This has been done to a certain degree by eme'rs. The K3 is a dual down-conversion radio with a 15-KHz SDR at the second IF (first IF=8.215 MHz). The K3 sub-RX is an exact duplicate of the main Rx which makes it the only commercially made radio that can be used for dual-channel phase-locked diversity reception.
For satellite operation, phase locking the two receivers is not required so any of the radios that have dual receivers could potentially be used on satellite. However, not all can operate in duplex mode. The Flex-5000 is available with a dual-Rx and cost about the same as the K3 dual-Rx. Both require VHF and UHF transverters. I'm not sure the Flex can operate in duplex mode. I have an idea for using the sub-RX in the K3 with a LP-Pan (or other SDR) to accomplish duplex operation (will require new firmware, at least). But that is the nicety of SDR's: you can redesign them in sw and get a new radio. There will be a batch of new dual-RX SDR's showing up in the coming year. One offering dual-Rx for 144/432/1296 has just been offered by HB9DRI targeting the eme market. Can it operate crossband and duplex? 73, Ed- KL7UW At 03:06 PM 5/3/2011, nh6vb Scheller wrote: >Ed, et al, > >It would be interesting to include the new generation SDR's, (FLEX RADIO's,) >in comparison to the radio's mentioned. Just a thought. Commends anyone? > >Peter, NH6VB > > > Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:17:57 -0800 > > To: k...@aol.com; amsat-bb@amsat.org > > From: kl...@acsalaska.net > > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Question about radios > > > > Jerry provides a more complete review and more > > depth (based on his having experience with more > > satellite capable radios). I should have > > mentioned the FT-837R, as it was the "best" > > before the advent of the new HF-light radios. I > > traded all my components for the single radio > > concept when I bought the FT-847 (too soon after > > its introduction), but it has done very well. I > > am still flip-flopping on whether to sell the > > FT-847 as it is still good for satellite use (and > > 432-eme). But my station is building up around > > the Elecraft K3 as core so we will see. > > > > I do question everyone's desire to have 1.2 GHz > > in the same box. Experienced microwavers all > > know that there is a lot of desirability to > > locate mw units near or at the antenna. This > > becomes a fact above 1.2 GHz where coax losses > > eat you up. My FT-847 operates on 2m for 1268 by > > using one of the (rare) DEMI 144/1268 Tx > > upconverters. It's not installed, at present, > > since repairing wind damage from last fall, I put > > up a reduced-saze array (still not fully > > functional). That unit produces 15w with about > > 1.5w drive on 144-MHz. It was produced for a > > short time during AO-40, and sales ended with > > AO-40's demise. I installed it on the elevation > > crossboom with 7-8 foot of LDF4-50 (1/2-inch) hardline to the loop-yagi. > > > > Today, one would have to purchase from db6nt > > (Kuhne Engineering) at higher cost (I think there > > might be a couple other sources for such a > > critter). So that gives the Icom and Kenwood > > radios an advantage (of sorts). But to get any > > reasonable RF to the antenna you will be running > > hardline, and if used for 1296, a remote > > preamp. Well, for satellites you should have > > remote preamps, anyway (this last advice is not > > directed to the hand-waving Arrow/HT crowd). > > > > There debate will continue as long as hams have radios ;-) > > > > Ed - KL7UW > > > > At 10:10 AM 5/3/2011, K5OE wrote: > > >I can tell already this is an old thread that > > >will go on for a while Money is almost never > > >ânot an issue,ââ so fitting the radio to the > > >user is always a matter of preferences and > > >priorities. If you want HF + satellite in one > > >rig, the TS-2000 and the FT-847 work, but not > > >the IC-910. If you want 23 cm in the rig, the > > >TS-2000 and the IC-910 work, but not the > > >FT-847. If you want to power your preamp(s) > > >without any external wiring, the FT-847 and > > >IC-910 work, but not the TS-2000. If you want a > > >built-in antenna tuner (HF), or a built-in TNC, > > >or built-in voice recorder, then only the > > >TS-2000 works. If you want lots of 3rd party > > >software, then the FT-847 is your best bet. I > > >agree with Ed, the IC-9100 seems priced > > >outrageously for what it isreminiscent of the > > >IC-970H. Maybe Iâve just lost a sense for > > >the marketlook at the priice of new cars! For > > >a strictly satellite rig, an IC-821H is still a > > >very good radio selling for half the price of a > > >used IC-910 (and just a bit more than a > > >FT-736the FFT-847 of a previous generation). A > > >decade