Podcasts about rg58

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. Power Measurement and Antenna Gain HPR show by Paulj, May 2025. 1.0 Power expressed in dB (also written as dBW) Power PdB = 10 . log10P Where P is the power expressed in Watts. 2.0 Power expressed in dBm Power PdB = 10 . log10P Where P is the power expressed in milliwatts. 1W = 1000mW Power PdBm = 10 . log101000mW Power PdBm = 30 dBm so: 0 dB = 30 dBm 3.0 Power expressed relative to an isotropic antenna - dBi An Isotropic antenna is an theoretical ideal antenna which radiates equally in all directions. Imagine the antenna is at the centre of a sphere, the signal strength at the surface of the sphere is equal at all points. The gain of an isotropic antenna is defined as 1, meaning: 10 dB = 10 dBi 4.0 Power expressed relative to a half wave dipole antenna - dBd The simplest practical antenna is a half wave dipole antenna, where each of the two legs is a quarter wave length long. The feed is at the centre, and the two legs are generally horizontal, and aligned away from the feed point 180 degrees apart. The dipole antenna exhibits gain perpendicular to the legs. The maximum gain is 1.64 times the isotropic antenna - a gain of approximately 2.15dBi. The gain off the ends of the dipole is much lower - the total power radiated by the antenna can not exceed the power being input, so if there is more radiation (gain) in one direction, there must be a corresponding reduction in a different direction. So: 2.15 dBi = 0 dBd 5.0 Effective Radiated Power - ERP and EIRP ERP and EIRP are both used to indicate the power achieved using an antenna.ERP compares the antenna performance with a dipole, and EIRP compares the performance with an isotropic antenna. So, the ERP is the power which would need to be fed into a dipole antenna, to get the same effect in the direction your antenna is pointing. EIRP is the power required for an isotropic antenna to gain equivalence. Practical example: My KX3 can transmit 15W. using the formula above, this is 11.77 dB. If I attach a Yagi-Uda antenna with a gain of 10dB, the ERP is 21.77 dB. Using the formula above, from this number you can calculate that this is the equivalent of 150.3142 Watts ERP. To understand the EIRP, we need to add 2.15 to the 21.77 dB value, giving 23.92 dB EIRP. Again, converting to actual power gives 246.515 Watts EIRP. If you are comparing antennas, make sure the same units are being used in all cases (either EIRP or ERP) - some sellers will use EIRP, because the values are higher! Check your licence conditions. Power output limits are often at the antenna, and don't include antenna gain. You can set your transmitter to output sufficient power to overcome any feed line losses, and present up to the power permitted to the antenna. A good antenna can then be used to get the transmitted power out and across the world. For feedline loses, the value is given in dB per 10 metres. For example, RG58 is 2dB / 10 metres (at 100MHz - choose the right feeder coax for your target frequency!). If you have 15 metres, then you will have 3 dB feeder loss, so half of your transmitter power will be lost in the feed line. If you know this and your transmitter can output more, then you can increase the transmitter power accordingly. So for 25W at the transmitter, with 3dB loss in the feeder, you can set the output to 50W. Some transmit power limits are set in ERP or EIRP, so you will need to calculate back from the antenna to see the maximum allowable transmitter power, to stay within the rules. 6.0 Combining values One result of the use of dB is that you can add the values together to understand the whole system gain. So, with our example above, if we have 11.77 dB of output power, then -1 dB insertion loss for a bandpass filter, -3 dB loss for the feeder, and 5dB gain on the antenna, the overall ERP is 12.77 dB. You can convert this back to Watts, to get 18.92W ERP. 7.0 Links Dipole information Yagi-Uda information Wikipedia information on Decibels Wikipedia information on ERP and EIRP Wikipedia information on Antenna Gain ERP & EIRP calculator from M0UKD Provide feedback on this episode.

