It would need to be marketed, in addition to being a satellite rig, as a high performance, contest quality, VHF/UHF rig aimed at the highest level VHF ops. The casual weak signal op is going to stick with the FT897D and Icom 7000.
73s John AA5JG --- On Mon, 3/1/10, Ken Ernandes <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ken Ernandes <[email protected]> > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Wish List, The Ideal VHF/UHF Sat Rig > To: "Mark L. Hammond" <[email protected]>, "MM" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Monday, March 1, 2010, 1:47 PM > I'm not normally one to throw cold > water on creative ideas, but I will put myself in the > position of the potential manufacturer. What any > manufacturer would need to even contemplate this project is > good answers to a few basic questions: > > 1. Can I come up with a design to these > specifications that I can sell in the realistic price range > of the typical amateur operator? > 2. Is there a large enough market out there that I > can make a profit on this exercise? > > My guess is the manufacturers wouldn't touch this one with > 3.048-meter pole without at least one functioning high > altitude satellite on orbit. I realize these are > frustrating times, but I think you'll need to come up with > more than just a wish list. Perhaps a group could get > together and prototype portions to make a plausible case > that this can be built economically. > > Can it be done? Probably... But those who > really want it will probably need to invest a lot of sweat > equity to prove it. > > 73, Ken N2WWD > > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: "Mark L. Hammond" <[email protected]> > >Sent: Mar 1, 2010 1:55 PM > >To: MM <[email protected]> > >Cc: [email protected] > >Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Wish List, The Ideal VHF/UHF > Sat Rig > > > >How about IF tap (10.7MHz) and high speed packet ready > (up to say, 76k > >or faster)? > > > >(Maybe I missed it, but I don't think I saw those 2 > features...) > > > >73, > > > >Mark N8MH > > > >On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:44 PM, MM <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> My Ideal Competition Grade VHF/UHF Radio Wish > list. > >> > >> It seems we are long over do for a Competition > grade high performance VHF/UHF transceiver, which can also > be used for Satellite operations. There are several > competition grade HF transceivers on the market, however > there are no high end competition grade VHF/UHF/Satellite > systems on the marker. > >> > >> Most of the rigs I have seen which support > VHF/UHF are either HF rigs that have had VHF/UHF slapped on, > or low end VHF/UHF rigs, with HF slapped on. > >> > >> If we want the Amateur Radio manufactures to build > us a "GREAT" VHF/UHF/Satellite system, then we need to tell > them what we need. > >> > >> Here are some suggestions. Constructive comments > welcome. > >> > >> This radio does not exist. > >> If the manufactures are interested in providing a > new state of the art VHF/UHF radio to the Amateur Radio > community, here is one opinion of what should be in next > Competition Grade VHF/UHF Transceiver and what should not be > in the radio. > >> > >> I am going to give this fictional radio a name > HR-956-Pro. > >> > >> > >> What do we need: > >> > >> • We need a competition grade VHF/UHF > transceiver that will support Terrestrial-DX, Satellite and > EME operations (Voice, CW and Digital-JT65). > >> • The HR-956-Pro, needs to be able to > interface with modern computers (HTML Browser, USB and or > CAT-5). > >> • The HR-956-Pro, needs to able to > interface with modern Externally mounted Pre-amplifier (both > power feeds and transmitter sequencing). > >> • The HR-956-Pro, need to be able to > interface with modern Solid State Amplifiers and Tube based > amplifiers. The RF output per band needs to be > standardized with the Amplifier manufactures to prevent > transceiver and amplifier failures due to sequencing > problems and RF mismatching. > >> • TX/RX Sequencer built-in, to control > external Preamps, Amplifies and other accessories > (programmable). > >> > >> Receiver: > >> Of course we need a "Great" receiver, not another > mediocre receiver. > >> Each receiver for each band needs to be a "Great" > performer. > >> > >> No Birdies: > >> On a HF rig, a few Birdies do not usually cause > serious issues, since the HF users