Musing’s on Viability
from
John Wendt, WA6BFH
on
July 14, 2005
View comments about this article!
Musings on Viability
By John Wendt, WA6BFH
Following some of the comments on my recently released article concerning better radio choices for new Ham’s and especially Technician licensee‘s, I am interested in a truly ‘PlugN’Play’ 222 MHz transverter for these very popular little ‘do it all’ radios such as the IC-706, FT-100D, FT-817, FT-857, FT-897 etc.
What I mean by “plug and play” is just simply that. These radios provide for an excellent choice of I.F. at 50 MHz. so that the entire 135 cm band can be tuned using any mode. They already provide all of the necessary control via a ‘connector scheme’ which otherwise would control a Linear Amplifier with “ALC” feedback etc. It would be a simple matter for Yaesu or the other manufactures to provide a simple ‘plug-in’ transverter!
Why should the manufacturer do this:
1) Since it is not economically feasible for them to build 1.35 Meters into the radio‘s, it would be both feasible and profitable to provide a transverter.
2) They would sell many new FT-xxx radios just to do this, whether the customer chose to buy the transverter at the same time of purchase as the transceiver, or as a planned purchase for a later time.
3) They would sell many 135 centimeter transverters to Ham’s that already own the transceiver and would like to add this desired band.
4) This same transverter could be easily ‘cabled-up’ to their other MF/HF/VHF transceivers
The availability of such an economical ‘all mode system’ would inspire many to investigate 222 MHz DX, and would also allow for using the many repeaters or auxiliary link stations on the band! It might even inspire a new group of younger Ham’s to explore the higher bands with the addition of other transverters since they now are better familiarized with such operation. Such transverters perhaps on 33 or 23 cm could be used with a 144 or 432 MHz I.F. Eventually over time, transverters could be added to cover all of Ham’s radios eleven (11) remaining bands. They would be well better than half way to that goal!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by W8JI on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From my perspective, the last time I operated 2M SSB or CW was 20 years ago. The last time I operated 6M CW or SSb was 2 years ago. The last time I operated 70CM FM was two years ago. The last time I operated 2M FM was three weeks ago.
In this area (between Atlanta and Macon) it's tough to find contacts on any primary VHF band, even on FM. The contacts that do take place are generally between friends or family.
I can't imagine wasting time or money on 220 MHz when the primary VHF bands are so boring. I don't think any manufacturer would invest in something that is destined to be a big flop.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by N0IU on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This seems to be the classic 'chicken or the egg' scenario... Is there so little 220 MHz activity because there is a lack of inexpensive commercially available equipment or is there a lack of inexpensive commercially available equipment because there is so little activity???
There must be something about 220 MHz that has caused manufacturers to shy away from making equipment for this band. What is it?
I have already shown on many occasions that John knows absolutely nothing about statistical analysis and it would appear as if he knows even less about economics. Its all about making money. If it was cost effective and profitable to manufacture 220 MHz equipment, whether it be transceivers or transverters, don't you think they would have already figured out a way to do this?
What John needs to do is design a prototype transverter and specify how much it will cost. Then he will need to do some serious market analysis that will show the manufacturers exactly how many units they can expect to sell. Oh that's right, John isn't very good at statistical analysis.
John, the manufacturers are not going to make anything of this sort unless it is a money maker for them. They will not do it just because you enjoy exploring the science of VHF propagation!
NØIU
|
| |
|
Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by N8XBQ on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Getting a transverter is not hard. Down East Microwave, Elecraft, and others have transverters capable of many amateur bands. If one were to want to run on 222, all they would have to do is buy a kit or buy an assembled version. The cabling is fairly straightforward.
I see the lack of use by Techs and these rigs is really a couple of issues:
1. It offers HF, so they can string up a wire to listen to qso's all over the world.
2. Most do not have horizontally polarized antennas.
3. For the most part, there is no activity on VHF or above weak signal portions unless there is a major contest.
4. Most forget about the SSB and CW buttons once they go to the VHF and above bands, and just think of VHF and above as FM bands.
5. If they were to find these above buttons, they tune to 144.2 and find no activity, partly because of issue 2 and 3 mentioned above.
6. They then proceed to forget the button for SSB and CW, because they found lack of activity in the weak signal portions of the band, and proceed to use their radio as a FM base staion and Shortwave Radio, dreaming about upgrading so they can make the real DX contacts on HF.
VHF weak signal requires work, probably more than most people want to put into it.
Durring a contest probably 14 years ago, I was able to work from Ohio to Mexico on 2m SSB, with stacked 30ft 2m Beams, a mast mounted preamp, hardline, and 1500 watts. I was able to work California on 6m with a mast mounted preamp, hardline, 1500 watts, and a 60ft 6m beam. Could you do that with less of a setup? Maybe.
A modest setup still costs money regardless. You still need a place to put a tower, beam, rotator, and hardline. Mast mounted preamps are also nice. Because of previous experiences I know what the VHF and above bands are capable of. Most technicians however do not.
I don't think adding another band to unlock the keys to "Technician VHF bliss," I think education and activity are. If you are a contester, get on the local repeaters and invite young technicians out to play durring a contest. If you are a General or above with a wonder rig, throw up a 6 or 2 meter beam, and get on the air. Set up schedules regularly.. make contacts... ragchew... whatever. Getting on the air is the key, not added bands. If interest is there on 6m and 2m, the other bands will follow.
73
Fred
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, a low cost plug and play transverter for 220 MHz is badly needed. As the writer has mentioned, the core radio will not have 220 MHz built in, so a transverter would be a good possibility.
I am surprised that anyone would not have been able to work SSB or CW on Two or Six Meters, particularly during VHF contest periods or during Sporadic-E activity. Both modes are very viable on Two and Six Meters as well as for 220 MHz.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If were a viable option in which Ten Tec could have made money at it, don't you think they would have already done so?
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The problem isn't the transverter, the problem is the 'core' radio. How many Techs have one that is suitable?
If the Morse Code requirement for HF privileges were dropped, I believe there would be an upsurge in demand for HF+ transceivers like the TS2000 or TS480 or IC706 or FT100D or FT897,etc.
At that point we would have the 'chicken' (the core transceiver) and manufacturers would have the impetus to provide the 'egg' (the transverters).
Dennis KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think this article was aimed at "new bands". I think rather it is aimed at the old saw "use it or it falls off"
There is an inertial barrier to getting on a given band and part of that barrier is lack of inexpensive and available equipment. This transverter is not likely to be a commercial success, but that does not imply it is not a good idea. Someone who has the interest, skill and the time should do the design with economy, ease of construction, and relative performance in mind, publish it in QST and get Far Circuits to make a circuit board for it. Make sure to include specific directions for interfacing to the various popular wonder rigs, and call it a day. Back in the bad old days, we did this by converting old GE and Motorola tube type 150MHZ radios into 220 transverters. We did the same thing to get on 440. We used ten meters rigs or converted CB rigs for the IF. It wasn't too hard to do, and we had piles of this old junk laying around as the mighty Micor marched through the land of the buisness band. (gives you an idea of my vintage) Was it supperior weak signal work stuff? NO! Was it fun YES! This could still be done today.
