Worked ZL2JBR also during my holiday in EA3.
5 Watts max via an inverted V positioned dipole fed with twinlead.
A real thrill to make these type of contacts.
But let’s also appreciate the additional efforts the receiving HAM is willing
to do. Our signals are not always that rock solid.

But QRP and the FT817 is real fun.

Ron – PA3FAT


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Next 21/8/2012 I'll activate the reference I/TN-332 on freq 14.285-ssb
using ft817 and a self made portable magnetic loop antenna.
Operations will (should) start at 9.30z.

Looking forward to hear other 817 on the air :)
Hope the weather will be with us.

73 de IZ3GME Marco

HI George

Care to share the result with the group?


Mario G8ODE
On 17/08/2012 13:30, George1111 wrote:
>
> FWIW, I put the drawing into PhotoShop, converted to GrayScale, then
> used the Invert Filter. This will give you a black on white drawing
> suitable for printing. That being said, I do agree that a corrected
> drawing in the first place would be nice, but this will work.
>
> George
> WD0AKZ
>
> ---
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:18:27PM -0000, Andy wrote:
> Yes, that is true, Carlo.
> At first, separate batteries seem to make life more comfortable.
> Technically there are better solutions.

Andy,

I did solder the pack and here are the results, also to the benefit
of others on this e-mail reflector. The subject pack is made with
8 x AA 2300 mAh Ni-Mh cells, for a theoretical total voltage of 9.6v
In fact, with fully charged cells the unloaded voltage is higher.

I have run my tests after running the radio for about half an hour
on fully-charged cells, to simulate a typical use case.

* unsoldered pack:
   - unloaded: 9.9v
   - TX @ 2.5 watts: 7.8v

* soldered pack:
   - unloaded: 10.0v
   - TX @ 2.5 watts: 8.3v


The difference is significant, so definitely a good pack should have
all the intra-cell contacts soldered, not simply mechanically in touch
with each other. I didn't test with 5 watts, but I suspect that with
the unsoldered pack the radio would turn itself off on TX because of
the excessive voltage drop.

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!

I don’t think that two packs tells the complete story.  If you solder the
cells in the currently non-soldered pack and then the voltages increase I will
believe that soldering is the better way to go but until you perform that test
you just don’t know if the difference is due to differences in cells.

Tom K3TVC



From: Carlo Strozzi
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:08 PM
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:18:27PM -0000, Andy wrote:
> Yes, that is true, Carlo.
> At first, separate batteries seem to make life more comfortable.
> Technically there are better solutions.

Andy,

I did solder the pack and here are the results, also to the benefit
of others on this e-mail reflector. The subject pack is made with
8 x AA 2300 mAh Ni-Mh cells, for a theoretical total voltage of 9.6v
In fact, with fully charged cells the unloaded voltage is higher.

I have run my tests after running the radio for about half an hour
on fully-charged cells, to simulate a typical use case.

* unsoldered pack:
- unloaded: 9.9v
- TX @ 2.5 watts: 7.8v

* soldered pack:
- unloaded: 10.0v
- TX @ 2.5 watts: 8.3v

The difference is significant, so definitely a good pack should have
all the intra-cell contacts soldered, not simply mechanically in touch
with each other. I didn't test with 5 watts, but I suspect that with
the unsoldered pack the radio would turn itself off on TX because of
the excessive voltage drop.

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5205 - Release Date: 08/17/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Tom Chesek wrote:
> I don’t think that two packs tells the complete story.  If you
> solder the cells in the currently non-soldered pack and then the
> voltages increase I will believe that soldering is the better way
> to go but until you perform that test you just don’t know if the
> difference is due to differences in cells.

