To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
Hajo (DL1SDZ)
on
January 20, 2012
View comments about this article!
... That is the question.
The life of a radio amateur is not easy.
Important decisions must be made and the
critical eye of his wife wanders over the
radio shack and is surprised by the asexual
reproduction of the tiny boxes. Unfortunate!
For over 20 years I am a ham, had problems
with my hidden antennas, do not like
contests, owner of about 5 QRP transceivers
from a total population of about 20, like to
listen a lot, avoid clusters and hide
microphones for I am a CW fetishist.
Actually, I'm just a normal radio amateur?
But there was still something else. In former
times everything was better! You sat in the
warm room, turned on the receiver button, the
magic eye shone, and the OM on the other side
wanted to chat. Later you went to the local
ham radio club, had technical discussions and
a fine beer and the QSL cards came as a
greeting from a distant world ; ...
And now everything is even better! You look
at the ham weather; control the cluster,
press the mouse on the exotic call, confirm
with F1 his call, send with F2 the report and
receive a few seconds later the eQSL; ...
And then I stumbled on the QRP forum in
Germany over a discussion that has developed
since 2007. The topic: a new transceiver
concept.
The SOLF = A new QRP transceiver
It sounded tempting:
It is an amateur radio TRX with 9-bands and
bandpass filters with high-quality receiver
input. Each band (160m - 10m) has its own
VCO. Disadvantage: You can not listen to
normal radio, stations because the range
covers only the amateur bands. Advantage: The
selection is very good.
I am a filter freak. I do not want to hear
five signals, but only one thing. There are
four crystal filters available on the proven
9-MHz IF for SSB and CW. But you must not
follow the developers. You may develop your
own filtering concept (eg CW only)! Good
thing. Each mode LSB, USB and CW has its own
BFO. There are separate diode ring mixer for
transmitter and receiver. The IF should be
very low noise and have a high dynamic range.
Switchable analog active filter without time
delay and computer artifacts and a free full
QSK relay antenna switching. Since I do not
know how to connect a microphone ;-) and the
relay clatter of my FT-817 CW is stretching
my nerves, this is an appetizer: CW high
tempos without any delay and without noise.
10 watt amp good: QRP is not everything.
Buffered IF output, so that an SDR RX can be
connected as a monitor. Since I've joined
the PMSDR with my K2, I finally see, in split
mode, the CW-hunter and the hunted person.
This seems to be a very good, full QRP
transceiver. But advertising is and remains
advertising and a man is a born skeptic. Four
years of development, four experienced lead
developers, 29 boards, 2000 components, about
900 € and you still have to buy the soldering
iron.
The design of the SOLF
I'm not an engineer and had to cram more than
a year to pass the amateur radio examination.
And I have since forgotten (almost)
everything. My interest: Communicating with
people with the lowest performance, but with
the best equipment I can afford.
So I can not answer the question about the
technical quality of the kit. I must find
other criteria: trust. Trust in products
that were developed by many dedicated people
together. I trust the QRP-Project, the
developer or group of the SOLF, that they
have achieved in the long years of
development, the best result.
And where does this trust come from? Many
years ago I wrote an article about Linux as
the basis for a radio-based Web. Linux is
developed to this day by thousands of
programmers who have a common goal: to
develop the best operating system. It worked.
Linux is now the basis for Apple's OS and
Android. Today, these collaborations are
called "crowdsourcing" and the results are
amazing.
This same commitment to a goal coined Peter
Zenker (DL2FI) and his group of developers in
recent years. They worked together for a very
long time. The discussions were (mostly)
public. Anyone who wanted was invited to
participate. The plans and documentation are
(almost) "Open Source". They are distributed
in the forums and discussed openly. Nothing
is hidden. It is lived amateur radio, which
really has always been "open source". This
makes for me from the core of amateur radio
idea. I must therefore do not understand the
whole concept of SOLF, because I trust that
these amateur radio operators have given
their best to achieve the design goal.
Soldering and construction
Why should I build a transceiver by myself?
If I buy one, I can have the additional 70
menus and 40 buttons. Because it's fun to
create something for myself with my own
hands. But does the kit really need nearly
2000 parts? The development group uses the
modular technology to facilitate the
construction. The 2000 parts are distributed
over 29 boards. Each board is devoted to a
function and can be tested in isolation. One
has not, like in guitar construction, to
finish the whole instrument to hear the first
tone. The manual has the hidden title: "SOLF
for Dummies". Step by step illustrations
accompany you.