Either the interest will be there or it won't. If there is no interest then "it will likely fall off". But there just may be some interest.
There are some active communities on VHF/UHF. I live near Orlando and there are regular 6M nets with more than 2 check ins, and there are guys converting radios for the 908mhz band and actually using that band. There are a lot of jokers playing around with 2.4ghz point to point computer links using old TV dishes and soup can feeds. (Personally I prefer 3 spaghetti cans with the bottoms cut off of 2 and all taped together with some aluminum tape) There is a very active group around here involved with radio control aircraft.
I am actually amazed at the interest that is shown. Why am I amazed? Because I don't find these bands particularly interesting, and I prejudically conclude other won't either. But other of my fellow hams seem to be having a blast, and their call signs might indicate they are gasp....technicians!!! I guess they are just too inexperienced to know they shouldn't be having such a good time on ham radio while being gasp....technicians!!! Guys are building beams and other antennas and testing them, putting up towers and climbing them and doing all the stuff hams like to do. So yes to have the BEST weak signal station you need mast mounted preamps and 3" heliax to that 60 element H frame out on the 300ft tower, but there seems to be a lot of guys having a lot of fun with lessor equipment.
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KB1LKR on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0IU asks: "There must be something about 220 MHz that has caused manufacturers to shy away from making equipment for this band. What is it?"
1.25m (really 1.35cm) is only allocated for amateur use in ITU region 2, not regions 1 & 3, so the world wide market is much smaller than for 6m, 2m & 70cm, hence less gear and higher prices for that gear, additionally, because of the limited availability of 1.25m spectrum the ameateur satellite niche doesn't use 1.25m, but does use 2m, 70cm (and 10m and 23cm).
I suspect this is the reason one sees as many 6/2/70 triband HT's vs 2/1.25/70's though the latter would seem, on technical grounds, to be more logical.
I also suspect lack of availability of FM commercial/public safety gear on frequencies near 222 MHz that could be adapted to amateur use vs. high band VHF & 450-470MHz UHF gear also conspired to increase the attractiveness of 2m and then 70cm (at least FM). to the point it is today, so it is indeed a chicken and egg issue.
Still, in some areas 1.25cm FM is relatively popular, and it sees service for control links, etc.
I agree it is too bad though that more gear isn't available w/ 1.25m, particularly 2/1.25/70 and 6/2/1.25/70 FM mobiles and quad band, all mode VHF/UHF only rigs.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KB1LKR on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0IU asks: "There must be something about 220 MHz that has caused manufacturers to shy away from making equipment for this band. What is it?"
1.25m (really 1.35cm) is only allocated for amateur use in ITU region 2, not regions 1 & 3, so the world wide market is much smaller than for 6m, 2m & 70cm, hence less gear and higher prices for that gear, additionally, because of the limited availability of 1.25m spectrum the ameateur satellite niche doesn't use 1.25m, but does use 2m, 70cm (and 10m and 23cm).
I suspect this is the reason one sees as many 6/2/70 triband HT's vs 2/1.25/70's though the latter would seem, on technical grounds, to be more logical.
I also suspect lack of availability of FM commercial/public safety gear on frequencies near 222 MHz that could be adapted to amateur use vs. high band VHF & 450-470MHz UHF gear also conspired to increase the attractiveness of 2m and then 70cm (at least FM). to the point it is today, so it is indeed a chicken and egg issue.
Still, in some areas 1.25cm FM is relatively popular, and it sees service for control links, etc.
I agree it is too bad though that more gear isn't available w/ 1.25m, particularly 2/1.25/70 and 6/2/1.25/70 FM mobiles and quad band, all mode VHF/UHF only rigs.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by W8JI on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The biggest barrier to operating 220 MHz (or even two meters SSB) is the lack of activity. Let's face it, for almost everyone who can work HF..... VHF or UHF is generally pretty boring.
If there were 10,000 guys to work on 220, I'd be bored stiff in a week. I don't want to talk a few hundred miles or less, especially to someone without technical motivation who just bought a transverter and antenna to exchange grid squares. Six meters is the same. I have 1500 watts, five over five at 160 feet with 7/8th inch heliax, and other than working foreign DX six meters puts me to sleep. I care less about grid squares. That's why I don't even turn the six meter rig on. The worse radio investment I ever made was buying those six meter antennas.
The reason no major manufacturer sells a 220 transverter is there is no consumer market. Heck, it would cost a few dollars to put 220 in a radio like the 706. It wasn't worth the few dollars. Why would it be worth a few hundred dollars to add it externally?
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KX8N on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One thing that pushed 220 to begin with was the Novice ticket. The novice could work 220, but not 2 meters. I know up in Michigan a friend of mine owned two 220 repeaters, and he said they were busy all the time, 24 hours a day. Now you still have novices, but the big push today is for the tech license (obviously, since you can't get a novice license now). You have to pay more for a radio with 220 in it, and people just aren't bothering with it. It's easier to pay $80 and get a 2M HT.
Myself, I'd like to have a 220 transverter, but there would only be a few people to talk to on it around here. Unless it was around $50 or so, it would be worth my money.
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by W1VT on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I published a no-tune 222MHz transverter--no tune microwave transverters seemed to be pretty popular so I did a VHF version.
Jul 1993 QEX 24 A No-Tune 222-MHz Transverter
(RF) Lau, Zack, KH6CP
Recent QST articles on the topic include
Jan 2003 QST 31 A 222 MHz Transverter for the Yaesu FT-817
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION TRANSVERTER 222 MHZ QRP Wade, Paul, W1GHZ
May 2001 QST 28 Get On 222 MHz with a Ten-Tec 1210 Transverter! Botts, J.G., K4EJQ
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI wrote:
<The worse radio investment I ever made was buying those six meter antennas.>
I thought an opening on 6M was the super secret tip off 160 was going to be hot hot hot. Then there's awlays a meteor or two to work...lemme see can I crank this grandmaster up to 700wpm....
Just kidding
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by IMBACKHF on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look at the sales figures for 222 mhz or even the tri band HTs.. they are extremely low...
why would anyone buy a transverter for an HF radio band that is 99% more dead then alive?
Most no-code techs don't have HF radios (why would they?) and most HFrs don't want to waste their time and money "trying" to work a few states on up at 222mhz when we can work the world lower down ...
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by IMBACKHF on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look at the sales figures for 222 mhz or even the tri band HTs.. they are extremely low...
why would anyone buy a transverter for an HF radio band that is 99% more dead then alive?
