Like the last post, I use the Kenwood 2000X as an IF for my 222 transverter.
The Kenwood feature that reads out transverter frequency direct is really a
plus, as well as the 5 coax ports ( 2 HF, 144, 432, 1296 ) makes coax switches
unnecessary.
Unlike Zack & Duffy I recommend the Down East Microwave high power 222
transverter. It runs cool at 60 watts out. They did not have the GPS frequency
standard when I purchased mine, but if you spring for a little more money, the
unit stays rock solid on frequency. ( although mine is very stable with just
the crystal oven ). This is really a great product. My Kenwood is all opened up
for all frequencies, so I went with a 27 Mhz IF option instead of 28 MHz which
lets me operate over the entire 1 1/4 meter band, SSB & FM. You do need to turn
the drive down a bit when operating FM. Choosing an HF IF thru the Kenwood 2000
lets you use one HF coax port for 6 meters and the other for the 10M ( or 11M )
IF. Your 144, and 432 ( and 1296 if the X model ) ports are thereby still there
for those bands without coax switching. This allows easy rover operation on all
bands. Whatever you choose, welcome to 222. Always good to get more stations
on that band.
73 Bob, AH8M/R
-----Original Message-----
>From: vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
>Sent: Sep 28, 2009 10:06 PM
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Subject: VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
>
>Send VHFcontesting mailing list submissions to
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vhfcontesting-request@contesting.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> vhfcontesting-owner@contesting.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of VHFcontesting digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: 222MHZ Transverters (Zack Widup)
> 2. Re: 222MHZ Transverters (Tom Staley)
> 3. Re: 222MHZ Transverters (John D'Ausilio)
> 4. Re: 222MHZ Transverters (Tom Carney)
> 5. Announcing the VHF Distance Scoring 2009 Report (kevin kaufhold)
> 6. Re: [VHF] Announcing the VHF Distance Scoring 2009 Report
> (w8zn@comcast.net)
> 7. 222 Transverters; Elecraft Issues (Mark Adams)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0500
>From: Zack Widup <w9sz.zack@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 222MHZ Transverters
>To: VHF Contesting Reflector <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
>Message-ID:
> <31c63d050909281002p6a022d53g84439e9451261af6@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Although W1GHZ Paul Wade's 222 transverter was originally designed for the
>FT-817, there is no reason why it can't be made to work with any IF rig:
>
>http://www.w1ghz.org/222xvtr/222.htm
>
>I etched the circuit boards for the W1VT "no-tune" 222 MHz transverter and
>built it myself, but some people might not want to go through all that
>trouble.
>
>73, Zack W9SZ
>
>On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 5:00 PM, James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>wrote:
>
>> I use an Elecraft XV-222 transverter for 222 MHz. It has a very good
>> receiver as it is sensitive and very immune to overload and strong
>> signal intermod.
>>
>> Having said that, it has a couple of faults.
>>
>> The first is that it runs hot and although 20 Watts out can be run on
>> SSB, it will still run hot, and the power should be probably be held
>> to 10 Watts or so on high duty cycle modes like FM and WSJT. This is
>> not a problem if you have a linear that takes the lower power input.
>>
>> The second is that my unit drifts noticeably from a cold start. While
>> probably not a problem for fixed station use, where the power can be
>> left on, in the rover I turn it on only when I go to 222 MHz to
>> conserve power and then it drifts as it never gets warmed up as I am
>> turning it on and off.