And if I run into problems? Now another group
comes into the game: The group of self-
builders. They organized themselves in forums
and chats and accompany themself in the
construction of SOLF. No tears, no question
remains unanswered. I've had this experience
years ago during the construction of my K2.
Again, there was an appropriate discussion
forum. If you had a question: You typed it
cheerfully into the PC. The question mark had
not disappeared from the screen, when the
email client announced an answer - evening,
night and Sunday, open 24 / 7 - Guaranteed.
You have to see it positive: Imagine 2000
parts, the sun has gone The cold creeps
through the window, you sit behind the stove
in front of the kitchen table, the soldering
iron is smoking, the computer hums and here
comes the first question: "How to solder the
elko #247". Your blook at your already
soldered board and write: "Plus is in the
direction of resistor #287. 72 de dl1sdz.
The prize is a really critical point. When I
began to build radios, money always played an
important role. I wanted to have transceivers
that I could not afford. Today this has
changed. You can buy a commercial transceiver
with all the features 600 - 800 Euro. You get
a warranty and (perhaps) service. And if the
box does not work, you can send it back
again.
So why should a normal person incur the
trouble of having to buy a 2000-piece puzzle
and find the solution to solve the mystery?
Because it is a challenge.
Because it's fun to tinker.
Because you have to understand the device in
order to build it
Because you have at the end your dream
transceiver
AND because you can finally once again
actively engage with the community of amateur
radio operators.
The SOLF and the Future:
But the story of my self-persuasion was not
finished yet. The SOLF is an open system and
is actually called CREATIVE SOLF. One can and
should continue to develop it. If you have a
better solution for the filter or the audio
amplifier: No problem! Each board has a
defined interface with inputs and outputs.
These values must be respected. But on the
board you can realize your own solutions. I
am not able to offer my own technical
solutions. But I know that there are
discussions about alternative solutions. And
if I'm interested in this technical solution,
I gcan go for this goal - with a little help
from my friends.
I would like to participate, it is not an
easy kit. But I know that with the help of
other hams I am able to build the SOLF. And
one day I will have another self-made piece
of jewelry on my desk. And on the next day
you will hear somewhere in the ether: "CQ CQ
CQ de DL1SDZ Test first QSO with SOLF." We
will see who responds to my call. Perhaps it
is Shakespeare who replies, "That was not the
question! Please read my Hamlet again more
carfully".
I already started a small construction diary
in my blog:
http://hajos-kontrapunkte.blogspot.com/
Add A Comment
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by N0AH on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very interesting. Written both literally and figuratively, it is a nice reflection on your passion for the hobby. And a very fb creative website-
I connected with your article because I feel the same with making simple antennas. I did not know about Gerhard Schurr (DH2SAA sk). I have used my Schurr paddle for the past 15 years.....GL with the project.
73 OM paul N0AH
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by W8JI on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What does SOLF stand for?
Start on low frequency? Single operator low frequency?
Software operated ladder filter?
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by VE4BDF on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well this article really confused me, and I apologise for my confusion. As one other commenter responded, what does SOLF stand for? OK, failing that, where are the forums for this SOLF? where are the resources to find out more about modular radio construction techniques? I found this author and his particular blog, while interesting, lacking the direction to any kind of site, plans, documents and education on SOLF radio. Is this just another blog for building K2 projects or is it more? Something else... Anyway. I am very interested in modular radio scratch built construction and this article left me with way more questions than answers...
Cheers
Bruce
VE4BDF
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by DL1SDZ on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is the name of the developer Peter Solf (DK1HE) and we thought why not name the transceiver after the person who had the original idea and developed the main components.
72 de Hajo
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by DL1SDZ on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello,
I wrote about it several times also in this forum and my blog. You will find the basic addresses in my old article:
http://hajos-kontrapunkte.blogspot.com/2011/07/to-solf-or-not-to-solf-that-is-question.html
All plans and descriptions are found here:
http://www.qrpproject.de/SolfBaumappe.html
I hope this helps
72 de Hajo
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by DL1SDZ on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@VE4BDF
This article was not intended as a technical review of the SOLF. It was more a general reflection about homebrew equipment and the role of the amateur radio community.
Part of your questions were already answered. I missed the questions about the forum.
The discussion form is open in the moment only for the 50 builders to accompany the building process and to optimize the manual.
