Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Review of the XIEGU X5105 QRP HF/50 mhz transceiver  (Read 12353 times)
IZ0JOJ
Member

Posts: 22


WWW

Ignore
« on: September 04, 2017, 03:34:33 PM »

Hi everybody,
I am Antonio IZ0JOJ - just landed here to present you my last review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdMjukZBcgM&lc=z22rh3cw4lebwjtwy04t1aokgeahiwx2lkvyogheoevxrk0h00410
The new XIEGU X5105. Chinese but good quality HF transceiver.

ATU and LIPO batteries all included in this little & rugged radio.

Full review here http://yaesuft817.com/wp/complete-review-xiegu-x5105/

Best 73 de IZ0JOJ
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 03:37:13 PM by IZ0JOJ » Logged

Yaesu FT 817 / Elecraft KX3 QRP radio BLOG - Mods tips - http://www.yaesuft817.com/wp
KU3X
Member

Posts: 499




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2017, 04:23:17 PM »

My first impression is, "it's a neat little radio." I don't see it putting Elecraft out of business. Hi Hi
Remember, the ATU is optional as well as a 500 hz CW filter. This brings up the price.

BUT.....even the little YouKits has general coverage receive within it's band limits. There are times I like to listen to commerical short wave bands.
Barry
Logged
NU6I
Member

Posts: 2


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2017, 07:47:11 AM »

ATU and Noise blanker are included in the price. See amazon.com

73, NU6I
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1513




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2017, 10:00:15 PM »

Another useless novelty radio that has insufficient power output to  be an effective communications/emergency portable radio. You can find many on Ebay  after the novelty and ineffectiveness leads to frustration. Where we are today in the sunspot cycle high output power on the lower frequencies is mandated.

Soon users will be buying the accompanying 100 watt CB  amplifier that when combined with the poor transmitter IMD from the radio and the AMP just ends  up with a dirty signal like most of these 10 watt QRP radios that  are available. The most sort after QRP radio accessory for  5 and 10 watt radios is a  100 watt amplifier. Radios like the FT857 was better concept, and  a radio like the FT857 could have easily added a 18650 battery pack  to run 50 watts of output.

They would have  produced a more viable product by building a 20 to 30 watt radio that runs on 18650 or similar batteries. These 10 watt QRP  radios are just a money making bandwagon of cheapness rather than communication effectiveness of the product.

Over the decades many so called "Emergency", "Jungle" and wilderness HF radios were sold and produced for portable emergency communications on many continents. These radios were typically battery powered and typically had power outputs of 20 to 30 which was effective enough to sustain a 2 way SSB conversation with marginal antennas on the Low bands. Even today the Army HF Manpacks maintain the same effectiveness by using powers of 20 to 30 watts of output which is ideal for DX and short skip work with marginal antennas. Powers in this 20 to 30 watt range  is the break even point of weight and battery life. Today this would be an easy accomplishment that would be not much bigger than the KX3 or this Chinese transceiver, delivering 30 watts, antenna tuner  and a full battery pack.

But hey its cheap and you can buy one and leave it laying in your draw with the 10 HT's when the novelty and frustration wears off!






Logged
KU3X
Member

Posts: 499




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2018, 01:09:43 PM »

Another useless novelty radio that has insufficient power output to  be an effective communications/emergency portable radio. 


Yet another dumb statement from this guy.

You obviously do not understand the concept of QRP !

If you need a higher power radio to fit your needs, then you do not buy a radio that has less power.
If you need a truck, do you buy a car and then complain that it is not big enough to haul junk to the city dump? The only reason people buy CB amps off of ebay and use them on the ham bands is because they don’t know what they are doing. That’s not fault of the people that make QRP radios. For those people that don’t know what they are doing, “Teach them!” Be an Elmer. But first you have to know what your are doing.
Hands down this radio offers more features than the FT 817. Need UHF and VHF at low power, then the FT 817 is the radio to buy. Need a lot of good features, the X5105 is far superior.
Need 100 watts to have a stronger signal on the air, buy a radio that puts out 100 watts. But first, erect a quality antenna.

