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: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Asked Mirage/MFJ for D310G  (Read 2151 times)
N6JSX
Member

Posts: 216




Ignore
« on: March 29, 2013, 07:18:35 AM »

For a few years now I've asked Mirage/MFJ to create a sister to their very nice B310G FM/SSB [2m 3W in-100W out w/pre-amp for HT use]  it would be the D310G FM/SSB [70cm 2W in-100W out w/pre-amp for HT use]. To date no response. The new FM SATs (starting with FOX1) will be using 70cm for the ground uplink to SAT.  Shocked

I'm sure MFJ needs more requests to justify a new product. My request was to info and give MFJ plenty of R&D/testing time to be ready for a changing market when requests come after FOX1 hits orbit. The Mirage 70cm amp product line is very narrow/small today not accommodating the HT world very well!  Grin

Now if we want to make a logical big wish (snowballs chance in hell) request of Mirage/MFJ - how about a dual 2m/70cm  AMP (combining a B310G & D310G all-in-one w/internal Duplexer) to support the growing dual band HT market and  accommodating HT SAT OPs. However, I suspect the price tag for this AMP would take it out of reach for most of HAMdom.  Huh   
Logged

W5PFG
Member

Posts: 69




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2013, 09:44:39 AM »

Your last sentence is probably very accurate.  The price point for an American company like MFJ to produce such an amplifier would drive the price upwards of $500.  At that point you can acquire almost any of the available full-duplex mobile radios.  What I'd like to see is an inexpensive version of the B-34 (2m FM only) for 70cm.  That would help solve the issue...
Logged
KQ6EA
Member

Posts: 609


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2013, 04:36:23 PM »

Why on Earth would you need ONE HUNDRED WATTS to work a satellite!?!
Logged
N6JSX
Member

Posts: 216




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2013, 06:19:46 PM »

Never heard of egg beaters or turnstiles? KISS method!
Logged

KQ6EA
Member

Posts: 609


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2013, 08:11:37 PM »

Yes, I've heard of them, and used them.

To put it bluntly, they suck, except if you have no other options.

Running excessive uplink power is just poor practice.
Logged
W6RMK
Member

Posts: 649




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2013, 09:25:12 PM »

Why is low gain antenna and more RF power "poor practice"?  Either you have the EIRP to close the link or you don't.  One might have a personal preference for "efficiency" or have a regulatory limit (the 50W limit on 70cm in many areas of the US) which forces you to a high gain antenna and low Tx power.  But those are more "preference" than "good practice". 

It's all a matter of system engineering.  You can spend money and complexity on a gain antenna and pointing, or you can spend it on RF power amps.  If you wanted to do satellite mobile, you'd probably go with the low gain antenna and the RF power: the complexity of pointing on a moving platform is substantial.

(no discussion here about downlink/Rx side performance.. There's not as much room for "buying performance" when it comes to LNAs. 2 dB difference from good to not so good is about the range.)
Logged
KQ6EA
Member

Posts: 609


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2013, 10:16:33 PM »

Because it's far easier to overpower the satellite on the uplink than you might think.

I've seen way too many people crank up the transmit power because they can't hear their own downlink due to "low gain antennas".

This is NOT HF operation where you might be able to hear a station fine, but he can't hear you because of the classic "low power crummy antenna" setup. In that case you add an amp, but blindly blasting a satellite with 100 Watts, especially the newer ones that have very sensitive receivers, "just because" is poor amateur practice.

If you can't hear your own downlink with 10 or 15 Watts, then FIX your receive side, and don't QRM the other users of the satellite.
Logged
K4FMH
Member

Posts: 254




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2013, 11:16:08 AM »

Hi Dale,

I'm sympathetic to your issue as most of us have had "great ideas" for amateur radio products. However, as Martin Jue himself has told me many times: having ideas is not the difficult part as decent engineering can usually contruct a working prototype and a final product. The challenge is to turn a great idea into a product that makes money! MFJ and there other companies get ideas for "great products" each and every hamfest they attend and boatloads through e-mail. But Martin's still in business because he has a great sense of which ones will sell in volume to make a profit over and above the R&D costs.

73,

Frank
K4FMH
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!