HF setup - Equipment choice

630m (472 kHz) - 10 m (29 MHz) antennas, propagation, operating, etc
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

VK5KLV wrote:I've had a fair range of radios from modded CBs & home brew transverters, all valve HF ( English KW2000E which was a great radio in it's day) to a variety of solid state mobile & base radios from the major brands. They have all had their strong (& weak) points. I currently run several FT857Ds & since starting to "play in the parks" I have bought an FT817nd. I would probably suggest buying an FT857 as a starter as it is easy to wind the power back for foundation licence use & low power portable operation to conserve batteries.FT897 is a bit bulky & heavy. Once you start SOTA for example, then look at units like the 817 or KX3 etc. By then you will have a bit more experience & more idea of features & functions YOU want. 73s & best of luck with your endeavours in this great hobby. Les, VK5KLV
Les, may I ask what would be the logic of going for FT857 initially and then coming back to a KX3 at a later point? Wouldn't that mean I'll need to invest in two portable units in due course? Would it be more logical to go for a KX3 and then if I want the extra power (and obtaining a higher license), I could then go for a base transceiver then? Thanks for you input. Looks like all audiophils love their tubes. :beer:
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK5KLV
Forum Novice
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:29 am

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK5KLV »

Hi Weiyun,

FT857 is capable of more power (when applicable) & more bands & modes. It is basically a mobile rig which also performs very well as a base radio & is very capable as a portable rig. If you find you are doing a lot of portable QRP operation then, & only then, look at the purchase of KX3 or FT817.
Hope you understand my thinking here.
Les, VK5KLV.
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

From various talks I understand the difference b/n 5-10W and 100W is rather limited when a well tuned antenna is used. How true is this statement? I hear that the S difference may only be 1 or 2 bars. Without extensive experiences, it really doesn't translate for me in terms of practical impact. I understand that the KX3 has a far superior receiver, wouldn't that be an important criteria?
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK2OMD
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2OMD »

VK2FABS wrote:From various talks I understand the difference b/n 5-10W and 100W is rather limited when a well tuned antenna is used. How true is this statement? I hear that the S difference may only be 1 or 2 bars. Without extensive experiences, it really doesn't translate for me in terms of practical impact. I understand that the KX3 has a far superior receiver, wouldn't that be an important criteria?
No, the difference between 10W and 100W is always 10dB (or close to 2 S points on most modern radios).

You will often hear "oh that is less than an S point, not worth doing", it is just a cry for mediocrity. If that suits you, learn the lingo and talk the talk... but if you want to walk the walk, see through the BS.

Owen
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

VK2OMD wrote:No, the difference between 10W and 100W is always 10dB (or close to 2 S points on most modern radios).

You will often hear "oh that is less than an S point, not worth doing", it is just a cry for mediocrity. If that suits you, learn the lingo and talk the talk... but if you want to walk the walk, see through the BS.
LOL! Can't I ride on lighter air?

Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding on Tx and Rx relationship is this. The RF reaching my aerial is a product of the power and aerial performance from the distant machine, possibly high power being fed down a lower efficiency antenna. My ability to receive is a product of my antenna and receiver sensitivity. So, on the question of a higher quality rig like the KX-3 is that I'll likely receive more stations when paired with a good antenna. But because of my lower power, my RF may not be received on the other end if the other end's antenna is subpar. Now, a conversation can't happen unless we talk the talk on both ends...
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK2OMD
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2OMD »

VK2FABS wrote: Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding on Tx and Rx relationship is this. The RF reaching my aerial is a product of the power and aerial performance from the distant machine, possibly high power being fed down a lower efficiency antenna. My ability to receive is a product of my antenna and receiver sensitivity. So, on the question of a higher quality rig like the KX-3 is that I'll likely receive more stations when paired with a good antenna. But because of my lower power, my RF may not be received on the other end if the other end's antenna is subpar. Now, a conversation can't happen unless we talk the talk on both ends...
Weiyun,

A conversation can happen when both ends have sufficient Signal to Noise ratio (S/N).

Yes, the transmitting station's effective radiated power in your direction influences the field strength in the region of your antenna.

A transmitting station can degrade effective radiated power by using lossy system components... and most electrically small antennas are really hard to make efficient.

Against that, the receiving site also recovers noise (meaning undesired signals), external sources such as galactic noise, atmospherics (lightning), noise from man's activities and internal noise (internal to your receiver). The quantity of each depends a lot on the band, and to some extent on equipment.

On 80m and 40m, external noise will be much greater than internal noise (for good receivers).

That doesn't mean S/N is out of your hands, you can exagerate external noise by placing your antenna where it is more intimately coupled to noise radiators like your house wiring.