Tom,

I should have made that more clear: the two were the very same pack,
that I tested unsoldered first, and after one hour at the soldering
iron I tested it again :-)

The cells I used, unsoldered first, then soldered, were of the
tabbed type, which made soldering them a bit easier. Unfortunately,
building such a pack in a way that it fits in the very tight battery
compartment of the 817 is next to impossible, so in the end I pulled
my pack and put the original Yaesu one back in place. My conclusion
is that the only way to fit my theoretically superior 2300 mAh pack
was to use the FBA-28 optional tray, which is what I had done at first,
but then the voltage drop caused by the numerous unsoldered contacts
makes it actually inferior to the original 1400 mAh Yaesu pack.
I assume that since the FBA-28 tray is meant for alkaline cells, the
higher voltage of those over the Ni-Mh voids the voltage drop issue
when that tray is used as designed.

So, the moral of the story is that homebrewing a higher capacity
internal pack is non trivial, and in fact I didn't manage :-)

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!

Wow, then that is a big difference in voltage.  I would never had thought it
would be that much.



From: Carlo Strozzi
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:07 PM
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery


On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Tom Chesek wrote:
> I don’t think that two packs tells the complete story. If you
> solder the cells in the currently non-soldered pack and then the
> voltages increase I will believe that soldering is the better way
> to go but until you perform that test you just don’t know if the
> difference is due to differences in cells.

Tom,

I should have made that more clear: the two were the very same pack,
that I tested unsoldered first, and after one hour at the soldering
iron I tested it again :-)

The cells I used, unsoldered first, then soldered, were of the
tabbed type, which made soldering them a bit easier. Unfortunately,
building such a pack in a way that it fits in the very tight battery
compartment of the 817 is next to impossible, so in the end I pulled
my pack and put the original Yaesu one back in place. My conclusion
is that the only way to fit my theoretically superior 2300 mAh pack
was to use the FBA-28 optional tray, which is what I had done at first,
but then the voltage drop caused by the numerous unsoldered contacts
makes it actually inferior to the original 1400 mAh Yaesu pack.
I assume that since the FBA-28 tray is meant for alkaline cells, the
higher voltage of those over the Ni-Mh voids the voltage drop issue
when that tray is used as designed.

So, the moral of the story is that homebrewing a higher capacity
internal pack is non trivial, and in fact I didn't manage :-)

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5205 - Release Date: 08/17/12


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I made a custom pack for my 817 using 2500mah Eneloop cells. The best way to
make a pack fit without issues is to spot weld the cells together. The spot
welding allows you to use cells without tabs and have a very low resistance
connection. There are plans on the internet to build a simple spot welder using
a power supply, capacitors and SCRs. 

Steve VE7KZ



________________________________
  From: Tom Chesek <tchesek@...>
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:48:31 PM
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery


 
Wow, then that is a big difference in voltage.  I would never had thought it
would be that much.

From: Carlo Strozzi
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:07 PM
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Tom Chesek wrote:
> I don’t think that two packs tells the complete story. If you
> solder the cells in the currently non-soldered pack and then the
> voltages increase I will believe that soldering is the better way
> to go but until you perform that test you just don’t know if the
> difference is due to differences in cells.

Tom,

I should have made that more clear: the two were the very same pack,
that I tested unsoldered first, and after one hour at the soldering
iron I tested it again :-)

The cells I used, unsoldered first, then soldered, were of the
tabbed type, which made soldering them a bit easier. Unfortunately,
building such a pack in a way that it fits in the very tight battery
compartment of the 817 is next to impossible, so in the end I pulled
my pack and put the original Yaesu one back in place. My conclusion
is that the only way to fit my theoretically superior 2300 mAh pack
was to use the FBA-28 optional tray, which is what I had done at first,
but then the voltage drop caused by the numerous unsoldered contacts
makes it actually inferior to the original 1400 mAh Yaesu pack.
I assume that since the FBA-28 tray is meant for alkaline cells, the
higher voltage of those over the Ni-Mh voids the voltage drop issue
when that tray is used as designed.

So, the moral of the story is that homebrewing a higher capacity
internal pack is non trivial, and in fact I didn't manage :-)

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!