Foundations of Amateur Radio Recently I explained some of the reasons why I've shifted to using dBm to discuss power. You might recall that 1 Watt is defined as 1,000 mW and that's represented by 30 dBm. 10 Watts is 40 dBm, 400 Watts, the maximum power output in Australia is 56 dBm and 1,500 Watts, the maximum in the USA, is just under 62 dBm. My favourite power level, 5 Watts, is 37 dBm. I mentioned that using dBm allows us to create a continuous scale between the transmitted power and the received signal. On HF, an S9 report is defined as -73 dBm. Between each S-point lies 6 dB, so an S8 signal is -79 dBm, S7 is -85 dBm and so-on to S0, which is -127 dBm. Said differently, to increase the received signal by one S-point you need to quadruple the power output. Now, let's consider a contact with a 100 Watt station, 50 dBm. Let's imagine that the receiver reports an S8 signal. That means that between a transmitter output of 50 dBm and the received signal at -79 dBm, there's a loss of 129 dB. If we dial the power down to 5 Watts, our 37 dBm will be received at -92 dBm, and earn a S6 report, which, in my experience, is pretty common. If we instead use the maximum power permitted in Australia, we'd gain 6 dB and end up at -73 dBm, or S9. The maximum power output permitted in the United States, 62 dBm, is only 6 dB higher and not even enough to get you "10 over 9" at the other end. At this point I could say, see, "QRP, when you care to send the very least", and be done with it. While it's true in my not so humble opinion, that's not where I'm going with this. That 129 dB of loss is made up of a bunch of things. For example, there's the coax loss at either end, the antenna gain at either end and a big one, the path loss between the two antennas. Let's assume for a moment that coax loss and antenna gain cancel each other out. You might think that's nuts, but consider that 100 m of RG58 coax on the 10m band has a loss of around 8 dB and a dipole has an isotropic gain of 2.15 dBi. In case you're not sure what that means, a dipole has a gain of 2.15 dB over the ideal radiator, a theoretical isotropic antenna. Now it's unlikely that you are going to connect a dipole to 100 m of RG58, so let's say a quarter, or 25 m instead. The coax loss is also quartered, or about 2 dB, which pretty much means that your dipole gain and your coax loss essentially cancel each other out. So, as a working number, assuming both stations are similar and ignoring SWR mismatch, pre-amplifiers, filters, and all manner of other tweaks in the signal path, 129 dB loss is a good starting point to work with. If you use a free space path loss calculator, that's the equivalent of the loss for a 2,500 km contact on HF on the 10 m band. Now, if you were to replace the RG58 with something like RG213 coax, the loss drops from around 2 dB to 0.9 dB, so your signal just increased in strength by 1.1 dB, or not enough to make any difference in this example. Of course there's a benefit in using lower loss coax, I mean, 1.1 dB gain isn't nothing, but it really only matters when the conditions are marginal. If you're going to run your coax to the other side of a paddock, you might discover that your signal changes by a whole S-point, but realistically, most of the time you're not going to notice. Similarly, and perhaps more importantly, in the scheme of things, your antenna is also just fiddling around the edges when compared to the path loss of 129 dB. For example, if you double your antenna gain, you're only seeing an improvement of half an S-point and most likely you won't actually notice. Before you grab the nearest chicken to pluck feathers to come after me with, I'd like to point out that each element on their own has a minimal impact on the total system, but that doesn't mean that improving your station is useless, far from it. If you use quality coax, have an antenna that is performing well, is a good match to your transmitter and coax, use appropriate filters and pre-amplification, you're likely to make more contacts more often, but the bottom line is that you actually need to be on air to make noise and ultimately that's going to represent the biggest improvement in your station performance. Case in point, the other day my WSPR or Weak Signal Reporter beacon, with 10 dBm output, was reported 7,808 km away by DP0GVN, the club station of the German Antarctic Research Station "Neumayer III" in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, a first for me. WSPR reported that as a signal of -26 dB. Previously I proved that when WSPR reports -31 dB, about 75% of decodes are successful. In other words, we can think of my report as being 5 dB above the minimum decode level. This is interesting for several reasons, least of which is that a report of -26 dB doesn't appear to have a relationship to anything else, something which I've observed before. Looking further, if we use our notional 129 dB loss figure and start at the beacon power of 10 dBm, we end up at -119 dBm, which is between S1 and S2. In reality, the path loss for that contact is more likely to be in the order of 10 dB worse, making the signal at the receiver -129 dBm or around S0. In those kinds of marginal conditions, where there's 5 dB between being heard and not, finding an extra dB or two in better coax or antenna is absolutely worth the investment, but if you're in a contest making points, you're not going to care. Being on the right band, pointing in the right direction and being on-air making contacts is going to be much more important. That said, I'll leave you with a question. Given our obsession with antennas, what might the impact be of adding an 18 dBi Yagi to your station? I'm Onno VK6FLAB

What do we really want? We live in a world of competing desires. Every day we’re bombarded by promises to make us truly happy. If you just buy this product, or read this book, or try out this dating app, or start this diet program, or exercise more, then you will be happy. If your relationship with your spouse or with your children or with your friends were better, then your heart would finally be full. No matter how hard we try, nothing less than God will satisfy our hearts: As St. John of the Cross puts it, “They are as deep as the boundless goods of which they are capable since anything less than the infinite fails to fill them.”