Most no-code techs don't have HF radios (why would they?) and most HFrs don't want to waste their time and money "trying" to work a few states on up at 222mhz when we can work the world lower down ...
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by K6AER on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8JI hit the nail on the head. Most terrestrial VHF/UHF is boring. Once you get involved in HF world communications VHF/UHF SSB is pretty much the same as FM operation except with a lot more work. The 222 MHz band has always been a big city phenomenon only because the 2 meter and 440 MHz repeater frequencies would be full and hams who wanted a repeater would apply for a coordination in that band.
With the advent of cell phones most ham families rarely use auto patches and repeater use in most parts of the US is way down. The want of 222 MHz radios has waned. In the front range of Colorado most repeaters site quite for hours. My counter parts in LA tell me it is much the same there.
Bottom line is Hams are not going to get excited about 222 MHz if they are not excited about the more accessible 2 meter and 450 MHz bands. Manufactures realize this and if they can’t move 10,000 radios a month it is not viable market.
|
| |
|
Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by AE6RF on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SURE I'll buy one!
I'm a gadget freak and if the price point were right (say under $150) I'd get one just for the capability of being on that band.
Remember the "economics" argument doesn't necessarily hold. This is a HOBBY. We do all sorts of things that don't make economic sense.
A project that isn't financially attractive to a formal company doesn't stop some guy in a garage from putting them together and selling them on ebay (or whatever.)
You wouldn't sell zillions, but you'd probably sell enough to have fun.
My two cents worth,
-Donald
P.S. and count me in for one of the first run!
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't see why there need to be more players in this market, actually. DEMI does a great job and already has a very "plug & play" 220 MHz transverter on the market, which can accept high drive and is available with an optional T-R relay so it can plug right into a tranceiver antenna port. It only requires two cable connections and a source of 13.8 Vdc.
It works fine.
It's not $150 or less, which is an interesting objective, but I think considering the product it's priced fairly. I doubt if selling it for less money would increase their sales.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are a number of 222 transverters and even the low power ones are not cheap. That is a problem but, then again generating power on VHF is more difficult.
The idea of plug and play is a misnomer as the rigs mentioned put out from 4 to 100W and have to be set
up so they don't use the transverter as a dummy load
or turn it into one.
I hear this kind of thing periodically and it always sounds like:
"Will someone design for me xxxyyyzz and build it too
and for less than reasonable price?"
If you wish to be on 222 (or any other VHF band) then
buy a transverter for that HF set and go have fun.
As to making DX contancts on HF, sounds nice and all
but doing it on VHF is a challenge. I might add that
CW is a viable mode for VHF and still commonly heard
for those weak signals.
Allison
KB1GMX
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by IMBACKHF on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would say that after adding the antenna system and tuner and your easily at 250/300 ...
and as stated before - i think most of us would, even though its a hobby, still rather spend 300 on something that improves our HF DX ...
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, there sure SEEMS to be a lot more pessimism in Ham radio than I expected!
Perhaps some of the ‘tone of responses’ comes from the sub-header title in the way the web master formed a question. I didn’t really intend to place that much emphasis there but, I guess I understand both why he did that, and the tone of responses it garnered.
In reading the responses to this point in time, my winner and probably ALL TIME favorite was wording to the effect -- ‘if I could get one for $50.00 bucks, I would buy one’. I tried to e-mail this guy directly but, he doesn’t list an e-mail address. So dude, when was the last time you bought ANY brand new plug it in and go transmitter/receiver for $50.00 Dollars. I will go out and buy one just to appreciate the novelty, I don’t even care what band it is on!
I appreciate the positive comments that I got, and even a direct e-mail that assured me that the guy would like to buy such a transverter, if I decide to design one. I will give this some thought. I did even appreciate N0UI’s thoughts. He may be right, it may be better for a ‘garage shop’ to market such a relatively small market device, than a world wide manufacturer!
73! I’m waiting to read what other comments come in; I went and put on my asbestos shorts!
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IMBACKHF, You sir can {and should} use any one of the HF 'antenna system tuner' (TransMathes) on the market. I also suggest that when (if ever) you get on 222 MHz SSB, that you use at least 100 feet of RG58, preferably more! If you don't really need that much, just coil it up on the floor.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KA2LIM on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8XBQ wrote:
Durring a contest probably 14 years ago, I was able to work from Ohio to Mexico on 2m SSB, with stacked 30ft 2m Beams, a mast mounted preamp, hardline, and 1500 watts. I was able to work California on 6m with a mast mounted preamp, hardline, 1500 watts, and a 60ft 6m beam. Could you do that with less of a setup? Maybe
Ans: Yes
Propragation on 6 meters, not so unusual
That occasional band opening on 2 meters ie: E-Skip or tropo or Aurora !!
Ken
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John;
I agree with the general concensus here:
Activity on 220 is sparse and manufacturers have doen the market analysis and know this, so they don't bother adding the capability. The ham radio communications gear market is pretty "cut throat" as it is, along with the fact that most hams aren't known for having big pockets.
Another reason that OEM's may be shying away from 220 is some of the recent FCC spectrum auctions over the last 3 years. I'm willing to bet that OEM's are forecasting the eventual loss of 220 or more cuts to available spectrum in the near future. That's probably not a tough bet to take.
* About 6 meters; I disagree with Tom, W8JI and others, although they obviously have a right to their preferences.
What makes 6 meters unique and interesting is generally the opposite of what you find on HF.
What other band allows you to work all of North America with low power and light weight, multi-element yagis the size of large VHF TV antennas mounted at moderate heights over ground? Heck, many hams use small omnidirectional loops, dipoles or verticals and also do very well.
I find it's actually more fun - and intriguing - to be able to use 5 to 50 watts PEP and still have a very good chance of making a 20 over 9 splash 3000 miles away.
Unlike HF, no gigantic investments in towers or amplifiers is required....just a little patience.
When the same old HF DX is running a pileup and has no interest in anything else except a signal report and "73's, see you down the log", I find 6 more challenging and usually a lot more interesting.
73, Chris
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by NL7W on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
220 MHz is a wasteland.
Why not explore the higher bands above 1 GHz on both the weak signal and digital modulation schemes?
Better yet... get on HF and work CW!
Steve
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris I would agree with some of your assessments except for the fact that the FCC embarrassed themselves pretty badly at the time they re-allocated the 220 to 222 MHz portion of this band.
They had touted the idea that a ‘progressive new mode’ Amplitude Compandored Single Sideband (ACSSB) {and in this application with pilot carrier} would be developed. By their wording they justified this reallocation to develop this mode and GIVE this spectrum (for all intents and purpose) to United Parcel Service.
Ham’s warned them that this mode would not work at this wavelength for a ‘mobile service’. They did it anyway!