are often listening to > signals "Above" the noise floor. On a Satellite Radio, we > are often listening to signals 10-30 dB, "Below" the Noise > floor. Internally generated birdies are a serious problem > for weak signal VHF/UHF operations. > >> > >> Filters: > >> Each mode will need its own selection of DSP > filters. The filters would also affect one of the > Line-level outputs to the external PC. There are times > when want to send Filtered or unfiltered audio to your > external PC for Digital signal processing. One of the > line-level outputs should be taped before the HR-956-Pro > Filters, the other line-level output should be taped after > the HR-956-Pro filters. The TX and RX filters should be > independently selectable. > >> The Filters need to be tested to verify they will > support Satellite Mode-J (TX on 2-meters while listening on > 435-438) > >> > >> Example: > >> FM-5k, Filters 15k, 10k and 8k filters. > >> AM Filters 10k, 6k, 3k, etc. > >> SSB Filters 4.0k, 3.0k, 2.5k, > 2.0k, etc. > >> > >> Other Modes: > >> CW, FM-2.5k, Data > >> > >> Audio Quality: > >> Life is too short for QRP or Poor Audio. > >> It's not the number of contacts that’s > important, it’s the quality of the contact. > >> On the audio side, the HR-956-Pro needs to be able > to support a wider range of audio through most of the > stages. Of course the radio needs to meet FCC and other > requirements, however we can still design the radio to > deliver a wider bandwidth of good sounding audio. > >> Let's shoot for 100-4000 Hz, on both TX and RX > audio circuits. This will also mean, that a better stock > microphone design will be required. > >> > >> > >> VHF / UHF Bands built-in, with competition grade > TX/RX: > >> 6-meters 50-54 > >> 2-meters 144-148 > >> 70-cm 420 - 450 > >> 23-cm 1280 - 1300 > >> (All frequencies localized for each country) > >> > >> Transmitter outputs: > >> A high power transceiver is less desirable than a > low power transceiver. > >> > >> Let me explain: > >> For serious Terrestrial DX and EME you need to run > more than 100 watts. A VHF/UHF transceiver designed for high > power ( 100 watt range) transmitting, would not be > compatible with third-party amplifiers or pre-amplifiers. > >> > >> Most VHF/UHF amps are designed for 25 or 50 watts > maximum input. > >> > >> The manufactures of Transceivers and Amplifies > need to agree upon a set of standard power level so the > third-party amplifier manufactures can design properly > matched Amplifiers and pre-amplifiers. This will also help > reduce the number of transceiver and amplifier failures > caused by mismatched RF settings. > >> > >> Suggested standards for VHF/UHF bases stations: > >> 6 Meters 50 watts > >> 2 Meters 25 watts > >> 70 cm 25 watts > >> 900 mc 10 watts > >> 1.2 gig 10 watts > >> > >> The duty cycle of the competition grade system, > will also need to be greater than a 70% duty cycle. > >> A typical EME link running JT65 requires a 50% for > 10-30 minutes at a time. The transistors and cooling > system needs to be designed accordingly to meet the > competition grade requirements. > >> > >> > >> HR-956-Pro Must have list: > >> > >> Spectrum display screen: > >> I can't imagine building a new > competition grade system without this feature. > >> It would be nice to see the band pass, > before and after the filter stages. > >> > >> Full computer remote control: > >> Memory read/Read and save. All memory channels > options must be exportable to a CSV or similar file, > including TX and RX frequencies, settings, including > Repeater or split frequency settings. > >> All protocols must be Public protocols, no > propriety software or licenses. > >> > >> > >> Doppler Control (Manual): > >> > >> LEO SSB satellites are some of the hardest > satellites two work because of the amount of Doppler > frequency change per second. Satellite Mode-B is very hard > (70 cm Uplink and 2-meter Downlink). While you are talking > through a SSB Mod-B satellite, you need to be simultaneously > adjusting your transmitter with every other word, in order > to keep your downlink signal centered inside the > transponder. > >> > >> The Yasue FT-736R Satellite control knob, seems to > work very well with dual VFO's and provides you the ability > to quickly change either TX or RX to compensate for Doppler > (among other features). The Knob style is much easier to > use than "Buttons". I found the Doppler VFO correction