QRZ! Ham Radio 5/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 5.iso/digests/equip/940184.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-14 | 19KB

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 04:30:29 PDT
From: Ham-Equip Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: Ham-Equip Digest V94 #184
To: Ham-Equip


Ham-Equip Digest            Mon, 13 Jun 94       Volume 94 : Issue  184

Today's Topics:
                          ADI repair where?
                     IC-2SRA vs. FT-530 (6 msgs)
                          KENWOOD 733 HELP
                Need schematics for Yaesu FL101/FR101
                   scrambling for HF/SSB? (2 msgs)
                 seek old CDR rotor (or replacement)

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

Archives of past issues of the Ham-Equip Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-equip".

We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party.  Your mileage may vary.  So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 94 21:17:13 CST
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!news.clark.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!ns1.nodak.edu!news.uoknor.edu!news.ualr.edu!athena.ualr.edu![e-mail]
Subject: ADI repair where?
To: [e-mail]

Hiya.. anyone know where I could get an ADI sender 145 fixed..
This is a 2m handheld radio with a transmitt problem.. if anyone knows of
a place that I could send it to get it fixed I would really like to know..
A Certified repair person would be prefered.. Thanks..
**********************************************************************
*  Peter Stuckey *alias KB5WCE*    Internet ---> [e-mail]  *
*  University of Arkansas at Little Rock    Biology Undergraduate    *
**********************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1994 21:40:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!gatech!concert!bigblue.oit.unc.edu!samba.oit.unc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2SRA vs. FT-530
To: [e-mail]

Hello!

I need some advice...

I currently have ~$500 of spending money with which I'd like to purchase
an HT.  Considering that I don't have a scanner yet, either, and the fact
that scanners which can receive cellular frequencies are dwindling fast,
I'd like to pick up a transciever with a scanner built-in.  (Not to listen
to cellular, mind you.  I would _never_ do that...)

I had been planning to purchase an Icom 2SRA, but was recently told that
the Yeasu FT-530 also covers many of the same frequencies, with a keyboard
mod.  Considering that they are comparably priced, but that the 530 is a
dual-bander, it sounds like a much better deal to me.

A few questions:

Exactly what is the mod for the 530, and which frequencies can be
received?  Is the sensitivity as good as the 2SRA?  Can it receive WFM
signals, as well?

I live in south-suburban Chicago...  Is the 440 band really _that_
important?  i.e. what does the 440 band have that 2M doesn't?

I've been told that Icom's are very difficult to use...  Is this really
the case?  Is the Yeasu much easier to use?

Where should I purchase ham equipment from?  I can't seem to find a dealer
in the area, so am planning on purchasing it from AES.  Has anyone had any
problems with them?

Any other advice would be greatly appreciated...

Tnx.

Michael Holl - N9TWU
--
[e-mail]
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 23:27:24 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2SRA vs. FT-530
To: [e-mail]

Michael Holl ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I'd like to pick up a transciever with a scanner built-in.  (Not to listen
: to cellular, mind you.  I would _never_ do that...)

: I had been planning to purchase an Icom 2SRA, but was recently told that
: the Yeasu FT-530 also covers many of the same frequencies, with a keyboard
: mod.  Considering that they are comparably priced, but that the 530 is a
: dual-bander, it sounds like a much better deal to me.

: Exactly what is the mod for the 530, and which frequencies can be
: received?  Is the sensitivity as good as the 2SRA?  Can it receive WFM
: signals, as well?

I own a 2SRA, so I can't speak about the 530...

: I've been told that Icom's are very difficult to use...  Is this really
: the case?  Is the Yeasu much easier to use?

I have no problem programming mine.  My own opinion is that most radios
offer *some* programming challenge due to the number of features.

: Where should I purchase ham equipment from?  I can't seem to find a dealer
: in the area, so am planning on purchasing it from AES.  Has anyone had any
: problems with them?

Consider Erickson (sp) Electronics in Chicago.  I have no personal
experience with them, but if you want to buy local...

I wish I had gotten a dual bander with some wide-band rx instead of the
2SRA.  Don't get a radio for the cellular capability-- myself and most of
the people to whom I've spoken who've listened to cellular have found
ourselves BORED after a week of it.  Find someone with a radio that can
scan it and see if listening is exciting for you.  Most calls are,
"Honey?  I'm on the way home...  I'll be home in 10 minutes."  That is
IF the cell doesn't change mid-conversation.

