<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Matthew's Workbench</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Another Loss for North American Shortwave</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/another-loss-for-shortwave/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/another-loss-for-shortwave/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Radio]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[BBC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Radio Netherlands]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Shortwave]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/another-loss-for-shortwave/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was saddened to learn that <a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/media/080912-shortwave-america">Radio Netherlands is ending shortwave transmissions to North America</a>, effective October 26, 2008. Radio Netherlands was one of the first shortwave stations I ever heard and I have spent many enjoyable hours over the years listening to their programs.</p>

<p>I’m sure this makes sense as a business decision for Radio Netherlands, just as I’m sure it made sense for the BBC to drop shortwave broadcasts to North America. Obviously there is no station with a large enough budget to broadcast everywhere and it only makes sense to allocate limited resources to areas considered to be most important.</p>

<p>But it always bothers me when such a decision is presented as being best for the listeners. For instance, the Radio Netherlands site states:]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was saddened to learn that <a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/features/media/080912-shortwave-america">Radio Netherlands is ending shortwave transmissions to North America</a>, effective October 26, 2008. Radio Netherlands was one of the first shortwave stations I ever heard and I have spent many enjoyable hours over the years listening to their programs.</p>
<p>I’m sure this makes sense as a business decision for Radio Netherlands, just as I’m sure it made sense for the BBC to drop shortwave broadcasts to North America. Obviously there is no station with a large enough budget to broadcast everywhere and it only makes sense to allocate limited resources to areas considered to be most important.</p>
<p>But it always bothers me when such a decision is presented as being best for the listeners. For instance, the Radio Netherlands site states:</p>
<blockquote><p>Radio Netherlands Worldwide&#8217;s English broadcasts are available in North America in an increasing variety of ways. More and more partner stations are taking our programming (a growing number of NPR stations in the US and CBC in Canada) and there are now a wide range of satellite options (including Sirius satellite radio).</p>
<p>The programmes are also available <a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/#">live</a>, <a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/listenonline/weeklyarchive">on-demand</a> and via <a href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/listeningguide/podcasts">podcast</a>.</p>
<p>The number of alternatives for listeners in North America is such that we have decided to end our shortwave broadcasts to the region.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They list four different ways that people in North America can still receive Radio Netherlands:</p>
<ol>
<li>on the internet at <a title="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/" href="http://www.radionetherlands.nl/">http://www.radionetherlands.nl/</a> </li>
<li>on the AMC 4 satellite 24 hours a day </li>
<li>as part of the CBC overnight service at 1:05 AM </li>
<li>on WRN as found on the Galaxy 25 satellite or on Sirius satellite radio </li>
</ol>
<p>Those are four legitimate options, but they don’t really compare to shortwave:</p>
<ol>
<li>Listening to Radio Netherlands on the internet is an option only for those people with broadband. Broadband internet is not ubiquitous, at least in the United States. Unlike shortwave radio, listening to internet radio away from a computer is not practical for most people. </li>
<li>Listening to the AMC 4 satellite requires receiver hardware that most people don’t have, not to mention a clear view of the satellite. </li>
<li>The CBC overnight service is an option only for people who live in Canada or near the border. It is also not very convenient, being on late overnight. </li>
<li>Most people don’t have satellite receivers or satellite radios capable of receiving WRN. </li>
</ol>
<p>Services such as Radio Netherlands and the BBC World Service are delivered for free and no one has any right to expect that they will be available indefinitely. Declining interest in shortwave means that it makes perfect sense that money previously spent on shortwave transmissions might be better spent elsewhere. But it is unrealistic to expect that cutting shortwave won’t affect many listeners.</p>
<p>Before the BBC ended shortwave transmissions to North America, I used to listen to the BBC World Service every day, often for several hours each day. It occurs to me that I haven’t listened to the BBC World Service a single time since then. Not because of any bad feelings on my part but because I no longer find it convenient to listen. Even long-term listening is a habit that is surprisingly easy to break.