[amsat-bb] Re: Wish List, The Ideal VHF/UHF Sat Rig

[John Geiger]

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 <n2wwd at mindspring.com> wrote:

> From: Ken Ernandes <n2wwd at mindspring.com>
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Wish List, The Ideal VHF/UHF Sat Rig
> To: "Mark L. Hammond" <marklhammond at gmail.com>, "MM" <ka1rrw at yahoo.com>
> Cc: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> 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" <marklhammond at gmail.com>
> >Sent: Mar 1, 2010 1:55 PM
> >To: MM <ka1rrw at yahoo.com>
> >Cc: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> >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 <ka1rrw at yahoo.com>
> 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 AMSAT-BB at 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Mark L. Hammond [N8MH]
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sent via AMSAT-BB at 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at 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
>