Ted N1RDQ
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:56:21 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2SRA vs. FT-530
To: [e-mail]

Michael Holl ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I had been planning to purchase an Icom 2SRA, but was recently told that
: the Yeasu FT-530 also covers many of the same frequencies, with a keyboard
: mod.  Considering that they are comparably priced, but that the 530 is a
: dual-bander, it sounds like a much better deal to me.

The ft-530 will recieve from 136-174 and 400-512Mhz.  It will work in the
800-960Mhz band but it takes about -80dbm to open the squelch, its close
to -120dbm for the ham bands.  When modified it will transmit from
136-174 and from 400-470Mhz.  I've checked mine for spurious on a hp
spectrum analyzer when transmitting and found it to be cleaner than a virgin.

The only thing to be wary of is using an external antenna near a
pagin/repeater site - its no worse than any other dualbander for intermod.
--
RF power specialists                               [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1994 22:06:28 -0400
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!access.digex.net![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2SRA vs. FT-530
To: [e-mail]

re; Cellular ready HT's: The ICOM W2A is ideal, dual band , and chock full
of surprises...

Andy N3LCW

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 94 21:42:23 -0500
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.tufts.edu!news.hnrc.tufts.edu![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2SRA vs. FT-530
To: [e-mail]

In article <2tfvbh$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Holl) writes:
> Hello!
>
> I need some advice...

Take this advice with a grain of salt, that is, don't follow it blindly, but be
sure to add it to the mix.

> I currently have ~$500 of spending money with which I'd like to purchase
> an HT.  Considering that I don't have a scanner yet, either, and the fact
> that scanners which can receive cellular frequencies are dwindling fast,
> I'd like to pick up a transciever with a scanner built-in.  (Not to listen
> to cellular, mind you.  I would _never_ do that...)

Then you won't care that the 530 has only 12.5kHz steps in the cellular range,
nor that my Standard C558A outperforms my PRO-43 when I've done antenna testing
in that range.  (The Standard has 10kHz steps.  The ICOM W21AT has 30kHz steps,
but I've read that it's not very sensitive outside the ham bands.  I have no
hands on experience to verify this.)

>
> I had been planning to purchase an Icom 2SRA, but was recently told that
> the Yeasu FT-530 also covers many of the same frequencies, with a keyboard
> mod.  Considering that they are comparably priced, but that the 530 is a
> dual-bander, it sounds like a much better deal to me.
>
> A few questions:
>
> Exactly what is the mod for the 530, and which frequencies can be
> received?  Is the sensitivity as good as the 2SRA?  Can it receive WFM
> signals, as well?

mods can be found in pub/hamradio/mods/yaesu at oak.oakland.edu.  I believe
this mod involves removing a diode.

I don't know the answer to this, but it's good to ask.  HT's, as a rule, do not
have WFM.  One exception is the 2SRA with its 2 antennae.  I'm told that the
WFM antenna is attached with an earphone type of plug and is not terribly
secure.

>
> I live in south-suburban Chicago...  Is the 440 band really _that_
> important?  i.e. what does the 440 band have that 2M doesn't?

I don't know Chicago.  If it's like other populated areas, the answer may be
room for simplex operation after you've established contact on the repeater.

>
> I've been told that Icom's are very difficult to use...  Is this really
> the case?  Is the Yeasu much easier to use?
>
> Where should I purchase ham equipment from?  I can't seem to find a dealer
> in the area, so am planning on purchasing it from AES.  Has anyone had any
> problems with them?
>

HRO gives good service, but they don't like returns.

> Any other advice would be greatly appreciated...

Collect many opinions.

>
> Tnx.
>
> Michael Holl - N9TWU
> --
> [e-mail]
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  \ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
>    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 04:23:01 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: IC-2SRA vs. FT-530
To: [e-mail]

Jerry Dallal ([e-mail]) wrote:
: In article <2tfvbh$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael Holl) writes:
: > Hello!
: >
: > I need some advice...

I have the 530 which I have done the mod on. The receive is 110-180,
300-500, and 800-900 narrow FM and AM. It is transmit capable on all of
the listed except 800-900. Its performance is at least comparable if not
better to my Realistic and Icom scanners. I would highly recommend it to you.
Charles (KD6DJG)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:21:02
From: asb![e-mail]
Subject: KENWOOD 733 HELP
To: [e-mail]

I just got my Kenwood 733 and need help setting it up so
I can use it as a REPEATER...

I want to control it via my Dual band HT also....

By the way what function is set when you press and HOLD "F"
(function button) and press "TONE" or "T.ALT" ????? All
I get is ON or OFF.....

Also what is the function whwn you press and HOLD "F" (1 sec)
and then press "MUTE" or "X" ????  it seems to lock the radio, and
add a decimal point at the 100 hz point....