----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5205 - Release Date: 08/17/12

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:59:30PM -0700, Steve D wrote:
> I made a custom pack for my 817 using 2500mah Eneloop cells. The
> best way to make a pack fit without issues is to spot weld the
> cells together. The spot welding allows you to use cells without
> tabs and have a very low resistance connection. There are plans on
> the internet to build a simple spot welder using a power supply,
> capacitors and SCRs. 


Steve,

yes, spot welding sounds like the way to go, thank-you for the hint,
I'll look into it. So the point is that the cells need to be
soldered/welded, or the pack will perform poorly.

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!

Actually, this is Wayne's project and it sounds like it's still a work in
progress so I'd rather leave it up to him to post a suitable for printing
circuit when he's ready.

I was just giving an example of how it can be done, but having the original done
properly in B&W is still the best.

George

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Pam & Mario Chomicz <chomicz@...> wrote:
> Care to share the result with the group?
>
>
> Mario G8ODE

Hi

What type of tool did you use to unscrew the nut that holds the pot to the front
panel?

Thanks
Glenn 9H5YV

I have never seen cells spotwelded directly together . I've seen tabs spot
welded onto the cells and then the tabs soldered together.
Please direct us to those spot welders you mention.
Jim VE3DDY

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Steve D <ve7kz@...> wrote:
>
> I made a custom pack for my 817 using 2500mah Eneloop cells. The best way to
make a pack fit without issues is to spot weld the cells together. The spot
welding allows you to use cells without tabs and have a very low resistance
connection. There are plans on the internet to build a simple spot welder using
a power supply, capacitors and SCRs. 
>
> Steve VE7KZ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Tom Chesek <tchesek@...>
> To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:48:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery
>
>
>  
> Wow, then that is a big difference in voltage.  I would never had thought it
would be that much.
>
> From: Carlo Strozzi
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:07 PM
> To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Tom Chesek wrote:
> > I don’t think that two packs tells the complete story. If you
> > solder the cells in the currently non-soldered pack and then the
> > voltages increase I will believe that soldering is the better way
> > to go but until you perform that test you just don’t know if the
> > difference is due to differences in cells.
>
> Tom,
>
> I should have made that more clear: the two were the very same pack,
> that I tested unsoldered first, and after one hour at the soldering
> iron I tested it again :-)
>
> The cells I used, unsoldered first, then soldered, were of the
> tabbed type, which made soldering them a bit easier. Unfortunately,
> building such a pack in a way that it fits in the very tight battery
> compartment of the 817 is next to impossible, so in the end I pulled
> my pack and put the original Yaesu one back in place. My conclusion
> is that the only way to fit my theoretically superior 2300 mAh pack
> was to use the FBA-28 optional tray, which is what I had done at first,
> but then the voltage drop caused by the numerous unsoldered contacts
> makes it actually inferior to the original 1400 mAh Yaesu pack.
> I assume that since the FBA-28 tray is meant for alkaline cells, the
> higher voltage of those over the Ni-Mh voids the voltage drop issue
> when that tray is used as designed.
>
> So, the moral of the story is that homebrewing a higher capacity
> internal pack is non trivial, and in fact I didn't manage :-)
>
> 73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS
>
> --
> Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
> I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5205 - Release Date: 08/17/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

The cells are spot welded with nickel tabs. I can't imagine a way to spot weld
cells end to end without a tab of some sort(I have soldered cells end to end
though, lots of technique required for that)
The nickel tabs I use are quite thin so after the spot welding you fold the
cells together and have added 0.5mm or less to the total length of the two
cells.