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/another-loss-for-shortwave/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reprieve for Online Radio</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/reprieve-for-online-radio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/reprieve-for-online-radio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:20:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Radio]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Online radio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/reprieve-for-online-radio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many believe that online radio is the successor to all radio, not just AM and FM but also shortwave. I personally find that hard to believe unless broadband access becomes more common than it is now. But just about everyone agrees that the royalty rates for online radio in the United States are set too high for most stations to survive. It would therefore seem obvious to me that the rates need to be lowered. For once, that may be happening.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many believe that online radio is the successor to all radio, not just AM and FM but also shortwave. I personally find that hard to believe unless broadband access becomes more common than it is now. But just about everyone agrees that the royalty rates for online radio in the United States are set too high for most stations to survive. It would therefore seem obvious to me that the rates need to be lowered. For once, that may be happening.</p>
<p>The United States Senate recently passed a bill which granted a <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331459,00.asp">brief reprieve to online radio stations</a> in the United States. The House of Representatives had already unanimously <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331344,00.asp">passed the same bill</a> three days earlier. The bill now goes to the President for his signature.</p>
<p>The bill itself doesn’t set any royalty rates for radio stations. What it does do is allow the online radio stations and the copyright holders to negotiate without requiring Congress to approve the final deal. The two sides still need to come to an agreement before February 15, 2009.</p>
</p>
<p>If online radio in the United States is shut down, that still won’t affect radio in the rest of the world. I’ve found that people are far more willing to listen to foreign radio stations, even some odd ones, than I think they would have been in the past. Perhaps years of truly dreadful radio has made them more open to experimentation. But I think it will be a shame if online radio innovation is relegated to outside the United States.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/reprieve-for-online-radio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Satellite Radio and the HD Radio Requirement</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/satellite-radio-and-hd-radio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/satellite-radio-and-hd-radio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Radio]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[HD Radio]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Satellite radio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/satellite-radio-and-hd-radio/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Back when there was debate about the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger, various groups suggested potential conditions that might be made part of the deal. Some were discarded but others were agreed upon. For example, both companies made an <a href="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/satellite-radio-and-open-devices/">open device pledge</a> that will allow manufacturers to add features to their receivers.</p>  <p>One frequently suggested condition was a requirement that all new satellite radios be capable of receiving terrestrial HD Radio stations. The FCC didn’t make that part of the deal, although they are still requesting public comments on the idea. Now Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced the “<a href="http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/hr7157_final_text.pdf">Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act</a>”, which would make the FCC implement that HD Radio requirement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back when there was debate about the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger, various groups suggested potential conditions that might be made part of the deal. Some were discarded but others were agreed upon. For example, both companies made an <a href="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/satellite-radio-and-open-devices/">open device pledge</a> that will allow manufacturers to add features to their receivers.</p>
<p>One frequently suggested condition was a requirement that all new satellite radios be capable of receiving terrestrial HD Radio stations. The FCC didn’t make that part of the deal, although they are still requesting public comments on the idea. Now Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) has introduced the “<a href="http://markey.house.gov/docs/telecomm/hr7157_final_text.pdf">Radio All Digital Channel Receiver Act</a>”, which would make the FCC implement that HD Radio requirement.</p>
<p>For obvious reasons, Clear Channel Communications and others that have invested heavily in HD Radio support this bill. Somewhat less obviously, General Motors and Toyota are opposed to it. They stated in a letter to the FCC: “The proponents of the proposed condition are seeking an unprecedented requirement regulating the choice of entertainment technologies in an automotive environment”.</p>