The one thing we do not have when it comes to the X5105 is a long term track record. To call this junk..?...I have not seen any YouTube videos that show it's junk. No feedback from anybody stating it's junk. What minor issue the radio had from the start has been fixed. Either the firmware has been updated or changes have been made to the radio. 
When I purchased my KX3, I decided to work 100 different countries again. I worked well over 100 countries in less than 2 months with only 5 watts.

Barry, KU3X

« Last Edit: March 03, 2018, 01:13:54 PM by KU3X » Logged
W8EJO
Member

Posts: 5




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2018, 08:26:16 AM »

They would have  produced a more viable product by building a 20 to 30 watt radio that runs on 18650 or similar batteries. These 10 watt QRP  radios are just a money making bandwagon of cheapness rather than communication effectiveness of the product.

Over the decades many so called "Emergency", "Jungle" and wilderness HF radios were sold and produced for portable emergency communications on many continents. These radios were typically battery powered and typically had power outputs of 20 to 30 which was effective enough to sustain a 2 way SSB conversation with marginal antennas on the Low bands.

I could not agree more.

I've tried 5 or 6 qrp rigs (ATS3B, various SWL's, etc.) as well as a few 10-20 watt rigs including IC-703 (10 watt), MFJ 9420 -10 watt), Elecraft K-2 (12+ watts) and Kachina MP-25 (25 watt).

I used good antennas with all of them, usually dipoles at least 30' - 40' up.

I made contacts consistently with the Icom, Elecraft, MFJ & the Kachina even on SSB. The QRP rigs were a real struggle. Few contacts and much frustration.

We need a new class of lower power radios that I would call QRR radios. The last R signifying REALISTIC. 20 watts is realistic for reliable HF communications. P≤5 watts is not.



Logged
KU3X
Member

Posts: 499




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2018, 11:14:21 AM »

What is a QRP radio? The X5105 is a, “QRP” radio.
Why look at a QRP radio and then complain that it only put out 5 watts.
Would you go to HRO, look at a Kenwood TS 590SG and complain it only puts out 100 watts and you can make more contacts by running 200 watts. Then look at the TS 480HX and complain that you could make more contacts with a 400 watt radio. Next look at a Yaese FT DX 9000MP
that puts out 400 watts and than complain you could make more contacts with 1000 watts.

More power out means bigger batteries. Looks at the size batteries, yes ....batteries, two of them, that are used in the FT 897D. Those two batteries alone are bigger than the X5105. With those two batteries installed the 897 can run at a 20 watt power level. One battery will do it, but your operating time is now halved.

Bottom line, if one needs more power than 5 watts, get a radio that puts out more power. Don’t complain that a radio only puts out 5 watts when the radio is designed to only operate at a QRP level.

“What does QRP mean to you?




 Barry G. Kery, KU3X
Logged
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1732




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2018, 11:28:20 AM »

Although most would agree that QRP generically means 5 watts of power. QRP really means reduced power. But how much reduced power?  30 watts could be considered reduced power compared to 100 watts


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QRP_operation


"QRP operation refers to transmitting at reduced power while attempting to maximize one's effective range."

"There is not complete agreement on what constitutes QRP power. Most amateur organizations agree that for CW, AM, FM, and data modes, the transmitter output power should be 5 watts (or less). The maximum output power for SSB (single sideband) is not always agreed upon. Some believe that the power should be no more than 10 watts peak envelope power (PEP), while others strongly hold that the power limit should be 5 watts. QRPers are known to use even less than five watts, sometimes operating with as little as 100 milliwatts or even less. Extremely low power—1 watt and below—is often referred to by hobbyists as QRPp"
Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
KU3X
Member

Posts: 499




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2018, 12:24:35 PM »

Although most would agree that QRP generically means 5 watts of power. QRP really means reduced power. But how much reduced power?  30 watts could be considered reduced power compared to 100 watts


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QRP_operation


"QRP operation refers to transmitting at reduced power while attempting to maximize one's effective range."