Steve VE7KZ



________________________________
  From: Pronto. (Military) <portdoverbells@...>
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 5:56:28 PM
Subject: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal battery


 
I have never seen cells spotwelded directly together . I've seen tabs spot
welded onto the cells and then the tabs soldered together.
Please direct us to those spot welders you mention.
Jim VE3DDY

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Steve D <ve7kz@...> wrote:
>
> I made a custom pack for my 817 using 2500mah Eneloop cells. The best way to
make a pack fit without issues is to spot weld the cells together. The spot
welding allows you to use cells without tabs and have a very low resistance
connection. There are plans on the internet to build a simple spot welder using
a power supply, capacitors and SCRs. 
>
> Steve VE7KZ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Tom Chesek <tchesek@...>
> To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:48:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery
>
>
>  
> Wow, then that is a big difference in voltage.  I would never had thought it
would be that much.
>
> From: Carlo Strozzi
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:07 PM
> To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [FT817] Re: Looking at LiPos and NiMH packs for as an internal
battery
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Tom Chesek wrote:
> > I don’t think that two packs tells the complete story. If you
> > solder the cells in the currently non-soldered pack and then the
> > voltages increase I will believe that soldering is the better way
> > to go but until you perform that test you just don’t know if the
> > difference is due to differences in cells.
>
> Tom,
>
> I should have made that more clear: the two were the very same pack,
> that I tested unsoldered first, and after one hour at the soldering
> iron I tested it again :-)
>
> The cells I used, unsoldered first, then soldered, were of the
> tabbed type, which made soldering them a bit easier. Unfortunately,
> building such a pack in a way that it fits in the very tight battery
> compartment of the 817 is next to impossible, so in the end I pulled
> my pack and put the original Yaesu one back in place. My conclusion
> is that the only way to fit my theoretically superior 2300 mAh pack
> was to use the FBA-28 optional tray, which is what I had done at first,
> but then the voltage drop caused by the numerous unsoldered contacts
> makes it actually inferior to the original 1400 mAh Yaesu pack.
> I assume that since the FBA-28 tray is meant for alkaline cells, the
> higher voltage of those over the Ni-Mh voids the voltage drop issue
> when that tray is used as designed.
>
> So, the moral of the story is that homebrewing a higher capacity
> internal pack is non trivial, and in fact I didn't manage :-)
>
> 73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS
>
> --
> Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
> I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5205 - Release Date: 08/17/12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I updated the posted circuit diagram at:
http://waynemerry.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/designing-a-phoneradio-interface/

As there is interest in this, people have several options. Josh VK3XJM may
update his circuit for lower current draw, or I can design either a mainly
through hole, or surface mount based pcb.

73 de Wayne VK3WAM

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, "georgep1111" <georgep1111@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, this is Wayne's project and it sounds like it's still a work in
progress so I'd rather leave it up to him to post a suitable for printing
circuit when he's ready.
>
> I was just giving an example of how it can be done, but having the original
done properly in B&W is still the best.
>
> George
>
> --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Pam & Mario Chomicz <chomicz@> wrote:
> > Care to share the result with the group?
> >
> >
> > Mario G8ODE
>

Hi All,

I guess since I've been mentioned twice now, I should add my 2c worth.

Wayne and I have been talking about this at length for a little while now,
and Wayne has a wealth of knowledge in this area that I do not. My design
has been a massive learning experience from day one, so I'm very seriously
considering Wayne's recommendations.

My interface at this stage is only designed to work with the iPad, however
it would be very easy to take Wayne's calculated values/components in the
audio amp and swap them out on the board (Assuming Wayne is ok with that, I
could do that right from the start - The low current version is after all
his work). The designs are similar enough that the only significant
differences are just component values. Alternatively I've been looking at
doing a similar thing to my circuit as what Wayne has done in his to reduce
the operating current, however for my initial market - iPad users, this
isn't strictly required, although it definitely wouldn't hurt.

I will also be selling my boards in a "Complete", "Board Only" and "Parts
Kit" version, so I'm sure if you wanted you could buy the board only or kit
version and place Wayne's values in place of the values under my design.

I'm sure Wayne and I will discuss this further though offlist.

