Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in
the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you
are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM
shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very
faint far off stations at the limit of audibility.

What I write about is the owners of portables who are constantly
trying to maximise their portables performance with ever larger and
more powerful antenna's. This can actually be counterproductive as
portables are not designed to take a powerful antenna, rather they are
designed to maximise their performance only on the whip antenna.
Connecting more than 50ft/15m of wire to a portable is likely to bring
on all sorts of problems that will actually reduce good performance.
By this I mean that it will overload the front end of the radio and
lead to distorted sound and spurious signals all over the place.

I say this in relation to most of the portables in the $200 and $100
and less range. The Eton E1 at $500 is an exception and can
comfortably operate with a powerful receiving antenna, such as a good
active or 500ft/150m of longwire. My Sony 2010 overloaded badly with
too much wire and blew the front end twice as a result.

Don't put too much wire or too powerful an antenna on a portable.

When to upgrade to a tabletop such as the Palstar, Yaesu 100, Icom IC-
R75 etc? When you can actually connect a decent antenna and when you
want faultless sound from far distant stations. I see a lot of fella's
wasting their money on expensive table tops who live in apartments =
really a waste of money. A decent portable such as the Redsun RP2100/
Kaito KA2100/CC Crane SW will do just as well.

Sadly I see that Universal now only offer two tabletops for current
sale: the Icom R75 at $600 and the AOR 7030+ at $1500. The number of
SW listeners have really declined over the years. But that is where I
advocate buying a transceiver, as there is a wide variety on offer in
all price ranges, and that is why I myself have used transceivers in
the last three years. Of course there is always the preowned market
and eBay for used tabletop receivers.

Having waffled on about all that, there is a new branch of our
wonderful hobby appearing, and that is the "ultralight" receivers. The
creme de la creme of which appears to be the Eton E100. These chaps
modify this tiny little radio and get the most astonishing reception
out of them, but I hasten to add that a good tabletop is always
better.

So have fun, enjoy your radio's and good DX.

John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
Icom IC-7700, Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
ERGO software
Drake SW8. Sangean 803A
Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop.
http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:31:07 -0700, plimmer wrote:

Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in
the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you
are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM
shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very faint
far off stations at the limit of audibility.

I have an R8B that I keep in my office and use it when Ace reports Diego
Garcia or a pirate; otherwise it gathers dust.

I have an R75 bedside I use to listen to Mark Levin and Michael Savage
on, while drifting off.

I have an SW2 and an HF-150 in storage, waiting for the return of
sunspots. When that happens, I'll have everything blazing on the Coast
Guard and the USAF, maybe some DEA Atlas type stuff.

I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting
something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster.

My portables are used as portables. An E10 and an RFB40 in the
bathrooms, an ATS606A in the backpack, an SG622 for the yard, and a
Yachtboy 300 for backup (terrible audio).

Dear John,

Your posts are always enjoyable to read and this one is no exception.
You are correct when you indicate that some shortwave listeners are
trying to do "too much" with portable receivers - these radios are
just not designed to be DX machines. (How would you modify a Kia Rio
so that it could compete in the French Grand Prix or Indianapolis 500
motor race? The short answer is "you couldn't." And the same holds
true for portable shortwave receivers, with the POSSIBLE exception of
the Eton E1, the Grundig Satellit 800, or the Drake SW-8 - and a
couple of Lowe semi-portables.)

It is a pity that more SWLs do not own tabletop models. I suspect that
this is partly due to their cost but it may be that, as tabletops do
indeed require "top" antennas and dedication (there is a LONG learning
curve - I've been learning for fifty years now), many (most?) people
are just not willing to make the effort in this age of "instant
gratification."

Frankly, this is not a good time to buy a tabletop (unless you are a
"radio collector" or are upgrading/replacing a unit) as we are now at
the bottom of the eleven-year sunspot cycle. Conditions are mediocre
at best and this would surely discourage most newcomers to tabletops;
expecting lots of exotic signals, they would be most disappointed when
they heard little more than their portable, with its whip, could
supply. That's not to say that a good tabletop/antenna combination
would not do that, it's just that I do not believe many people would
be willing to take the time to learn HOW to do it.

That said, however, I should encourage shortwave listeners who are
fairly serious about the hobby to consider purchase of a good tabletop
(and the ICOM and, especially the AOR in my opinion, are two excellent
receivers at relatively affordable prices). As you stated, the antenna
is of PRIME importance. After all, it is the ANTENNA that picks up the
signals; the radio merely translates those signals to something we can
hear. Of course, as you said, the antenna MUST be matched to the
receiver. Apartment dwellers need not necessarily be excluded from
owning a tabletop, however; there are always tricks to erecting a
suitable antenna in such a location and it has been done many, many
times. I encourage all here to learn as much about shortwave/MW
antennas as they can. Certainly there is no lack of information on the
web and there are many books on the subject as well.