Owen
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

Yes, S/N is certainly the core, and guess that's one plus for the KX-3. Getting back to the question of 10W vs 100W Tx power, given identical pairing, what exactly does it mean in practice? How much shorter in range on HF? How many lost QSOs? Obviously there's a compromise, but what is that compromise to help make an informed decision on rig investment?
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK2OMD
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2OMD »

VK2FABS wrote:Yes, S/N is certainly the core, and guess that's one plus for the KX-3.
That is not obvious to me.
VK2FABS wrote: Getting back to the question of 10W vs 100W Tx power, given identical pairing, what exactly does it mean in practice? How much shorter in range on HF? How many lost QSOs? Obviously there's a compromise, but what is that compromise to help make an informed decision on rig investment?
If 10W is not quite enough to get a contact, 100W may well be... but the choice to use that comes when you upgrade (or chose to ignore the power limit).

I use anything from 10W to 400W on 40m SSB, sometimes 10W is adequate for a QSO, sometimes 400W is not sufficient... but the simple thing is that 400W will be sustain a contact more often than 10W.

If you expect to upgrade in the near future, you might consider a 100W radio better value for the future. I think you said you have been interested in ham radio for decades, if it will take decades to upgrade, then the 100W future is probably not a big factor (again unless you intend abusing the power limit).

Choosing a radio is a pretty complex task, and I have seen several mentioned that would probably suit and be fairly good value. Something to keep in mind is that you may not have the skills, knowledge and equipment to repair a radio, and with beginners knowledge the risk of damaging it is higher, so you may want to lay some of that risk on the seller and distributor and choose a radio from a retail seller (Australian Consumer Law coverage), and choose a brand with factory support and long warranty. That critera would exclude many of the radios mentioned.

Owen
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

VK2OMD wrote:That is not obvious to me.
I obviously have no personal play with that KX-3 but was basing things on what I've read and comparisons. A great majority of owners and reviewers are suggesting it has a very good receiver with very low noise. And given what was said earlier on S/N, that logically makes it a good unit. No?
If 10W is not quite enough to get a contact, 100W may well be... but the choice to use that comes when you upgrade (or chose to ignore the power limit).

I use anything from 10W to 400W on 40m SSB, sometimes 10W is adequate for a QSO, sometimes 400W is not sufficient... but the simple thing is that 400W will be sustain a contact more often than 10W.

If you expect to upgrade in the near future, you might consider a 100W radio better value for the future. I think you said you have been interested in ham radio for decades, if it will take decades to upgrade, then the 100W future is probably not a big factor (again unless you intend abusing the power limit).
Putting aside the discussion and value of extra wattage, here's what I am thinking. I really liked the idea of a very compact and lightweight unit like the KX-3, just about as good as it gets for backpack hauling. Add a decently small and lightweight LiFe battery and it'll operate on 10W. Given my current F license, it's also perfectly matched and no inspector can accuse me of exceeding my license. When I've had some successes in due course and should I pick up a Standard call license, then there's always the option of picking up one of their 100W amp for home base use. And if I do get heavily addicted to AR, by that time I may well join many of you guys in picking up that n+1 or n+2 rig. In the meantime, I am worried that a 100W transmitter will probably attract more eggs from my neighbours than gaining more worthwhile contacts.

But still the question. What's the furthest contact people have achieved with 10W? How much further could 100W reach under the same condition?
Choosing a radio is a pretty complex task, and I have seen several mentioned that would probably suit and be fairly good value. Something to keep in mind is that you may not have the skills, knowledge and equipment to repair a radio, and with beginners knowledge the risk of damaging it is higher, so you may want to lay some of that risk on the seller and distributor and choose a radio from a retail seller (Australian Consumer Law coverage), and choose a brand with factory support and long warranty. That critera would exclude many of the radios mentioned.
As I am finding out too, the complexity of choosing a radio. Too many consideration, especially for someone just entering. Your comment on local warranty is sound and I did consider it. Fortunately, I am actually quite comfortable with electronic gears, helped by my past hobbies, professional experiences as well as time in research labs. As for US purchases, it's also not a major concern for me as they can be dealt with through my travels or my contacts there. But a most valid consideration.
Weiyun VK2FABS
User avatar
VK3YE
Forum Diehard
Posts: 494
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK3YE »

VK2FABS wrote: But still the question. What's the furthest contact people have achieved with 10W? How much further could 100W reach under the same condition?
With 10w the limit is the size of the world, particularly on the higher HF bands. Higher power will allow you to do it on more days and outside the peak couple of hours of propagation.

Power becomes more important on the lower HF bands. eg on 7 MHz you'll be able to routinely work up to 3000km with 10w but 100w will provide European & American contacts.

