|
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
|
John Smith,
Several thousand people disagree with you.
Not sure why you say it's not worth the price.
What have you found that is a better HF SSB rig for $109 or less?
The single band rig has already been done, if that's what you want.
Buy a half dozen Bitx40's, replace the bandpass filter and the output filter in each,
and update the firmware.? Easy enough, no board hacks, just replacing some
coils and caps.? Or buy one or more of the dozen Bitx variants out there.
Or if you think the uBitx is such a tough sell, create your own kit and make a mint.
Good luck with that.
There.? That's my opinion.
Jerry, KE7ER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 08:34 pm, John Smith wrote:
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
|
I think the uBITX is a great entry level radio for people in many parts of the word that don't have much money to throw around. It is usable as is and provides an entry into the hobby for people that otherwise would be left out.
For us hacker types this is a great understandable radio to use as a base for whatever we want to experiment with. I'm learning a lot more with this radio than a commercially built radio.
Tom, wb6b
?
|
Perhaps with graphic display and a brand sticker if sold at say at $200/-
?people would still love it. let us compare the specs and its performance excels those of nominal branded ones. Earlier eminent hobbyists have already expressed their admiration.
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Tom, wb6b <wb6b@...> wrote: I think the uBITX is a great entry level radio for people in many parts of the word that don't have much money to throw around. It is usable as is and provides an entry into the hobby for people that otherwise would be left out.
For us hacker types this is a great understandable radio to use as a base for whatever we want to experiment with. I'm learning a lot more with this radio than a commercially built radio.
Tom, wb6b
?
|
John, The simple, one capacitor fix boosts the 10 meters power to a respectable 5 watts on SSB and CW. That is a-plenty to get you contacts. An opening 2 weeks ago, got me a large cache of contacts.
That said, I hear what you are saying about a narrow band design. All engineer is science on a budget. We have to shoot somewhere. The ubitx is an attempt to build an HF general coverge transceiver for $100 dollars. The 109 is with shipping. If you build it on your own, The parts would be even less than $50 dollars. The arduino apart, the only other special chip is the Si5351 that costs a dollar, the rest are in your junk boxes.?
The tricky part is really that the ubitx is an open radio. It is constantly on the move in terms of features and trinkets. If you were to open any active open source project, you will only see bugs reported. That is not because they are more buggy than commercial, standard products. They are less buggier. But they get there by having people constantly discover problems and fix them. This list is a support group as well as development group. It can get intimadating for someone who just joins up. There are some soft landing places like the .
I also understand that there are fierce responses to some proposed changes. We tend to grow comfortable with our choices. Try suggesting to me to switch to a PIC processor from Arduino to see what I mean.?
My personal project this year is to make a 'few bands' transceiver for SSB and CW that is entirely analog. With many bells and whistels including a good agc, narrow band CW filters, etc. This will be a diffcult to replicate project. It is just? personal itch. The uBITX is my third open radio. Earlier, apart from the BITX20, there was also the Minima. The Minima ran into problems, many built it, the receiver was fabulous, the transmitter had spurs. I decided to quit the project. The point I am trying to make is that there is no one radio. The TX power variations from uBITX are not due to it's general coverage architecture but our pick of the IRF510. Other RF transistors are hardly available consistently in the quantities that the uBITX is consuming.?
I hope I have clarified my personal opinions on the uBITX project.
73, f?
?
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...> wrote: John Smith,
Several thousand people disagree with you.
Not sure why you say it's not worth the price.
What have you found that is a better HF SSB rig for $109 or less?
The single band rig has already been done, if that's what you want.
Buy a half dozen Bitx40's, replace the bandpass filter and the output filter in each,
and update the firmware.? Easy enough, no board hacks, just replacing some
coils and caps.? Or buy one or more of the dozen Bitx variants out there.
Or if you think the uBitx is such a tough sell, create your own kit and make a mint.
Good luck with that.
There.? That's my opinion.
Jerry, KE7ER
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 08:34 pm, John Smith wrote:
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
|
Details?
There were so many variations going around, i lost track and wanted to wait until the last best option was decided on.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 5/16/2018 12:09 AM, Ashhar Farhan wrote: The simple, one capacitor fix boosts the 10 meters power to a respectable 5 watts on SSB and CW.
|
I have been here quite a while now, and learned many great things. I am aware that the uBITX is wildly popular. And the CAT rig control for it came about rather quickly compared to some other great useful hacks. But I have also seen power output charts from at least a few people here on this list indicating 10 watts at lower frequencies and 1 or 2 watts at higher frequencies, and disappointing CW performance with how it responds to keying. CW was one of it's biggest selling points. I feel too much work and money has to be invested into it after the initial cost to make it into something I would like. I would rather save my money and buy something else. That's just how I feel about it. And I feel that a dedicated band transceiver to begin with could have better overall performance, and would be popular with people who don't have or want an all band antenna. And thanks Jerry for not being too harsh with me. This list's reputation as being a hate group on other message boards and pages may need reassessing. I'll put in a good word for you on one of them somewhere.
|
John,
The ubitx is a learning platform and that comes with tradeoffs. One thing you can do is fix the keying by modifying the firmware in the arduino source and reuploading it. Or using the CEC software.
