Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
Opinions regarding Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver? Seems like a great little rig, blasts out a whooping 2 watts of RF power on batteries, do not know if I can handle that much power, if I decide to apply for another license. I was W6TAM 55 years ago. (extra-class license) I have not really shopped around for a rig yet, so do not know how the Yaesu FT-817ND rig compares to its competitors in the $700 price range. Any advice gratefully appreciated - Mark Conrad |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
"Mark Conrad" wrote in message
... Opinions regarding Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver? Seems like a great little rig, blasts out a whooping 2 watts of RF power on batteries, do not know if I can handle that much power, if I decide to apply for another license. I was W6TAM 55 years ago. (extra-class license) I have not really shopped around for a rig yet, so do not know how the Yaesu FT-817ND rig compares to its competitors in the $700 price range. Any advice gratefully appreciated - Mark Conrad Hello Mark. They are great fun. I believe there isn't anything directly equivalent (i.e. HF / VHF / UHF portable) from the other manufacturers. Best wishes, Roger. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
Wow, thanks everyone for the great reports on the lttle Yaesu transceiver! I am contemplating it mainly for its ears. I wanted to order the optional Collins 300 cycle filter for CW work, but had hazy memories from 55 years ago that such filters tended to cause unwanted "ringing" of the output audio, kinda like a steady loud output "hiss". When I left Ham Radio in 1955, the QRPp experts were playing with "active filters" for low power QRP work. If I remember correctly, such filters would block _all_ the signal, noise and everything, then open up a 30 cycle "window" for a brief while when the "start" of a dot or dash was liable to occur. The entire mess, transmitter and distant receiver was sync'd with the WWV time signal, to open and close the receiver's active filters during automatic CW transmission. The incoming dot or dash audio would be re-generated artificially by a separate audio circuit in the receiver. QRP advocates claimed they could get on a crowded voice band, and pump a low power CW signal through at a slow speed of a few words-per-minute. Switching Gears - ********* Does anyone know if the FCC still requires at least 50 RF watts to legally drive a linear amplifier? There was talk that they might change that requirement so that low power rigs like the Yaesu could drive an amplifier. Of course, nothing to stop a ham from building his own intermediate amplifier, but cleaning up all the harmonics is a major concern. Mark |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
Mark Conrad wrote:
Wow, thanks everyone for the great reports on the lttle Yaesu transceiver! I am contemplating it mainly for its ears. I wanted to order the optional Collins 300 cycle filter for CW work, but had hazy memories from 55 years ago that such filters tended to cause unwanted "ringing" of the output audio, kinda like a steady loud output "hiss". When I left Ham Radio in 1955, the QRPp experts were playing with "active filters" for low power QRP work. If I remember correctly, such filters would block _all_ the signal, noise and everything, then open up a 30 cycle "window" for a brief while when the "start" of a dot or dash was liable to occur. The entire mess, transmitter and distant receiver was sync'd with the WWV time signal, to open and close the receiver's active filters during automatic CW transmission. The incoming dot or dash audio would be re-generated artificially by a separate audio circuit in the receiver. QRP advocates claimed they could get on a crowded voice band, and pump a low power CW signal through at a slow speed of a few words-per-minute. Switching Gears - ********* Does anyone know if the FCC still requires at least 50 RF watts to legally drive a linear amplifier? There was talk that they might change that requirement so that low power rigs like the Yaesu could drive an amplifier. Of course, nothing to stop a ham from building his own intermediate amplifier, but cleaning up all the harmonics is a major concern. Mark There is an amp made specifically for the FT-817. The Tokyo Hy-Power HL45B. I use one with my barefoot K3. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
In article ,
Mark Conrad wrote: Wow, thanks everyone for the great reports on the lttle Yaesu transceiver! I am contemplating it mainly for its ears. I wanted to order the optional Collins 300 cycle filter for CW work, but had hazy memories from 55 years ago that such filters tended to cause unwanted "ringing" of the output audio, kinda like a steady loud output "hiss". Sharp frequency-domain filter cutoff, comes along with blurry time-domain cutoff... you can't entirely avoid that. Narrow-bandwidth filters aren't all equal, though, even for the same -3 dB bandwidth. Different filter alignments cause different amounts of frequency-domain (pass-band and stop-band) ripple, and different amounts of ringing and phase shift. Some types seem to be easier on the ear (and the whole ear/brain system) than others. Another, more modern approach is to use digital filtering techniques (either with a DSP chip, or with a personal computer acting as a DSP). By using finite-impulse-response digital filters, you can get a wider range of time- and phase-relative behaviors than you can with an IIR analog filter. When I left Ham Radio in 1955, the QRPp experts were playing with "active filters" for low power QRP work. If I remember correctly, such filters would block _all_ the signal, noise and everything, then open up a 30 cycle "window" for a brief while when the "start" of a dot or dash was liable to occur. The entire mess, transmitter and distant receiver was sync'd with the WWV time signal, to open and close the receiver's active filters during automatic CW transmission. The incoming dot or dash audio would be re-generated artificially by a separate audio circuit in the receiver. QRP advocates claimed they could get on a crowded voice band, and pump a low power CW signal through at a slow speed of a few words-per-minute. This sounds like the "synchronous CW" approach. As you indicate, it requires extremely careful time-base matching at the sending and receiving ends. I do recall reading of some work being done with computer-assisted CW some years ago. It seems to have lost out in popularity to other digital modulation modes such as PSK31, which have many of the same benefits for narrow bandwidth but which don't