More detail of what's possible and what's regular with 5 - 10 watts is at: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/qrp/possible.htm
-------------------------
Peter VK3YE http://www.vk3ye.com

NEW FOR 2019! Illustrated International Ham Radio Dictionary. 200 page Kindle ebook. $AU $5.99. Get yours at http://home.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/dictionary.htm
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

Thanks Peter. That gave me a practical grasp of the power of "power". Very useful in my decision process. :beer:
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK2OMD
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2OMD »

VK2FABS wrote:...
But still the question. What's the furthest contact people have achieved with 10W? How much further could 100W reach under the same condition?
A more relevant question might be not can you, but how often do you make 15,000km contacts with 10W SSB or CW (your permitted modes).

If the chance on average was one contact per thousand hours of trying, you might not find that an interesting prospect, though some will chase the rare contacts purely because they are rare.

For example, 40 years ago I worked a ZL station from Sydney simplex 2m with a 2W TR2400 FM handheld, standing on natural ground and using the rubber duckie antenna. That is an extremely unusual contact, but in answer to your question, it proves that ZL can be worked on such a setup. You could spend your life on your balcony calling on you 2m hand held and never make a contact of that distance and die an unsatisfied man.

It depends what your interest is / becomes, whether your are a train-spotter, whether you want to have a discussion with someone about something technical (though there isn't much of that these days), be driven by someone else's targets (eg awards and contests), 'login' to a net and tell them what you will have for dinner. Ham radio is a lot of different things to different people and there is room for all of it... doesn't mean you have to engage in all of it though.

Lots of stations running low power will tell you how adequate it is. I can tell you that it is a struggle most times working 40m stations running much lower power. I find that when I reduce power to 10W, most Foundation stations copy me worse than I copy them... and there are likely explanations.

It is a competetive environment when you respond to a CQ (Foundation calls rarely call CQ in my experience), stronger / clearer stations have a better chance of securing a contact. When most stations on 40 or 80m run 100W, with just 10W you are challenged and if you go chuck away a further 9W with an inefficient antenna system (easy to do), you are 20dB (or 3+ S points) behind an efficient 100W station, your are futher challenged. It is not that you cannot or will not make contacts, they are just fewer and further between. However, the other side of that coin is that you might be very satisfied with what you can do with a 1m diameter small transmitting loop and 10W on 40m.

You will not know until you try it, but see that once in a lifetime contacts might not sustain the hobby for most people.

Owen

PS: I have spent far more hours transmitting at less than 10W in the last year than at 400W... I am not QRO biased, nor anti QRP.
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

That makes good sense Owen, though that ZL contact on 2W VHF sounded like that magic tropospheric propagation, very much a special case. But granted, power can matter. Bit of a foot in the door when competing for CQ. Not sure where I'll end up with AR yet, time will tell. Good news though, made my first successful CQ and contact via a local UHF repeater at 14km away with a HT. A bit wobbly on the protocol and was amazed by the clarity of comm. Still lots to learn.
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK4TJ
Frequent Poster
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:03 am

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK4TJ »

G'day, Weiyung:
Surprised that no one challenged your angst over signal to noise ratio. Don't agonise over it - it is the least important parameter. Every transceiver made in the last 20 years will easily exceed the real world noise figure & sensitivity requirement. You *WILL* be constrained by external noise sources, especially in the big smoke, as I think you said you were. Mostly man-made noise sources, sadly.
I happen to live in one of the lowest noise level QTH's in VK, and I still don't beleive that I have been constrained by RX added noise. The stars make more noise than my receiver!
Filters, on the other hand, make an enormous difference, but mostly on CW & narrow band digital modes - I'm guessing not your top priority at present.
Grab an FT-817 (There is one on VKHam at present, I think), head for the hills, and have fun!
You have probably worked out that the market for secondhand HF gear is pretty robust, so, if you find that you hate the thing after a few months, flog it off!
There are external amplifiers that can be hosed up to the 817 to make a more credible base station package, or you could even build something once you upgrade.
73
John VK4TJ
VK2OMD
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2OMD »

VK4TJ wrote:... Every transceiver made in the last 20 years will easily exceed the real world noise figure & sensitivity requirement.
That was discussed, to quantify it a bit...

ITU publishes expected ambient noise based on world wide surveys. Galactic noise is experienced everywhere, the effect of man made noise varies... so things could be a bit better, or a lot worse than indicated by their work.
FSAmbientNoise02.gif
Above is a graph from one of my older articles based on ITU's work. Note that the S meter lines are based on a convention, and few S meters are very accurate below S5. The noise floor of a good HF receiver is around -135dBm, so you can see that external noise is some 40dB higher. In fact, you would use a receiver on 40m without its preamp, and the noise floor might be more like -125dBm, still 30dB lower than likely external noise.

If you had one of these rinky dink 1m improvised loops at 1% efficiency, the external noise would still be 10dB higher than internal preamp OFF noise.

Different case for 15 or 10m though.

