|
Minimal "Chassis" size for HB rig?
Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham
emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood. But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de rigeur - again pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB. In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon" soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're currently dealing with. |
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, Airy R.Bean wrote:
But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? Give me a steel chassis - 3' wide and 2' deep, with a 20 lb power transformer, a 15 lb modulation transformer, a 5 lb audo output transformer, and a dozen or so octal based tubes. ----- or, a BC-610 and an HRO-50. HI!HI! Jonesy -- | Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux | Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __ | 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK |
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote: Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood. Er why not. It's doable as a homebrewer. My favorite chassis is old cb rigs. outercase subcase and front pannel are often useful. Even put a 6m sideband rig in one. But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? Most appliance ops dont understand perfomance. I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? Boat anchor. Good radio and small for that time. They still do not go cheap. How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? That is a bit big. The usual footprint I shoot for is 2" tall by 6" wide and maybe 8"deep. That's 96 cubic inches, plenty of room. Allison |
and just where do you intend to buy all those components from
after youve searched and found that there are only a few places and the all charge the earch for a resistor or a transistor the cost of building a Tranciver is prohibitive its far cheaper to modifie existing stuff to the bands you want to use ie 11mt to 10mt to 6 mt just my opinion but then again in true amateur status i never buy anything i just loan it from work or rescue it carefully from the skip where it was carefully placed ;) sonow you know where all those LED's came from |
|
"Gary Cavie" wrote in message
t... I'm currently building Pic-a-star, and haven't given the final casing a thought yet. Rather than trying to build to a pre-determined size, I'll design the case around whatever size the radio ends up, allowing for 'poke-about-a-bility' when it's done. There is a chap locally (G8SUY I think) who has developed some ATV SMT designs- they seem to work well and be popular. If you can hold the parts while soldering then SMT isn't too bad- an illuminated bench magnifier helps. I don't find the SMT devices a problem. G3XJP has come up with some excellent ideas for repeatable, reliable methods of using them. By making the code open-source, it is also encouraging to have a dabble, and see what changes when certain parts are altered. A true homebrewer's delight! Sadly, I'm sure someone will come along and falsely claim G3XJP's code was hacked and needs rewriting- totally ignoring his efforts to encourage homebrew and failing to produce anything to replace it. -- Brian Reay www.g8osn.org.uk www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk FP#898 |
IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one
to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or "radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction. But you know the government.......... -- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* |
In article gzgQd.58975$L_3.40931@clgrps13, says...
IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or "radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction. But you know the government.......... Somehow, I doubt many of those 20 WPM Extras making equine posteriors out of themselves on 75 fone are doing so on homebrew rigs. -- jm ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam ------------------------------------------------------ |
But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation
with the circuitry? wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:15:32 -0000, "Airy R.Bean" wrote: How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? That is a bit big. The usual footprint I shoot for is 2" tall by 6" wide and maybe 8"deep. That's 96 cubic inches, plenty of room. |
Used to be the case here in Britland that the first year was
limited to CW with a max 10W output. About time to re-introduce it, so that Ham experimenters are thereby forced to gain an appreciation of elementary RF? "Gregg" wrote in message news:gzgQd.58975$L_3.40931@clgrps13... IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. |
Behold, John Miles scribed on tube chassis:
