On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:39 -0500, starman wrote:



Soliloquy wrote:

PLEASE READ. Computers uses RS-232 signal levels and protocol when you
connect to the serial port. The FRG-100 Requires TTL levels to connect to
it, therefore signal conversions need to take place between the computer
and radio.

DO NOT CONNECT your FRG-100 directly to the serial port, use a compatible
converter, like the Yaesu CT-62 for the FRG-100.

That's strange. Why would they not have designed it with an RS-232
interface?
Because RS-232 levels require voltages that are rarely seen on
transistorized equipment these days. Just about everything except
RS232 run on 3.3 or 5 volts. RS232 levels are + and - 10 volts or so,
and 20ma current loop is often about 100 volts!

Chips like the Max232 exist to deal with precisely this problem...

matt weber wrote in
:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:39 -0500, starman wrote:

That's strange. Why would they not have designed it with an RS-232
interface?
Because RS-232 levels require voltages that are rarely seen on
transistorized equipment these days. Just about everything except
RS232 run on 3.3 or 5 volts. RS232 levels are + and - 10 volts or so,
and 20ma current loop is often about 100 volts!

Chips like the Max232 exist to deal with precisely this problem...


That answers my question as well. I knew not to do it, though I did not
understand why they choose TTL levels. Thanks

Soliloquy

matt weber wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:39 -0500, starman wrote:



Soliloquy wrote:

PLEASE READ. Computers uses RS-232 signal levels and protocol when you
connect to the serial port. The FRG-100 Requires TTL levels to connect to
it, therefore signal conversions need to take place between the computer
and radio.

DO NOT CONNECT your FRG-100 directly to the serial port, use a compatible
converter, like the Yaesu CT-62 for the FRG-100.

That's strange. Why would they not have designed it with an RS-232
interface?
Because RS-232 levels require voltages that are rarely seen on
transistorized equipment these days. Just about everything except
RS232 run on 3.3 or 5 volts. RS232 levels are + and - 10 volts or so,
and 20ma current loop is often about 100 volts!

Chips like the Max232 exist to deal with precisely this problem...

Yes, but why didn't Yaesu implement a proper RS-232 interface like most
table-top receivers have done in recent years? I guess only they can
answer that question.

starman wrote in :


Why don't most cars come standard with tire chains installed? Probably
because most people would have no need for them. The Yaesu FRG-100 Pre-
Dates the R-75 by 7 years. The Yaesu FRG-100 was introduced in 1992, the
Icom R-75 in 1999.

Although it seems like computers have been with us forever, their common
use in terms of being interfaced, by the average Joe, with radios is a
relatively recent phenomenon.

The Yaesu design apparently goes back 13 years. Look here for a little
computer history. http://www.computerhope.com/history/19902000.htm
http://www.computerhope.com/win3x.htm

Notice that the release date for Windows 3.1 was also in 1992. Whoopee,
Windows 3.1, I would guess that those computers had USB ports. No, why
not? Ah, the evolution of the equipment only produced USB ports in later
years.

Perhaps this is why the FRG-100, released in 1992, and no doubt being
designed a few years before that, didn't obsess about converting the CAT
port to Serial Port levels. I believe that the port was there more for
the option of Remote Control operation than computer interface.

My point is that obsessions with extras does not necessarily make for
good equipment. The Yaesu FRG-100 is a solid performer, even without the
additional features of the Icom R-75. For that matter, is there anyone
out there with a fully operational Palstar R-30C, in like new condition,
that they would like to swap for my fully operational R-75, also in like
new condition?

You can't get any more basic than the Palstar R-30C. But it is also a
performer. Gone are all of those seductive buttons and knobs, instead,
the money goes into the quality of the components used throughout. And
most frightening, I don't even know if it has Computer Control options,
"Oh the Humanity"!

http://www.palstar.com/r30.php

Soliloquy


matt weber wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:39 -0500, starman wrote:



Soliloquy wrote:

Yes, but why didn't Yaesu implement a proper RS-232 interface like
most table-top receivers have done in recent years? I guess only they
can answer that question.