on > some newer radios to be very frustrating. > >> The new HR-956-Pro must have the Yasue FT-736R > control Knob and it must be functional for both VFO's and > Memory Channels. > >> > >> > >> DSP Noise tools: > >> The usual stuff. > >> > >> > >> FM Center Tuning Meter: > >> Many of the new satellites are LEO's (Low Earth > Orbit), and many of these satellites are running FM-5k. > The reason for FM is because the Doppler causes the 70cm > band to drift over 20, kHz during a 10-20 minute pass. The > LEO SSB satellites using Mode J or Mode B are difficult to > use because of the large Doppler change. The FM mode, > helps reduce the impact caused by the higher Doppler. > >> > >> The FM Center Tuning Meter feature is a "must > have" for a Satellite radio. > >> When the FM satellite comes in range, just look at > the FM meter and tune the receiver until the needle is > centered and you now know the exact downlink for that > Satellite. If the needle is left, turn the RX knob slowly > Right, If the needle is Right, turn the RX knob slowly > left, very simple. > >> The Yaesu FT-736R has a FM Center Tuning Meter and > it makes working FM satellites much easier. The IC-910 has > a blinking light to tell you your FM satellite receiver > frequency has drifted. Unfortunately, the blinking light is > useless in telling you if your frequency is high or low. > >> > >> > >> HR-956-Pro, Nice to have list: > >> > >> General coverage receiver (50 - 1000 megacycles): > >> The addition of a general coverage receiver would > help with the sales of the HR-956-Pro. However, it is very > important that the general coverage receiver, NOT degrade > the performance of the satellite receivers. We are not > trying to build a super police scanner. One possible > suggestion would-be to make the general coverage receiver a > separate circuit board, which would be connected to a > separate antenna port and thus would not degraded from the > performance of the satellite receivers. > >> > >> VHF / UHF Optional bands or Transverter: > >> The Amateur radio community is constantly > experimenting with new bands. It would be nice to have a > Transverter module or expansion module for future bands. > In the USA these bands are becoming popular, 220mc, 900 > mc, etc > >> > >> (All frequencies localized for each country) > >> > >> > >> Size is important: > >> To hold the hardware, band scope, filters and make > the buttons easily accessible, a box about the size of the > IC-756 product seems to be the right size. > >> > >> What should not be in the HR-956-Pro. > >> > >> No HF: > >> No access to frequencies below 50 megacycles. > >> The addition of HF to a satellite radio would only > degrade the performance of the weak signal satellite > receivers. > >> HF would also add to the cost of the transceiver > and reduce its sales potential. > >> A competition grade VHF/UHF transceiver has no use > for HF. > >> HF would result in the radio being just another > mediocre transceiver. > >> > >> No obsolete Serial ports: > >> No RS-232 or TTL. > >> These devices are so last century. > >> > >> DSTAR: > >> The DSTAR mode is fun, I use it often and I have > even been pushing ARISS to install it on the International > Space Station. As much as I like this mode, it is not a > requirement for a competition grade satellite system. I > would much rather have the money put into making the VHF/UHF > receivers the best possible. > >> > >> > >> How much are we willing to pay for the > HR-956-Pro: > >> > >> That depends on the performance, suggest price > $2000 - $3000 USD > >> > >> Closing: > >> > >> If anyone knows of such a radio I would be > interested to know who makes it. > >> > >> > >> Sincerely > >> > >> WF1F Miles > >> www.marexmg.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sent via [email protected]. > Opinions expressed are those of the author. > >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the > amateur satellite program! > >> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >Mark L. Hammond [N8MH] > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Sent via [email protected]. > Opinions expressed are those of the author. > >Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur > satellite program! > >Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via [email protected]. > Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur > satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
