmit audio to the K2 USB interface, internally and exporting these over isochronous channels to the host. Heck, by doing this, spectrogram could be modified to take the audio from the USB port. USB opens a whole world. However, there is some NRE to do this. I am sure Wayne and Eric are quite busy doing other things. If I had the backend specs on how to talk to the uP in the K2 and run the protocol, I could fudge up an interface that worked. Done this with other devices. (You don't even want to see some of the stuff hanging off my USB ports) Of course, the K2 would be a USB slave, not a master. Just my thoughts, JeffMc W7TTR ++++++++++++++++++++ From: "Rich Lentz" To: "'Jeff McLeman'" , "Elecraft Reflector" Subject: RE: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:32:06 -0500 Doug: Motorola has an evaluation board http://www.elektronikladen.de/en_usb08.html that would probably do most of this. From the info I read, the module would be very easy to adapt by someone that could write the needed program. As far as talking to the K2, there would be no need for the KIO2 as all it does is translate the TTL level K2TX & K2RX to RS232 level RXD/TXD signals. The USB interface would not need to convert the serial data to RS232 and then back to TTL. The USB interface could leave it at TTL level, and input the signal right into P4 on the control board at /K2TX &/K2RX (these are identified as host and the blank pin one on most diagrams unless you marked up the drawings by hand to reflect the wire added and changes made by the KIO2 module changes, When will we get updated drawings???). However, you would need the adapter like provided with the KIO2 so that other modules could also access the info on P4. This would probably be easier than trying to talk directly to the K2 Aux bus line. Additionally, this same interface could also directly connect to most ICOM rigs as their CAT interface is at TTL level. I recently modified a KIO2 module to provide signals for my IC706M2G - works great. Thus this interface, if built in a separate box, with (isolated) audio in, (isolated) audio out, PTT, Key, dot & dash paddle, Power on/off, could be used with many rigs. Rich, KE0X +++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:56:05 -0400 From: Margaret Leber To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] How 'bout a USB interface? Jeff McLeman wrote: > Think of hooking receive audio and transmit audio to the K2 USB > interface, internally and exporting these over isochronous channels to > the host. Now *that's* something that would make the game worth the candle. 73 de Maggie K3XS ++++++++++++++++++++++