In article gzgQd.58975$L_3.40931@clgrps13, says... IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or "radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction. But you know the government.......... Somehow, I doubt many of those 20 WPM Extras making equine posteriors out of themselves on 75 fone are doing so on homebrew rigs. The idea is the advanced ticket people can buy commercial rigs. I was reading some of the the history of Ham radio though and it seems today's ham's rarely fit the bill :-( What happened? -- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* |
Latest project here is a HF transmitter, 8" X 15" X 13", the same size as
the old Sony surround amp put up in the loft 7 years ago. RRH. "Airy R.Bean" wrote in message ... Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood. But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de rigeur - again pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB. In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon" soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're currently dealing with. |
Airy R.Bean wrote:
But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? I understand your sentiments. The trend of making rigs very small can also make them more difficult to use. As an example of a rig that is more compact than most commercial off-the-shelf ones, look at the Elecraft range. I love the performance of my K2. However, the front panel size means that each key is often performing at least 2 different functions, sometimes 3. Many on the Elecraft reflector have expressed a desire for a larger FP when more functions could be available by dedicated buttons. So I think that ergonomics comes into play. For even higher component density, again mostly with discrete components, look at the KX1. A fun cw qrp tcvr to build. So it's not always the case that HB rigs have to be very much larger than commercial rigs. I think much depends on your intended usage. For a base station, as you point out, size doesn't matter that much. I don't think anyone would claim that the IC7800 or FT1000MP was a small rig. Your suggested size would be fine with me for a base station. For portable, field-day or for mobile or even pedestrian mobile operation, size and current consumption are important attributes, and often some performance and ergonomics are sacrificed in the trade-off for smaller size. Your proposed size would probably be too large for such usage - perhaps, something in the region of a quarter of that volume would be more appropriate. Another factor is the extent to which you want to remodel the rig after experimentation. I think a lot of HB tends to end up larger because it was prototyped using construction techniques (such as ugly bug) that are good for prototyping and changes, but then when the design has iterated to something near optimal, it is never rebuilt using denser construction such as double-sided PCB. Perhaps it's a case that the constructor has got their satisfaction with design and are less motivated by better engineering its construction. I know that some are and like to aim for more production quality, often taking as much time in that area than the original design and prototyping. However, I suspect that they are in the minority. 73, David M0DHO |
The correct size for homebrew equipment is the following:
1) The size that you feel most comfortable with. Many individuals do not want to duplicate the ultra compact construction methods that electronics corporations use. That is hard and tedious work, for sure, done by people who are experts in that area. Those nifty little boxes that we buy began life spread out and haywired together over a large table top. I have been through that many times. 2) The goal that you have in building your own equipment. Many folks consider their homebrew equipment as "test beds" for future experimentation, refinement and possible redesign. I am one of those, and an example is on QRZ.COM (W0IYH). If you build this gear as a very compact "ship in a bottle" project you are pretty much "locked in" to whatever you come up with. Major modifications become doubly major projects. 3) The average amateur, working in his basement (that's me) has a very lengthy and arduous task to duplicate what a room full of engineers do for a living. Not only that, those folks very often don't redesign everything from scratch, they improve and redesign iteratively over several years, building on what they have done on previous models. 4) Finally, there is a big difference between a) duplicating a published design and b) struggling with your own (and possibly unique) design. In the latter case we need hardware and software that are easily accessible. The experimenter's code is "Nothing is permanent". Bill W0IYH "Airy R.Bean" wrote in message ... Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood. But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de rigeur - again pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB. In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon" soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're currently dealing with. |