In a special Friday edition of the pod, we recap all the action from Rounds 1 and 2 (or what we’ve seen so far) from Augusta. We talk about the stacked leaderboard, what surprises we’ve seen so far, and all of the big names including DJ, JT, Tiger and Rory, as well as surprising Round 2 from Bryson and the implications for his bomb-and-gouge strategy. We also talk about what’s at stake for the weekend and who is on the bubble of the historically low cut line. Finally, we are in a position where all 4 Canadians have a legit shot to make the cut and see weekend action. From Mike Weir being just below the cut line, to Corey Conners’ massive Round 2 score of -5 through 16 holes, things are looking great for the Canadian delegation. Check back on Tuesday night for our complete recap of what is shaping up to be a fantastic week of golf.

Foundations of Amateur Radio A question that comes up regularly is one about loss, specifically loss in the coax and connectors between your radio and your antenna. The general wisdom is that better coax gives you better results and more connectors is bad. Anything with double joiners, or such like is really bad. So, essentially we've been taught that we should have the shortest coax possible with as few connectors as possible. Pretty fair and reasonable, right? During the week I was introduced to a video made by Jim W6LG. Jim has a YouTube channel going back a couple of years with about a 100 videos. One video is loosely called Jim measures the loss in coax connectors and 100 foot of RG8X. In case you're wondering, 100 foot is 30m and 48cm of coax. I know this because the United States of America despite appearances to the contrary is actually metric, they defined the inch as being 2.54cm back in February of 1964. Other than driving on the wrong side of the road, they're not too strange and they talk on the air, a lot, so there's that. Back to Jim. He rummaged through his bits box, the one you have, the one that every amateur has, and if you don't then you clearly need to spend some time being with an Elmer and learning the ropes. Jim pulled out 30 odd connectors, SO239 and PL259 by the looks of things and daisy chained them all together. Jim has been around the block a few times and he has connectors going back to World War 2, so he really did find the bottom of his box to make his video. Anyway, he rigged up a testing tool to compare a single connector to 30 connectors. Measuring the difference, showing pretty graphs, lines and scales, the whole bit. He even compared 20m to 6m and tested both extensively and even re-did the tests with a kilowatt. Then as icing on the cake, you know the one, with a cherry on top, whipped cream on the side, he did the same test with the 30 odd meters of RG8X coax. I could leave you hanging here and let you go and find Jim's video, but that wouldn't be fair if you're currently in the middle of your commute to work like several people I know, so I'll share the outcome, but if you get the chance, the 5 minutes of your life that you'll spend with Jim are worth every second. So, what was the outcome of Jim's test you ask? Surprisingly, there was no discernible difference between one connector and 30 connectors in-line, not at 14 MHz, not at 50 MHz, not at 50 microvolts and not at 1 kilowatt, about 223 and a half million microvolts. Using RG8X coax, which sits about halfway between RG58 and RG213 in terms off loss, there was however 22% loss at 14 MHz and 40% at 50 MHz. Does make me wonder if it's the coax manufacturers who have been telling us to buy more coax rather than join two bits of coax together with a connector. Might have to do that test myself. Better go and start digging through my bits box. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio In the past little while you've heard me talk about WSPR, Weak Signal Propagation Reporter and I've told you about signals I've heard across the planet. The longest distance at the time was a HF report, 18656 km from Perth to Pennsylvania, very nice indeed. I switched to monitoring 6m, 2m and 70cm about a month or so ago. My reports had been pretty minimal, from my QTH to the suburb next-door and then two suburbs away. Proof that a station is working, but hardly anything to celebrate or even mention. The other day I came across a report a little further away, Perth to Adelaide, 2142 km away. Not world record beating, or even earth shattering, but proof that 6m propagation does have its moments now and then. Then a surprise contact, Perth to The Rock, not the one in the middle, or the one with the wave, the one on the Olympic Highway between Wagga Wagga and Albury, 2899 km away with 20 Watts on 6m. My reports aren't particularly far or amazing. You might recall Wally VK6YS who made a contact on 6m between Perth and Israel. He'd been at it for a little while, longer than I've been an amateur, but not quite as long as I've been the apple in the eye of my mother. 