Later they gave us 219 to 220 MHz, I’m sure as a face saving move, when UPS went to narrow band FM because ACSSB did not work as planned.
I think we may have a good chance of eventually getting these two MegaHertz back! It is our microwave bands that are really in jeopardy of re-allocation. We may though have a pretty good bargaining chit for even those bands!
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by K5LXP on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Make 220 the "APRS" or AX25 band. Look what APRS did for TNC sales. Make the standard APRS transceiver a $50 5W crystal box and there'd be thousands on the air in a matter of weeks.
I would offer that of anything that would boost 220 activity, a linear transverter would be way overboard. Just as FM is the most popular mode on 2M and 440, a 'simple' add-on transverter that would convert a 2M FM rig to 220 would be what I would vote for. 2M mobiles are cheap enough you could dedicate one for exclusive use on 220, or if you made the transverter with a bit of smarts, used for both bands. Considering what a 20 year old Kenwood TM631 2M/220 dual bander goes for, this expense isn't beyond possibility. With simple, easy and universal access (using any 2M rig, not an $800 HF mobile) you might spark some interest. Around these parts 2M, much less 220 is pretty dead but that doesn't speak for many parts of the country. No, it's not practical to build 220 into the rigs but as a simple and relatively inexpensive option it would have a better chance. In any event, there's got to be something to do on 220 before you'll see any masses flock there. The problem isn't equipment availability or cost, it's a lack of a compelling reason to go there.
Mark K5LXP
Albuquerque, NM
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree about the lack of compelling reason. 6m and 2m have been popular for many, many years and are essentially "staple" bands similar to HF with a broad variety of modes, applications and uses. 70cm FM has become about the same, but only FM. 70cm weak-signal work, and just about all work on 135cm, as well as literally all work on 33cm, 23cm, 13cm and above are relegated to "experimental" use and "experimenter's" bands, and that's the way it's been for the 40 years I've been licensed.* And that's the way it still is.
(*Except for 33cm, which wasn't even a ham band when I was first licensed.)
Going back to the early 1960s when Gonset tried to make 220 MHz a popular VHF ham band with their introduction of several transceivers that would work it, right along with their rigs for 144 and 50 MHz, the band simply never took off. Tecraft, Ameco, Clegg and many others made gear for 220 MHz and nobody sold much of it.
I still have the 1 kW (output) 220 MHz amplifier I've used since 1979 with the same pair of 4CX250s in it and it hasn't been powered up in years. This amp wasn't even built by me: It's a modified military amp which was used as the KH6BZF beacon in Hawaii back in the 70's. I forgot how I even ended up with it...
<Sigh>
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John;
The embarassment was probably a momentary thing, measured in milliseconds. After the $$$$$ auction $$$$$ proceeds came in everyone got over it and moved on.
Taking another perspective for a moment, do you feel the amateur community as a whole really finds 220 a "desirable" band?
What can you do on 220 that you really can't do on 144 or 432 Mhz?
From my own knowledge of VHF/UHF operation and my preferences, I would think the answer is not much.
But then factoring in your preference for the world above 50 mc, I think I know what you'll say.
Until you chime in, I'll predict that as a whole, amateurs under-utilize this band because it's propogation characteristics are not unique enough to draw a distinct differentiation between other VHF and UHF bands - and I'm sure many OEM's understand this as well. That would be a typical responsibility for product marketing.......
73, Chris
|
| |
|
musing's on musing's
|
|
|
by K3ESE on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
its a GOOD THING no english teacher wannabee's stuck there nose's in here to air there beef's about grammer's or any other thing's THIS IS AMATURE RADIO and not you're leson's!!!
|
| |
|
RE: musing's on musing's
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LLoyd, I'm trying to determine if there's enough CW activity on 220 MHz to justify my buying the Begali.
Even if there isn't, I might put it at the top of the Xmas List for the XYL. That is: I'll buy it for her, she won't know what it is, and then she'll give it to me, haw!
I geared up a LOT for 220 MHz when I was a very active VHF contester, because this is "another band" to make contacts and get multipliers. Kind of like switching to 160m during the CQ WW DX -- nobody's going to win or lose based on their 160 total, but it is another band where the contacts and multipliers count, so we go there late at night and grab some.
220 is kind of like that for VHF contesters. So, at one point I had invested heavily in the band. If I was still a radical contester, I probably would still do this, but other responsibilities took over.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> What can you do on 220 that you really can't do on 144 or 432 Mhz?<<<
An amazing number of things. First I'd say is unlike 2m the noise floor is lower and you don't have adjacent services like paging systems for overload and other noise. Crowding is not a factor too. Antennas are getting in the range of small yet still easy to build, they start getting a bit trickier at 432. It's a low enough frequency that dead bug (aka ugly) construction still works and generating stable RF sources can be done fairly easily. Also Coax losses are still in the manageable region but going one octave up (70cm) Coax losses start to get significant and good low loss cable is a must.
Just like 6m is the bottom band of VHF, 135cm it the top band of VHF and from a popagation standpoint that's a big difference from 6 or 2m yet has more possibilities for propagation that 432.
Is there a down side to 222? Yes, a shortage of cheap hardware, cheap modifyable radios. For the experimentor this is a cost issue. That and for the most part around New England there is little activity other than FM outside contests and even then the predominent mode is mostly FM and weak signal SSB. I've heard little discussion or activity for other modes.
I've been listening on 222. Built a quickie downcoverter to 6m for listening to see if there's
enough to warrent effort to build a 5W transverter.
I do a lot of listening first. Other than a few really nice FM repeaters There not enough to attract me, yet. For the time being I'm putting effort into building a transverter for 432/437 (weak signal and sats) up before 222 as time and funds are limited. At some point I'd like to have most (CW, SSB ,FM) mode capability from 6 through 70cm.
Allison,
KB1GMX
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris, I doubt that the level of embarrassment was small. I say this because they awarded us the 219 to 220 segment to sort of apologize. That is (was) no small thing {to grant such an allocation}! You might see it as kinda sorta giving us back at least half of what they ‘stole’.
Your question is hard to answer as you frame it. I can tell you that I know the 220 {octave} realm of frequency will do things that I have not seen on 2 Meters or 70 cm. I doubt that 2 Meters could support the ‘mechanism’ that I have seen. I believe 70 cm probably could but, I don’t know that as a fact!
I do believe that 135 cm is another sort of “Magic Band”, in much the way 6 Meters has this sort of attraction!
|
| |
|
Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by K7VO on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My experiences with 222 echo Allison's. Yes, there are some very fine repeaters on the band. In most places I lived the widest coverage repeaters are on 222 and only a couple are really busy. Also the folks on 222 repeaters are, for the most part, polite and courteous and generally pleased to talk to new people, unlike 2m.