The correct size for homebrew equipment is the following: 1) The size that you feel most comfortable with. The experimenter's code is "Nothing is permanent". Bill W0IYH GM Bill, good to hear you up and about. The curmudgeon (Sorry all you curmudgeons for the insult) that started this thread hasn't the common sense or native intelligence to pose the question. He's just there to troll and present his agenda that he is better than others. Obviously the answer is "as big as it needs to be to house the intended materials" and not the other way around. I put the poor soul in my plonk box some time ago and hadn't seen hide nor hair of him in some time until your byline showed up. I still haven't found my stray resonance in my MRF-150's that causes the gain dip at 32 MHz. Haven't looked real hard for it since it's so eminently flat from 2-30, it's just that it's also useable on 50 MHz and there's just a little 4 dB droop that comes right back up above 35-36 MHz. What with the state of the solar cycle, and with what my age for the next one will be, I suspect I shouldn't be so concerned about it. I know that with your design philosophy, your 150's are going to last forever, but just in case you ever get a thunderstorm in CR that does you dirt, there's an awfully good buy running around on E-Bay at the moment. ERB Engineering built the solid drivers for the tube amps for MRI machines and a large number of them have turned up on the surplus market. They include a pair of MRF 150's as well as a LOAD of other goodies and usually go for less that the price of a singleton. They don't have the matched pair codes, and with the computer controlled bias the way they set them up they can get away without them, but they DO have the same batch codes on both the ones I bought. Search on MRF-150 amplifier. Regards W4ZCB |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:18:47 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote: But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation with the circuitry? Hate top posting, you always loose the question. Since I do experiment and modify I allow for it. I enjoy building small. Since many of my designs are elaborate I've gotten used to working in small spaces and laying out circuits for accessability and considerations for possible future changes. Sometimes I will work around an existing package. I have a number of of old computer serial A/B switches. They are aluminum with a rounded side top and bottom shell. The front and rear plate form a simple frame to screw the case into one unit. It's a trivial task to make replacement front and rear as the original have too many holes. I got these for free when a local merchant decided they were of insufficient value to store for sale. My latest project is a 5Wpep SSB tranceiver for 6M band in a package thats only 2x5x7 inches with PLL tuning and digital display. The pll module is only 1.5"x1.5"x1" constructed dead bug on pcb material which also forms the case/shield. It could be made smaller but, that was adaquately small for this project. The power amp is three transistors of VHF types and fits in a strip of 1.25"Wx 2.5"L x1.5H excluding heatsink(case is aluminum). For 10mW in I get 5W pep with good IMD. The front end (rf amp, mixer and mixer amp ) is complete [1x1x1..25"] and is both compact and very low noise. The bandpass filter assembly and the crystal filter IF amp sections are done too. The rest will easily fit in that box obviously. When doing this I have to consider mechanical things like connectors, controls and other parts that may be physically large compared to the circuits they control. For example the froont pannel has to to have a volume control, RF gain, tuning , microphone jack, headphone jack, frequency display and meter for RX signal and tx power all in 2x5 inches. The RF gain and volume will have to be a dual (coaxial) control to fit it all. As you can see getting all the knobs in place can be more difficult than the electronics behind it. The only components that will not be in the box will be microphone dattery and antenna. I exclude the antenna (portable 3 element beam) and battery power as this is an excusion radio. A 10AH battery of the gell electrolyte type will be adaquate for a 24 hour field use. Small is not hard and doesn't contradict high perfomance. Allison KB1GMX |
I understand your sentiments. The trend of making rigs very small can also make them more difficult to use. As an example of a rig that is more compact than most commercial off-the-shelf ones, look at the Elecraft range. I love the performance of my K2. However, the front panel size means that each key is often performing at least 2 different functions, sometimes 3. Many on the Elecraft reflector have expressed a desire for a larger FP when more functions could be available by dedicated buttons. So I think that ergonomics comes into play. For even higher component density, again mostly with discrete components, look at the KX1. A fun cw qrp tcvr to build. So it's not always the case that HB rigs have to be very much larger than commercial rigs. ============================= A example of good ergonomics are the Watkins & Johnson commercial receivers , in a 19 inch enclosure with a large functional front panel. Inside a tiny switch mode power supply and a few small PCB modules ; the box being about half empty . Same with my old TenTec Paragon transceiver ,a large enclosure with ergonomical FP and separate cable linked modules inside. Also for homebrew equipment using a relatively large enclosure ,you have a large FP and oodles of space to fit separate screened modules which can be individually tested (building block method). The RF modules based on 50Ohms IN and 50Ohms OUT can be readily interconnected with ready made short coax leads with SMA or similar connectors . These links can be found at flea markets , probably surplus leftovers from the mobile phone industry. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:23:08 GMT, Gregg wrote:
IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. We have far to many appliance ops. The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or "radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction. That exists already/ Here in the USA: Tech limited to bands starting at 6M (50mhz) and up to whatever. Power is 1500 max, any mode, build, modify or buy. No CW required. All modes permitted unless restricted by band use, SSB, FM, Fastscan TV, Data/digital, and even CW. Even if you have not taken the CW test and you think you can do it you can use it. Tech+ same as above with code, limited access to some of the HF bands. General same as Tech(all permitted modes per band), required 5wpm code and grants access to the MW and HF bands (160 thru 10). Extra all of general privledges plus acces to some of the subbands. Allison Kb1GMX |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:35:55 GMT, "Highland Ham"
wrote: modern tranceivers. Yes most of the current generation radios (FT817, IC706MIIG, and friends) with their menus and all are quite annoying to me. I only have a few commercial radios other than HTs. My favorite is a 25 year old IC245 (2m FM/SSB/CW) and the other a Tentec 526(6n2 meter SSB/SM/CW radio) as both don't have menues. Much snippage----- large FP and oodles of space to fit separate screened modules which can be individually tested (building block method). The RF modules based on 50Ohms IN and 50Ohms OUT can be readily interconnected with ready made short coax leads with SMA or similar connectors . These links can be found at flea markets , probably surplus leftovers from the mobile phone industry. I happen to like that mode. Also testing with a 50ohm path is easier and can make it possible to build simple test fixtures on the bench. I build modues usually using PCB material soldered up and test each stand alone. The beauty is you can optimize that function and if at a later date you wich to try different it can easily be remove and a new design substituted. Also shielding is inherent, that alone in many cases is a performance improver. Testing is easy on the bench as nothing has to be mounted to work and once satisfied you transfer the modules to a practical package. Repair show somethign fail is simplified as you can remove the offending module and fix or outright replace it by building another, and maybe improving it. Allison KB1GMX |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:09:37 GMT, "Harold E. Johnson"
wrote: I still haven't found my stray resonance in my MRF-150's that causes the gain dip at 32 MHz. Haven't looked real hard for it since it's so eminently flat from 2-30, it's just that it's also useable on 50 MHz and there's just a little 4 dB droop that comes right back up above 35-36 MHz. What with the state of the solar cycle, and with what my age for the next one will be, I suspect I shouldn't be so concerned about it. I'd take a look and a grounding issue. Last I played with MRF150s I forgot to ground the top to the bottom side of the board right where the leads intersect (the hole wher ethe MRFs meet the heat sink). A peice of .003 copper shim stock from the top to bottom at the hole fixed it along with a few places in the board (#18 wires from top ground to bottom ground) seemed to clean it up. Then I first encountered the problem I thought it to be a device lead length problem on the input or output. HIgh RF current at low imedences can really show things you'd never notice at lower power. Allison KB1GMX |
Your gratuitous use of Childish Broadcasting (CB) suggests
that "W4CZB" is some form of Yankland CBer's callsign. Ham Radio has traditions of gentlemanliness which have been completely lost on you. If there is any trolling going on, then surely it has arisen through your infantile and uncalled-for outburst below? Grow up, Harold! Stupid boy. "Harold E. Johnson" wrote in message news:lwmQd.498$zH6.17@attbi_s53... The curmudgeon (Sorry all you curmudgeons for the insult) that started this thread hasn't the common sense or native intelligence to pose the question. He's just there to troll and present his agenda that he is better than others. |
Top-posting is the preferred method because you get to see
new material without having to page down through oft-repeated and over-familiar historical reprints. wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:18:47 -0000, "Airy R.Bean" wrote: But what of the "liebebstraum" (sp?) for future experimentation with the circuitry? Hate top posting, you always loose the question. |
