[Mich VHF UHF Society] Transverters vs. native rig support

David Pruett k8cc at comcast.net
Wed Jun 15 11:27:25 CDT 2016


Patrick,

You pose a very good question.  As someone who just became QRV on 1296 
for this past contest, I have a stake in the choice.

The fundamental impediment to performance on 1296 is feedline loss.  
Even good feedlines start to get pretty lossy on 1296. RG-213 has 10.1dB 
of loss per 100' (only 9.8% of the signal makes it to the other end), 
9913 is 5.2db/100' (only 30.2%), and LMR-400 is 4.8dB/100' (only 
33.1%).  Even 1/2" Heliax has 2.7dB/100' of loss at 1296 (only 53.7%).

When using a transceiver with 1.2 GHz capability built in, (or a 
transverter in the shack for that matter), feedline loss impacts your 
station on both transmit and receive.  Your transmit ERP is less, and 
your minimum discernable signal (MDS) is also less.

There are ways around this, of course.  Some people mount an LNA (low 
noise preamp) at the top of the tower, along with relays to switch it 
out of line on transmit.  With the preamp near the antenna, it sets the 
MDS for the system on receive, and its gain compensates for the feedline 
loss.  But it is all too easy to turn the preamp into a smoldering blob 
of galium-arsenide if something goes wrong (relay cable is left 
unhooked, relay power supply fails or is left turned off, etc.).  A 
safer and more robust system configures the T/R relay on the tower to be 
powered on receive rather than transmit, and often has a separate 
feedline for receive only which can be of lesser quality than the main 
feedline (since the LNA gain usually makes up for it).  But it also 
requires an additional antenna relay in the shack, or a xcvr/xvtr with 
separate rx and tx connections.

On-line, K5TRA describes an RF-sensed remote box he built to mount near 
the 1296 antenna containing an LNA and a 100W amplifier.  This is an 
elegant solution requiring only a single feedline.  However, it requires 
home-brewing and is not a trivial project.  Check out 
http://www.k5tra.net/TechFiles/1296%20MHz%20Remote%20100W%20PA%20and%20LNA.pdf.

Some stations have gotten around the feedline loss problem by using 
atransverter and mounting it near the antenna at the top of the tower in 
a weather-proof box.  This alleviates the feedline problem by putting 
the receiver ahead of the feedline loss.  Also, it shifts the frequency 
on the feedline down from 1296 MHz to the transverter IF (usually 28 or 
144 MHz) where the loss is much less.  One possible downside is that the 
outdoor temperature extremes could cause the local oscillator in the 
transverter to slowly shift from it's nominal value, but this should 
have only minor impact on it's operation.

My vote is for a good transverter.  At my station, I have Down East 
Microwave (DEM) transverters for 222, 902 and 1296 MHz and I have never 
been disappointed in their performance.  Yes, transverters require some 
effort to interface to the IF rig, and band-changing is often (but not 
always) more complicated the just hitting the BandUp/Band/Dn buttons on 
a xcvr.  But IMHO the DEM transverters are at least as good (and often 
better) than a xcvr with "native" capability for that band.

So, while either the "native transceiver" or transverter approach can 
work, I encourage you to look at the decision from the feedline loss 
standpoint and choose the approach which will provide your station with 
the best performance.

This is an example why I like this VHF/UHF stuff - sometimes it ain't 
easy...

73, Dave/K8CC

On 6/15/2016 7:00 AM, Patrick Thomas wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a holy war question, a newbie question, or both, but here goes.
>
> As a TS-2000x owner, I am fortunate (I guess? :) to have the ability to just click the band-up button and get on 1.2GHz.  I've been considering upgrading to an IC-9100 with its 1.2GHz module.
>
> But as I consider the fact that the 1.2GHz price adders for these units is already $400+, and even conventional HF/VHF/UHF rigs seem to come with higher prices and more tradeoffs, I find myself asking: "Is this really any better than a transverter?"
>
> Or is it perhaps even worse than using a high-quality transverter, since many EME people seem to prefer high quality HF radios paired with DEMI or Kuhne transverters.  Or just "different" and they're both about the same until you start developing an interest in using a high-accuracy external frequency source, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>   - Patrick, KB8DGC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MiVUS mailing list
> MiVUS at mivus.org
> subscribe/unsubscribe http://mail.mivus.org/mailman/listinfo/mivus_mivus.org
>
>





More information about the MiVUS mailing list