Thanks

[e-mail]

N2NJS

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 05:22:12 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
Subject: Need schematics for Yaesu FL101/FR101
To: [e-mail]

I'm trying to revive a Yaesu FL101 transmitter and FR101 receiver. I have
copies of the manuals for each, but they don't have detailed schematics, so
I need copies of each schematic. Will gratefully appreciate copies, and will
pay for copying & postage if desired. 73 Dave WB0GAZ [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:43:07 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!emory!kd4nc!ke4zv![e-mail]
Subject: scrambling for HF/SSB?
To: [e-mail]

In article <2ta7rr$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (<>) writes:
>Can anyone advise me if can add scrambling feature in HF/SSB tranceiver?
>The radio will be used oversea, so should have no legal problem with
>FCC.

Most low end scramblers intended for telephones just do a simple frequency
inversion of the voice. This isn't effective on SSB because people can just
flip to the other sideband to receive the voice in the clear. Works OK on
AM and FM though. There are more expensive scramblers that invert segments
of the voice bandwidth individually, and also shuffle the order. These are
somewhat effective, but a skilled listener can still understand a surprising
amount of the speech. For really secure scrambling, you need to take a digital
approach, and that's quite expensive, and unsuited to amateur grade HF SSB
radios. The military has these, but civilian availability ranges from quite
limited to non-existant.

For best security on HF, it's probably better to encode the message
rather than attempting to encypher the voice. As far as I know, both
codes and cyphers are illegal for amateur use worldwide, so this isn't
just an FCC issue. However, codes may be legal on commercial channels
in numerous jurisdictions. Confirm legality with local officials before
transmitting, or you could wind up against a wall facing a firing squad
in some areas.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 94 07:45:29 GMT
From: news.delphi.com!BIX.com![e-mail]
Subject: scrambling for HF/SSB?
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>amount of the speech. For really secure scrambling, you need to take a digital
>approach, and that's quite expensive, and unsuited to amateur grade HF SSB
>radios. The military has these, but civilian availability ranges from quite
>limited to non-existant.

>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |

It might be entertaining to try to figure out how to hook up a STU-II through
an HF transceiver. But it sounds like a royal PITA to make it work right. The
radios and atmospherics would have to pretty closely mimic a telephone
connection if it is to work reliably.
{^_^}
    (A STU-III is a crypto telephone which comes in two models, one for
    "real" US use by embassies and military for "sorta" classified stuff
    and the other is for "export" to those who "have a need for one" and
    are parts of foreign governments etc etc. It is AWFULLY hard to get a
    paid if you're merely a civilian.)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 94 04:18:45 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!ipswitch!ddlgw![e-mail]
Subject: seek old CDR rotor (or replacement)
To: [e-mail]

I'm looking for an old rotor (model HAM-M) made by Cornell-Dubilier
Electronics (rotor division) once of Fuquay Springs, North Carolina.
The original was from ~1968 and the company has moved or ceased to
exist.  I'd appreciate any information about where they are now (if
they are) or about a mechanically compatible replacement.  Electrical
compatibility is not particularly important.  (The reason mechanical
compatibility is important is that the rotor was mounted using their
custom bottom plated rather than a pole.  The plate is well attached
to the tower, and the whole thing is well weathered.  Using a different
style of mounting looks like major work. :)

                Thanks,
                Dan Lanciani
                ddl@harvard.*

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 14:43:47 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <2te51k$[e-mail]>π
Subject : Re: Icom R100

In article <2te51k$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Smathers) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>Richard Crisp <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>Another quirk is the lack of a line level output (useful for taping or RTTY,
>>not that RTTY matters since there is no BFO!).
>
>I have no problems using the speaker out jack and using a "line level to
>recorder level" attenuator to record with my boom box.
>

Yep, that's basically what I do. I just wish they had provided
a line out.

>To avoid the problems of switching between speaker and recorder, I have
>put the two together so I can record and listen on my speaker at the
>same time (or record and turn off my speaker with a switch)
>

I find it annoying to use the speaker out line for recording
because I do not like the volume control on the radio to affect the
recorded level. Usually line out levels are fixed to allow recording
to be unaffected by volume control changes.

>Robert
>[e-mail]
>


--
Richard Crisp                 Cupertino, Ca.                [e-mail]
[phone] wk                                         [phone] fax
             For PGP Public Key, type finger [e-mail]
"It is a good thing that we do not get as much government as we pay for"
                        -Will Rogers

------------------------------

End of Ham-Equip Digest V94 #184
******************************