AmateurRadio.com

Series Three Episode Fiver of the ICQ Amateur / Ham Radio Podcast. News Stories include:-

• Ham killed in Connecticut explosion
• Cuban HF Number Stations
• Sat-nav's face big errors
• Ham radio's roll expanding in Haiti
• Mod to transmission mode GB3TM
• Windermere Triangle
• Police search for missing ham
• Move of GB3VHF beacon
• Unlicensed Police drone grounded
• NAQCC - Lifetime membership FREE!
• New mode - ROS
• VK2BWI slow morse broadcast
• Iceland's access 70 MHz & 500 KHz

Your feedback, Hints, Tips and Tricks and Martin (M1MRB) discusses completing the building of the TenTec 1330.

I’m preparing to build my 40m version of Roger G3XBM’s XBM80-2 QRPP transceiver into a little box but before I start I have one thing more to do. I have to design an output filter for the transmitter.

Roger didn’t bother. Comments from him suggest that he was aiming for a low parts count and assuming that any filtering would be provided by an external ATU. However Alan VK2ZAY comments that the output was more like a square wave. The second harmonic of my 7.030MHz signal would be on 14.060MHz, also a QRP frequency and I can’t be sure that my antenna won’t radiate this too. So I think an output filter is a good idea.

Alan used a two-stage pi network, each stage consisting of two 820pF capacitors and a 2.2uF inductor. I built this up on my breadboard, terminated the end with a 50 ohm load (actually 47 ohms, the nearest resistor value I had) and checked it with my SWR analyzer. The picture above shows the result.

Out of interest I also checked the response of a single stage of filtering using the same values, shown in the next picture. You can see that the cut-off frequency is a lot shallower than when two stages of filtering are used, so clearly attenuation of harmonics would not be as effective.

My problem is that I need a filter for 40m not 80m. I tried searching the web to see if I could find some online design tools, and I did here, here and here. However when I fed the design parameters for 80m into the calculators the results they came up with were a lot different from each other and also from the values VK2ZAY used.

In the end I decided to use trial and error. I figured that since the frequency is higher the values I would need to use would be lower. The next lower value inductor I had in my parts box was 1uH, so I don’t have a lot of choice in the matter. I substituted that for the 2.2uH. The result shown by the SWR analyzer was promising, but there was a big hump below the cut-off frequency and the SWR at 7.030MHz was a bit on the high side. So I then tried lower values of capacitors. The lower I went, the shallower the cut-off but the lower the hump as well.

In the end, I settled on 680pF capacitors with the 1uH inductor. There is still quite a steep hump below the cut-off frequency but I’m only concerned with the performance at 7.030MHz where the SWR is 1.2:1, which I don’t think is too bad. The cut-off curve of this one stage filter seems as steep as the two-stage one VK2ZAY used on 80m so I think one stage of filtering will do.

After I’d written the above, the thought occurred to me to try the low pass filter in the circuit while it was on the breadboard. I’m glad I did, because I’d have been disappointed to find after soldering everything into place that the output power had fallen from 100mW to 25mW. After a bit of experimentation, it appears that connecting the low pass filter directly to the collector of the first transistor as VK2ZAY did in his version of the transceiver loads the circuit and reduces both transmit power and receive sensitivity. The solution seems to be to couple the transistor to the filter using a small value capacitor – I found 180pF gave the best results. This removes the need for the DC blocking capacitor on the output. The power is still down quite a lot, but part of this may be due to all the harmonic energy which is now not making it through to the power meter.

Cox and Brockman (1978) said, “People sure like to have a good time. The 1977 CQ WW Contest attests to this fact. In spite of less than normal conditions, interest and activity were never higher.” (p 10)

What makes a RadioSport event fun to operate like CQ World Wide franchise?

One answer is DXpeditions according to Cox and Brockman (1978) and another may include antenna system(s) and/or one’s receiver. The broader answer maybe active involvement of RadioSport clubs where resources and talent are focused around a specific goal like number one in the Club Box.

Cox and Brockman stated, “Not to be outdone, the Frankford Radio Club (FRC) repaired their antennas, turned their rigs, and walked off with the fierce Club competition title with a total of 62.7 M points. That’s alot of work and cooperation.” (p 10, 1977).

One senses club strategy beginning to develop with a score target inside the box. Additionally, FRC channeled their knowledge and resources into improving antenna systems-to-radios inside the shack. I believe individual initiative is important in addition to having a stake in the overall success of one’s RadioSport club.

If there is a moment when design specifications are pushed to the extreme, it must be during an event like CQ World Wide; when was the last time one thought about their audio gain control (AGC)?

For example, Richard Norton, N6AA operated from Trinidad and Tobago, as 9Y4AA in 1977 and logged 1400 Qs on 20m that year. He moved from third place in 1976 to winning first place in 1977 while establishing a world record. Undoubtedly, he understood the design specifications of his radio, inside and out.

An on-going conversation on CQ Contest Digest reflector inspired researching how-to improve my receiver and/or decrease listening fatigue. Admittedly, I set controls at near maximum, according to Eric, K3NA many operators run their gain controls too high, and I’m one of them.

