15 W SDR

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 years ago
There's been some discussion on this board about a possible QRP 6xxx series radio and how it should be positioned in the market.  Here's a 1999 Euro 15 W SDR.  http://sunsdr.eu/product/sunsdr2pro/  It appears that there is a market for a QRP SDR in the $2k price range (but who knows how many they are selling?)
Photo of Richard McClelland, AA5S

Richard McClelland, AA5S

  • 268 Posts
  • 50 Reply Likes

Posted 2 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 3875 Posts
  • 1181 Reply Likes
As much as I would like to see this, my guess is that most of the cost of the $2500 for the 6300 is the A-D, D-A, DSP and computer processing chips, and a small percentage is in the RF Deck.  So cutting a 6300 down to 10-15 watts might not save a lot of money.  The Flex-1500 is so inexpensive because it doesn't contain expensive processing chips, but leaves all of the DSP & Mod/Demod to the computer running PowerSDR.

On the other hand, I would love to see a 6000 series built for 144/220/430/1200 MHz bands (Or at least 144/430) but my guess is that at this point the price would be prohibitive to the average user.  It may be that a nice set of wideband transverters with appropriate switching network would be a better option.

Ken - NM9P
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 642 Reply Likes
I, actually, had a conversation on this subject with Butch, k4something. With a 6700 w/440 transverter or 6500 w/ so2r and 2m 70cm transverter, it would simply be a new control surface. We know what satellites are visible at any given qth. We know their Doppler shift. We know what mode they're in. If they are flying repeaters or linear inverting pass band the GUI can set the Flex in the correct confige to just be spot on. No new hardware required.

That assumes you are referring to satellite operation. Doing that remotely would be interesting.
(Edited)
Photo of Ken - NM9P

Ken - NM9P, Elmer

  • 3875 Posts
  • 1181 Reply Likes
Depending upon uplink/downlink requirements in the Transverter input, it might not even be necessary for the 6500 to use a SO2R box, simply use Transverter output for the uplink, and RXA for the downlink and you can have full duplex satellite operation with the FDX function turned on.  

On my TX Audio Tutorial Videos, I was doing FDX on the same frequency with transmit set to XVTR and the receive on RXA, or ANT1 and had no overload problems. But when I started transmitting out of ANT1 or ANT2 with more than about one watt, I started having problems close in to the same frequency.

When they finally get a high altitude Phase 3 or Geosync Bird up, I will be investing in a good transverter and receive downconverter combo for satellite operation.  Until then, I am saving my money for other projects.  

(Now if I could come up with a schematic for my Ten-Tec 2 to 10 transverter, I would convert it to transverter power drive level input.  But I haven't found one yet.) 

Ken - NM9P
Photo of Walt - KZ1F

Walt - KZ1F

  • 3040 Posts
  • 642 Reply Likes
That's the other thing I was telling Butch, the amsat dl p3d is on its way to Virginia Tech. So another AO HEO may be forthcoming!!! I believe I'll do that GUI this spring/summer as I already have the keplarian software ready. It, of course, will also be cross platform as well. It also raises the priority of it own in app subscription because Google's in app licensing is not Apple's and there is none, that I know of for Linux and Windows.

This is not about 15w 6000. But on that subject, why not just set power out on the 6x00 to 15w?
(Edited)
Photo of Chris Tate  - N6WM

Chris Tate - N6WM, Elmer

  • 786 Posts
  • 209 Reply Likes
I agree with Ken on this one..  Going QRP would not be a cost cutter of any major degree due to the cost of the FPGA unit and other tech..  Why not just turn a 6300 down to tx 5w? 
Photo of Richard McClelland, AA5S

Richard McClelland, AA5S

  • 268 Posts
  • 50 Reply Likes
In my mind, the argument for such a beast is that the rig could have a better SCU and related components than what are available in the 6300 for the same price as the 6300 since the PA wouldn't be included. 
Photo of EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

EA4GLI - 8P9EH - Salvador

  • 1730 Posts
  • 530 Reply Likes
I personally would love a 145/440 Mhz add on for the Flex 6000 series.
Photo of K6OZY

K6OZY, Elmer

  • 524 Posts
  • 195 Reply Likes
I too would like a small QRP 6xxx radio and would pay prices close to a 6300 for it knowing that the cost is not in the power but the FPGA and other factors.  I would want the money that would go towards a PA be used to make it power friendly and small.   Unfortunately,  I do not think the rest of the ham market would "get it" for being so expensive and compare it to other much cheaper QRP alternatives regardless if it's superior.
Photo of Bob Wright, N7ZO

Bob Wright, N7ZO

  • 260 Posts
  • 65 Reply Likes
Hi Salvador,

I have to agree.  A single box 2m/70cm add-on for the 6000 series would be great.  It might have to be stuffed differently for the 6700 vs the 6500/6300, but if was properly integrated and could act just like native VHF/UHF with switched pre-amp power out, internal switching for cross band work both ways, adequate power on both bands, proper CAT support, and such, I would be the first to buy it.  I am still hoping to get rid of my IC-810H, but today the Flex radios just fall a bit short of the IC-810H's ease of use for satellite work.

73, Bob, N7ZO
(Edited)
Photo of Richard McClelland, AA5S

Richard McClelland, AA5S

  • 268 Posts
  • 50 Reply Likes
Now that we're dreaming, how about a QRP 7xxx with equivalent to top end receiver performance than can be paired with a second QRP 7xxx for two SCUs?  Throw in an out-board amplifier to have a QRO version of a hypothetical Flex 7700.  That would be a very flexible setup for those who could swing the cost.  Getting SmartSDR to recognize the two units and operate them seamlessly as a single combined unit might be challenging :-)