38 years it took for Wally to make that contact. So why am I making any mention of my little achievement? Simple really, my station and Wally's station are nothing alike. He had a large beam on 6m located on a property with few noise sources and his patience paid off. My station consists of a 10m antenna, that is, it's not 10m tall, it's resonant on 10m, and happens to also manage 2m. I've not actually checked to see what 6m on this antenna looks like, perhaps a project for another day, but it sits there, clamped to a metal pergola at the peak of a corrugated iron roof and connected via 20m or so of RG58 coax, cheap RG58 coax, connected to my radio that I use to host F-troop most weeks. I have to restart my WSPR node monitoring software several times a week since the Windows XP notepad computer it's running on crashes regularly. I have to remember to open the squelch when I finish F-troop and connect the WSPR node back up and I have to make sure that there's enough empty disk-space to make sure that I can actually log stuff. This isn't a sob-sob story, woe is me, my station isn't a massive station. It's more about that you can achieve these kinds of things with small and minimal resources. One of my friends is doing really well with a USB TV dongle decoding WSPR on a Raspberry Pi, others are using thousands of dollars of gear and everything in between. The point is that you too can get started without massive expense. A simple radio, something to run WSPR, which can be a Raspberry Pi, an antenna of sorts and you're on the way to check out what propagation is like around your QTH in your neck of the woods. Amateur radio doesn't have to be expensive, it doesn't have to be extensive, it doesn't even have to be elaborate, it can just be enough. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Foundations of Amateur Radio There is a recurring question that never seems to get a straight answer. Why are we using 50 Ohm impedance and not 75 Ohm? The more people you ask, the more answers you get. There'll be commentary about standing waves, SWR, loss, incompatibility, soldering, cost, velocity factor, diameter, susceptibility to noise and the list goes on and grows, the more people you ask, the longer the list. Of course as time goes by, people remember stories told to them, guess, or even, how to say this, make stuff up. To steal a phrase: "Why is it so?" In the 1930's, when most of us were not even the apple in the eye of their parents - let alone their grand parents - coaxial cable was being developed for kilowatt radio transmitters. There are two aspects to consider, the amount of loss against length and the ability of the coax to handle power. Without going into the maths, there's plenty of that online, the lowest loss for air-dielectric cable is 77 Ohms. If we look at the peak power handling, that occurs at 30 Ohms, that is, at 77 Ohms, coax is best at getting signal across the cable with the lowest amount of loss and at 30 Ohms, coax is best at dealing with high power. Clearly a compromise is needed. So, the mean between 77 Ohm and 30 Ohm is 53.5 Ohm and the geometric mean is 48 Ohm, so, 50 Ohm is a compromise between power handling and signal loss, for air dielectric. So, obviously, 75 Ohm is used for TV reception and not for transmission. Except it ain't so. In 1938, Roy Plunkett invented PTFE or Teflon. This material wasn't around when 50 Ohm was decided on. If you remember, coax consists of a few parts, the centre and the shield, each conductors that we use to move our signal around and something in between, the dielectric, which stops the two conductors touching, with a cover over the top of that for good measure to protect against shorting and damage. The dielectric can be an air gap, or some form of plastic like PTFE. Electrically, the dielectric constant for Air is 1, for foam PTFE it's 1.43 and for solid PTFE it's 2.2. Turns out that this makes quite the difference. Our lowest