<p>There is precedent for the FCC mandating hardware, such as requiring UHF receivers and closed-captioning in televisions. But I still would tend to think this requirement will be a tough sell, especially with HD Radio not taking off the way many had expected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/satellite-radio-and-hd-radio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The DTVPal Plus</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/dtvpal-plus/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/dtvpal-plus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[DTVPal]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[HDTV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/dtvpal-plus/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve written before about the DISH Network DTVPal, a $59.99 digital converter box with some of the best features of any converter box available. DISH Network later released another converter box, the EchoStar TR-40 CRA, with a price $20 lower than the DTVPal. This was somewhat confusing because the TR-40 CRA was exactly the same [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve written before about the <a href="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/dtvpal-released/">DISH Network DTVPal</a>, a $59.99 digital converter box with some of the best features of any converter box available. DISH Network later released another converter box, the <a href="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/tr40-cra/">EchoStar TR-40 CRA</a>, with a price $20 lower than the DTVPal. This was somewhat confusing because the TR-40 CRA was exactly the same unit as the DTVPal!</p>
<p>Now DISH Network has released the DTVPal Plus, which costs $20 more than the DTVPal. This time, the DTVPal Plus seems to be a different unit from the DTVPal and the TR-40 CRA. The main advantage of the DTVPal Plus seems to be an improved tuner for weak digital signals. </p>
<p>I think it is safe to say that the DISH Network’s strategy for converter box releases could be described as haphazard at best. If you’re interested in the DTVPal Plus, you can order it at the <a href="http://dtvpal.com/">official DTVPal site</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/dtvpal-plus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Expanded FM Band?</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/expanded-fm-band/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/expanded-fm-band/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Radio]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[BMC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[DRM]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/expanded-fm-band/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A group known as the Broadcast Maximization Committee, or BMC, made an interesting proposal to the FCC last month.&#160; They want to expand the FM radio band to encompass television channels 5 and 6 (the ordinary FM band is positioned between television channels 6 and 7). The goal for this would be to reduce interference. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A group known as the Broadcast Maximization Committee, or BMC, made an interesting proposal to the FCC last month.&#160; They want to expand the FM radio band to encompass television channels 5 and 6 (the ordinary FM band is positioned between television channels 6 and 7). The goal for this would be to reduce interference. You can read their complete proposal here: <a title="http://www.ccbroadcasters.com/TV%20Channel%205-6%20Radio%20Proposal.pdf" href="http://www.ccbroadcasters.com/TV%20Channel%205-6%20Radio%20Proposal.pdf">TV Channel 5-6 Radio Proposal</a>.</p>
<p>As part of the plan, most AM radio stations in the country would move to the expanded FM channels and broadcast in digital mode (presumably DRM+). The new band would be divided to allow for the former AM stations, low power stations, and other uses. The AM band, now free from overcrowding, could be used for fewer station or for some other purpose.</p>
<p>This is just a proposal and probably nothing will come of it. Some see it as competition to the <a href="http://klixie.textdriven.com/26mhz/">26MHz.us</a> proposal, although I don’t see why the two couldn’t coexist. I’m unsure whether I think the BMC plan would be a good idea or whether it would create more problems than it solved.</p>
<p>Radio World has two good articles about the proposal: </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0100/t.14794.html">Engineers’ Group Has an Idea: Move AMs to Channels 5 &amp; 6</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.radioworld.com/pages/s.0100/t.14795.html">Nuts and Bolts of BMC’s AM Migration Plan</a>. </li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/expanded-fm-band/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google Chrome</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/google-chrome/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/google-chrome/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/google-chrome/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you follow technology news at all, then you have certainly heard about Chrome, Google&#8217;s new web browser. It was released on September 3 to good reviews, with most praising its speed and simplicity. According to Market Share, Chrome achieved a market share of 1% in only two days!
Of course, not everyone was pleased. Some [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you follow technology news at all, then you have certainly heard about <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome">Chrome</a>, Google&#8217;s new web browser. It was released on September 3 to good reviews, with most praising its speed and simplicity. According to <a href="http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?sample=21&amp;qprid=43&amp;qpcustom=Chrome+0.2">Market Share</a>, Chrome achieved a market share of 1% in only two days!</p>
<p>Of course, not everyone was pleased. Some have criticized Chrome&#8217;s lack of a built-in email client. But that makes sense when you consider that Google wants Chrome to showcase their lineup of web applications. Remember GMail?</p>
<p>Some have complained about the installer, the lack of plug-ins, and other weaknesses. Many of those criticisms are valid, but others strike me as odd. I think that a free program which is still in beta should be forgiven for a few deficiencies. </p>