Obviously there is a major place for portable receivers in our
armamentarium but they are no substitute for a good tabletop/antenna
combination nor should anyone ever consider that they might be.

We must get over the desire for that "instant gratification." The
hobby of DXing with the proper equipment will give you FAR more
pleasure, entertainment, and enjoyment than the relatively small
effort it takes in learning it.

Best,

Joe

On Jul 10, 2:31*pm, wrote:
Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in
the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you
are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM
shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very
faint far off stations at the limit of audibility.

What I write about is the owners of portables who are constantly
trying to maximise their portables performance with ever larger and
more powerful antenna's. This can actually be counterproductive as
portables are not designed to take a powerful antenna, rather they are
designed to maximise their performance only on the whip antenna.
Connecting more than 50ft/15m of wire to a portable is likely to bring
on all sorts of problems that will actually reduce good performance.
By this I mean that it will overload the front end of the radio and
lead to distorted sound and spurious signals all over the place.

I say this in relation to most of the portables in the $200 and $100
and less range. The Eton E1 at $500 is an exception and can
comfortably operate with a powerful receiving antenna, such as a good
active or 500ft/150m of longwire. My Sony 2010 overloaded badly with
too much wire and blew the front end twice as a result.

Don't put too much wire or too powerful an antenna on a portable.

When to upgrade to a tabletop such as the Palstar, Yaesu 100, Icom IC-
R75 etc? When you can actually connect a decent antenna and when you
want faultless sound from far distant stations. I see a lot of fella's
wasting their money on expensive table tops who live in apartments =
really a waste of money. A decent portable such as the Redsun RP2100/
Kaito KA2100/CC Crane SW will do just as well.

Sadly I see that Universal now only offer two tabletops for current
sale: the Icom R75 at $600 and the AOR 7030+ at $1500. The number of
SW listeners have really declined over the years. But that is where I
advocate buying a transceiver, as there is a wide variety on offer in
all price ranges, and that is why I myself have used transceivers in
the last three years. Of course there is always the preowned market
and eBay for used tabletop receivers.

Having waffled on about all that, there is a new branch of our
wonderful hobby appearing, and that is the "ultralight" receivers. The
creme de la creme of which appears to be the Eton E100. These chaps
modify this tiny little radio and get the most astonishing reception
out of them, but I hasten to add that a good tabletop is always
better.

So have fun, enjoy your radio's and good DX.

John Plimmer, Montagu, Western Cape Province, South Africa
South 33 d 47 m 32 s, East 20 d 07 m 32 s
Icom IC-7700, Icom IC-756 PRO III with MW mods
ERGO software
Drake SW8. Sangean 803A
Sony 7600D, GE SRIII, Redsun RP2100
Antenna's RF Systems DX 1 Pro Mk II, Datong AD-270
Kiwa MW Loop.http://www.dxing.info/about/dxers/plimmer.dx

On Jul 10, 12:39*pm, Dave wrote:

I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting
something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster.



Assuming you want one radio for HF, 2, 6 and 70cm there is only one
real choice...the Kenwood TS-2000. It is an outstanding radio offering
features in one box that no one else can match. Yes, you could get an
Icom 706 MK2G, but I would advise you to spend a few more dollars for
the 2000. The Kenwood does many things very well, but probably is not
the best at any of them. Mine is used for 2, 6 and 70cm, and for cross
band repeating when I can't be in the air chair. I use the 950sdx for
HF.

Best of luck with your license, and let me know if I can help you with
your new hobby. 73

3D

In article
,
wrote:

SNIP

When to upgrade to a tabletop such as the Palstar, Yaesu 100, Icom IC-
R75 etc? When you can actually connect a decent antenna and when you
want faultless sound from far distant stations. I see a lot of fella's
wasting their money on expensive table tops who live in apartments =
really a waste of money. A decent portable such as the Redsun RP2100/
Kaito KA2100/CC Crane SW will do just as well.