loss coax, is 77 Ohm for coax with an air dielectric, but drops to 64 Ohms with foam and 52 Ohm with solid PTFE. So, rather serendipitously, 50 Ohm was a grand choice, good power handling capability and low loss with a solid PTFE core. Now, why are we using 75 Ohm for TV? One suggestion is that it's another compromise between low loss and cable flexibility. What does all this mean for you? In a nut-shell, 75 Ohm coax is one type of compromise, 50 Ohm coax is another. You can use either, but they won't be the same and won't react the same. Calculations made for one, will not apply to the other and loss and power handling will be different. This means that your roll of cheap Quad Shield RG6 is perfectly fine for some aspects of our hobby and not for others. Here's an interesting tid-bit to tide you over until next we meet. If we compare RG58, common in Amateur Radio to RG6, common in TV, the losses are quite different. For 100m of coax, at different frequencies, these start to add up. At 1 MHz, the difference in loss is .6 of a dB, at 10 MHz, it's 2.2 dB and at 145 MHz, it's 10.7 dB. To be clear, the loss for RG6 is lower across the board. This really means that you shouldn't be afraid to experiment. There is nothing particularly special about the different types of coax and each choice has it's advantages and dis-advantages. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Ham Radio Shopping List Welcome to the Other Ham Radio Podcast!  With Christmas in sight and Black Friday rapidly approaching, Fo Time brings you another Shopping List Show for the Amateur Radio Operator! George and Jeremy drop by to help sift through the chaff as we explore what and why to buy this year!  From HF rigs to Station Accessories we cover it all! Gifts under $100 ARRL handbook and CD ROM 49.95 Ham Radio Deluxe software99.95 Soldering station - Hakko FX888D or Weller WESD51 Hand tools - wire cutters, needle nose pliers, screwdrivers Digital multi-meter Raspberry PI 2 Model B 39.95 Raspberry PI Starter Pack 59.95 Membership in the ARRL & QST magazine subscription $39 CQ magazine subscription    $37 100' RG-8X or RG-213 coax $120 Bag of coax connectors - PL-259, RG8X and RG58 sleeves, N Bag of adapters - UHF to BNC to N  

What use is an F-call? In our hobby we come across terms and names that we use and commonly understand, that is, we think we understand them. I mean, what's a velocity factor and what is a dielectric? Simple right? The velocity factor is something to do with coax and the dielectric is something to do with capacitors. Next. Hold on. Let's have a little closer look at this. The velocity factor is the wave propagation speed, or the velocity of propagation, relative to the speed of light. That is to say, it's a percentage of the speed of light. In a piece of RG58, the velocity factor is anywhere between 66% and 73% of the speed of light. You already know that the wavelength of a frequency is dependent on the medium it's traveling through, so when you calculate the wavelength of 21 MHz, you do some maths and out drops around about 15m. If you want to make a resonant antenna, it has to be some part multiple of that wave length, so a piece of wire 15m long will be a single wave length. Well, no. The velocity of a wire will in effect slow down the radio wave, thus it will mean that the resonant length is the velocity factor of the wire times the wave length, or in our first example, 66% of 15m. Yes, I've not taken into account end effects and all manner of other things, but it's a good first approximation. One thing to note that a piece of wire with a low velocity factor can be shorter, thus likely take up less space and perhaps even be cheaper, since copper is not a cheap element. So if metal is metal, and we ignore the hyperbole about $200 HDMI cable, how does one piece of copper get a higher velocity factor than another? That's where the dielectric comes in. Another term for dielectric constant, is the relative permittivity. It's the measure of resistance that is encountered when forming an electric field in a medium. We start with vacuum, which by definition has a permittivity of 1. Teflon has a permittivity of 2.1, Polyethylene is 2.25 and for comparison, paper has a permittivity of 3.85 and water at room temperature is 80.1. Each of these materials resists the creation of an electric field in different ways. If you create coax with a dielectric that has a high relative permittivity, you end up with a low velocity factor which means a shorter antenna or coax run. This is a simplified version of what's going on, since I've not talked about the thickness of the dielectric, the thickness of the copper, the spacing of the center core and outer shield, but the basic take-away is that everything is related to everything else. A simple term like velocity factor or dielectric hides a myriad of other concepts. Have a look around next time you think you know what something means, a surprise is sure to be waiting around the corner. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