<p>Google seems to be committed to Chrome, and I would expect many of the complaints to be addressed before very long. Keep in mind that this version of Chrome is just the beginning for Google and they are planning for the long term. As for me, I appreciate having a new alternative to Internet Explorer for those of us who don&#8217;t like Firefox. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/google-chrome/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Barry Craig - Angel of Death - Old Time Radio Mystery Drama</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/barry-craig-angel-of-death/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/barry-craig-angel-of-death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Old Time Radio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/barry-craig-angel-of-death/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“It&#8217;s okay to cut a competitor down a few notches, but never cut him six feet lower than the soles of his feet. That’s no longer fair competition, folks, that&#8217;s murder.&#8221;
&#8220;One way of landing a client is to fish him out of the river. Which is exactly how I commenced my confidential file on a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>“It&#8217;s okay to cut a competitor down a few notches, but never cut him six feet lower than the soles of his feet. That’s no longer fair competition, folks, that&#8217;s murder.&#8221;</em></p>
<p><em>&#8220;One way of landing a client is to fish him out of the river. Which is exactly how I commenced my confidential file on a character named Richie Stimson.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Barry Craig happens to be on hand to rescue Richie Stimson after he drives his car into the river. Richie is current husband and former chauffeur to Natalie Stimson, a Park Avenue millionaire. Richie claims that he wasn&#8217;t drinking, but that he has spells where he gets &#8220;dopey all of the sudden&#8221; and foggy in his head, with the feeling that he wants to shut his eyes. He claims that he drove through the guard rails during one of those spells.</p>
<p>Craig bills Richie $100 for his ruined clothes and shoes, not expecting payment. He is surprised to receive a check for $1000 from Natalie Stimson with a request for a meeting.</p>
<p>In talking to Natalie, Craig learns that the plunge into the river wasn&#8217;t Richie&#8217;s first accident. For example, several weeks earlier he fell two stories from a window and was saved only by falling on a terrace on the 26th story. According to her, six doctors have examined Richie this year, with the most recent concluding that he is a &#8220;normal neurotic&#8221; who is just accident-prone. Her own theory is that Richie feels out of his element in the rich Park Avenue environment and needs someone who &#8220;talks his language&#8221;. She feels Craig can be that someone and hires him to be Richie&#8217;s friend for $4000 for one month.</p>
<p>Everything goes well for a while, with Richie attending burlesque shows just like he did before his marriage. But Craig suspects that something else is wrong, especially after a talk with Richie&#8217;s brother. He claims that Richie is a snob and has always been a schemer, but that he has never been accident-prone.</p>
<p>After one final accident, Barry Craig is forced to untangle all of the the lies and discover the real cause for Richie&#8217;s problems.</p>
<p>Featuring Paul Dubov, Betty Lou Gerson, Jack Carroll, Jack Moyles</p>
<p>This episode was first broadcast on NBC radio on January 5, 1955. You can download it from the Internet Archive here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.archive.org/download/OTRR_Barrie_Craig_Singles/Barrie_Craig_55-01-05_ep167_Angel_of_Death.mp3">Download Barry Craig - Angel of Death - January 5, 1955</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/barry-craig-angel-of-death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
<enclosure url="http://www.archive.org/download/OTRR_Barrie_Craig_Singles/Barrie_Craig_55-01-05_ep167_Angel_of_Death.mp3" length="12013588" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The EchoStar TR-40 CRA</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/tr40-cra/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/tr40-cra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[DTVPal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/tr40-cra/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last year, EchoStar announced the TR-40, their $40 digital converter box. It had the best feature set of any converter box and the $40 price made it free with government coupon. But then the TR-40 was postponed and the DTVPal was released, a different converter box that EchoStar priced at $59.99. The TR-40 remained a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last year, EchoStar announced the TR-40, their $40 digital converter box. It had the best feature set of any converter box and the $40 price made it free with government coupon. But then the TR-40 was postponed and the <a href="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/dtvpal-released/">DTVPal was released</a>, a different converter box that EchoStar priced at $59.99. The TR-40 remained a separate product that they promised for later release.</p>
<p>Now the TR-40 has been reborn as the <a href="http://www.tr40cra.com/">TR-40 CRA</a>. You can read the DISH Network <a href="http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=329227">press release here</a>. The TR-40 CRA price is $40, which is $20 less than the DTVPal, <strong>even though it is the same unit!</strong> It says so right on the TR-40 CRA <a href="http://www.dishnetwork.com/dtvpal/faq.shtml">FAQ page</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>What is the difference between TR-40 CRA and DTVPal?</strong>
<p>TR-40 CRA is a special limited production version of the DTVPal. Offered at the government coupon price of $40, the TR-40 CRA includes the highly-acclaimed features and functionality of the DTVPal.