>>
>> With the K2 it has a nice interface and is if you are using a VHF
>> transceiver. - Duffey
>>
>>
>> --
>> KK6MC
>> James Duffey
>> Cedar Crest NM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:22:40 -0500
>From: "Tom Staley" <k9tms@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 222MHZ Transverters
>To: <vhfcontesting@contesting.com>
>Message-ID: <KLEIILCIKCFNBMGLBCEICEKNCAAA.k9tms@mindspring.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Like Jim I also use an Elecraft XV-222. This replaced a 2nd generation DEMI
>222 transverter. I find I prefer the Elecraft to the DEMI. Performance is
>basically the same. Having the power display adds a bit of reassurment to
>the operator that power is going out. I do agree that the unit can get hot,
>the chassis has to work as the heat sink - so make sure it can breath and
>all should be ok. The drift issue I have not noticed at all, most likely
>this is due to the fact that I bought the oven for mine. One issue that I
>did find that is not really a negative just something you need to be aware
>of is that my transverter isn't exactly on the frequency - ie: 28.100Mhz =
>222.097Mhz. But as long as you know about it all is fine. In my case I drive
>it with a TS2000 in the transveter mode so all I do is change the value of
>the transverter frequency a bit and the read out is right on.
>
>By the way I also have the XV-144 as well. I really like both.
>
>73 de Tom K9TMS
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com
>[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of James Duffey
>Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 17:00
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Cc: James Duffey
>Subject: [VHFcontesting] 222MHZ Transverters
>
>
>I use an Elecraft XV-222 transverter for 222 MHz. It has a very good
>receiver as it is sensitive and very immune to overload and strong
>signal intermod.
>
>Having said that, it has a couple of faults.
>
>The first is that it runs hot and although 20 Watts out can be run on
>SSB, it will still run hot, and the power should be probably be held
>to 10 Watts or so on high duty cycle modes like FM and WSJT. This is
>not a problem if you have a linear that takes the lower power input.
>
>The second is that my unit drifts noticeably from a cold start. While
>probably not a problem for fixed station use, where the power can be
>left on, in the rover I turn it on only when I go to 222 MHz to
>conserve power and then it drifts as it never gets warmed up as I am
>turning it on and off.
>
>With the K2 it has a nice interface and is if you are using a VHF
>transceiver. - Duffey
>
>
>--
>KK6MC
>James Duffey
>Cedar Crest NM
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>VHFcontesting mailing list
>VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:44:43 -0400
>From: "John D'Ausilio" <jdausilio@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 222MHZ Transverters
>To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>
>Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Message-ID:
> <aa9c82bf0909280944t4627386fp8788c6c86256e4fb@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>You can easily jumper the XV so that the LO remains on at all times
>that power is available on the connector .. I don't remember it's
>designator, but it's 5 pin block with multiple options (I can look it
>up if you have trouble finding it).
>The heat is a problem for sure .. I've experienced issues on 2M during
>band openings when it sees heavy use .. planning on putting a fan to
>blow over all four transverters (I have mine in a stack using a custom
>bracket)
>
>de w1rt/john
>
>On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:00 PM, James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I use an Elecraft XV-222 transverter for 222 MHz. It has a very good
>> receiver as it is sensitive and very immune to overload and strong
>> signal intermod.
>>
>> Having said that, it has a couple of faults.
>>
>> The first is that it runs hot and although 20 Watts out can be run on
>> SSB, it will still run hot, and the power should be probably be held
>> to 10 Watts or so on high duty cycle modes like FM and WSJT. This is
>> not a problem if you have a linear that takes the lower power input.
>>
>> The second is that my unit drifts noticeably from a cold start. While
>> probably not a problem for fixed station use, where the power can be
>> left on, in the rover I turn it on only when I go to 222 MHz to
>> conserve power and then it drifts as it never gets warmed up as I am
>> turning it on and off.
>>
>> With the K2 it has a nice interface and is if you are using a VHF
>> transceiver. - Duffey
>>
>>
>> --
>> KK6MC
>> James Duffey
>> Cedar Crest NM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:52:14 -0700
>From: Tom Carney <tomc@carneysugai.com>
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] 222MHZ Transverters
>To: James Duffey <jamesduffey@comcast.net>,
> vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Message-ID: <4AC0F7CE.4030902@carneysugai.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>I use a XV-222 also and will confirm the faults Duffey listed. I tried
>running 20w on FM and blew out the final stage amplifier module. If you
>look hard enough, you can find a warning/limitation about high duty
>cycle usage in the manual.