What use is an F-call? In a previous discussion I talked about decibels. The take home from that was that a decibel represents a ratio between two things. The gain of an antenna over the gain of a standard reference antenna, or the power loss between the start of a coax cable and it's end. I also mentioned that there are several other things with dB in them. Today I'd like to introduce the dBm, or Decibel milliwatt. It's a unit used to compare and contrast different levels of output. Unlike the Decibel, which is a ratio, the dBm is an absolute unit. It is referenced to a Watt. In audio and telephony, it's relative to a 600 ohm impedance, but in our RF patch, it's relative to a 50 ohm impedance. So, how do you use it, what does it mean and why is it useful? Let's look at some large and small numbers. If you look at an FM broadcast radio station, it typically uses 100 kilowatt, a 1 with 5 zeros. If you look at the received signal power of a GPS satellite, you might get 0.2 femtowatt, or 0.000 and 12 more 0's followed by a 2. Using those kinds of numbers side-by-side is a hand-full, prone to mistakes, and there are better ways. Instead of using Watts, we could also express the output power of an FM station as 80 dBm, and the GPS satellite signal strength as -127.5 dBm. Those numbers are much easier to work with. Think of it as 80 dB gain over 1 milliwatt. When you're dealing with ratio's, to string them together, to look at say the loss of the output coming out of your radio, through a connector, through the coax, through another connector into an antenna with a certain gain, using decibels, you can simply add the losses and gains up and get a number at the end that represents the total loss or gain of power leaving your radio and making it into your antenna and being emitted as a radio signal. Why is this useful? Let's say a connector has .04 dB loss at 28 MHz. 20m of RG58 has a loss of 1.6 dB. A 10m loop antenna has a gain of 2.1 dB over a simple dipole. How would this perform? Simply add and subtract. 2.1 dB antenna gain, less .04 dB connector loss, less 1.6 dB coax loss, less .04 dB connector loss, leaves you with .42 dB gain over connecting a dipole directly to your radio. If you have radio that transmits with 5 Watts, it puts out 37 dBm. If you connect it to the system we just invented, the total output of your radio is 37 dBm plus .42 dB gain, or 37.42 dBm. The effective radiated output of your radio is now 5.5 Watts. If you replace the RG58 with RG8, your antenna system changes from .42 dB gain to 1.95 dB gain, just by removing the 1.6 dB loss from the RG58 and replacing it with 0.7 dB loss from the RG8. The radio, again at 5 Watts, would effectively radiate 37dBm plus 1.95 dB gain, making 38.95 dBm, or 7.9 Watt ERP. Again, doing maths with loss and gain expressed in dB's and dBm's are simple addition and subtraction. If you do this for a 100 Watt or 50 dBm radio, the RG58 based antenna would be 50.42 dBm or 110 Watt vs, 51.95 dBm or 157 Watts ERP. Remember, all we're doing is adding and subtracting dB losses and gain to our transmitter output. If that blows your mind, you could now simply add the gains and losses between your radio, the coax, the antenna, the free-air path loss, the receiving antenna, their coax and their radio and actually calculate what an S5 report might mean when you get it for a DX contact. Or you could calculate how much antenna gain you needed for a QRP moon bounce. That's why it's useful. dB and dBm, they're your friends. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

