"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: ---

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

In article , Geoffrey S.
Mendelson 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.

Ahh, so _that_ is what it is now, 1000 watts RF _output_ ,
okay.



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.

I used to have one about ten years ago, when a bunch of us
motorcycle riders commonly cruised the scenic mountains
here in northern California, again well beyond cell-phone
range. If one of us bikers got in trouble, it was my job
to call in a chopper.


Beware, OT Rant Coming Up
*****************

My 'cycle license is still valid, but now I have enough
sense to avoid motorcycles. g

For 7 years, I worked as a motorcycle messinger in the
Los Angeles area, never had an accident, except for
one time.

An older gentleman edged onto the freeway from an
on-ramp, going about 20 mph, cutting across all lanes
into the fast lane, where I was going the "legal L.A. speed
limit" of about 85 mph, along with all the other idiots.

I _almost_ managed to keep the bike upright, but
not quite - - - dumped the bike at the last minute with
my leg trapped underneath the heavy bike while it was
sliding to a stop.

Last I saw of the old gentleman, he was still chugging away
in the fast lane at 20 mph. g

I was lucky, a trucker behind me swung his rig broadside
to block the fast lane, until the ambulance arrived to scrape
me off the freeway.

Like with a horse, you have to get right back on again. I was
back on the job in a few months, but very careful to avoid
older car drivers.


What really bothers me is that the youngsters today do not
properly train themselves to ride a motorcycle. I traded in
a new heavy Honda "Valkyrie" model, for an even heavier
Honda "Gold Wing" model, the murdercycle that has
a reverse gear, because it is too heavy to back up by
using your feet, if you are on a slight downgrade.

A youngster bought my "Valkyrie" from the dealer I
sold it to.

Youngster promptly killed himself a few weeks later,
when he lost control of the Valkyrie on a turn.

I really think the laws should be changed, to force the
youngsters to take the $50 3-day course from the MSF.
(Motorcycle Safety Foundation)

MSF will not authorize a motorcycle license unless the
youngster demonstrates competence by passing some
rather stiff riding tests.

End of OT Rant -
*********


Welcome back, btw...

Thanks very much, I should have returned to ham radio
long before now, as it is a great endeavor, in my opinion.

My daddy introduced it to me when I was about ten years old,
it lead to a 34 year career in electronics, working in the
research labs of what then was called Hughes Aircraft,
later to be called Hughes Aerospace.

Many interesting projects during my career, such as
working on the old robot series of spacecraft named
"Surveyor", paving the way for manned spaceflight
to the moon.

Back to beating the bushes, the enjoyable task of deciding
which shiny new rig to purchase

Mark

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
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.

When cheap Wattmeters became ubiquitous?

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson 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.

The current limit on most bands is 1500 watts, Peak Envelope Power
(which is an output-power measurement). It has been quite a while
since the limit was specified in terms of input power to the final
amplifier.

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.

Correct.

--
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!

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.