>
>Yes, it drifts from cold start. As James says, likely not a problem for
>a fixed station. Another, minor problem, it doesn't have a way to make
>a small freq adjustment to the crystal. My unit is about 2khz high,
>once it settles down.
>
>73,
>
>Tom K6EU
>
>
>
>James Duffey wrote:
>> I use an Elecraft XV-222 transverter for 222 MHz. It has a very good
>> receiver as it is sensitive and very immune to overload and strong
>> signal intermod.
>>
>> Having said that, it has a couple of faults.
>>
>> The first is that it runs hot and although 20 Watts out can be run on
>> SSB, it will still run hot, and the power should be probably be held
>> to 10 Watts or so on high duty cycle modes like FM and WSJT. This is
>> not a problem if you have a linear that takes the lower power input.
>>
>> The second is that my unit drifts noticeably from a cold start. While
>> probably not a problem for fixed station use, where the power can be
>> left on, in the rover I turn it on only when I go to 222 MHz to
>> conserve power and then it drifts as it never gets warmed up as I am
>> turning it on and off.
>>
>> With the K2 it has a nice interface and is if you are using a VHF
>> transceiver. - Duffey
>>
>>
>> --
>> KK6MC
>> James Duffey
>> Cedar Crest NM
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
>From: kevin kaufhold <kkaufhold@yahoo.com>
>Subject: [VHFcontesting] Announcing the VHF Distance Scoring 2009
> Report
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>Message-ID: <522184.90609.qm@web50306.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>The VHF Distance Scoring Working Group has been considering many distance
>scoring options over the last several months. This effort has been a
>grass-roots, independent activity outside of the usual contest sponsor
>committee structure. It was thought that ideas could be developed by the VHF
>community itself for further consideration of all potential sponsors. ?The
>working group can be found at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VHFDistanceScoring/
>?
>The full report of the working group is now available at:
>http://www.w9smc.com/SMC%20VHF/DistanceScoring2009Report.pdf? Please feel free
>to look at the entire document and provide comments.
>?
>The working group believes that current VHF rules are adequate in many
>situations, but the uniformity and sameness of the current rules set may be
>generating complacency and boredom. There has also been a concern expressed
>over short-range contacts to strategically located nearby grids.
>Distance-based methods would emphasize operator skill and technical abilities
>by constantly reaching for longer contacts.
>?
>The central issue boils down to this: Why must there be such a high degree of
>uniformity of contest rules in almost every VHF contest? Why can?t there be at
>least one VHF contest that is expressly based on longer distances? Variety is
>the spice of life.
>?
>The VHF working group recommends the following items be considered.
>Constructive, well-reasoned comments would be greatly appreciated.
>
>1.? In the short-term, experimentation with distance rules should be done
>either in the VHF Sprints or a new event.?
>?
>2.? If and when distance rules are perfected and prove to be a success in the
>Sprints or other event, then the concept could be attempted in one or more
>major event.?
>?
>? ???a. Simulations show that distance events may degenerate into 6 meter
>contests when significant Es is present, so June and CQ VHF may not be the
>best suited for distance concepts.
>?
>? ???b.?January or September would likely be better for a distance event, with
>band activity being more dispersed.
>?
>? ???c.?Two simulations also showed that the August UHF is well suited for
>distance efforts.
>?
>3.? Regarding the distance method to be used, there was overwhelming support
>among group members for a points per km system.
>?
>4.? A gradual band weighting schedule should be given consideration in
>multi-band distance events.
>?
>5.? Reasonable types of distance limits, such as a sliding scale, should be
>given further consideration, but no ban or severe limit should be imposed on
>very long contacts.
>?
>6.? The majority of the working group believes that some type of re-contact
>rule should be given further consideration.
>?
>7.? Wherever possible, distance rules should be kept simple.
>?
>8.? On a near-term basis, 4 digit exchanges may be viable. Over the long-term
>however, 6 digits should eventually be adopted. ?
>?
>9.? Contest sponsors develop and announce a standard method by which distances
>will be calculated.