Cheers,
Josh

---
VK3XJM
0416039082
josh@...
http://www.zindello.com.au/



On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Wayne <wayne_merry@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I updated the posted circuit diagram at:
>
> http://waynemerry.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/designing-a-phoneradio-interface/
>
> As there is interest in this, people have several options. Josh VK3XJM may
> update his circuit for lower current draw, or I can design either a mainly
> through hole, or surface mount based pcb.
>
> 73 de Wayne VK3WAM
>
>
> --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, "georgep1111" <georgep1111@...> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, this is Wayne's project and it sounds like it's still a work
> in progress so I'd rather leave it up to him to post a suitable for
> printing circuit when he's ready.
> >
> > I was just giving an example of how it can be done, but having the
> original done properly in B&W is still the best.
> >
> > George
> >
> > --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Pam & Mario Chomicz <chomicz@> wrote:
> > > Care to share the result with the group?
> > >
> > >
> > > Mario G8ODE
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi

Sounds like low audio volume of the transmitted signal. First make sure
the sound card selected is the signal link codex, then that the volume
is turned up full, then adjust the TX volume on the Signal Link so the
ALC just starts to show on the FT-817ND.

Marty kd8bj

On 08/16/2012 07:22 PM, wa5vro@... wrote:
> Help,
>
> Today I added some new frequencies into the memory using some software
> and now I cannot get my 817ND to transmit audio for WSPR.
>
> I am using a Signalink USB, I receive signals just fine. When I go to
> TX, the radio and Signalink USB key up, red TX light, but no actual TX
> signal.
>
> I tried looking through all of the settings and cannot find the one that
> is incorrect.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> 73's
> Pat
> WA5VRO
> Austin, TX
>
>

Marty,



I got my problem easily resolved.  When I updated the frequencies, the radio was
not in digital mode.  Put it in digital mode and it works just fine.



Thanks



Pat

WA5VRO



From: FT817@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FT817@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marty
Hartwell
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:13 AM
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [FT817] 817ND and WSPR Operations





Hi

Sounds like low audio volume of the transmitted signal. First make sure
the sound card selected is the signal link codex, then that the volume
is turned up full, then adjust the TX volume on the Signal Link so the
ALC just starts to show on the FT-817ND.

Marty kd8bj

On 08/16/2012 07:22 PM, wa5vro@... <mailto:wa5vro%40sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:
> Help,
>
> Today I added some new frequencies into the memory using some software
> and now I cannot get my 817ND to transmit audio for WSPR.
>
> I am using a Signalink USB, I receive signals just fine. When I go to
> TX, the radio and Signalink USB key up, red TX light, but no actual TX
> signal.
>
> I tried looking through all of the settings and cannot find the one that
> is incorrect.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
>
> 73's
> Pat
> WA5VRO
> Austin, TX
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A BIG THANK YOU

the design is smart and looks easy to adapt to other rigs , "computers
"   and peoples requirements

I can work with this.. being of the old school like to have paperwork in
front of me ..makes faulty finding after building something a whole lot
easier.

so THANK YOU  again

Mario G8ODE

On 18/08/2012 12:35, Wayne wrote:
>
> I updated the posted circuit diagram at:
> http://waynemerry.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/designing-a-phoneradio-interface/
>
> As there is interest in this, people have several options. Josh VK3XJM
> may update his circuit for lower current draw, or I can design either
> a mainly through hole, or surface mount based pcb.
>
> 73 de Wayne VK3WAM
>
> --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FT817%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "georgep1111" <georgep1111@...> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, this is Wayne's project and it sounds like it's still a
> work in progress so I'd rather leave it up to him to post a suitable
> for printing circuit when he's ready.
> >
> > I was just giving an example of how it can be done, but having the
> original done properly in B&W is still the best.
> >
> > George
> >
> > --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FT817%40yahoogroups.com>, Pam &
> Mario Chomicz <chomicz@> wrote:
> > > Care to share the result with the group?
> > >
> > >
> > > Mario G8ODE
> >
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HI,

I saw interest loops .. but this is a neat idea 100% coax loop.. the
variable tuning capacitor is part of the loop as well

from the UK's Crawley ARC web site ideal for FT-817 expeditions.

  
http://carconline.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/coaxial-cable-40m-tunable-magnetic-loop\
.html

Enjoy

Mario G8ODE RSARS1691

I've been trying to get on PSK31 using my FT817, Signal Links USB, and DigiPan
using Vista.  It looks like the computer recognizes the Signal Links , but when
I send the CQ message, it can be seen on the screen, but the 817 shows no
output.  It keys up on transmit, but I'm not seeing any sign of RF going out.
 Ideas?

