|
Hello everyone,
?
my current portable setup features a 30m QCX, which is a great rig, but after more than six years on the 30m band I thought I should try to get on a few other bands as well, preferably 80m-10m. Now I have the pleasant problem of having to choose between two rigs that both seem excellent: QMX and QMX+. The SOTA/POTA crowds seem to love the QMX, but then I would have to sacrifice a few bands (or get two ones, but that would be more expensive). The QMX+ on the other hand covers all bands but is significantly larger. Has anyone tried out the QMX+ for portable operations, and do you find that the size/shape/weight gets annoying? I have not been able to find out what the total weight of the QMX+ including enclosure is, only its size. Does anyone know?
?
Any thoughts on the matter are welcome, particularly from those of you who have actually had a chance to use the QMX+ outdoors.
?
Regards,
Robert SM0YSR
|
This is just my thoughts on the relative size of them, I'm sure many here will disagree. I have the QCX+ and mini. I really like the mini, very, very much. That said, the + while bigger, the size is not a deal breaker. It's not a boat anchor by any standard. With the larger QMX (which I just ordered) you get all the bands, should be a bit easier to build (if that is what you are going to do), maintain and possibly modify in the future. I know there are many who like to be as minimalist as possible, and that's ok. When I am trekking around in the bush in the Sonoran Desert (see my avatar pic), I tend to use a hellcat external frame backpack so I can comfortably carry whatever I want with ease. The larger size is not an issue and to me there are more pros than cons.
My 2 cents.
--
Wayne S.
KF7RCM
|
Hi!
?
I haven't found dimensions of the QMX+ anywhere but to me it appears to be of similar if not smaller size than the Yaesu FT-817/818 series which did the job for a couple of decades and operators. Is that correct?
?
73, Andreas
|
Andreas DM7AK wrote¡ I haven't found dimensions of the QMX+ anywhere¡ QMX The enclosure size is 95 x 63 x 25mm without protrusions. QMX+ The enclosure size is 106 x 55 x 146mm deep without protrusions (knobs and connectors) -- 73 Keith VE7GDH
|
Yes, those dimensions are on the web pages for QMX and QMX+ resp.?
I don't think I weighed them. A significant part of the weight is in the enclosure. QCX-mini and QMX share the same enclosure and approximately the same amount?of PCBs, connectors, etc inside; QMX+ is? like QCX+. So an almost-valid comparison between QCX+ and QCX-mini on which does give weights, would be approximately valid for QMX and QMX+ too.?
Andreas DM7AK wrote¡
> I haven't found dimensions of the QMX+ anywhere¡
QMX
The enclosure size is 95 x 63 x 25mm without protrusions.
QMX+
The enclosure size is 106 x 55 x 146mm deep without protrusions (knobs and connectors)
--
73 Keith VE7GDH
|
Hi Robert,
My QMX+ weighs 1 pound 5.1 ounces. ?This includes the enclosure.
73,
Chris
|
Robert,
?
I decided for QMX Mid-Band 12V and it works great for me.? ?As 80% of QSOs are done on 40 and 20 band I am covered. For occasional DX 15m band is great. I am using home brew EFHW 40-10.
---------------------------------
73 de Marek SP9TKW
|
Hi Robert- If I had to choose one SOTA/POTA radio it would have
to be a mid-band 60-15m QMX. The small size and negligible weight
allow a complete setup to fit into a very small case. I use
something like this from amazon. The QMX is the small item in the
hand knitted green cozy :) Sandy KB3EOF
amazon.com/dp/B07M5VB1G5
|
Thank you for taking the time to weigh it, Chris. So quite similar to the QCX+ then as Hans noted.
?
Robert
|
Thanks to everyone who shared their measurements, experiences and opinions. Back to thinking for a bit, now better informed. In any case, both would be a significant improvement over my current "portable" setup for non-30m bands: an 80m Howes kit as old as I am, or my FT-450D + lead-acid battery for the remaining bands. :-)
?
Robert SM0YSR
|
Hi Robert,
?
The QMX+ has Digi mode capability.
It is in my opinion easier to build and?
the PCB well suited to an older and shakier hand as I have at 78.
As for modes like FT8 you may, like I was be uninterested but one day I tried it and it was so nice to see and work under the noise, I'm a convert!
I also think the QMX+ SDR concept is better than QCX+, the band capability is great because on any day 20 may be terrible and 15 terrific. The ability to listen on SSB is awesome because sometimes hams have descriptions of their gear and give
good advice,? if you listen. Really the QMX+ is an advancement in the art of radio and worth it.
Good luck,
George
K3GK
?
?
|
The way I look at it, the QMX+ is a very attractive option compared to the QMX.
When I operate portable using the QMX, I bring along a battery and tuner.
The QMX+ has the room to put the battery and tuner inside the case.
For me, such an arrangement would be smaller than my QMX setup and have fewer cables to lose or fail.
For the fits-in-a-shirt-pocket cool factor, however, the QMX is the clear winner.
?
73, Mike KK7ER
?
|
Thanks for your input, George and Mike.
?
George, being easier to build is definitely a big advantage of the QMX+. Mike, very good point about the extra space in the larger enclosure. I guess as more people build and experiment with the QMX+ we will start to see interesting extensions published. Sounds like it could be the basis of a great shack-in-a-box.
?
Robert SM0YSR
|
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 08:24 AM, Mike KK7ER wrote:
The QMX+ has the room to put the battery and tuner inside the case.
Which tuner are you fitting in the case?
?
--
Wayne S.
KF7RCM
|
If you're going to put in an autotuner, something based on the ATU-100 by N7DDC (or its lower power cousin, the ATU-10, with latching relays) would be a reasonable choice if you want something right now. It could be built small enough to fit.
But I'm excited to see a new design that K9HZ is working on, for the T41-EP project but it will work with other radios as well. The initial design will be for 100W, but it could be scaled down for lower power and smaller size if needed. It won't do the usual hunt for a match; instead it measures your antenna like a VNA, calculates the required transform, and applies it straight off. It may need some minor adjustments from there (also automatic) to account for the difference between theory and practice, but it will be much faster overall. That could be combined with an absorptive bridge (switched in during tuning) to further reduce the risk to the rig's finals. Like the T41-EP it will be a fully open source project, hardware and software, so any adaptations needed should be feasible.
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 08:24 AM, Mike KK7ER wrote:
The QMX+ has the room to put the battery and tuner inside the case.
Which tuner are you fitting in the case?
?
--
Wayne S.
KF7RCM
|
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 01:13 PM, kf7rcm@... wrote:
Which tuner are you fitting in the case?
I was thinking of a z-match and drilling some holes in the back plate for the two variable capacitors.?
?
73, Mike KK7ER?
?
|
Chris Raine W3PB
Marek SP9TKW
Shirley Dulcey KE1L