222 SSB/CW? Hmmm... I think the responses you've gotten, John, pretty much tell the story. Aside from a few pockets of activity around the country it's only alive during contests. Otherwise nobody is on. Hams simply won't spend a significant amount of money for a band that doesn't give them much in the way of instant gratification. There are already excellent plug-n-play transverters on the market, both new and used, for 222. That isn't the issue.
222 equipment is a small niche in ham radio. There are no cost savings due to large quantities. Any product companies have put out, from Yaesu's 222 module for the FT-736R to the Icom IC-375A, simply didn't sell enough to justify development costs. Right now only the triband FM HTs (Kenwood TH-F6A, Yaesu VX-6R) where 222 is combined with other, more popular repeater bands sell well. Heck, when I wrote about 222 before people complained that $200 for a mobile rig new was just too much to spend.
So... I just don't see any new equipment coming down the pike. Probably the best deal out there is the Elecraft XV-222 transverter. If you can't build one there are plenty of volunteer builders out there who can build one for you for a modest fee or, for folks who have limited means, often free. I think it's great that Elecraft brought out this product, which is the least expensive transverter on the market.
Another option for those on a budget is to modify the Ten Tec 2m transverter for 222. QST had an article explaining how to do just that.
222 maybe one of our best kept secrets, but it still will never be popular like 20m or 40m or even 6m. There isn't enough long distance propogation often enough to interest the instant gratification crowd, which is the vast majority of hams today. The lack of activity other than during contests pretty much will perpetuate the lack of activity.
73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
RE: Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Arrrrrgh, thank you Caity!
Yes, maybe I will have to get in touch with some of those Elecraft builders. Dam*ed if I went to pick up the iron from my soldering station the other day -- and grabbed the hot end! Near darn well branded myself but, you probably knew that is all that I am capable of!
Anyway, like I said before, I would hope that more folks -- even like you and me Caity -- folks that see a FASCINATION and VALUE in certain wavelength bands, just darn well might find such a transverter a pretty nifty thing!
I’m trying to think of how one might be built for under the $50.00 bucks the other guy was worried about. I was going to write some notes, and darned if I didn’t pick up that iron again by its tip! Strange, I guess I’m too dumb to tell a pencil from a pencil soldering iron!
|
| |
|
RE: Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A transverter for 50$, That would be tough to do for a
limited entry kit. I think 150$ might be possible and may hit that majik "cheap enough to try" treshold. Most of the ones I know of are (much) more than 200$.
If features are left out (minimal design) it may be possible to get the cost down. Same with power, as
power modules for 222 are not cheap and good transistors for the 10-30W region cost a few bucks too. However, 5W parts are can be had far cheaper per watt. For those that scoff, at 222 an 11-13 element beam with decent gain are under 8ft long. Antenna gain on VHF and UHF do go a long way in making up for power and they are cheaper than power.
Allison,
KB1GMX
|
| |
|
RE: Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Allison, don’t worry about that one!
That dud(e) has his head so far up his a** that I’m sure daylight has never invaded his perceptions!
I see the pricing as -- straight across -- comparable to other now available transverters -- at the same power output, and Front-end sensitivity etc.
They would differ only in that they would be laid out for ‘straight plug-in’ to the connector scheme provided on the radios I mentioned.
The question is -- would people pay to add this band to these otherwise -- do it all radios? I think so!
|
| |
|
RE: Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John
If �new� hams have �do it all rigs�, they might be looking at getting better performance for their rigs, vrs another band for their rig.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The proposed transverter would not work with my radios.
Not for lack of design but the targeted radios are none
I own. I use a modded RS HTX-10, 10mw out. Works for 28mhz IFs. The other radio is a TenTec 526(6n2) where I can use the 2m transverter IO.
I know I buck the trend, or more likely run closer to the usual VHFer in system configurations.
However, closer to the point. For me and how I view my spending on the hobby 349$ is more than I care to spend
a transverters for casual use. Casual use pricing to me is about half that. Of course I'd expect lower power and a bit more RX noise. For serious EME, Sats or other weak signal work I may consider the high priced spread but, that would likely be 70cm activity. It's how I balance my activity and what I like to do.
However, I do encourage people to go beyond FM on VHF/UHF as there is a lot of things a Tech can do there besides FM repeters.
Allison,
KB1GMX
|
| |
|
RE: Transverters, 222 SSB, etc...
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It also depends upon how you define a "Plug and Play" transverter. Many operators today, including avid (or is that rabid?) VHF operators are "appliance" operators, (with no insult intended, please forgive the phrase.) They have "DC-to-near Light" radios �la the TS-2000, Yaesu FT847, Icom 706, 746 or 756 in various incarnations, and have less than obvious enthusiasm for much else. And they have serious qualms (perhaps justified) about even the thought of bringing a soldering iron into the same room as their transceiver.
But bear in mind, that even a "PnP" transverter for the 135 cm. band may be the smallest expense involved in a reasonable or even usable station, which, as has already been pointed out, is only viable in our ITU Region 2, greatly reducing "DX" possibilities. The antenna, antenna support structure, and feedline, as well as the expense of an external amp (to boost a usually QRP or thereabout level signal from a typical transverter) can easily overshadow the expense of the transverter itself. (Don't ask how I know...)
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KC7EKK on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
--The biggest barrier to operating 220 MHz (or even two meters SSB) is the lack of activity. Let's face it, for almost everyone who can work HF..... VHF or UHF is generally pretty boring.
I beg to differ. Granted the thrill of working stations world wide on 20 meter CW is what pushed me to getting my extra class license, it was the even greater high of pulling in a weak signal on 432 MHz SSB what moved me back to my true ham radio love of VHF/UHF weak signal.
Anyone who says that these bands are not being used and are boring is suffering from one or all of the following.
1. Lousy horizontal directional antenna
2. Still using RG-8 (or worse) coax.
3. Does not have enough patience to call out CQ for 15 minutes (remember others are also listening and if you don't talk they won't either).
I can call out CQ on 144.200 USB any day of the week and within ½ hour I am talking with someone. Often they are very far away and it amazes me that this very line of sight band allowed me to bridge a very non-linear path of communication.
Then there are the other facets of UHF/VHF weak signal, satellite and EME. Beaming your self made signal from the shack, off of the planet, across ¼ million miles of space, bouncing it off of an alien-lunar world and bringing it back again. HOW COOL IS THAT!!
If you think that is boring then well, I guess I have never lived.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow! Let me composite the last three (3) responses -- they are all very cool!
Give me a while, I have some stuff going on!
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by N9DG on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As others have already pointed out there are a number of transverters for 222 already out there. For the most part they aren't that hard to setup either. So this solution is for a problem that doesn't really exist. And who knows, once you get a good performing transverter for 222 you might just realize just how poor to mediocre performer that those typical DC to daylight all band wonderbox radios really are. I did, because after getting on 222 with a transverter I've since converted all my other VHF+ bands to transverters for my SSB/CW work.