Test
|
Hello Harold, Thanks for the comments. My 100 W PA has worked quite well from 1.8 to 29.7 MHz, which was the requirement. Nice to hear from you. Bill W0IYH |
Karnac the Magnificent would be proud of you (and I)
-- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) Help The New Hams Someone Helped You Or did You Forget That ? "Airy R.Bean" wrote in message ... Top-posting is the preferred method because you get to see new material without having to page down through oft-repeated and over-familiar historical reprints. Hate top posting, you always loose the question. |
Gregg wrote:
Behold, John Miles scribed on tube chassis: Somehow, I doubt many of those 20 WPM Extras making equine posteriors out of themselves on 75 fone are doing so on homebrew rigs. The idea is the advanced ticket people can buy commercial rigs. I was reading some of the the history of Ham radio though and it seems today's ham's rarely fit the bill :-( What happened? Way Back When I Got Started, in 1962, the difference between what I could build at home and what I could buy from a manufacturer wasn't all that great. The high-end stuff got fairly fancy, as indicated by the Collins A-line gear, but mostly it was fairly mundane. But that was when commercial transistor gear was moderately new and much (or most) commercial stuff was tube-based. There were _no_ ICs, definitely no computer-controlled rigs, and Life Was Much Simpler. The overall performance level of rigs was lower, as a result. Nowadays the commercial gear is *SO* much more advanced than anything the average ham can design and build[1], or even build from a design someone else worked out, that it's just easier to buy an appliance to get the performance one wants. Construction is hard, it requires time and expensive materials, and the overall bill for the appliance most of the time is less than it would cost (including time) to build a comparable device. [1] There are exceptions, and they appear as showcase examples in the ARRL Handbook and other places. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO/AE, 5 WPM Extra (But working on getting faster!) Tired old sysadmin |
|
Gary Cavie wrote:
Actually Gareth, Harold W4CZB is everything that you claim to aspire to. Funny how Gareth only posts during library opening hours... -- huLLy VOIP SIP Phone Number 4823176 on Global Village Or +44 8703 408916 to my VOIP line email (Loon reports welcome) http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn119503 |
Hi Airy
Your gratuitous use of Childish Broadcasting (CB) suggests that "W4CZB" is some form of Yankland CBer's callsign. Ham Radio has traditions of gentlemanliness which have been completely lost on you. If there is any trolling going on, then surely it has arisen through your infantile and uncalled-for outburst below? Grow up, Harold! Stupid boy. Long time no speak! Sorry I didn't make it to the rally last week, I would have liked to meet you. You know, if we got to see some of the interesting homebrew kit and modifications that you frequently talk about, I am sure that it would stall many of the "outbursts" that you attract and refer to. If you don't have access to a camera or scanner, written desciptions would be fine. I am sure that that your designs would be both an inspiration and a help to many of us who would like to have the benefit of your knowledge and experience. If you don't have a website, you can either email or post me your designs and I'll be glad to publish them for you, of course giving you full credit, as I have done for a few others' designs that I've published on the authors' behalf. My email address is on my website and my address is in qrz.com and the Yearbook back to 2001. Thanks & 73, Howard G6LVB http://www.g6lvb.com |
"Brian Reay" wrote:
: an illuminated bench magnifier plain english a magnifying glass on a stand with a light on it /plain english |
Behold, nospam scribed on tube chassis:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:23:08 GMT, Gregg wrote: IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. We have far to many appliance ops. The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or "radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction. That exists already/ Here in the USA: Tech limited to bands starting at 6M (50mhz) and up to whatever. Power is 1500 max, any mode, build, modify or buy. No CW required. All modes permitted unless restricted by band use, SSB, FM, Fastscan TV, Data/digital, and even CW. Even if you have not taken the CW test and you think you can do it you can use it. Tech+ same as above with code, limited access to some of the HF bands. General same as Tech(all permitted modes per band), required 5wpm code and grants access to the MW and HF bands (160 thru 10). Extra all of general privledges plus acces to some of the subbands. Allison Kb1GMX There you have an advantage on us. Unless the regs changed recently, the VE/VO no-coder allows only "CB" style Ham ops :-( -- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* |
