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

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FT-817 rear ant socket  (Read 2575 times)
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 1969




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2012, 09:51:40 PM »

You are right with your assumption. However, the rear connector is directly connected to the PCB. Only the front connector has a piece of coax from the relay. Now if we consider this is a commercial unit, we would have heard of the observed fault much more often as all units have the very same length of PCB path.
To really find out what is wrong one would have to measure the connector and its surroundings with a network analyzer.
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 859




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2012, 03:34:40 AM »

I have had another play with the FT817ND, eliminating using the right angle SO239 adaptor, and just using a PL259 to BNC adaptor on the rear port.
I obtained the same results as earlier, with the need to reduce the length of the antenna to achieve a 1:1 swr.

So, there is definitely a difference between the front and rear connectors in impedance.
I don't think this is terminal for 70cm operation off the rear connector, and is probably why VHF/UHF defaults to the BNC connector.
I also don't think you have a fault in your rig, and would not start pulling it apart looking for a non existent problem.

N connectors would be ideal of course in place of the SO239, but keep in mind this rig has full HF coverage, and most HF cables are SO239.
So if they had put an N connector on the rear, they would have been cursed by many hams, and N to SO239 adaptors would be hanging everywhere.

160m to 70cm in one tiny box and flexibility galore of switching from front to back - I think we are pretty well off.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

73 - Rob

« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 03:36:36 AM by STAYVERTICAL » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   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!