As for activity, yes it is generally confined to contests and band openings. In this part of the country (upper Midwest) if there is a for real 500+ mile tropo opening on 144 and 432 you can bet that there are many also on 222 as well. There's usually plenty on 902 and 1296 as well. If there is an aurora opening (often when HF is blacked out or poor propagation) there are many on 144 CW and often a few more 222. I sometimes wish that the K-index would *never* drop bellow 7 ;-).
I've also concluded to have decent chance of winning first place for your section in the various ARRL VHF contests you almost must have 222. Same for placing in the top 10 nationwide, it's rare for a top 10 station to not have 222. For me 222 has consistently ran neck and neck with 432 for the number of Q's and multipliers in the various VHF contests that I've operated in. It is a band that is well worth the effort to equip yourself for if you're into VHF contesting.
I simply don't buy the sentiment that VHF "weak signal" is boring. On the contrary I find that most HF operating boring. I do have a number of radios that can operate there but rarely do. Why would I want to chase DX in foreign countries just like a million or more other hams have already done, - and have been doing for many decades before me? That's boring. To me it is a far more satisfying challenge to work the 222 or other VHF band DX out to 1000 miles or more than working some foreign country on an HF band. For you HF only folks how many other hams do you know that have made terrestrial 144 and above DX Q's of 1500 miles or more? But I bet you could list dozens of other hams that you know who have worked a 100 or more countries. To me it seems like those who only like HF or VHF/UHF FM are only interested in instant gratification. FWIW I'd much rather do something that is truly challenging.
Do you want to know the reason that all those HF multimode radios with the VHF/UHF bands in them don't get used on VHF and above CW/SSB very much? It is because the owners of them have *inevitably* tried to work some SSB Q' with their 5/8 wave dual band *vertical* at the end of 100 feet of RG-58. They probably didn't work anybody and therefore concluded that there is no one to work on SSB.
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BFH responses:
<The proposed transverter would not work with my radios.
Not for lack of design but the targeted radios are none
I own. I use a modded RS HTX-10, 10mw out. Works for 28mhz IFs. The other radio is a TenTec 526(6n2) where I can use the 2m transverter IO.
I know I buck the trend, or more likely run closer to the usual VHFer in system configurations.
However, closer to the point. For me and how I view my spending on the hobby 349$ is more than I care to spend
a transverters for casual use. Casual use pricing to me is about half that. Of course I'd expect lower power and a bit more RX noise. For serious EME, Sats or other weak signal work I may consider the high priced spread but, that would likely be 70cm activity. It's how I balance my activity and what I like to do.
However, I do encourage people to go beyond FM on VHF/UHF as there is a lot of things a Tech can do there besides FM repeters. >
Allison, while you provide me with a very good detailed assessment and perspective of your ‘desired station compliment’ vs. ‘how many bucks to spend’ -- I can only say -- what do you really want to achieve with your station -- AS A TOOL OF YOUR DESIRES?
Myself, receiver performance {being Front-end} is paramount! I think that 25 Watt output (or so) is required to drive a future amplifier.
………………………………....................................................
<It also depends upon how you define a "Plug and Play" transverter. Many operators today, including avid (or is that rabid?) VHF operators are "appliance" operators, (with no insult intended, please forgive the phrase.) They have "DC-to-near Light" radios �la the TS-2000, Yaesu FT847, Icom 706, 746 or 756 in various incarnations, and have less than obvious enthusiasm for much else. And they have serious qualms (perhaps justified) about even the thought of bringing a soldering iron into the same room as their transceiver.
But bear in mind, that even a "PnP" transverter for the 135 cm. band may be the smallest expense involved in a reasonable or even usable station, which, as has already been pointed out, is only viable in our ITU Region 2, greatly reducing "DX" possibilities. The antenna, antenna support structure, and feedline, as well as the expense of an external amp (to boost a usually QRP or thereabout level signal from a typical transverter) can easily overshadow the expense of the transverter itself. (Don't ask how I know...) >
Well, FOR THE TIME BEING, I have to discount your thoughts. They are REALLY quite good though, and I will address them later. I do have some ideas!
……………………………….......................................................
<--The biggest barrier to operating 220 MHz (or even two meters SSB) is the lack of activity. Let's face it, for almost everyone who can work HF..... VHF or UHF is generally pretty boring.
I beg to differ. Granted the thrill of working stations world wide on 20 meter CW is what pushed me to getting my extra class license, it was the even greater high of pulling in a weak signal on 432 MHz SSB what moved me back to my true ham radio love of VHF/UHF weak signal.
Anyone who says that these bands are not being used and are boring is suffering from one or all of the following.
1. Lousy horizontal directional antenna
2. Still using RG-8 (or worse) coax.
3. Does not have enough patience to call out CQ for 15 minutes (remember others are also listening and if you don't talk they won't either).
I can call out CQ on 144.200 USB any day of the week and within ½ hour I am talking with someone. Often they are very far away and it amazes me that this very line of sight band allowed me to bridge a very non-linear path of communication.
Then there are the other facets of UHF/VHF weak signal, satellite and EME. Beaming your self made signal from the shack, off of the planet, across ¼ million miles of space, bouncing it off of an alien-lunar world and bringing it back again. HOW COOL IS THAT!! >
Well sir ----- YOU obviously get it! What more can I say?
I can think of and conceive a ‘packaged design’ to accomplish what I propose. I just don’t know the percentages?
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9DG, I agree with you!
The dilemma is why don't others understand?
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by KE2IV on July 14, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have read this entire post. Now that in itself is an exercise in self-flaggelation!
What I come up (down) to is one simple query for the author of the original post.
What do you mean by "Plug and Play"?
When it comes to HR there are really only three major manufacuterers: I, Y and K.
These three cannot even agree on a common microphone plugging scheme - even though they all use the same 8 pins! And for you xenophobes, TT is no exception. Heck, last time I checked, they were using totally different mic plugs from the Japanese three!
The issue comes down to "proprietary systems". If I, Y and K were to agree on a common transverter scheme they would violate the basic corporate competitiveness model that is acheived by INCOMPATABILITY! Competitors maintain "loyalty" by ensuring that once you have "bought into" their "system" you are "locked in". Heck, try putting a GM component in a Ford!
As to the many other comments regarding the 222 Mhz band - most are sound, well argued and bespeak of the aging nature of hams operators. Who wants to bother anymore - we can cell phone around the world!
I will say that even as I have begun selling off much of my ham gear on eB.y, I am keeping my IC-706 and Yaesu 222 handheld (too bad they're not compatible!). But that's because I still want to keep my "bands" covered. ;-)
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BFH,
Your claim of the FCC somehow being "embarrassed" is embarrassing in & of itself. They are a governing body. They call the shots. You need to get over your jilted view of the relationship. A couple of other facts that escape your baseless claims:
A) UPS never used 220, not even for a week, except for 3 demos in very small regions.