ago I bought a TS-2000 for a number of > > >reasons, including the ability to work the HF > > >satellites (RS-12/13 and AO-7) in one rig. I > > >sold an FT-990 and an IC-820 and had money left > > >over. I still consider it really good > > >value. While I have never liked the controls as > > >well as my Yaesu HF rig(s), I came to really > > >appreciate the DSP functions and the CW features > > >and had great fun with the TNC on the ISS, > > >pacsats (especially UO-22, RIP), and APRS. I > > >added 1.2 GHz when AO-40 was launched. I scored > > >higher in HF contests with it than I ever had > > >with the non-DSP Yaesu rig. I wasnât bothered > > >(too much) by the infamous birdie because I > > >could tune around it with the combination of a > > >high-gain UHF antenna and a preamp, but do > > >consider it a fatal flaw to anyone considering > > >the radio for use on AO-27 or SO-50 with a > > >low-gain antenna system. Iâll end with an > > >echo of Deeâs comment below: spend your time > > >and money on the antennas, as almost any radio > > >will work with a good signal. 73, Jerry, K5OE > > >--- original message --- Having the FT-847 since > > >early 1998 and observing the IC-910 I would > > >recommend both over the TS-2000 or new IC-9100 > > >on basis of bucks spent. I realize both the 847 > > >and 910 are out of production but good used > > >units are available for <$900. The TS-2000 > > >"birdie" issue is unforgivable for the money > > >spent (Unless you are not interested in > > >satellites which the FT-857/897 would then be my > > >choice). The IC-9100 is outrageously expensive > > >and would only be a choice if you have no HF > > >equipment. It is still too new for a complete > > >opinion (for what you spend you could have top > > >notch transverters and a new K3*, or buy two > > >FT-817 with amps for a lot less). *Note: the K3 > > >is not able to do duplex at this time, but I > > >have an idea how it could by using the dual > > >receiver IF. My K3 with DEMI transverter is much > > >superior to the FT-847 on 2m, but that is only > > >for very weak-signal applications (satellites > > >are on the strong side of weak-signal if you get > > >my drift), and use on HF (which is not the > > >question that was asked). 73, Ed - KL7UW At > > >06:46 AM 5/3/2011, Dee wrote: >Andrew, >Being in > > >this end of the hobby for "many" years, I have > > >learned that >sometimes the choice comes down to > > >what you can afford. While the TS2000 is >a > > >nice radio, with the birdie problem, it leaves a > > >question. Ihave had 2 >Icom 910's for many > > >years and even have one of them adapted with the > > >1.2ghz >module. Both have worked flawless and > > >have been more than adequate. The >new ICOM > > >9100 (which you ask about) is a bit pricey for > > >the bands provided. >I have been following the > > >production of the 9100 and it has become out of > > >an >average hams price range. While the specs > > >are very good, you can achieve >the same effect > > >with a TS2000 - Icom 910- Yaesu 847 and even the > > >older icom >820 (?) - >Once again, I have always > > >advised sat ops to spend the money on the > > >antennas >and coax as this is where you'll find > > >the most advantage for your operation. >Good > > >luck and go to the AMSAT website to obtain a > > >truck load of info >pertaining to satellite > > >station construction and operating > > >advice. >73, >Dee, NB2F >NJ AMSAT > > >Coordinator > >-----Original Message----- >From: > > >amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org > > >[mailto:amsat-bb-boun...@amsat.org] On >Behalf > > >Of Alvaro Gaviria >Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 > > >4:51 PM >To: amsat-bb@amsat.org >Subject: > > >[amsat-bb] Question about radios > >Hello > > >all, > > > >Can someone tell what is better for > > >satellite work, the Kenwood TS-2000X or >the > > >Icom IC- 9100 ?? > > > >Best > > >regards > > > >Andrew >HK4MKE > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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 > > > > > > 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 > > ====================================== > > BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com > > EME: 50-1.1kW?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-? > > DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubus...@hotmail.com > > ====================================== > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kW?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-testing*, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubus...@hotmail.com ====================================== _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. 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