If you find the power output is lacking, one easy fix is to replace the PA capacitors with some that have a higher voltage rating than 25v and run the PA on 36 volts. That made a day and night difference for me and has made the ubitx much more enjoyable to operate, but you will need a real heatsink.
The thing with the ubitx is that it is not meant to be a commercial product. It is not competing with the likes of the big three. It is meant for you to learn on and to be able to modify into your own radio, built for you. It is meant to be cheap to repair. I don't think that I would try have the things on a big three radio that I am willing to tweak around with on my ubitx.
I run digital modes at 36v 1.35A for several minutes at a time. Thats pretty hard on any radio when you run it this hard thermally with the duty cycles I do, and considering the whole thing cost me around $145?to build. Its pretty darn good.
Look, the point I am getting at is this is a radio meant to get your hands dirty and teach you lessons that you are not going to learn on any other radio due to people not wanting to harm their more expensive rigs.
On Wed, May 16, 2018, 1:52 AM John Smith via Groups.Io <johnlinux77= [email protected]> wrote: I have been here quite a while now, and learned many great things. I am aware that the uBITX is wildly popular. And the CAT rig control for it came about rather quickly compared to some other great useful hacks. But I have also seen power output charts from at least a few people here on this list indicating 10 watts at lower frequencies and 1 or 2 watts at higher frequencies, and disappointing CW performance with how it responds to keying. CW was one of it's biggest selling points. I feel too much work and money has to be invested into it after the initial cost to make it into something I would like. I would rather save my money and buy something else. That's just how I feel about it. And I feel that a dedicated band transceiver to begin with could have better overall performance, and would be popular with people who don't have or want an all band antenna. And thanks Jerry for not being too harsh with me. This list's reputation as being a hate group on other message boards and pages may need reassessing. I'll put in a good word for you on one of them somewhere.
--
----------
N5WLF, Greggory (or my nickname, Ghericoan)
General Class, Digital Radio Hobbyist
|
John,
The CW keying issue was purely a software problem. It has been fixed in the KD8CEC's firmware. You might want to try it.
- f
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:22 AM, John Smith via Groups.Io <johnlinux77@...> wrote: I have been here quite a while now, and learned many great things. I am aware that the uBITX is wildly popular. And the CAT rig control for it came about rather quickly compared to some other great useful hacks. But I have also seen power output charts from at least a few people here on this list indicating 10 watts at lower frequencies and 1 or 2 watts at higher frequencies, and disappointing CW performance with how it responds to keying. CW was one of it's biggest selling points. I feel too much work and money has to be invested into it after the initial cost to make it into something I would like. I would rather save my money and buy something else. That's just how I feel about it. And I feel that a dedicated band transceiver to begin with could have better overall performance, and would be popular with people who don't have or want an all band antenna. And thanks Jerry for not being too harsh with me. This list's reputation as being a hate group on other message boards and pages may need reassessing. I'll put in a good word for you on one of them somewhere.
|
I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
Il 16/mag/2018 05:34, "John Smith via Groups.Io" <johnlinux77= [email protected]> ha scritto: While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
|
Isn¡¯t uBITX meant to be a QRP rig? ?Some don¡¯t want more than 10 Watts for the challenge ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On May 16, 2018, at 12:34 AM, iz oos < and2oosiz2@...> wrote: I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
|
If a few watts isn't enough, build a linear kit. 45 watts for ?12.
Regards Geoff, G8BMI
On 16 May 2018 at 08:50, Dgyuro via Groups.Io <dgyuro@...> wrote: Isn¡¯t uBITX meant to be a QRP rig?? Some don¡¯t want more than 10 Watts for the challenge ?
I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
|
I would respectfully disagree.? Sure there are some short comings.? The receiver is quite good.? The transmitter needs some kindness here and there but nothing serious.? I also find the experimenting quite refreshing¡ something I can¡¯t do on my K3, 7800, etc¡
?
Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ
?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Smith via Groups.Io
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 10:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [BITX20] A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
?
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
?
|
And you will get plenty of help with the transmit section of the next radio if you just ask¡
?
?
Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ ?
?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ashhar Farhan
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BITX20] A friendly suggestion for Farhan.
?
John,
The simple, one capacitor fix boosts the 10 meters power to a respectable 5 watts on SSB and CW. That is a-plenty to get you contacts. An opening 2 weeks ago, got me a large cache of contacts.