B) UPS never went narrowband, they went cellular.
C) The 220-222 band was almost exclusively awarded to SEA for ACSSB development.
D) 219-220 was not an offering, it was a secondary allocation. Hardly a replacement, on purpose.
E) Hams were hardly a credible authority on the viability of ACSSB. The FCC had already determined that the ARRL stuffed the repeater directory full of "paper systems", thus we had no credibility left, not even technical in nature. I know this since I was a witness to the stuffing effort in NJ. The FCC also knew (way back then) that if hams didn't develop it, they could certainly be counted on being against it. Look at the BPL tussle & see "we" still have not learned to read into why they do what they do, even after all these years!
The mere fact that 222-225 still remains underloaded only proves the FCC did what they thought best, based on the ACTUAL band loading data. Hardly any radios do 219-220 so even that was a token dismissal of promised, actual use.
Your "facts" are totally specious & typical of hams spouting what fits their jilted views of a defeat.
Just make your kit & skip the speculative commentary!
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability (Make your own transverter)
|
|
|
by W2CSH on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a transverter available if you are willing to do some simple soldering. Apr 2002 QST page 71 Re: Get on 222 MHz with a Ten-Tec 1210 Transverter!
(Technical Correspondence) Bloom, Alan, N1AL
Alan Bloom published a great article on converting the Ten Tec 1210 transverter to 222 Mhz. I have built 3 of these in the last two years for myself and other hams. It works great and if you have FM capability on your HF radio you can build or buy a tone board kit and work repeaters. I purchased all three transverters on ebay for between 80 and 100 dollars. They appear often. Takes about an hour to modify the transverter.
Alan's directions are great and it works FB. Get this month's CQ magazine and you can learn how to build a cheap wood beam and copper/phosphor welding wire yagi and have a very versatile and inexpensive 220 station.
If you don't like 220 then burn the yagi for firewood and sell the transverter for 150.00 on ebay. (One of the ones I converted for a friend sold for 150.00 Buy It Now about 5 minutes after it was listed)
By the way if you do a QST Index search on "220 Transverter" you will find several articles on homebrewing 220 transverters from other contributors. Most of the recent articles have a printed circuit board and parts available from FAR Circuits and are also excellent transverter designs.
I built mine originally to use a couple of local repeaters with a j-pole antenna that cost me 8 dollars and an hour's work. I have accidently experienced some really fun band openings and plan to modify the yagi design in this month's CQ magazine to work on 220.
Here are the remainder of 220 Transverter articles from the QST article index.
Jan 1990 QST 32 Elevator: A Simple 220-MHz FM Transverter, The
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION TRANSVERTER 222 MHZ FM ELEVATOR HOMEBREW 220 MHZ Agsten, Mike, WA8TXT
Nov 1982 QST 52 Explore "220" with this State-of-the-Art Transverter
(Feedback)
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION HOMEBREW TRANSVERTER 222 MHZ 220 MHZ
Sep 1982 QST 33 Explore "220" With This State-Of-The-Art Transverter--Part 2
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION HOMEBREW 222 MHZ TRANSVERTER 220 MHZ Stroud, Richard, W9SR/W9BRN
Aug 1982 QST 14 Explore "220" With This State-Of-The-Art Transverter!--Part 1
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION HOMEBREW TRANSVERTER 222 MHZ 220 MHZ Stroud, Richard, W9SR/W9BRN
Jul 1978 QST 17 Put Your All-Mode 2-Meter Rig on 220!
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION HOMEBREW TRANSVERTER 2 METER 222 MHZ TUBE 6EA8 6360 6939 5894 6907 VHF Overbeck, Wayne, K6YNB/N6NB
Jun 1978 QST 42 Reducing Spurious Outputs from the W2GN 220-MHz Transverter
(Technical Correspondence)
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION HOMEBREW TRANSMITTER CONVERTER 222 MHZ TUBE 6939 Merry, Fred, W2GN
Dec 1971 QST 25 Some Thoughts About 220-MHz Operation
Keywords: CONSTRUCTION 222 MHZ OPERATING TRANSVERTER DeMaw, Doug, W1CER
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA6BFH:
>>>Allison, while you provide me with a very good detailed assessment and perspective of your �desired station compliment� vs. �how many bucks to spend� -- I can only say -- what do you really want to achieve with your station -- AS A TOOL OF YOUR DESIRES?<<<
My desire is to work with and experiment RF technologies as they suit me in the context of QRP weak signal VHF. I build my equipment. My collection include multiple radios for 6m easch using differing topologies to gain RX performance in the same realm of high end transverters. Transmitter chains are are also designed to higher standards. So happens unlike amny that build their own I prefer VHF and UHF as a place to implement my desires.
>>>Myself, receiver performance {being Front-end} is paramount! I think that 25 Watt output (or so) is required to drive a future amplifier.<<<
We agree on that one. While I do have several "compromize" transcievers I also have built several
with perfomance that exceeds commercial junk.
Someone asked if I went for HF privs what would I use? I already have a IF transceivers for 10m and 20m and the idea of a multiband HF (to say 6m or 2m) Transverter is not unreasonable nor difficult. However I find that VHF and up does not lack in challenge nor
people to talk to. I also find that people that have not experienced it are hooked. I do work to expose as many as possible to the non-FM modes.
I'm likely an anomaly in that as an engineer I've chosen VHF/uhf as a fun place to experiment rather
than down near DC. ;)
Allison,
KB1GMX
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by K2TL on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here in NJ there are literally dozens of unused repaters on 2 Meters and 70 cm. Even the most used repeaters are very quiet, even during rush hour. And, 98% of the contacts I make there are the same Hams I always work...all 3 of them!
So, what exactly would be the benefit for me or anyone else having 220 capability? So I can listen to more dead air? If I owned the very best 220 mhz equipment in the world right now, I don't know what I would do with it.
I think we need more Hams, not more radios.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by K7VO on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BFH, as always, writes:
> 1. Lousy horizontal directional antenna
The usual religious attack on horizontal polarization and gain antennas. The 99.5% or more of us who are horizontally polarized on VHF/UHF SSB/CW/Digital all have to change to suit BFH. Every book published by the ARRL, RSGB, and others is clearly wrong because BFH knows better than every "expert" on the subject. We should all throw away our lousy beams and run ground plains.
LOL. John, do you know how silly your writing is?
Cait
K7VO/8
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Caity,
KC7EKK actually wrote that about the lousy horizontal directional antenna. BFH cut and pasted it...
...can't tell the players without a scorecard, nowadays!