His suggestions are straightforward and easy to implement to include adjustments for a specific set of headphones.

Additionally, when considering a DXpedition designed for an event like CQ World Wide, understand point structuring as part of one’s decision tree.

Cox and Brockman (1978) stated, “The Sochi Radio Club decided that 3 points per QSO would be better than 2, so they took a trip down to the Black Sea coast to UF6. It was well worth it, because their crew set a new world multi-single record with an incredible 4058 Q totaling out at 6M points.” (p 10)

Several fun factors contribute to the overall success of an event like CQ World Wide such as 1.) An active RadioSport club focusing resources and talent on specific achievable targets, 2.) Learning design specifications of one’s radio, and 3.) Understand an event’s point structuring and maximize operating time and/or operating location to that of the point structure.

Believe in your signal!

Reference: Brockman, L. N6AR, Cox, B. K3EST (September, 1978). CQ Magazine: 1977 CQ World Wide DX Contest: C.W. Results. pp. 10 – 12, 14 – 24.

My QRP crystals finally arrived. Murphy worked overtime on this eBay purchase: the first batch apparently got lost in the post and the replacements were sent by mistake to another customer with the same surname. But I have at last been able to try out the little QRP CW transceiver built to G3XBM’s design on the QRP working frequency.

The transceiver is still on the breadboard as I was waiting to try it on both 40m and 80m before deciding which band to make it up for. Certain components need to be optimized for the band in use, and even the crystal in use, since to save space I’ve hand picked a fixed capacitor to set the transmit frequency instead of using a trimmer. I need also to decide how much power output I want because that is governed by other components. I have had over 200mW out of it but I’m not sure if a 2N3904 without a heat sink could really handle that, so at the moment it is set up to give 100mW output when powered by a 9V rechargeable PP3 battery.

I’m leaning towards 40m as this would make a nice little fun portable rig and the antenna being half the size of 80m would make things much easier. 40m generally has more activity during the daytime, too. I have never found 80m an easy band to work with limited antennas and low power, so it has always surprised me that the lower band is so popular with QRPers.

Of course, it being the weekend there is a contest on today, so not much chance of being heard with 100mW. Even if someone did hear me and reply, it’s doubtful if I could pick them out using a receiver with no selectivity whatever! This tiny, simple transceiver is amazingly sensitive, as you can hear in this 1 minute audio clip recorded on 40m this afternoon using my MFJ magnetic loop for an antenna. How many different stations can you copy?

This evening I may put the 80m crystal in and see what it sounds like on that band. Unfortunately the little receiver has no tools for fighting the terrible QRN that comes on during the evening when all the neighbourhood plasma TVs are switched on, and sometimes 80m is all but unusable.

The 2010 ARRL International DX CW event was my first operating experience when the solar flux indice broke through the 80 barrier. I watched A- and K-index steadily fall and marveled at our G4 class star. I imagined our ionosphere is much like the surface of an ocean. Each successive day reminding me of the local surf report.

Is there another sport as dependent on cosmological mechanics as RadioSport?

Friday night did not produce spectacular results, basically, the first evening is tough. My signal rarely scores on the first, second, or third call. It is however an opportunistic moment at logging multi-multi stations on spaces such as 15m or 20m at sunset using gray line enhancement.

I operated from N1MM’s band map with good effect while hopping between each space after loading needed multipliers. Additionally, I entered the high end of the spectrum into the dialog box then pressed enter for example; 14.080, 21.075, or 28.065 MHz then clicked downward.

I practiced moving through each space as fast as possible while loading or unloading the band map. The swarm network of spotting stations has little bearing in relationship to my location, the influence of propagation, and type of antenna system. I’m not spending expensive time ciphering through the cloud of information, pertinent or not, because of the variability of station configurations.

Saturday produced an entirely different set of results. I submit the existence of station configuration stratification where optimal stations are first logged through the competitive funnel leaving signal space during the last 24-hours of a major for modest stations.

Experience suggested following a Day Two type strategy and log data supported my conclusion 80% yield on day two versus 20% on day one.

Consequently, I logged (Japan = 19), (Hawaii = 17), and (Netherlands Antilles = 5) across five spaces within 24-hours. I’m optimistic as Cycle 24 actually stimulated 10m last weekend with a few South American 100-watt stations (Argentina and Brazil) going into the log.

It is exciting to learn my vertical antenna system is sensing low power stations on the high bands.

Raw Results.
80m | 2 Qs | 1 Mults.
40m | 28 Qs | 11 Mults.
20m | 17 Qs | 8 Mults.
15m | 16 Qs | 10 Mults.
10m | 7 Qs | 3 Mults.

Total = 70 Qs.
Total Multipliers = 33.
Total Raw Score = 6,831 Points.

I have one more antenna system that will complete my coverage of available competitive bands within a home owner association regulated community. Admittedly, those sunspots added additional fun to an otherwise stellar event sponsored by the ARRL’s Contest Branch.

73 from the shackadelic on the beach.

P.S. Thank you Japan and Hawaii for making the difference in my log!