That said, I hear what you are saying about a narrow band design. All engineer is science on a budget. We have to shoot somewhere. The ubitx is an attempt to build an HF general coverge transceiver for $100 dollars. The 109 is with shipping. If you build it on your own, The parts would be even less than $50 dollars. The arduino apart, the only other special chip is the Si5351 that costs a dollar, the rest are in your junk boxes.?
The tricky part is really that the ubitx is an open radio. It is constantly on the move in terms of features and trinkets. If you were to open any active open source project, you will only see bugs reported. That is not because they are more buggy than commercial, standard products. They are less buggier. But they get there by having people constantly discover problems and fix them. This list is a support group as well as development group. It can get intimadating for someone who just joins up. There are some soft landing places like the .
I also understand that there are fierce responses to some proposed changes. We tend to grow comfortable with our choices. Try suggesting to me to switch to a PIC processor from Arduino to see what I mean.?
My personal project this year is to make a 'few bands' transceiver for SSB and CW that is entirely analog. With many bells and whistels including a good agc, narrow band CW filters, etc. This will be a diffcult to replicate project. It is just? personal itch. The uBITX is my third open radio. Earlier, apart from the BITX20, there was also the Minima. The Minima ran into problems, many built it, the receiver was fabulous, the transmitter had spurs. I decided to quit the project. The point I am trying to make is that there is no one radio. The TX power variations from uBITX are not due to it's general coverage architecture but our pick of the IRF510. Other RF transistors are hardly available consistently in the quantities that the uBITX is consuming.?
I hope I have clarified my personal opinions on the uBITX project.
?
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Jerry Gaffke via Groups.Io <jgaffke@...> wrote:
John Smith,
Several thousand people disagree with you.
Not sure why you say it's not worth the price.
What have you found that is a better HF SSB rig for $109 or less?
The single band rig has already been done, if that's what you want.
Buy a half dozen Bitx40's, replace the bandpass filter and the output filter in each,
and update the firmware.? Easy enough, no board hacks, just replacing some
coils and caps.? Or buy one or more of the dozen Bitx variants out there.
Or if you think the uBitx is such a tough sell, create your own kit and make a mint.
Good luck with that.
There.? That's my opinion.
Jerry, KE7ER
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 08:34 pm, John Smith wrote:
While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
?
?
|
Well said, Jerry.
I want all bands his idea would be to expensive! ?
I wanted a perfect rig and spent a grand on the Icom 7300. You get what you pay for, ?I've been told.
It's a miracle that you can get ANYTHING that even works for a tenth of a grand.
|
Then ignore this.?
?
Dr.?William J. Schmidt - K9HZ
On May 16, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Dgyuro via Groups.Io < dgyuro@...> wrote:
Isn¡¯t uBITX meant to be a QRP rig? ?Some don¡¯t want more than 10 Watts for the challenge ?
?
I have built iler and Hendricks qrps and I have to say they all work well, but this is by far the best one. Monoband MFJ transceivers are very nice, SSB is pushed at the limits, but overall I prefer the Ubitx at a fraction of the cost. The thing audio is cleaner imho. There are not many low power HF transceivers, and none at that price level. So go on with the Ubitx, make the mods that increase easily the performance so that it may well become the newbies rig other than for the experienced hams.
|
John Smith, There were indeed some harsh words directed at you on your last appearance here. You seem to have a need for attention, and occasionally throw out an incendiary post to get it. Here's the end of an exchange last August: ? ?? /g/BITX20/message/31239If you can keep that down to the level of your post yesterday (and some might prefer a bit less), you're a welcome member here.? But I for one won't put up with a repeat.? Jerry, KE7ER
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:52 pm, John Smith wrote:
And thanks Jerry for not being too harsh with me. This list's reputation as being a hate group on other message boards and pages may need reassessing.
|
The uBITX, like all the BITX and BITX-clone transceivers is first and foremost a QRP rig.?
Others have already mentioned its use as a learning platform, and the number of contacts
they have made with it.?
Working QRP is part of the challenge.? While it is easy to make contacts with most 50W to
2KW (and above) rigs, the real challenge of good operating technique and knowledgeable
use of propagation lies in use of no more power than is really necessary to get the job done.
This is what separates the QRO operators who rely on brute force from the QRP operators
who rely on skill, technique, and sometimes a bit of luck.
Complaints about a particular transceiver have more validity if the complainant actually owns
and uses the particular equipment.? If you don't own one, then what are you complaining about?