"There is not complete agreement on what constitutes QRP power. Most amateur organizations agree that for CW, AM, FM, and data modes, the transmitter output power should be 5 watts (or less). The maximum output power for SSB (single sideband) is not always agreed upon. Some believe that the power should be no more than 10 watts peak envelope power (PEP), while others strongly hold that the power limit should be 5 watts. QRPers are known to use even less than five watts, sometimes operating with as little as 100 milliwatts or even less. Extremely low power—1 watt and below—is often referred to by hobbyists as QRPp"

I would not disagree with anything you just said. But when one purchases a QRP radio, one does not expect it to be 20 watts.
My TS990S is a QRP radio...RIGHT? It's coupled to my Home Brew 3CX1000A7 amp. So when I turn the amp off I am QRP? RIGHT?

Enter a QRP contest and then submit your logs stating you ran a TS990S without your KW amp and you ran QRP at 200 watts. "What do you think is going to happen to your submission?

Yes, turning the power down from a higher power is called QRP. But when a radio is specified as only having an output power level of
only 5 watts, it's called a QRP radio.

QRP kind of has a double meaning. Don't you think this train of thinking is really splitting hairs?
Barry
Logged
N5PG
Member

Posts: 1132




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2018, 10:30:56 PM »

Where did the definition of QRP = 5w max originate anyway ?

I had an FT-817 for a few years and enjoyed it altho' I only ever operated it at home.
30m was the best band by far.

73
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2495




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2018, 12:12:33 AM »

I can't believe after all these years the same odd comments come from the same people (person). If you don't want to operate QRP, don't. Why it matters to someone they be called QRP ops while running 30 watts is beyond me. Other than they enjoy trolling. Use the minimum power you need to complete whatever you're doing - ragchewing, DX'ing, contesting or whatever. Its real simple. And buy or build the equipment you need for the power you want to use. How difficult can that be?
Over the years I've uploaded 20,000 QSO's to LOTW from over 300 DXCC countries, over 100 on every band from 80-10 meters running from 1/2 to 5 watts. I don't have any special antennas. I've used windoms, verticals, and a HF5B on a pole. My results are not unusual. Many others have done the same, many better than my record. The point is, running 5 watts or less is doable, ops do it all the time.
Why don't you all make a 20-30 watt forum, call it the low power forum or something. And you can happily post about running at the power level you enjoy. But then you wouldn't be a QRP op, and for some reason that's a problem. WOW!
Here's an idea - instead of trolling QRP forums, build a station that can readily operate QRP successfully.
Logged
NU4B
Member

Posts: 2495




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2018, 01:27:39 AM »

Where did the definition of QRP = 5w max originate anyway ?

I had an FT-817 for a few years and enjoyed it altho' I only ever operated it at home.
30m was the best band by far.

73

According to "History of QRP in the U.S., 1924-1960" by Adrian Weiss, W0RSP, the modern definition more or less became the standard in 1980 when the QRP ARCI changed from a 100 watt or less to a 5 watt or less definition. But there were several clubs around the world that delved into 5 watt and milliwatt operation before that. "The Milliwatt" was a notable publication in the 70's. According to the book, CQ Mag had a short run of "QRP Corner" in 1959/1960 that dealt with (at the time) new transistor type rigs and circuits transmitting in the milliwatt range. With a few exceptions clubs, contests, awards etc... now use 5W/10W PEP as the definition.
As the title of the book indicates there was interest in low power operation earlier than 1960.
Interesting also was the first Ten Tec Scouts and Argonauts and Heathkit's HW-7 and 8 came on the market in the 70's. These were popular sub 5 watt transceivers.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 01:48:25 AM by NU4B » Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 1513




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2018, 08:18:19 PM »

You promoting a philosophy based on a contest rule that states 5 watts of output power.  Unfortunately the ionosphere does not respect rules made by the contest committee.