I think what EKK was alluding to wasn't that we should be using vertical polarization; but that we should be using "better" horizontal directional antennas, and not "lousy" ones. There are some lousy ones out there, for sure. My old Cushcraft "Redi-Match" yagis (7 el, 10 el, 11 el versions) were perfect examples!
:-)
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
maybe a cheap transverter kit for those 10m and 6m mobile rigs.
Perhaps a cheap add on transverter for 2m/440h-ht's
On a dual bander add on, would upconvert 6m to 2m for Rx.downconvert 440 to 220 for transmit.
I dunno....that seems to be expensive way to get 220mhz.
The viability is 100% if you design and build one for your radio's'!
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by K0KN on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd like to add to the 222 discussion a bit.
I purchased a Hamtronics 222 receive converter on Ebay for $15.00! This had already been assembled by another ham and works well. I have built the 2 meter version myself, and this one is very similar. Construction is very easy and straightforward.
This was well within my budget, and I now have a way to listen to the band without spending several hundred dollars on a transceiver or transverter.
Activity in the Kansas City area is very scant, and so far 100% FM. Too bad, as I'd want to design and build a transmit converter if I'd ever get a chance to use it on CW/SSB. I have no interest in doing all of that work to have another VHF FM radio.
One thing to note about 222:
I have been told that many (if not all) of today's radio scanners will not RX the 222 band. This can be useful in emergency operations to keep the public (and TV news, etc) away.
73,
Kyle Yoksh
K0KN
Olathe, Kansas
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yea, per Caity’s repeated badgering I went to strictly horizontal for 222 MHz.
In fact I took an additional tip from another E-Ham contributor, I load my 80 Meter dipole on 220! I bet it works as good as Caity’s 6 meter loop! Gee afterall its 30 wavelengths long -- it ought to have lots of gain!
Like the other guy, I am using my Swan ST-1 TransMatch so everything tunes up nicely. I’m also using very low loss coax. Its RG58 foam from a company called Big Signal Wire Guy, and I’m only using about 500 feet. I probably though only need about half of that but, I just coiled up the excess on the floor.
I’m hoping to work Caity on 222.1 MHz. I have been listening but, I haven’t heard her or anyone else yet?
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability of a $50 Xverter
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RAF, isn't it odd that I listened to their operations for years if they never used the allocation! Granted, they only use about 5 narrow-band channels in 2 MHz of spectrum but, hey like you say -- all of these Ham systems are just on paper anyway! Three or four MHz is plenty enough for us Hamsters!
You know that we have a very full 3 MHz of paper systems on the band in the Los Angeles area? In fact the band is so quiet with only these "paper repeaters" in the LA basin that the 10 KHz window granted for weak signal work has no need of a buffer.
Shoot, come on out to LA. You will never hear any FM traffic on the band. It's just there for us guys that want to run SSB!
Oh, I guess that I should clarify for you. Typical popular modes on Ham radio are Single Sideband, and FM or Frequency Modulation. Now I know that when you say 220, you automatically mean FM but, believe it or not, there are actually quite a few people in this country that operate SSB on this band!
|
| |
|
RE: Musing�s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, I meant to sign my 220/80 Meter horizontal antenna post.
Silly me!
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by N0IU on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA6BFH wrote, "It would be a simple matter for Yaesu or the other manufactures to provide a simple ‘plug-in’ transverter!"
So John, have you written to Vertex Standard about your fabulous idea? What did they say??
W2CSH references 8 articles in QST about 222 MHz transverters in the past 30+ years. These are all homebrew projects that will take some effort to built, test and hook up. Obviously there is no shortage of information, but it sounds like you have either not done adequate research on the subject or are just looking for the easy way out.
John, I am confused. It is my understanding that you absolutely loathe, detest and despise the HF bands (except for maybe Sporatic E on 10 meters) because it does not provide enough of a challenge. But now, you are looking for some sort of factory built wired and tested “Plug N' Pray” 222 MHz transverter that can be used with any rig on the market. This seems to be 180 degrees out of phase with your contention that if it is easy, its not worth it! It sounds like you are wanting something for the typical No-Code Tech appliance operator to Velcro on the back of their rice box that will give them the ability to explore the science of VHF propagation along with you. Are these the type of people you want to count among your peers?
In researching this topic, I found a very interesting ‘article’ on eHam that was started by KF2OK (now NN2G) entitled “222 Mhz the missing band” and I definitely go a sense of déjà vu when I read the comments. The entire article can be seen at http://www.eham.net/articles/3658
If we are lucky, maybe it will be another three years before this subject comes up again!
Cheers!
NØIU
|
| |
|
Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by AF4KK on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, yes YES!
I have been wanting some sort of "plug and play" transverter to plug into one of my multi-band radios! I hear 22 mHz SSB can be quite fun!
Yes, I would buy one!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0IU, I suspect you may be pulling an AE6IP on me but, I will answer you anyway!
I have come to think unless such a method is provided that is “really easy”, Ham’s just won’t do it! Oh, and I did say that in my last article!
Even in this article, and answer from someone who should know better said, these transverters are already available. They are not! If you want to stick to SSB or iCW near 222.1 MHz, or other modes no further away than 223.7, yes you can buy a transverter to do that.
To be a truly viable ‘saleable’ product, it has to do everything these FT-xxx radios can do on 600, 200, or 70 centimeters!
73! John
PS
I really do operate ALL bands (except yet a few SHF bands). I have probably not been on 20 Meters though in about 6 or 8 years! The last time I was even on 17 Meters was months ago during the spring equinox.
|
| |
|
RE: Musing’s on Viability
|
|
|
by K3UD on July 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I played around with AM and CW in the 220 band in the 60s and early 70s. On the East coast (Philadelphia) there was some very sparse activity almost every night, and the Mt Airy VHF society (pack Rats) had a weekly net to drove some activity on the band. It came alive during contests. I use a converted piece of surplus to get on the air and a homebrew converter working into the 10 meter band.
Where I am now, I do not know of anyone who uses 220. Back when Novices were allowed to use the band and the NCT influx started, there was one 220 repeater put on the air about 25 miles south of me. It never got nuch use and was eventually shut down. It would be interesting to know the ratio of activity on 220 compared to 2 meters and 70cm. I have an FT-100 and have never heard any activity on 70cm when I check it. But 2 meters is like that most of the time also.
As WB2WIK mentioned, there were many companies who, at one time manufactured rigs for 220. I would suspect that if they thought there was a market for it Ten Tec would add a 220 transverter to their 6 and 2 meter offerings. I think there is a Clegg 220 MHz FM-76 up for auction on eBay if anyone is interested.
It seems that 220 has always been an orphan band in most area of the country as there has been a cry of use it or lose it for as long as I have been licensed (40+ years) I guess there is activity around large metro centers but not enough to get the major manufacturers interested.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