72 de Hajo
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF... easy answer !
|
Reply
|
|
by DL9LH on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To SOLF or not to SOLF .... should be easily answered: With lots parts (one VCO per bandmodule) , lots of time and money a machine is created which holds not much more for a CW enthusiast as an tramp 8 or Heathkit 9 or a classic Tentec Century 21 etc .... for a fraction of the price.
More is not always better neither innovative as claimed in the article.
Just my two cents !
73 de DL9LH
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by TANAKASAN on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why should I build a transceiver by myself? If I buy one, I can have the additional 70 menus and 40 buttons."
This man gets it. Better performance does not mean a control panel like a fighter jet.
Tanakasan
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF... easy answer !
|
Reply
|
|
by KE5JPP on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A very confusing and hard to read article. Is there no editor at all that looks these article submissions over and makes suggestions for improvement or clarity?
The whole time I was reading I was asking "what the H**L is a SOLF???" and where do I find out more about it? I found it on a Google search, but I should not have to as the article should have made those things clear up front.
Gene
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by VE6TL on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with most of the comments, as the first thing I did was to Google SOLF, as well. In the end, I still have no clue what the author is proposing or really what he's talking about. I sort of get the impression that he is in favor of home brewing and testing out circuits that can be cascaded into some sort of receiver. Maybe a block diagram or a few pictures would help. For now, I have no SOLF-confidence.
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by KE5KDT on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I apologize. I liked your article, understood what you were talking about, didn't care what a SOLF was, found it on Google, saw pictures, and I only have a general license. It looks like you can have the perfect, please everyone article, if you just take the negative comments you have received so far on this one and run your next article through them first and there will be absolutely no question it will get a prize.
Thanks for making us, or at least some of us, aware of this very interesting piece of ham gear.
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by K4KRW on January 20, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks! Enjoyed the article. I will definitely keep up with your blog. I love CW, QRP and I enjoy building things.
73,
Richard - K4KRW
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by DL1SDZ on January 21, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@K9MHZ
Mac OSx is a Unix-based operating system. You are right: I don't know which version is the basis. I only saw that a lot of Linux software could be compiled on the Mac. The reason is probably, that it is POSIX compliant.
Sorry for the misinterpretation.
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by K9MHZ on January 21, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, the history of the *.NIX operating systems, and their lineage from the original is way beyond the scope of this discussion.
Linux itself came along quit a bit after the Mac OS, although they are very distant cousins.
FWIW, Linus Torvalds has made some very direct and critical comments about the Mac OS of late, mainly wrt the file handling structuring. Of course he included the obligatory philosophy about propriety vs. open source software. But as he's the open source great one, and much more even tempered that Jobs, Ballmer, Gates, etc, making such observations gets a lot of notice and is viewed with a lot of credibility.....especially since he's not going to be enriched should Apple have problems for some reason.
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by N3HAM on January 21, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I enjoyed your article Hajo, your courage to post it here brings to mind some of the rest of the quote you were paraphrasing..."Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune...
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by G3VGR on January 21, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you Hajo, for sharing your experiences and also pointing me to your excellent blog. The SOLF certainly looks a complex project and quite a worthy challenge. I'm sure you will get a great feeling of satisfaction when it's completed. Having now read your blog, it is evident you are progressing the construction with good humour. So I look forward to reading of your further progress and hopefully working you when it's completed.
73 & GL with SOLF
Dave, G3VGR
|
|   |
|
Linux, BSD and Apple OS X
|
Reply
|
|
by KB7AIL on January 21, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a couple of small things regarding Linux and U*ix:
Here's a short history of Linux and how it was developed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux
1. U*ix distributions used to be very very expensive. An individual could not practically purchase one. There was/is an 'academic' U*ix called MINIX which was inexpensive and came with a set of instructional books designed to teach about the ins and outs of operating systems. However, it couldn't really *do* anything. Linus was studying with MINIX and thought he could do better. He wrote the kernel which was to become Linux and it kind of took off from there. This was in 1991. Starting in 1983 GNU tools which are open source but designed to work with the commercial U*ixes. These were some of the tools which were integrated with the Linux kernel to make a complete OS. Many of the GNU tools are still used with Linux and other U*ix type OSes.