Low power communication could mean anything, but all that you are preaching to me is  a rule set by a contest magazine. Why cant I use 25 watts and call it QRP because it is low power.

The real point here is for any mode there is minimum signal to noise requirement to complete a communication circuit. CW is more effective than SSB. While 5watt CW is fine for short skip its not enough to maintain a satisfactory signal to noise ratio to maintain a communications circuit. 25 watts in most case will. Try loading up VOACAP and run  an  area coverage map for 5 watts versus 25 watts you will be stunned by the difference. In most times you  can increase circuit reliability by 90% just increasing your power by this small amount.  Yup its only 6db difference but try carrying a 6Dbd gain antenna in your pocket.

I really dont care  what the contest rules or  what the QRP philosophy is. The real point in this debate is that the communications path  requires X amount power or gain to complete the circuit  depending on the communication mode  chosen. Those who think that they can make their own rules of physics by peddling useless radios with useless power out are really being ignorant. The point is that hams are in the business of communicating and getting these message through, its not about  pot luck because you chose to use insufficient  amount of power. That is not to say that under some conditions say 5 watts of output on SSB does not work.  

The main point about all these useless 5 and 10 watt radios is that for little more cost  the radios would be more useful  if they did have a output power of around  25 watts which could be adjusted to suit your needs rather than adding a filthy CB amplifier design that most QRP users like to use. The crap raspy splattering signal from QRP stations is a disgrace and a poor reflection on the hobby when such primitive equipment is used. The point is if the radio was designed properly and had sufficient output power you would not need these crap CB kit amps that splatter so much.  

if your QRP philosophy is so great I wonder why the most popular accessory for  a QRP radio is a dirty CB amplifier. Just ask all the FT817 users. They buy amplifiers because  they need more power its that simple. You cant change the facts about the requirements of the ionosphere.  

Portable  operation is a lot of fun. You could attract more people to this way of operating if you made it more rewarding and less frustrating. Just look at the  boom in SOTA operations. I can only imagine what a failure SOTA would be  if you came up with a ridiculous rule like the 5 watt contest rule limit. 25 watts is adequate and is a power limit that establish reliable communications without even needing seawater enhanced contacts. 25 watts will get out from  the middle of the dessert, I guess thats why mil manpacks all have power levels around this level.

I think you need to be more open minded about HF operation and try and understand the technical details  a bit more rather than becoming hung up by a silly contest power limit. The contest power limit should be raised because of the increased noise floor in most cities, a reasonable rule would be between 100 milliliters and 25 watts  for the QRP category.  Just like the high power limit is anything from  greater than 100 watts  to 1500 watts.



Another useless novelty radio that has insufficient power output to  be an effective communications/emergency portable radio.  


Yet another dumb statement from this guy.

You obviously do not understand the concept of QRP !

If you need a higher power radio to fit your needs, then you do not buy a radio that has less power.
If you need a truck, do you buy a car and then complain that it is not big enough to haul junk to the city dump? The only reason people buy CB amps off of ebay and use them on the ham bands is because they don’t know what they are doing. That’s not fault of the people that make QRP radios. For those people that don’t know what they are doing, “Teach them!” Be an Elmer. But first you have to know what your are doing.
Hands down this radio offers more features than the FT 817. Need UHF and VHF at low power, then the FT 817 is the radio to buy. Need a lot of good features, the X5105 is far superior.
Need 100 watts to have a stronger signal on the air, buy a radio that puts out 100 watts. But first, erect a quality antenna.

The one thing we do not have when it comes to the X5105 is a long term track record. To call this junk..?...I have not seen any YouTube videos that show it's junk. No feedback from anybody stating it's junk. What minor issue the radio had from the start has been fixed. Either the firmware has been updated or changes have been made to the radio.  
When I purchased my KX3, I decided to work 100 different countries again. I worked well over 100 countries in less than 2 months with only 5 watts.

Barry, KU3X


« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 08:30:38 PM by ZENKI » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!