require tightly-synchronized clocks. At the other end of the speed range, are some very-high-speed CW and digital modes used for things like meteor scatter communications. Switching Gears - ********* Does anyone know if the FCC still requires at least 50 RF watts to legally drive a linear amplifier? The current standards (Part 97, sections 315 and 317) say: - Commercially-built amplifiers capable of operating below 144 MHz must be certificated in order to be sold or modified. - To be certificated, an external amplifier may not amplify the RF input signal by more than 15 dB. - To be certificated, an external amplifier must not amplify signals between 26 MHz and 28 MHz at all (0 dB gain maximum). - The above restrictions do not apply to external power amplifiers which are made by, or modified by, a licensed amateur radio operator for use at an amateur radio station. So, yeah, if you want to buy a amplifier which can deliver "legal limit" power of 1500 watts of HF, you need to plan on driving it with at least 50 watts or so. If you want a hotter rig, you'll either have to construct it yourself, modify a commercial amplifier, add an external intermediate amplifier stage, or cheat. There was talk that they might change that requirement so that low power rigs like the Yaesu could drive an amplifier. Well, low-power rigs *can* drive an external amplifier... just not all the way up to legal-limit in one step. A 5-watt Yaesu could drive a 15 dB linear amp up to around 150 watts of RF output - this is more output than most "barefoot" single-box HF rigs are capable of, and is less likely to accidentally ignite the neighbor's cat than a legal-limit setup. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
In article , Dave Platt
wrote: Well, low-power rigs *can* drive an external amplifier... just not all the way up to legal-limit in one step. A 5-watt Yaesu could drive a 15 dB linear amp up to around 150 watts of RF output Ahh, that is great, 100 watts of RF will keep me happy. In the old days I had a neighbor whose porch light went on/off when I was active. I had to crawl under his house and bond the joints of his water pipes to get rid of his blinking porch light. Seems to me the upper power limit in those days was 1,000 watts, but I probably remember it incorrectly. Thanks for the latest regulations, my 2010 ARRL handbook has not arrived in the mail yet, due any day now. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
Mark Conrad wrote:
Seems to me the upper power limit in those days was 1,000 watts, but I probably remember it incorrectly. I'm not sure when, but it changed from 1500 Watts input to 1,000 Watts output. 1,000 Watts is a lot of power and may not be of much use, depending upon what you want to do with it. The difference between 100 watts and 1,000 is not very much when the band is open and not crowded, in a contest it may be the difference between making contacts and getting lost in the pileup. You mentioned you were in the hills of California, if you want something that is (almost) 100% reliable for an emergency a satellite phone might be better. In another thread in an another group, I mentioned the ELT (emergency locator transmitters) that at one time were sold only for airplanes being available for hikers, etc. The original poster said they are now down to around $100 each, which makes them a viable option for your car if you think you may end up in a ditch with no cell phone coverage and out of the range of any radios. Welcome back, btw, you can ask for your old call if it has not be taken by someone else. 73, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
Mark Conrad wrote:
In , Dave Platt wrote: Well, low-power rigs *can* drive an external amplifier... just not all the way up to legal-limit in one step. A 5-watt Yaesu could drive a 15 dB linear amp up to around 150 watts of RF output Ahh, that is great, 100 watts of RF will keep me happy. In the old days I had a neighbor whose porch light went on/off when I was active. I had to crawl under his house and bond the joints of his water pipes to get rid of his blinking porch light. Seems to me the upper power limit in those days was 1,000 watts, but I probably remember it incorrectly. Thanks for the latest regulations, my 2010 ARRL handbook has not arrived in the mail yet, due any day now. You'll notice the K3 is the #1 transceiver in every class (depending on configuration). While it costs twice what the Yaesu does, it can grow with you. It is made in USA and is the best radio ever made. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
In article ,
Mark Conrad wrote: Opinions regarding Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver? Seems like a great little rig, blasts out a whooping 2 watts of RF power on batteries, do not know if I can handle that much power, if I decide to apply for another license. I was W6TAM 55 years ago. (extra-class license) I have not really shopped around for a rig yet, so do not know how the Yaesu FT-817ND rig compares to its competitors in the $700 price range. Any advice gratefully appreciated - Mark Conrad I use mine mainly for working satellites. I've been on the birds for nearly a year and a half and have used it to make about 1500 contacts with at least 80 different stations. I've worked over 25 American states as well as 5 Canadian provinces and one of its territories. My furthest contact with it was the K4T DXpedition a few days ago, which is about 4100 km from my QTH. I made my first contacts with just the stock rubber duck antenna but I've been using an Arrow dual-band Yagi for more than a year. I'd say that my FT-817ND was worth the investment. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions about Yaesu FT-817ND transceiver?
In article
, BMJ wrote: I use mine mainly for working satellites. That sounds great, were no satellites when I was active. Another thing I want to do is to get a quarter-wave antenna up for the 160 meter band, to shove a ground wave. I think that would be a vertical about 132 feet high, I had better check the local FAA/FCC regulations in these mountains, to see if that is legal for the helicopters that sometimes cruise this area. Probably not legal, so better think in terms of a top-loaded vertical about 60 feet high, voltage-fed at the ground end. In the old days I shoved a ground-wave 400 miles, from a 10 foot whip antenna on the rear end of a sailboat, with 10 watts. A decent antenna should do much better. Mark |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WTB Yaesu FT-817ND | Equipment | |||
WTB Yaesu FT 817ND / 817 | Equipment | |||
WTB Yaesu FT-817/817ND | Swap | |||
FS: Yaesu FT-817ND HF Mobile | Swap | |||
Yaesu FT-817ND | Dx |