Message-ID: <35B5F649.F7F@ames.net>
To: <yaesu@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:26:17 -0500
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson, P.E." <geraldj@ames.net>
Reply-To: geraldj@ames.net
Organization: Gerald N. Johnson, P.E.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dr. John Geiger" <JGEIGER@acc.mcrest.edu>
CC: wsvhf@qth.net, yeasu@qth.net
Subject: Re: [WSVHF] ft 736 mods
References: <14D1C094F0C@acc.mcrest.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
First problem is that there's no room in the box for a fifth band.
Likely the processor only makes provisions for the four bands. The first
two bands, 2m and 70 cm aren't in removable modules.
Otherwise with a Technical Suplement at hand, it could be nothing more
than hanging a box for the added module and paralleling the control and
signal busses that connect to the other modules. It might adversely
affect resale and portability having the added module hanging outboard.
And hoving blown a hole in the case to bring out those cables plus
power.
I think a better scheme would be to scrap the 6m module, put the 1.2
inside, and use a Tentec 1209 with the 2m port to get to 6m. The 1209 is
smaller than the 1.2 module would be. I've tested that combination and
it does work though I don't have the 1.2 module yet.
There are a lot of modifications I think the 1209 needs, such as hard
keying and separated receive and transmit 50 mhz connections for use
with a PA and to have better sensitivity on receive. Probably needs a
real double balanced mixer from MCL and better mixer terminations for
better intermod performance. But the 736 doesn't do any better for imd
because of the same mixer termination problems.
73, Jerry, K0CQ
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.qsl.net/k7on/yaesu.html
Submissions: yaesu@contesting.com
Administrative requests: yaesu-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-yaesu@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|