Arv? K7HKL
_._
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:34 PM, John Smith via Groups.Io <johnlinux77@...> wrote: While observing, I have come to believe that the uBITX is a bit of a dud when it comes to power output on most bands, and CW which it is designed for. Too much hacking is required to make it usable, or worth the price. I would like to suggest the idea of individual band transceivers, with specially designed power amplifiers and band filters so a 10 meter BITX works as well as a 80 meter BITX. The Raduino code can be easily adjusted for each band the transceiver is made for, and remains familiar. I realize this would require retooling the factory a bit. But I do recall seeing old connections and silk screening on my BITX 40 where changes have been made. Perhaps some models could have options to populate the board with different filter configurations and finals too. I know you can't get everything on the same board, but maybe some could be dual band for ease of manufacture, or just popularity of use. I would love a BITX 80 or BITX 20 that could put out as much as 25 watts like my BITX 40. And with Allards code and minimal hardware upgrade the CW is wonderful and useful for digital modes too. I don't really mean to poop on your uBITX, but I don't want one at that price. But a $59.00 mono band, or $75.00 dual band transceiver that works well, sounds pretty good to me. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
|
One possible solution for those that want power....
Whats funny is I have built many QRP radios, I mean something over 10 of them all SSB.
Generally if the 3-5W didn't do it then 100 might have.? At one point I decided an amp
was a solution so I built it and it works well, though rarely use it.? Why, I find I make
contacts at?lower power and when I cannot 100W isn't enough.??
One thing building an amp that works and doesn't fry everytime you look at it is on face trivial.
At the same time its about as non trivial as one can get.? A good amp is a mechanical project
as you are managing heat and sometimes much more than guessed.
The next possible increment up is not 20W:
If your inclined look in the files area of this forum under KB1GMX, there are two files called
HF-use-Fet 1 and 2.? Its fairly simple and if built well its a solid amp.? Pay attention to the
mechanical build.? Its a 1-2 watts in for more than 40-50 out amp for all HF using two IRF510s.
I didn't design it but I can say that if you build it soldering and mechanical construction has
to be 100% and there are the tribal tricks not written up that need to be known.? An aside if
you cannot cut aluminum pieces and drill and tap holes your already on the short side?
skills required.? ?To farm out machine shop work is expensive even in bulk.
The path to 100W is not cheap:
The better transistors path.? RD16HHF 4.75$ each from RF parts.? Its a 12V 20W device and
K5BCQ has gotten as much as can be done with those(20W near flat from 160 to 6).? The
next step up?is RF70HHF or 2SC2879 both types you need a pair (about 60$us) and do
about 100W and after all the other parts and materials expect to spend about 150$ or
more plus all the mechanical work required.? A pair of tubes can do this easy and then?
your looking for 900V power supply and high voltage components with the safety? risks.
My suggestion, likely the less expensive route:
Build a better antenna.? Less expensive and you will hear stations better.? Use a full size
dipole at least a half wave length high (or higher) for example 20M for the 40M band.? ?A
wire beam for 20M?can be a considerable equalizer.? A bit of wood, wire and rope.? I happen
to like the VE7CA tribander (20/15/10M).? ?A wire beam for 40m is not out of the question,
the group I hang with does both of those for field day.
Allison
|
There seems to be many amplifiers on ebay that put out about 70 watts for around $ 25 to $ 50.? Those are just circuit boards with parts mounted or kits. No filtering that you would have to add and a TX/RX switch and box to put it in. Going much about 10 watts would seem to knock it out of the portable weight limit .? I was talking with some friends on 80 meters this morning and using the 16 watts I get out (after the transistor mods) to drive a Drake L4B amp to somewhat over 150 watts out and getting good reports.
I am glad this rig is on the market as is.? Gives me a chance to make some modifications and my main goal is to use it with some transverters that need about 5 to 15 watts of drive depending on which one I use.
I am not much for designing things, but do enjoy playing around with others ideas.
de KU4PT
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:30 AM, ajparent1/KB1GMX <kb1gmx@...> wrote: One possible solution for those that want power....
Whats funny is I have built many QRP radios, I mean something over 10 of them all SSB.
Generally if the 3-5W didn't do it then 100 might have.? At one point I decided an amp
was a solution so I built it and it works well, though rarely use it.? Why, I find I make
contacts at?lower power and when I cannot 100W isn't enough.??
One thing building an amp that works and doesn't fry everytime you look at it is on face trivial.
At the same time its about as non trivial as one can get.? A good amp is a mechanical project
as you are managing heat and sometimes much more than guessed.
The next possible increment up is not 20W:
If your inclined look in the files area of this forum under KB1GMX, there are two files called
HF-use-Fet 1 and 2.? Its fairly simple and if built well its a solid amp.? Pay attention to the
mechanical build.? Its a 1-2 watts in for more than 40-50 out amp for all HF using two IRF510s.
I didn't design it but I can say that if you build it soldering and mechanical construction has
to be 100% and there are the tribal tricks not written up that need to be known.? An aside if
you cannot cut aluminum pieces and drill and tap holes your already on the short side?
skills required.? ?To farm out machine shop work is expensive even in bulk.
The path to 100W is not cheap:
_._,_
|
atouk
Ghericoan
K9HZ