Soliloquy wrote:

starman wrote in :

Why don't most cars come standard with tire chains installed? Probably
because most people would have no need for them. The Yaesu FRG-100 Pre-
Dates the R-75 by 7 years. The Yaesu FRG-100 was introduced in 1992, the
Icom R-75 in 1999.

Although it seems like computers have been with us forever, their common
use in terms of being interfaced, by the average Joe, with radios is a
relatively recent phenomenon.

The Yaesu design apparently goes back 13 years. Look here for a little
computer history. http://www.computerhope.com/history/19902000.htm
http://www.computerhope.com/win3x.htm

Notice that the release date for Windows 3.1 was also in 1992. Whoopee,
Windows 3.1, I would guess that those computers had USB ports. No, why
not? Ah, the evolution of the equipment only produced USB ports in later
years.

Perhaps this is why the FRG-100, released in 1992, and no doubt being
designed a few years before that, didn't obsess about converting the CAT
port to Serial Port levels. I believe that the port was there more for
the option of Remote Control operation than computer interface.

My point is that obsessions with extras does not necessarily make for
good equipment. The Yaesu FRG-100 is a solid performer, even without the
additional features of the Icom R-75. For that matter, is there anyone
out there with a fully operational Palstar R-30C, in like new condition,
that they would like to swap for my fully operational R-75, also in like
new condition?

You can't get any more basic than the Palstar R-30C. But it is also a
performer. Gone are all of those seductive buttons and knobs, instead,
the money goes into the quality of the components used throughout. And
most frightening, I don't even know if it has Computer Control options,
"Oh the Humanity"!

http://www.palstar.com/r30.php

Soliloquy

matt weber wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:39 -0500, starman wrote:



Soliloquy wrote:

Yes, but why didn't Yaesu implement a proper RS-232 interface like
most table-top receivers have done in recent years? I guess only they
can answer that question.

I've never used computer control with any receiver I've ever owned and have had
at least modest success in the dx'ing hobby.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Yeah, I know what you mean. I tried a couple of different computer
control programs on the R-5000. While they both worked and I could
indeed tune around and the pc expanded the number of memories it was
actually more work than just spinning the knob and punching buttons.
And I was forever tracking down computer noise.


dxAce wrote:
Soliloquy wrote:

starman wrote in
:

Why don't most cars come standard with tire chains installed?
Probably
because most people would have no need for them. The Yaesu FRG-100
Pre-
Dates the R-75 by 7 years. The Yaesu FRG-100 was introduced in
1992, the
Icom R-75 in 1999.

Although it seems like computers have been with us forever, their
common
use in terms of being interfaced, by the average Joe, with radios
is a
relatively recent phenomenon.

The Yaesu design apparently goes back 13 years. Look here for a
little
computer history. http://www.computerhope.com/history/19902000.htm
http://www.computerhope.com/win3x.htm

Notice that the release date for Windows 3.1 was also in 1992.
Whoopee,
Windows 3.1, I would guess that those computers had USB ports. No,
why
not? Ah, the evolution of the equipment only produced USB ports in
later
years.

Perhaps this is why the FRG-100, released in 1992, and no doubt
being
designed a few years before that, didn't obsess about converting
the CAT
port to Serial Port levels. I believe that the port was there more
for
the option of Remote Control operation than computer interface.

My point is that obsessions with extras does not necessarily make
for
good equipment. The Yaesu FRG-100 is a solid performer, even
without the
additional features of the Icom R-75. For that matter, is there
anyone
out there with a fully operational Palstar R-30C, in like new
condition,
that they would like to swap for my fully operational R-75, also in
like
new condition?

You can't get any more basic than the Palstar R-30C. But it is also
a
performer. Gone are all of those seductive buttons and knobs,
instead,
the money goes into the quality of the components used throughout.
And
most frightening, I don't even know if it has Computer Control
options,
"Oh the Humanity"!

http://www.palstar.com/r30.php

Soliloquy

matt weber wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:39 -0500, starman
wrote:



Soliloquy wrote:

Yes, but why didn't Yaesu implement a proper RS-232 interface
like
most table-top receivers have done in recent years? I guess only
they
can answer that question.

I've never used computer control with any receiver I've ever owned
and have had
at least modest success in the dx'ing hobby.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm