AmateurRadio.com

Author Archive

I have never owned a Ten-Tec transceiver (although I once built and used one of its transverter kits) but I always thought that the thing the company's products were most renowned for was their good support for CW operation and excellent QSK. So I was surprised to visit the Ten-Tec website a few days ago and see beneath the logo the slogan "The SSB Company." Obviously CW isn't seen as so important these days.

In the last couple of years Ten-Tec has dropped its kit range, its QRP Argonaut transceivers and most recently has been in the news for announcing that it will be rebranding the Chinese-made HB-1A QRP CW transceiver as a Ten-Tec product. I suppose someone somewhere has decided that this makes commercial sense but it doesn't seem to me like the way to hold on to a reputation as an innovative indigenous American manufacturer of quality radio products for the discerning amateur.

Colin, 2E0XSD, raised an interesting question this afternoon in the Wainwrights On The Air forum when he asked what the rules were regarding making contacts using APRS. I confess that I hadn't thought about it and haven't come to a conclusion at the moment.

For those who think that APRS is merely a way of using ham radio to transmit position reports that can be received and tracked I should explain that it is a lot more than that. One of its best features, if one that is not all that widely used, is the ability to send text messages to other APRS users. For example, if you see someone's position on the map and would like to contact them on the radio you could send them a message to ask whether they are on the air and what frequency and mode they are using.

You could use APRS text messages to exchange exactly the same kind of information with another station that you might exchange in a normal digimode contact - signal report, name, QTH, locator and so on. This could arguably constitute a valid contact. But most of the time APRS users are not in direct radio contact with one another so the messages may be passed with the aid of digipeaters: stations that receive an APRS packet and rebroadcast it. Even more common these days is the use of internet gateways (IGates) that route messages between APRS stations via the internet. There are also an increasing number of APRS users who use mobile devices and the cellular network to send and receive APRS. So I have come to regard APRS as a kind of hybrid system that is not purely amateur radio and I do not regard conversations held using APRS messaging as radio contacts in the sense that I would log them, QSL them or use them to qualify for an operating award.

But that's just me. If two people exchange APRS messages over RF with no digipeaters or IGates involved, is there any reason that this should not count as a contact?

I must confess to having mixed feelings about APRS. When I first found out about it I thought it was an extremely useful system and I still do. My wife Olga worries when I go walking in the hills on my own and likes being able to see where I am at any moment on a map on her computer. If I don't return she will know my last position and could send someone to look for me. And it is a useful way to alert WOTA summit chasers to the fact that you are approaching a summit that you are going to activate. But I quickly became disappointed when I discovered that this functionality could not be achieved if you relied solely on amateur bands RF.

Then I discovered Lynn KJ4ERJ's program APRSISCE which can run on a data enabled mobile phone and connect to the internet-based APRS infrastructure and I was able to get the kind of usage I envisaged from it. (In this part of the world even the cellular data coverage isn't 100% but it is still a big improvement.) But although I now use the mobile client whenever I am on some radio related outdoor activity, I found that using an internet connected client destroyed the radio interest because I could now communicate using APRS with anyone, anywhere with the same kind of reliability as sending an SMS or an email.

APRS is too useful to hobble it by insisting on using only amateur bands RF as the transmission medium. Because of that I don't feel it can be used to make contacts or QSOs in the sense that is generally accepted within the hobby and I'm not convinced that it would be right to make an exception for message exchanges that are "direct." But I'd be interested in other people's opinions on the matter.

In British English, a "cockup" is rude slang for a mistake, usually implying carelessness. Great Cockup is the name of a rather undistinguished grassy Wainwright summit near the northern edge of the English Lake District. I don't think there is any connection between the slang meaning and the name of the hill. But whilst my decision to go for a walk up Great Cockup on Bank Holiday Monday wasn't a mistake, from a radio point of view it wasn't a success either.

I parked the car near Overwater and set off on quiet lanes and then a grassy track on the western side of the fell with great views over Bassenthwaite Lake.

The summit was reached after about an hour of walking. Despite being the end of May a cold north westerly breeze was very much in evidence on the summit. By descending a few feet it was possible to get away from the breeze, but as soon as it dropped clouds of black insects appeared and covered everything. It was necessary to brave the full force of the wind in order to eat the lunch Olga had prepared without an accompaniment of fresh insects. Despite this one managed to find its way inside the Intek H-520 - it was still walking around the inside of the display window this morning!

Lunch over, I got the radios out. I had taken the Intek H-520 hoping to make some DX contacts on 10 metres, but despite making numerous calls on the 10m FM calling frequency, 29.600MHz, I had no takers. There was obviously some enhanced propagation as I heard a French station and also some activity on a repeater on 29.660MHz.

I heard a French station call CQ on 29.600 and when I replied to him he said "UK stations, please QSY to 29.205MHz." I was unable to oblige because a) my radio only tunes exact 10kHz multiples and b) when I did try to transmit anywhere near there the radio cut out due to the SWR being too high on that frequency. I'm afraid the H-520's intolerance to even moderate SWR renders it almost unfit for purpose and if I hadn't modified it to work on the 10m band I would probably consider returning it under warranty. As it is, probably the only option is to reset the power control to limit the power to 2W on the "4.0W" setting. As noted previously, when received the radio delivered less than 3.0W even on the UK CB band and I now suspect this was done deliberately by the manufacturer to try to mitigate this problem, knowing that the majority of CB users would be none the wiser.

While listening for the French station I heard what sounded like an APRS packet on 29.210MHz. I don't know if that is a recognized APRS frequency but it would be interesting to monitor that frequency with a decoder to see what is being transmitted.

I tried the Motorola GP300 on 2m with the 5/8 telescopic antenna but was unable to raise any contacts on that band either. I did hear some activity on the channel set up for GB3EV but which I suspect may be the GB3BT repeater on the north east coast which is on the same frequency.

Back home I heard and worked Colin 2E0XSD/P who was on Ling Fell (behind the 'hump' on the left of the middle photograph) using the H-520 inside the shack with the 4ft. whip antenna. On 2m I worked Derek 2E0MIX/P who was up on Scafell Pike, England's highest mountain. So had I gone out a bit later I would probably have made not just a couple of contacts, but a couple of summit to summits. Never mind. It was a pleasant walk and now I have the excuse to go again another time.

This is a really cool little project.

It isn't clear what it does from the picture, but it's a device that makes a Morse key look to a computer like a standard USB keyboard. So you can type into your word processor, blog or whatever by sending Morse.

I want one of these. If I had to type all my blog posts using Morse I'm sure I would really get my speed up! Shame it isn't available as a kit.

I don't know if it's just my advancing years but increasingly I find new technology and the direction it is going in completely incomprehensible. Phones are becoming so complicated that they can now only be understood by teenagers. But the topic of today's rant is computer sound cards.
One of the reasons I prefer a desktop or tower PC in the shack is that you can install additional soundcards in them. This allows you to interface with one or more radios for digital modes, EchoLink and so on and still have normal computer sound available. Yes, you could do this with a laptop and external USB soundcards. But it has always seemed to me to be better RF practise to have the digital electronics inside the nice tightly screened metal PC case with only screened cables going from the PC to the radio. USB looks like a radio amateur's nightmare with these often unscreened cables carrying high speed data and the USB devices usually in completely unscreened plastic cases radiating digital hash everywhere. In fact I would not be surprised to find that the proliferation of USB devices is mainly responsible for the increasing HF noise environment that one day soon will result in my giving up HF altogether.

Once upon a time you could buy a 16-bit soundcard for £15 - £20 ($25 - $30) that was more than good enough for computer sound or amateur digimodes. But one of the advances in computer technology has been the disappearance of PCI slots. The new computer I bought a few months ago, to my surprise, turned out to only have something called PCI Express slots, for which the cheapest sound cards available cost around £70 ($100.)

The specifications of these "bottom end" PCI Express soundcards are way above what I need to either listen to computer sounds and video soundtracks on my PC speakers or decode PSK31 signals. Why do ordinary computer users need 24-bit 96kHz recording or a direct digital input? What on earth is "sound output 7.1" and why do I need three or four different speaker outputs (the presence of which make finding the socket for the PSK31 TX audio by trial and error while groping round the back of the PC in the dark about as likely as winning the lottery?)

I understand that some people might want these features but those who didn't want them weren't forced into buying them because more basic products were available. Who decided the simple, stereo 16-bit soundcard without 3D special effects such as computers had for years was no longer needed by anybody?

I think the frequency readout of my IC-910H is out by about 400Hz and unfortunately I can't receive any accurately calibrated beacons like GB3VHF to set it with. I also like to check my K3's calibration from time to time and would like to take advantage of the option to lock it to a 10MHz frequency standard should Elecraft ever provide it as originally promised. So I decided to have a look on eBay for frequency standards.

There seem to be a number of ex-equipment 10MHz rubidium frequency standards at prices starting from around £50 - which is about the right level for me - available from China. For a bit more you can have a GPS locked time and frequency standard, though where time is concerned the NTP software is good enough for me. There is also a smart looking Quartzlock off-air frequency standard, though that is a bit outside my price bracket for this and would take up a bit too much space for the G4ILO shack.

I don't know anything about this equipment and aren't sure if any of these things would be any use to me. The rubidium frequency standard pictured has a frequency adjustment setting which surely defeats the object. If you need to calibrate it against something else then that's no use to me. I want something of known accuracy to calibrate my radios against. Perhaps the GPS type would be more useful?

Does anyone know about these things?

In his review of the Yaesu FTDX5000 in the June 2010 issue of RadCom, Peter Hart G3SJX criticizes Yaesu for not providing a USB interface as Icom does with its IC7600 transceiver. This same criticism is frequently made by new users or prospective users of the Elecraft K3. I think it is an extremely shortsighted view and I'm surprised to hear it from someone of G3SJX's experience. This seems to be another example of the "it's newer technology so it must be better" attitude that seems to be taking root in the hobby.

The RS-232 serial port has been around since long before the personal computer. It has not been used for "consumer" equipment since the days when printers and modems came with a serial interface, which is why RS-232 ports are no longer provided with new PCs. But it is nonsense to claim that RS-232 is obsolete because of this. Adding a couple of serial ports to a PC is simply a matter of opening the case and slotting in an RS-232 board. Granted, it isn't as easy if you are using a laptop, which is why RS-232 to USB adapters exist. But expandable desktop or tower PCs have so many advantages that why anyone would choose to use a laptop for their shack computer beats me.

Icom uses USB not just for computer control but also for audio so the IC7600 doesn't need the sound card and requires only a single cable to connect it with the PC. This is an innovation that has obvious marketing appeal - which is no doubt why Icom included it. But it's a benefit that can only be enjoyed by users of specific versions of Windows. If you use Linux, Mac OS, Windows 2000 or earlier or Windows XP 64-bit you're out of luck. RS-232 on the other hand is supported natively by just about any computer running any OS, by microcontrollers and even by non-computer devices like Ethernet serial port servers. It offers far more choices, even if most of those choices are only of interest to a minority of users.

Buy a device with USB and you are dependent for its continued usability on the willingness of its manufacturer to develop drivers for as yet unreleased operating systems. I've had to junk perfectly good printers and scanners in the past because the latest drivers were for Windows 98 or Windows 2000 and the manufacturer did not produce any for Windows XP. Most radios have a life of 20 or 30 years, considerably longer than most computer hardware, so designing into them an interface that itself may have been replaced by something faster and better in the PCs of 10 or 15 years time seems to me very shortsighted.

Icom chose to provide a Windows-only supported USB interface on the IC7600 for purely marketing reasons. Elecraft arguably made the best decision with the K3 by not just providing a true RS-232 interface (not a lame TTL version requiring an extra-cost level converting cable) but also making the DTR and RTS signals optionally usable for PTT control and CW keying. Although separate audio cables and use of a sound card are needed, Elecraft included isolating transformers so no separate interface (RigBlaster etc.) is needed. If Yaesu chose to emulate this aspect of the K3 design as well then it should be commended not criticized.

On my first outing with the Intek H-520 Plus handheld transceiver a week ago I found that the batteries died as soon as I pressed the PTT. It turns out that this is a very common problem with this transceiver. M3XEM has even made a video about it which he has posted on YouTube.

After trying some different NiMH cells, freshly charged, my H-520 seemed to be happy using my longer whip antennas, though it still wouldn't work with the supplied mini-whip. But after only a little use of the batteries it began cutting out again when using a 2ft centre-loaded whip. The only antenna it would still accept was the 4ft whip with counterpoise. I felt that something wasn't right, so I decided to investigate.

I measured the battery voltage and current. The batteries were not freshly charged but had been used on Sunday to make numerous calls though no contacts. With the radio turned on and receiving the current drain is 90mA and the battery voltage was 7.71V. This is substantially above the 7.2V nominal voltage which suggests that there should be plenty of life still left in the batteries. This was confirmed by the battery state indicator.

I then transmitted into a dummy load. On the 1W setting (with slightly under 1W output) the current drawn was 750mA. On the 4W setting (with about 3.5W measured output) the current drawn was 1.3A. The voltage across the batteries whilst full power was being transmitted dropped to 6.75V, significantly less than the 7.2V nominal voltage. The current consumption is not excessive in comparison to an FT-817 which is specified to draw up to 2.0A at 5W output. One factor contributing to the voltage drop is the use of separate AA cells. Most handheld radios use battery packs in which the cells are welded together to minimize resistive losses.

The radio still worked fine at 6.75V, but this was transmitting into a dummy load. On most of my 10m antennas - and as observed by M3XEM - the battery voltage would fall away after a couple of seconds and the radio would cut out and restart. I tried to measure the voltage across the batteries when using the two short whips and it fell right away to 3 or 4 volts! This explained why the radio cut out and restarted. It must be drawing a lot of current to cause such a large drop, but I was unable to measure exactly how much as the radio's voltage sensor cut the power to the TX too quickly for my meter to catch the reading.

My conclusion is that when presented with a load that is something other than 50 ohms, the PA of the H-520 draws an increased current. This effect is significant enough that the radio cuts out even on the 1W setting using the mini-whip antenna. This current draw may be more than rechargeable AA cells are designed to sustain, quickly pulling the voltage below the "low voltage" sensor level.

The transceiver isn't really "eating the batteries" as some users have claimed, as the cells quickly recover their original voltage when the load is removed. The problem is purely and simply poor design which causes the PA to behave in this way and draw too much current when presented with a mismatch. As can be seen from the schematic (which is included in the manual) there is no SWR protection to back off the power.

It is very unlikely for a whip antenna on a hand held radio to present a perfect match, so the H-520's performance in this respect is lamentable. As I noted in an earlier post, the supplied whip antenna was found to give its best match at 28.5MHz. It would present a high SWR on the UK and EU CB frequencies that most buyers of this radio would use and I doubt if any buyer of this particular radio would have found it possible to use the highest power setting with this antenna.

Another glorious day and Olga and I took a picnic lunch up to Watch Hill. We go there not because it is a SOTA summit but because it is near home, a nice walk, not a steep climb (so Olga is happy to come with me) and one of the easiest operating sites for me to reach when I want to get away from all the electronic QRN I'm plagued with at home. Unfortunately there isn't a picnic table up there and I haven't yet found a way to support the MP-1 antenna on a bare hilltop. Using a right-angled PL-259 adapter and a 259 to 3/8 adapter on the back of the FT-817 only works if you have a level surface to put the radio on and no breeze. So despite taking them with me I wasn't able to get any use out of them. No doubt a photo tripod would do the job but that is too much ironmongery for me.

I did also take the Intek H-520 Plus and a couple of BNC mounted whip antennas but although there clearly was propagation on 10m I didn't manage to work anything. I did hear something puzzling though. After one call on 29.600 I heard what I'm sure was a native English speaking voice announced something on the lines that this was the EA????? repeater. Unfortunately I'm getting increasingly slow witted these days so I don't remember the exact announcement nor the full call and I didn't hear it again. 29.600 is supposed to be the 10m FM calling frequency and not a repeater output so what could it possibly have been?

Back home later in the afternoon and VHFDX.net showed that there was a big Sporadic-E opening on 6m and even 2m in Eastern Europe. I decided to try 10m which seems to be the neglected band and managed to make several contacts including a new country for me, OD5NH in Beirut, Lebanon.

Once again, WSPR is revealing the existence of consistent propagation paths every day on 10m between Iceland (TF), the Faroes (OY) and northern Norway (LA/LB) and the UK and north-west Europe when there is no Sporadic-E and no other propagation except over very short distances between closely located stations. This has occurred even during periods of zero sunspots.

I'm guessing that because we have only in the last few weeks had a large number of WSPR monitors on 10m because of the Sporadic-E season, no-one has previously observed it. But I'm surprised at the lack of comment about it. Perhaps this is a phenomena known to everyone but me, in which case I'd welcome some enlightenment.

QRZ.com has just announced that it will be making available an online logbook. It will also be offering an awards program and will be organizing a contest to recognize the first person to make confirmed contacts with 100 other QRZ users.

I like QRZ.com and think this is a great idea. I don't know whether they will be providing an API for logging programs to post entries to the log in real time but if they do then I want my program KComm to support it so I have volunteered my services as a tester.

From John Harper AE5X's blog I have discovered that Ten Tec will be re-branding the Chinese HB-1A QRP CW transceiver. The Ten Tec versions aren't exactly the same - they will be selling two versions, one covering 40 and 30 metres and one covering 30 and 20 metres whereas the original covers 40, 30 and 20. This may have something to do with meeting FCC spurious emissions specifications.

As it happens, my HB-1A is on eBay at this very moment. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just that it doesn't do anything that my FT-817 can't do and I've spent quite a lot on new radios recently so it seems right to dispose of some of the ones that aren't being used.

But its performance wasn't exactly spectacular. It's a bit sad to see the company that made and discontinued the Argonaut 516 HF QRP rig and matching 526 6'n'2 metre rig offering such a basic radio as its only QRP product.

I'd love a Ten Tec 516 / 526 pair, so if anyone has one in mint condition that they'd like to sell or trade for an Elecraft K3/100 drop me an email.

Computers and radio really don't mix. I was trying to connect the FT-817 to the shack computer. I plugged the USB cables into the back of the PC, then as I lifted the cables vertical to feed them behind the shelf unit I heard the noise level on 2 metres come up quite clearly. I could probably reduce the noise using clip-on ferrites but any more noise than I already have is unwelcome. I think I might give up the computer altogether and go back to paper logging!

I also proved today that it isn't possible to work satellites with indoor antennas. Yesterday I tried receiving AO-51 with the 3/4 wave vertical I made, but I got a readable signal for only a few seconds. Today I tried the 6 element Yagi I made a few weeks ago which received signals off the Moon when used outdoors. Pointing it at the satellite from inside the shack I again heard only a few seconds of signal from the satellite. I think there is just too much attenuation at 70cm to use indoor antennas, so satellite operation is out of the question.

I could probably combine the 6-element 70cm and the Moxon 2m antenna to make a portable hand held antenna for satellite use. But whilst it would be an interesting challenge to make a satellite contact using the FT-817 and a hand held antenna out of doors I had really hoped to be able to do it from inside the shack.

I received a response from the web host support desk about the problem that is causing the WebProp update scripts to fail to access the WWV solar data. The reply was:

There is nothing we can do to fix this it's a configuration error on their end with their dns. This is occurring because of invalid dnssec configurations at noaa.gov. We will not bypass the dnssec configurations implemented within .gov. The only way to have this corrected is by the dns administrators at noaa.gov signing their zones.

20-May-2010 15:26:00.099 validating @0x827fff000: swpc.noaa.gov SOA: got insecure response; parent indicates it should be secure
20-May-2010 15:26:00.116 validating @0x80284f000: swpc.noaa.gov SOA: got insecure response; parent indicates it should be secure
20-May-2010 15:26:00.159 validating @0xadb055000: swpc.noaa.gov SOA: got insecure response; parent indicates it should be secure
20-May-2010 15:26:00.204 validating @0xad9af8000: www.swpc.noaa.gov A: bad cache hit (www.swpc.noaa.gov/DS)

This is way over my head, but I think they are saying this is due to a problem at NOAA's end not mine.

I will give it a couple more days, but if the problem doesn't go away then I will have to remove WebProp. I know this will be a pain for those who have included it in their websites but there is nothing I can do about it.

The WebProp HF propagation indicator has not been updated since midday today. Since that time the update script has failed with an error saying that it is unable to resolve the host www.swpc.noaa.gov where the WWV solar weather reports come from. Since it can't get the data, it can't update WebProp.

I have opened a support ticket with the web host which has replied that there is a "problem with the server DNS." Hopefully the problem will be resolved shortly.