What use is an F-call? With coax going between radios, amplifiers, tuners, SWR meters and antennas there is no shortage on connectors. You can buy pre-made connecting cables, but after a while you'll likely realise that you're spending a fortune on such luxuries and you'll likely come to the conclusion that the pre-made solution is never quite the right length, either too long or too short. So you take like a duck to water and you start making your own cables, patch leads, etc. Leaving aside what kind of connector to select, where to buy it or which of the bewildering array of coax to acquire from a bevy of suppliers, you have a fundamental choice between crimping and soldering. If you spend a little time online you'll find that there is solid evidence either way and adherents to either school. Just like Holden versus Ford or Mac versus PC, each "side" vehemently defends their turf. Until recently I was exclusively a crimper. I crimped each connector that I could and I was happy. Well, mostly happy that is. I had this really annoying tool that for some reason would not crimp RG58 BNC connectors without leaving a little wing on the ferrule. Turns out that my dear supplier had snuck some RG59 connectors into the mix and they look really similar until you hold them side by side - and if you're wondering, the RG59 ferrule fits around the RG58 one, so no wonder it bulged like that. Anyway, that started the conversation about crimping versus soldering. Now, I'm not going to tell you what to choose. I suspect there are solid arguments that I'm avoiding here, but food for thought is this: A crimp has no undo. That is, once you've mashed your lug, it's all over. If you stuffed it up, you cut off your connector, throw it out and start again. Of course if you practice enough, stuffing it up hardly ever happens. Better crimping tools help you achieve your aim. However, if you solder, then if you stuff it up, you have the opportunity to heat it all up again, remove the offending poor connection and try again. I've just acquired a gas soldering iron - I never even knew such a thing existed, I'd never have bought the 12V travel iron for my trip if I'd known, and now I have the option to solder in the field. So, why does this matter? What should you choose? You have no need to be exclusive one way or the other. Just like one antenna doesn't do all jobs, and one screwdriver is never enough, crimping and soldering are two options in your arsenal. They complement each other. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

What use is an F-call? Troubleshooting is a skill that has to be learnt. Part of getting my Foundation License included a module on the skill. I've been working with complicated equipment for decades and to me, an amateur radio kit really isn't that complex. As you might know, I've got a portable kit. I've set it up at least 50 or so times in the last year. I know this system backwards, still every now and then something unexpected happens. Twice now, my own gear has surprised me. A couple of weeks ago I went on air to join a regular net. I tuned to the appropriate frequency and made my call, but I couldn't hear anyone. I called again, still nothing. I looked at the frequency, all as expected. The voltage was fine, I could see my SWR meter working as expected, when I keyed the mike, all was normal. I looked at the clock to make sure that I wasn't on the wrong time-zone. I turned up the volume, still nothing. I tuned to another frequency, nothing. In fact, apart from the fact that I knew the volume was up, there was remarkably little noise to be heard at all. Then I checked the squelch. Hmm, well, if you turn it all the way, then it won't let anything through. I fixed it, and low and behold, there everyone was. This morning, my tranceiver surprised me again, in a completely different way. My normal antenna mount is a mag-mount, but the connector came off last week, so I used a bracket instead, ran my normal RG58 back to my radio, plugged it in and had a listen. I tuned to the local Air Traffic Information Service to get the local weather and heard nothing, thought nothing of it, changed to my memories and hit scan. After a bit, I heard someone on the local repeater. I keyed my mike and the SWR went through the roof. That's weird. I thought about my antenna connection, I knew that the bracket end was tight, I'd just climbed up a ladder to make it so, but what about this end? All I'd done is plug in a BNC. What about the adapter that goes from BNC to N-type? Turns out it had come loose in transit. Tightened it up, tuned to the ATIS, heard that, tuned to the repeater and all was well. Just because you know it's right doesn't mean it really is. I'm Onno VK6FLAB