>?
>?
>These above recommendations are not designed to be the definite answer to all
>distance-based efforts. Indeed, we developed a baseline set of distance rules
>along with alternate proposals, just so that further discussion would occur.
>We also developed model distance calculation standards which also contain
>alternate language. It is simply hoped that a more discussion will be given to
>distance concepts in one or more VHF contests.? ?
>?
>Future efforts of the VHF Distance Working Group will likely focus on the 2010
>VHF Spring Sprints, as there have been suggestions that the Spring Sprints
>feature distance measures next year.? Please feel free to drop by and join the
>distance working group at the above link.
>?
>?
>Kevin
>W9GKA
>Moderator
>Distance Scoring Working Group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:04:53 +0000 (UTC)
>From: w8zn@comcast.net
>Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] [VHF] Announcing the VHF Distance Scoring
> 2009 Report
>To: kevin kaufhold <kkaufhold@yahoo.com>
>Cc: vhfcontesting@contesting.com, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>Message-ID:
>
> <427287958.1674261254164693246.JavaMail.root@sz0120a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>Hi Kevin and the working group.
>
>I applaud your group and wish you the very best luck. This is a step in the
>right direction to equalize the scoring and help put an end to some of the
>pack roving that helps no one else but the participants, once it is no longer
>profitable to just work at grid corners, it will probably go away.
>
>I do have one comment about item 4B, a weighted score for upper bands. Why
>isn't it enough that another band yields another contact and distance mult?
>Some time ago when a microwave station was entirely built from surplus or home
>brew design, I would agree that it was worth more points. But with DEM and
>DB6NT offering off the shelf ready built systems, these bands don't really
>offer much more challenge than fighting QRM on 144.200. There is a small
>amount of extra work pointing a dish that doesn't exist with a 3 element 6m
>beam but if the signal is there, you work it and in some cases, I've found a
>1w signal on 10 GHz is EASIER to work than a 100w signal on 6m. As evident in
>most of the ARRL contests, a station that maximizes their microwaves Q's will
>almost always dominate even if they don't have a decent lower 4 band score,
>this seems counter to increase activity. In HF, you don't get extra points for
>a 160m or 10m contact, which are much harder than a 20m Q, VHF and above
> should be the same.
>
>Thanks again for your fine efforts,
>
>Terry
>
>
>
>The VHF Distance Scoring Working Group has been considering many distance
>scoring options over the last several months. This effort has been a
>grass-roots, independent activity outside of the usual contest sponsor
>committee structure. It was thought that ideas could be developed by the VHF
>community itself for further consideration of all potential sponsors. B The
>working group can be found at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VHFDistanceScoring/
>
>B
>
>The full report of the working group is now available at:
>
>http://www.w9smc.com/SMC%20VHF/DistanceScoring2009Report.pdfB Please feel
>free to look at the entire document and provide comments.
>
>B
>
>The working group believes that current VHF rules are adequate in many
>situations, but the uniformity and sameness of the current rules set may be
>generating complacency and boredom. There has also been a concern expressed
>over short-range contacts to strategically located nearby grids.
>Distance-based methods would emphasize operator skill and technical abilities
>by constantly reaching for longer contacts.
>
>B
>
>The central issue boils down to this: Why must there be such a high degree of
>uniformity of contest rules in almost every VHF contest? Why canbt there be at
>least one VHF contest that is expressly based on longer distances? Variety is
>the spice of life.
>
>B
>
>The VHF working group recommends the following items be considered.
>Constructive, well-reasoned comments would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
>1.B In the short-term, experimentation with distance rules should be done
>either in the VHF Sprints or a new event.B
>
>B
>
>2.B If and when distance rules are perfected and prove to be a success in the
>Sprints or other event, then the concept could be attempted in one or more
>major event.B
>
>B
>
>B B B B a. Simulations show that distance events may degenerate into 6 meter
>contests when significant Es is present, so June and CQ VHF may not be the
>best suited for distance concepts.