<p>DTVPal has garnered much praise in recent months and is recommended as a “top choice” by CNET. DTVPal’s amazing features and consumer-friendly technology make it a great value at only $19.99 with a $40 government coupon. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>With a limited supply available, you should probably act soon if you want to buy a TR-40 CRA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/tr40-cra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DIY Nuclear Fusion</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/diy-nuclear-fusion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/diy-nuclear-fusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:41:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/diy-nuclear-fusion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s an article from the Wall Street Journal with a startling title: Nuclear Ambitions: Amateur Scientists Get a Reaction From Fusion. It focuses on amateur researchers who have built their own fusion reactors.
Their fusion reactors, or fusors, aren&#8217;t used for power generation. That&#8217;s because a fusor consumes more energy than it produces. Fusors have been [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s an article from the Wall Street Journal with a startling title: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121901740078248225.html?mod=blog">Nuclear Ambitions: Amateur Scientists Get a Reaction From Fusion</a>. It focuses on amateur researchers who have built their own fusion reactors.</p>
<p>Their fusion reactors, or fusors, aren&#8217;t used for power generation. That&#8217;s because a fusor consumes more energy than it produces. Fusors have been used commercially as neutron sources, but the interest among these researchers seems to be improving the device itself.</p>
<p>I am amazed that so many people would have the dedication necessary to build such an unusual device. I&#8217;m also amazed that fusors haven&#8217;t been banned by authorities frightened by the idea of a homemade nuclear reactor. In reality, the dangers would be limited to the extremely high voltages used and the possible production of x-rays. </p>
<p>If you&#8217;re interested, there are a number of web pages devoted to the topic, including <a href="http://www.brian-mcdermott.com/fusion_is_easy.htm">Fusion is Easy</a> and <a href="http://www.fusor.net/">Fusor</a>. Thanks to <a href="http://www.qrz.com/kd5njr">Scott Haley</a> for the pointer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/diy-nuclear-fusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FPGA Development</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/fpga-development/</link>
		<comments>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/fpga-development/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Reed</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Electronics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/fpga-development/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
With the prices for FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) chips coming down all the time, FPGA development has become affordable for the electronics hobbyist. I was looking around at starter boards and saw several recommendations for the Digilent Spartan-3 Starter Board. At $99, it is one of the cheapest boards available, yet it has some [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img style="border-top-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 5px 20px; border-right-width: 0px" height="199" alt="Digilent Spartan-3 Starter Board" src="http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/images/FPGADevelopment_1181B/spartan3.gif" width="280" align="right" border="0">
<p>With the prices for FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) chips coming down all the time, FPGA development has become affordable for the electronics hobbyist. I was looking around at starter boards and saw several recommendations for the <a href="http://www.digilentinc.com/Products/Detail.cfm?Prod=S3BOARD&amp;Nav1=Products&amp;Nav2=Programmable">Digilent Spartan-3 Starter Board</a>. At $99, it is one of the cheapest boards available, yet it has some pretty impressive features. Take a look at what you get for your $99: </p>
<ul>
<li>Xilinx Spartan-3 FPGA with twelve 18-bit multipliers, 216Kbits of block RAM, and up to 500MHz internal clock speeds
<li>On-board 2Mbit Platform Flash
<li>8 slide switches
<li>4 pushbuttons
<li>9 LEDs
<li>4-digit seven-segment display
<li>Serial port
<li>VGA port
<li>PS/2 mouse/keyboard port
<li>Three 40-pin expansion connectors
<li>Three high-current voltage regulators (3.3V, 2.5V, and 1.2V)
<li>1Mbyte on-board 10ns SRAM (256Kb x 32)</li>
</ul>
<p>It even comes with power supply and programming cable, neither of which is included with many boards. It is designed to work with Xilinx&#8217;s free <a href="http://www.xilinx.com/ise/logic_design_prod/webpack.htm">WebPack</a>, a good set of FPGA programming and simulation tools. You will need to learn VHDL or Verilog, but there are many good books and tutorials available. I would recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262162245?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=matreestrs80o-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0262162245">Circuit Design with VHDL</a><img style="margin: 0px; border-top-style: none! important; border-right-style: none! important; border-left-style: none! important; border-bottom-style: none! important" height="1" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=matreestrs80o-20&amp;l=as2&amp;o=1&amp;a=0262162245" width="1" border="0"> as a good choice for learning VHDL.</p>
<p>If you have any interest in experimenting with FPGAs, then this looks like a good board to investigate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.matthewsworkbench.com/fpga-development/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