Owen
VK2MUS
Forum Diehard
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2MUS »

VK2FABS wrote:That makes good sense Owen, though that ZL contact on 2W VHF sounded like that magic tropospheric propagation, very much a special case. But granted, power can matter. Bit of a foot in the door when competing for CQ. Not sure where I'll end up with AR yet, time will tell. Good news though, made my first successful CQ and contact via a local UHF repeater at 14km away with a HT. A bit wobbly on the protocol and was amazed by the clarity of comm. Still lots to learn.
operating on 10W on HF as a foundation operator some times needs solutions outside of the box - the wspr modes work because the receiver knows the freq, knows the time and knows the signal to expect - the foundation operator can do the same using Echolink to setup the time, the freq etc of a HF contact - you then know when to look for the signal, where to look for the signal the only unknown now is can you actually hear the signal and this is where timing of the signal is important thus some understanding of propagation and what affects it is a good idea
john
From the Hill in Muswellbrook. VK2MUS
Occupation: Amplitude Modulator :om:
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

Got the message on the FT817 and is certainly a reliable consideration. Then the geek in me took over. Procrastination time in the rig decision process. :crazy:

Very interesting ambient noise graph! Giving a good sense of signal strength requirement to beat ambient noise. May I assume that the ambient noise from the various sources are not cumulative? The only interpretation that can make sense in real life practices. Can also see how signal strength around the S6 level is potentially critical for comms. Going back to some of the discussions of the KX-3 unit, quite a few compliments (on the net) were made by CW operators in relation to its low noise floor with comments on narrow filtering etc. So the question is, a receiver circuit that works very well for CW, is the same performance translated to voice comm which I understand requires a wider bandwidth?

Will explore WSPR and WSPRnet and see how that works. First brief gave me the impression that it involves a computer link, something that may be excluded by the F call. Thanks.
Weiyun VK2FABS
VK2OMD
Forum Diehard
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2OMD »

VK2FABS wrote:...
Very interesting ambient noise graph! Giving a good sense of signal strength requirement to beat ambient noise. May I assume that the ambient noise from the various sources are not cumulative?...
For your home situation, just look around the upper two lines, but read my previous qualifications.

VK2FABS wrote:Going back to some of the discussions of the KX-3 unit, quite a few compliments (on the net) were made by CW operators in relation to its low noise floor with comments on narrow filtering etc.
Reducing bandwidth naturally reduces the noise floor expressed in dBm, or S units or watts or any form of power measurement.

Better quantifiers of internal noise (in being bandwidth independent) are Noise Figure or Equivalent Noise Temperature... but hams don't embrace them on HF especially.

So part of the con if you like of some Elecraft specs is that they quote the sensitivity with a 500Hz IF bandwidth, whereas if you looked at some competitors, sensitivity might be given for a nominal 2400Hz filter. You have to make an apples and apples comparison, and those expressions of sensitivity make that hard for beginers (and most experienced hams).

Now, you might question Elecraft's motive... it might not be that the specs need enhancing by this technique, they might genuinely be a receiver with appeal mainly to CW operators... but if that was a fair comment, the same argument could be used by other makers generally. If it is not misleading, it is a trap for players.

Now some people believe only the ARRL reports, thinking that they are an independent test house. Of course, only the incredibly naive believe they are indpendent (lots of advertising revenue from brands). I have commented on their method for NF at http://owenduffy.net/blog/?p=945 .

Owen
VK2FABS
Frequent Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:00 pm
Location: Sydney, AU

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK2FABS »

I am old enough to know that there really are very few truly independent reviewers on the net. Everything with a grain of salt is needed. But thanks for the reminder and the detail on the spec reporting. Now that's out of the way, the other attraction on the KX-3 from my angle is its firmware upgradeability. I have checked and noted that none of the Yaesu mobile HF units are upgradeable. Guess one can argue that one would only need to upgrade if there are problems in the first place. Or I've been conditioned by the new features that come with each iteration of iOS firmwares. Irrespective, I do like the idea of potential performance/functionality improvements that come with firmware updates. Any criticisms on that?
Weiyun VK2FABS
User avatar
VK3YE
Forum Diehard
Posts: 494
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: HF setup - Equipment choice

Post by VK3YE »

VK2FABS wrote:Any criticisms on that?
Yes!

The transceiver is the most talked about but least important determinant of success.

Antenna, location, frequency, time of day & time spent operating (incl tuning around and listening and calling those about to sign off) are all way way more important.

HF is very forgiving and the main thing is to get something going sooner rather than later.

A known reliable entry level rig + basic ATU + fishing pole + wire is all you need.
-------------------------
Peter VK3YE http://www.vk3ye.com

NEW FOR 2019! Illustrated International Ham Radio Dictionary. 200 page Kindle ebook. $AU $5.99. Get yours at http://home.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/dictionary.htm
Post Reply