2. The Macintosh OS came out with the original Macintosh in 1984-5. It was developed through OS9 which was released in 1999. A completely different Macintosh OS was released in 2001. OS X was based on FreeBSD, which was a continuation of an operation system called Berkley Standard Distribution (BSD) at Cal-Berkeley which, in turn, was a spinoff of AT&T's Unix. This work began in 1977. The development of OS X began with the purchase of Steve Jobs' firm, NeXT and his OS, NeXTstep. Many of the open source tools used with Linux are also available on OS X. (There are a few other spinoffs from BSD such as NetBSD and OpenBSD.)
3. Open source software is distributed both as source code and ready to run binaries. "Open source" means you can get right into it and make it better if you want to. It also means that open source software is relatively easy to move from one platform to another since the user can compile it on their own platform. Soooo.... Most everything which runs with Linux can be complied to run on OS X with minimal changes. And vice versa.
|
|   |
|
To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by N3QE on January 22, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The SOLF is a substantial undertaking. As you point out, 29 boards, 2000 components. But it's also a complete multiband multimode rig.
I would not call the SOLF homebrew, instead I would say compare it to the Elecraft K2.
If you really want to experience homebrewing, build the much simpler, one-band rigs that you see on so many websites and magazine articles. You will learn a lot about how a radio works. You'll be surprised how easy it is to build a superhet with two NE602's and not much else! Then do the same with diode ring mixers instead. You'll be amazed how clear and pure the sound is from a good direct conversion receiver. Literally, most of these are buildable in a weekend, no need for pre-etched PC boards, most are just built dead bug. And you won't just have another rig; you'll have something that you completely understand and you'll be confident to dive in and rip out stuff and redesign on a whim :-)
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by DL1SDZ on January 22, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@N3QE
I have that lang journey already behind me ;-) I have build the HW9, QRP5, Sierra,QRP14, K1, ... and the K2 with all options (but did not do all modifications).
I am sure that the SOLF can be compared to the K2. The tests of the prototypes are promissing. What is fascinating is the expandability of the concept due to the modular approach. I know that there are already some groups working on additional/different modules.
You may be right: This is not strictly homebrew for I have to rely on the boards. But it is not ready made to function. You have to trim certain parameters etc.
Anyway thanks for your thoughts.
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by AD6KA on January 22, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well if this kit is offered by the
store associated with the DL-QRP Group I
would have many reservations.
Years ago I ordered the "Digifun"
PSK31 transceiver and had nothing but
problems with it. And I have been building kits
for well over a decade. Poor documentation,
poorly translated manual, MANY missing parts,etc.
Never did get it working, the only kit out of
literally dozens I can say this about.
Maybe my experience was an anomaly and
this kit is different and things have changed
a lot at DL QRP Shop.
73, Ken AD6KA
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by DL1SDZ on January 23, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@AD6KH
I can not comment an your problems.
Concerning the SOLF:
There was indeed a problem sticking to the timetable of the release of the kit due to problems of the availability of certain parts. Some companies have stopped delivering parts of have increased their prices. But this is a problem under which even Elecraft suffers.
I made an inventory at the beginning and there were two parts missing: a C 1uF and a transistor BC 337-40. After a short mail the parts were on my table. I think that this little company has done a very good job. Please remember that they had to deal with 50*2000 parts.
So for me: No complains whatsoever.
|
|   |
|
RE: To SOLF or Not to SOLF...
|
Reply
|
|
by KF4HR on January 23, 2012
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hajo - reference your comments on wife's wandering eye, problems with hidden antennas, not liking contests, avoiding clusters, and basically trying to squeeze quality qso's and fellow camaraderie out of our hobby. To be sure you are in good company. Many others share your same issues and feel the same way.
As for your question "To SOLF or Not to SOLF..." It looks you answered your own question toward the end of your post.
I have no doubt there are less expensive pre-built QRP transceivers on the market, but those pre-built transceivers will not provide the satisfaction of creating a working piece of equipment that you built with your own hands, and in a nutshell, that is what the whole built-it-yourself ideal comes down to.
I looked up the SOLF on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzFaUnfyH3s). That is quite a complex QRP transceiver kit! I wish you the very best of luck with your project.
Auf Wiedersehen!
KF4HR
ex-DA1MQ Baumholder 1974-1977
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
ACMA Publishes Details of Amateur Higher Transmitter Power Trials:
Ham Radio Operators Gather for Freeze Fest:
SkyWarn a Big Part of Weather Awareness:
WLO RTTY:
Event Promotes Amateur Radio:
|