SNIP

Now let's not get to excited here. A table top can be well worth the
money for people that live in apartments and other radio challenging
abodes. It just takes a little more knowledge and proper application of
antennas. Apparently people that read this news group don't pay very
good attention to what I have written or are not very good
experimenters if they agree with your sentiments.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
Joe Analssandrini wrote:

SNIP

That said, however, I should encourage shortwave listeners who are
fairly serious about the hobby to consider purchase of a good tabletop
(and the ICOM and, especially the AOR in my opinion, are two excellent
receivers at relatively affordable prices). As you stated, the antenna
is of PRIME importance. After all, it is the ANTENNA that picks up the
signals; the radio merely translates those signals to something we can
hear.

SNIP

Again calm down. The radio is half the equation and is just as important
as the antenna. Think of an antenna, transmission line, and radio as a
receiving system.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

3D wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:39 pm, Dave wrote:

I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting
something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster.



Assuming you want one radio for HF, 2, 6 and 70cm there is only one
real choice...the Kenwood TS-2000. It is an outstanding radio offering
features in one box that no one else can match. Yes, you could get an
Icom 706 MK2G, but I would advise you to spend a few more dollars for
the 2000. The Kenwood does many things very well, but probably is not
the best at any of them. Mine is used for 2, 6 and 70cm, and for cross
band repeating when I can't be in the air chair. I use the 950sdx for
HF.

Best of luck with your license, and let me know if I can help you with
your new hobby. 73

3D

Thanks. I will look into the Kenwood.

Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even
possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious
emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code?

On Jul 10, 3:39*pm, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:31:07 -0700, plimmer wrote:
Everyone in this group owns a portable, some many portables. Fewer in
the group own tabletops and even fewer serious tabletops. Most of you
are just content to listen to the more powerful stations on the AM
shortwave band. A very few are serious DXer's who chase those very faint
far off stations at the limit of audibility.

I have an R8B that I keep in my office and use it when Ace reports Diego
Garcia or a pirate; otherwise it gathers dust.

I have an R75 bedside I use to listen to Mark Levin and Michael Savage
on, while drifting off.

I have an SW2 and an HF-150 in storage, waiting for the return of
sunspots. *When that happens, I'll have everything blazing on the Coast
Guard and the USAF, maybe some DEA Atlas type stuff.

I'm getting an amateur license later this month, so I'll be getting
something with 6-2-70cm and HF, probably for the Family Truckster.

My portables are used as portables. *An E10 and an RFB40 in the
bathrooms, an ATS606A in the backpack, an SG622 for the yard, and a
Yachtboy 300 for backup (terrible audio).

I don't have big expensive tabletop receivers... but I use my
Panasonic RF2200 as a tabletop.... it is really too big to call a
portable in my opinion... but I guess it is since it also uses
batteries if you wish, so I guess many people would consider it a
portable. I won;t argue.. It is portable... but I wouldn't toss it
into a backpack... just too much radio for that.
Portables for me are my Eton E5 (Grundig G5), Sony ICF 7600D (ICF
2002), Kaito KA1102, Eton E100, Kaito KA11
With a Degen fold up DE 31 MS active antenna and TG34 Active antenna
from tquchina on Ebay. Not as good as the Sony antenna... but...taking
the size and price into consideration... those antennas are
respectable performers in my opinion.
Cato

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:40:58 -0700, Dave wrote:

Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even
possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious
emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code?

I didn't see any answers to these questions posted, so I'll have a go
at it. In order of their appearance:

I presume that by "automated send/receive" you are referring to the
use of a computer and software to send and receive CW, as opposed to
sending by hand and receiving by ear. This is "OK" as far as being
well within FCC rules (and again I have made an assumption that you
are in the USA and will be subject to FCC rules, based on your
apparently being a customer of DSL Extreme, a U.S. ISP).

There are, however, a few issues with this if you're going to be
operating QRP from portable locations. For example, you must power not
only your radio but also the computer you're using to send and receive
code. This kind of limits your operating to the life of the battery in
your laptop, unless you're going to haul a relatively large battery
around with you to power the lappy and radio.

Also, FWIW, it's not too difficult to tell the difference between
hand-sent code and code generated by a machine, and there are
unfortunately some snobbish types out there who will not answer you if
you're using machine-sent CW. These seem to be the same folks who
harbor grudges about codeless licenses and the best way for the rest
of us to deal with them is probably to just ignore them just as they
ignore others, continue to make contacts with those who are not code
test or license-class bigots, and not let them ruin our enjoyment of
the hobby...but one should be aware that these people are out there.

Is it possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of
spurious emissions? Of course it is! Check out the Elecraft K2 for one
example. Or some of Ten-Tec's QRP stuff.