Behold, Mike Andrews scribed on tube chassis:
Gregg wrote: Behold, John Miles scribed on tube chassis: Somehow, I doubt many of those 20 WPM Extras making equine posteriors out of themselves on 75 fone are doing so on homebrew rigs. The idea is the advanced ticket people can buy commercial rigs. I was reading some of the the history of Ham radio though and it seems today's ham's rarely fit the bill :-( What happened? snip Nowadays the commercial gear is *SO* much more advanced than anything the average ham can design and build[1], or even build from a design someone else worked out, that it's just easier to buy an appliance to get the performance one wants. Construction is hard, it requires time and expensive materials, and the overall bill for the appliance most of the time is less than it would cost (including time) to build a comparable device. [1] There are exceptions, and they appear as showcase examples in the ARRL Handbook and other places. Point taken. Myself, I am a tubehead, but I would love to design a PLL-PIC based VFO for my tubes. After all the readin' and studyin' I did on the subject, I have come to the conclusion to let a dedicated solid-state-aholic mate design one and I just build it. Are we just too old? -- Gregg "t3h g33k" http://geek.scorpiorising.ca *Ratings are for transistors, tubes have guidelines* |
Gregg ) writes: Behold, nospam scribed on tube chassis: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:23:08 GMT, Gregg wrote: IMHO, it would be of benefit if the no-code class, rather than limit one to commercial based equipment, be forced to use homebrew TX or RX equipment. We have far to many appliance ops. The only requirement being a power limitation and it meets the spectral purity, etc. regs of the country of origin. Boatanchor or "radio-on-a-PIC", whatever construction. That exists already/ Here in the USA: Tech limited to bands starting at 6M (50mhz) and up to whatever. Power is 1500 max, any mode, build, modify or buy. No CW required. All modes permitted unless restricted by band use, SSB, FM, Fastscan TV, Data/digital, and even CW. Even if you have not taken the CW test and you think you can do it you can use it. Tech+ same as above with code, limited access to some of the HF bands. General same as Tech(all permitted modes per band), required 5wpm code and grants access to the MW and HF bands (160 thru 10). Extra all of general privledges plus acces to some of the subbands. Allison Kb1GMX There you have an advantage on us. Unless the regs changed recently, the VE/VO no-coder allows only "CB" style Ham ops :-( Once again, you're misreading the rules. As I told you last summer, whether someone has passed the code test or not has no relevance. It's whether someone has passed the advanced test. Since it's a mix and match system, people can pass the advanced test without taking a code test. They can build all the transmitters all they want at that point, but since they haven't passed the code test they have no HF privileges. There is no "no code license" in Canada. There are two levels of license, and either one can be no-code. Michael VE2BVW |
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:44:12 GMT, Gregg wrote:
Nowadays the commercial gear is *SO* much more advanced than anything the average ham can design and build[1], or even build from a design someone else worked out, that it's just easier to buy an appliance to get the performance one wants. Construction is hard, it requires time and expensive materials, and the overall bill for the appliance most of the time is less than it would cost (including time) to build a comparable device. Elecraft has several kits that build an advaned transceivers with microprocessors and digial pannels. The average hams do build them and when done can even fix them. Point taken. Myself, I am a tubehead, but I would love to design a PLL-PIC based VFO for my tubes. After all the readin' and studyin' I did on the subject, I have come to the conclusion to let a dedicated solid-state-aholic mate design one and I just build it. There is an outfit that has kits to do exactly that. Also there was/is the Amqrp [http://www.amqrp.org/] DDS VFO daughter board. That with the PIC-el kit was a quick means for me to bootstrap into using PICs and DDS for my Rf perojects. In the past I've used micros but ahving the tools and a a really nice course on a specific one was a useful assist. Are we just too old? Never! Allison |
|
wrote in message
... Elecraft has several kits that build an advaned transceivers with microprocessors and digial pannels. The average hams do build them and when done can even fix them. I'm not so sure I'd call someone building an Elecraft an 'average ham.' Especially with the K2, there are enough parts in there that most people who build it are probably already seasoned kit builders. Indeed, there are even lists of hams out there who will assemble Elecrafts for other hams who _don't_ have the skills or desire to put the things together! Still, I think there are plenty of homebrewing opportunities available to hams (the ARRL's publication of "Experimental Methods in RF Design" last year bolsters this argument), just that a smaller percentage of hams than in prior years chose to avail themselves of the option. There will always be folks out there experimenting with radio -- look at how popular WiFi 'hacking' is and even low power FM! ----Joel Kolstad |