>
>B
>
>B B B B b.B January or September would likely be better for a distance event,
>with band activity being more dispersed.
>
>B
>
>B B B B c.B Two simulations also showed that the August UHF is well suited
>for distance efforts.
>
>B
>
>3.B Regarding the distance method to be used, there was overwhelming support
>among group members for a points per km system.
>
>B
>
>4.B A gradual band weighting schedule should be given consideration in
>multi-band distance events.
>
>B
>
>5.B Reasonable types of distance limits, such as a sliding scale, should be
>given further consideration, but no ban or severe limit should be imposed on
>very long contacts.
>
>B
>
>6.B The majority of the working group believes that some type of re-contact
>rule should be given further consideration.
>
>B
>
>7.B Wherever possible, distance rules should be kept simple.
>
>B
>
>8.B On a near-term basis, 4 digit exchanges may be viable. Over the long-term
>however, 6 digits should eventually be adopted. B
>
>B
>
>9.B Contest sponsors develop and announce a standard method by which
>distances will be calculated.
>
>B
>
>B
>
>These above recommendations are not designed to be the definite answer to all
>distance-based efforts. Indeed, we developed a baseline set of distance rules
>along with alternate proposals, just so that further discussion would occur.
>We also developed model distance calculation standards which also contain
>alternate language. It is simply hoped that a more discussion will be given to
>distance concepts in one or more VHF contests.B B
>
>B
>
>Future efforts of the VHF Distance Working Group will likely focus on the 2010
>VHF Spring Sprints, as there have been suggestions that the Spring Sprints
>feature distance measures next year.B Please feel free to drop by and join
>the distance working group at the above link.
>
>B
>
>B
>
>Kevin
>
>W9GKA
>
>Moderator
>
>Distance Scoring Working Group
>
>------
>
>Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>
>Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
>
>Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
>
>List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:14:55 -0400
>From: Mark Adams <msadams60@gmail.com>
>Subject: [VHFcontesting] 222 Transverters; Elecraft Issues
>To: vhfcontesting@contesting.com
>Message-ID:
> <2c6b18090909281214te132435ged4ebc201fdbc22@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Gang,
>I used Elecraft 222 transverter in my rover with an FT817 as the IF. I had
>problems right from the start. When transmitting on 6M the transverter would
>lights would start flashing. My rover partner added a bunch of bypass caps
>and I "re-grounded" the connectors on the back panel. Problem temporarily
>solved. Fast forward to Sept 09. I hooked up the K2/222 combo using the
>60M/XVTR module. Very first QSO on 6M and the K2 and XV222 start doing the
>"display dance." So, rip it apart and waste the first 20 minutes of my first
>grid converting back to the 817 as the IF.
>
>So, Steve, VE3SMA, reminded me of these posts. Check it out!
>
>Mark:
>
>BTW, I read your note on strange behaviour of the K2/XV222 when transmitting
>on 6m. It sounds like it might be the same problem I had. See
>
>http://n2.nabble.com/K2-XV222-RFI-Susceptibility-Problems-td2228908.html#a2228908
>
>http://n2.nabble.com/K2-XV222-RFI-Susceptibility-Problems-a-solution-found-td2312565.html#a2312565
>
>You may have to stitch those URLs back together.
>
>Elecraft was somewhat unhelpful and rather obviously not willing to confirm
>my theory on the firmware behaviour, but I am 99% sure I understand the
>issue correctly. I think I can find the filter component values somewhere
>if you want them.
>
>When I was putting the setup together on Saturday morning I noticed some
>relay switching going in the K2 or XV222 on when I keyed up the 2m rig on
>the mobile vertical, so it seems it's not completely fixed. But it didn't
>give me any real problems on the weekend. When I am stopped for a while I
>use a separate mast set up a few feet from the car, which probably reduces
>the field strength enough that there is no issue.
>
>73,
>Steve VE3SMA
>
>--
>73,
>Mark K2QO
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>VHFcontesting mailing list
>VHFcontesting@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
>
>End of VHFcontesting Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
>*********************************************
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|