For that matter, there are many homebrew QRP CW rig designs scattered
around various web sites, and many QRP groups to query as to which
designs are worth building and which are better avoided for one reason
or another. Hook up with such a group - K3WWP has a decent list of
them on his website at the following URL:

http://home.alltel.net/johnshan/links_ss_qrpc.html

You might also find his page on QRP equipment helpful. Follow the link
on the left side of the page whose URL appears above. Anyway, hook up
with one or more of these groups, and pick the brains of the
experienced QRP ops there regarding QRP rig designs that are based on
sound engineering principles and are consistent with common amateur
radio practice - they're they guys with the experience and knowledge
to help you avoid dirty transmitter designs and steer you toward
something you'll be happy with and proud to put on the air.

As for whether it would be easier to just learn code - it would
certainly make it easier to operate in CW mode if you have a working
knowledge of the code. For one thing, it eliminates the dependency on
a computer or other electronic device - most of which have a difficult
time "decoding" received signals unless they are quite strong and are
well-keyed...and even if the signal is very strong, no decoder can
clean up a lousy "fist" at the sending end. However, the task of
learning the code is much easier for some people than it is for others
(it only took me about 28 years, some guys have needed a couple of
days to learn it), so in the end, the answer to this question depends
on how quickly and easily you can learn the code.

Hope this helps.

73 DE John Kasupski, KC2HMZ

John Kasupski wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:40:58 -0700, Dave wrote:

Is it OK to use automated send/receive on the QRP CW bands? Is it even
possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of spurious
emissions? Would it be easier to just learn code?

I didn't see any answers to these questions posted, so I'll have a go
at it. In order of their appearance:

I presume that by "automated send/receive" you are referring to the
use of a computer and software to send and receive CW, as opposed to
sending by hand and receiving by ear. This is "OK" as far as being
well within FCC rules (and again I have made an assumption that you
are in the USA and will be subject to FCC rules, based on your
apparently being a customer of DSL Extreme, a U.S. ISP).

There are, however, a few issues with this if you're going to be
operating QRP from portable locations. For example, you must power not
only your radio but also the computer you're using to send and receive
code. This kind of limits your operating to the life of the battery in
your laptop, unless you're going to haul a relatively large battery
around with you to power the lappy and radio.

Also, FWIW, it's not too difficult to tell the difference between
hand-sent code and code generated by a machine, and there are
unfortunately some snobbish types out there who will not answer you if
you're using machine-sent CW. These seem to be the same folks who
harbor grudges about codeless licenses and the best way for the rest
of us to deal with them is probably to just ignore them just as they
ignore others, continue to make contacts with those who are not code
test or license-class bigots, and not let them ruin our enjoyment of
the hobby...but one should be aware that these people are out there.

Is it possible to build something that doesn't generate a lot of
spurious emissions? Of course it is! Check out the Elecraft K2 for one
example. Or some of Ten-Tec's QRP stuff.

For that matter, there are many homebrew QRP CW rig designs scattered
around various web sites, and many QRP groups to query as to which
designs are worth building and which are better avoided for one reason
or another. Hook up with such a group - K3WWP has a decent list of
them on his website at the following URL:

http://home.alltel.net/johnshan/links_ss_qrpc.html

You might also find his page on QRP equipment helpful. Follow the link
on the left side of the page whose URL appears above. Anyway, hook up
with one or more of these groups, and pick the brains of the
experienced QRP ops there regarding QRP rig designs that are based on
sound engineering principles and are consistent with common amateur
radio practice - they're they guys with the experience and knowledge
to help you avoid dirty transmitter designs and steer you toward
something you'll be happy with and proud to put on the air.

As for whether it would be easier to just learn code - it would
certainly make it easier to operate in CW mode if you have a working
knowledge of the code. For one thing, it eliminates the dependency on
a computer or other electronic device - most of which have a difficult
time "decoding" received signals unless they are quite strong and are
well-keyed...and even if the signal is very strong, no decoder can
clean up a lousy "fist" at the sending end. However, the task of
learning the code is much easier for some people than it is for others
(it only took me about 28 years, some guys have needed a couple of
days to learn it), so in the end, the answer to this question depends
on how quickly and easily you can learn the code.

Hope this helps.

73 DE John Kasupski, KC2HMZ

Thanks. I learned Morse incorrectly in the Boy Scouts (dit-dah, dah,
dit-dit-dit, etc.) about 48 years ago. I will relearn it strictly by
sound and cadence, using that little MFJ doodad. I really would like to
use my Eee PC for some kind of extremely mobile, but sophisticated,
setup. Thank-you again.