) writes: On 16 Feb 2005 04:07:30 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote: As I told you last summer, whether someone has passed the code test or not has no relevance. It's whether someone has passed the advanced test. Since it's a mix and match system, people can pass the advanced test without taking a code test. They can build all the transmitters all they want at that point, but since they haven't passed the code test they have no HF privileges. There is no "no code license" in Canada. There are two levels of license, and either one can be no-code. I wasn't sure if the countries involved but my understanding was Canadian rules are similar to US in style and form. Other countries are beyond my knowledge. I'd expect from articles I've read and the calibar of those authors there are many that allow home built equipment and may even encourage it. Allison Kb1GMX When things were restructured here back in 1990, the basic test/license specifically forbade the use of homebuilt transmitters. It's only after one passes the advanced test that one can use homebuilt transmitters (and it allows for 1000watts input versus 250W for the basic license, and the control of repeaters). But his error is in reading the rules to mean that you have to have code to pass the advanced test, and thus to build transmitters. The code tests (back then there were both a 5 and 12wpm tests, now it's only 5wpm) were independent of the written tests. With no code test, but the advanced license, one has full privileges, though it all has to be above 30MHz. The code test(s) only add HF capability, whether you have the basic or advanced license. This is in contrast to the US model, where advancing did require a code test at some point. Up till 1990, of course anyone with a ham license here could build their own transmitter (and the only thing the advanced license gave was voice on HF). When I was licensed back in 1972, it was still called the Amateur Experimental Service, though that full name was dropped at some point without comment. The impression people had was that since few were building things, then this wouldn't affect many. But by making the written test simpler, it would "make it easier" for people to enter the hobby. I've not realy looked over what the test is like, but I sure had no problem passing the test back in 1972, when I was twelve. But ironically, if few are building things, those few won't be doing much damage even if they don't know what they are doing. Indeed, it's likely that only people who know what they are doing would be building, hence the state of the test shouldn't matter. I don't like the rule, since it does change the hobby, and institutionalizes a perception of the hobby. But like I said, code has nothing to do with whether or not someone can build their transmitter. Michael VE2BVW |
I have several homebrew QRP rigs that fit in the palm of my hand.
They're all HF...a couple even exceed 3w output. They make the FT817 seem like a bowling ball in the backpack. g 73 "Airy R.Bean" wrote in message ... Much of the negativity that the CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham emits when it is suggested to him that he should build his own rig comes from a complaint that it is not possible to miniaturise a rig to the sizes that are available from the Nipland CB suppliers, mainly Yaesu and Kenwood. But, surely, the size of a rig is irrelevant to anyone interested in technical performance? I wonder what size of rig is really acceptable to the _REAL_ Radio Ham when you consider that the RACAL RA17 was a large 19" rack model, and when you take into consideration the footprint of desktop PC's that have been welcomed so recently into a number of shacks? How about a foot print of between 12" and 18" square, with a height of about 3"? That would make a rig about the same size as a DVD player, again, an item of consumerist products that until recently was unknown but now is de rigeur - again pointing out the spurious argument put up against HB. In a box 18" square by 3" tall, we'd have enough room to manoeuvre and to experiment with circuit changes but without worrying that our Henley "Solon" soldering irons were going to melt a component other than the one we're currently dealing with. |
Well done, that man!
I bet it's difficult, though, to experiment with the circuit configuration of any of them! "Brian - KB9BVN" wrote in message ink.net... I have several homebrew QRP rigs that fit in the palm of my hand. They're all HF...a couple even exceed 3w output. They make the FT817 seem like a bowling ball in the backpack. g |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com