Full duplex transceiver? Back in the dim dawn of history, there used to be those who constructed transmitters that were separate from receivers. Although constructing such a thing is beyond me, I would like to see someone create a device that was intended to feed the input of an upconverter. I can already get general-coverage receivers at reasonable cost. If I'm computer controlling one or the other of them, or both, there is no real advantage to having the in the same physical box.
I can understand why such a thing might be less than perfectly useful for those who want a portable station, but it would seem to me to be just fine for someone who wants to operate a fixed station. On 05/17/2010 05:38 PM, tosca...@umn.edu wrote: > On May 16 2010, Sebastian wrote: > >> Perhaps others such as DEMI, will see this as an opportunity and come up >> with alternatives? > > Well, keep in mind that DEMI's strength is in transverters, and what is > hard to obtain for satellite operation from most common-place existing > equipment is a full-duplex transceiver. I don't think that DEMI is likely > to start building transceivers, but if you had a true full-duplex > transceiver, they would have transverters available to upgrade the radio to > the satellite bands needed. > > Here's a thought: buy two SoftRocks for a lot less than the price of the > Flex 5000 -- one would be the v6.3Rx/Tx and the other could be the V9 Rx > only. This would net you two independent receivers and one transmitter, and > with clever wiring, selection of VHF& up transverters, and maybe a little > bit of software development, you could turn that into a software-defined > radio that would be capable of full-duplex cross-band operation. (The V9 Rx > would be the primary receiver, the receiver in the V6.3Rx/Tx would be > "spare" or "extra" or even ignored.) You'd need to configure the > transverters with "split IF", and use two coaxial relays to route the 28 > MHz SoftRock IF Rx and Tx separately to the correct receive and transmit > transverters. A bit of innovation/homebrewing would be needed for > convenient band-switching, since you would need to switch two different > transverters into the correct "position" depending on the mode: V/U vs. U/V > vs. V/S vs. U/S vs. L/S vs. L/U vs. whatever other modes you wanted to > support. But 4 transverters (145, 435, 1269, and 2400 MHz) would give you > lots of satellite modes. Oh, don't forget there are some birds with HF > links and the SoftRock can do HF natively too... > > If only I had the time to work on such a thing... > > Ideally, the transverters would be dual frequency, so that you could tune > to 432 terrestrial or 435 satellite; 1269 satellite or 1296 terrestrial; > and 2304 terrestrial or 2400 satellite. Newer DEMI transverters with the > synthesized LO board can be configured that way, at least on the higher > bands. Then you'd have not only a ki...@$$ satellite system, but also an > outstanding weak-signal terrestrial system. > > Unfortunately, DEMI is once again revamping their lineup of products. Of > course, this is good for us who want the latest and best, but bad for us > who want something right NOW. Prices and specs are a little bit harder to > obtain from DEMI right now, but I expect that the wait will be worth it. > > 73 de W0JT > >> On May 15, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Michael Tondee wrote: >> >>> I guess once I put the upcoming V/U module in my Flex 5000 I'll have >>> that amount of money in it but I won't have had to spend it all at once >>> and IMHO I'll have a markedly better radio. Also one that isn't outdated >>> a day after I walk out of the store with it. >>> >>> On 5/15/2010 7:22 PM, Mik Forsythe wrote: >>>> Just left Dayton a few hours ago. Icom said that it is basically a >>>> 7600 and a 910. It is bigger than the 910. It was in a display case so >>>> I can't tell you what the feel was like of the weight. Price is in the >>>> $4,000.00 range so that will kill a lot of the satellite market if you >>>> ask me. > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > > > !DSPAM:117,4bf1cfd4170036849314807! _______________________________________________ Sent via amsat...@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