John
WA8FNJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

HI, A SEND A SALUTATION FOR FRIENDS HAM OF YAESU HF 817  A GREAT RADIO
I LIVING IN DURANGO ,MEXICO  CALL SIGN XE2MJC
THANKS TO THIS.

Good Morning all - I am receiving my 817ND today!

I am no newbie to the Yaesu line, as I have owned an 857D for some years now.

I have been reading the forums for a few days now concerning batteries.  My 817
was purchased primarily for use on remote islands in the Bahamas this December.

Here is what I am considering.....for now leaving the 1400 mah batteries as is
for the moment, but adding the following as an external source:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__10298__Turnigy_3000mAh_3S_40C_Lipo_Pa\
ck.html

With this charger:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21044__Hobbyking_DC_4S_Balance_Charge\
r_Cell_Checker_30w_2s_4s.html


This gives me approximatly another 3000 mah of power in addition to the 1400mah
internal battery. On a side note, it will give my RC car a serious boost of
power!

Looking for opinions on this set up!

I am trying to keep cost low, as well as size small as I will have to fly with
the battery!

Thanks!!

Robert
AK4BM

Bon video. Malheureusement, pas de son. Ca aurait ete plaisant. La seule
personne que je pense reconnaitre c'est Lionel VE2LG qui est decede depuis
quelques annees, pour les autres ? ? ?  C'est celui avec une calotte blanche et
rouge.
Merci..

Michel VE2JA
Animateur réseau D-Star
Quebec D-Star controller
North American QRP Club # 2783
European PSK Club # 009
e-mail: ve2ja@...



From: Wayne
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:35 AM
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FT817] Re: Radio phone interfaces for the digital modes- Circuit as a
B&W image



I updated the posted circuit diagram at:
http://waynemerry.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/designing-a-phoneradio-interface/

As there is interest in this, people have several options. Josh VK3XJM may
update his circuit for lower current draw, or I can design either a mainly
through hole, or surface mount based pcb.

73 de Wayne VK3WAM

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, "georgep1111" <georgep1111@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, this is Wayne's project and it sounds like it's still a work in
progress so I'd rather leave it up to him to post a suitable for printing
circuit when he's ready.
>
> I was just giving an example of how it can be done, but having the original
done properly in B&W is still the best.
>
> George
>
> --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Pam & Mario Chomicz <chomicz@> wrote:
> > Care to share the result with the group?
> >
> >
> > Mario G8ODE
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Is your FT817 in DIG mode - that might fix the lack of o/p?

Dave H G0CER

On 17 August 2012 12:58, Gindlesberger John <wa8fnj@...> wrote:

> I've been trying to get on PSK31 using my FT817, Signal Links USB, and
> DigiPan using Vista.  It looks like the computer recognizes the Signal
> Links , but when I send the CQ message, it can be seen on the screen, but
> the 817 shows no output.  It keys up on transmit, but I'm not seeing any
> sign of RF going out.  Ideas?
>
> John
> WA8FNJ
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked Questions ) see
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FT817/database
> Some really good technical info at:
> http://www.ussc.com/~turner/ft817pg.shtml
> Please note that your messages and files sent to this group may appear
> anywhere on the Internet or in print without notice or compensation.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
73s Dave H
G0CER
(also G6VSG, KJ4QAO )
http://www.eQSL.cc/Member.cfm?G0CER
http://g0cer.blogspot.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use the internal battery holder with AA NiMH cells and the voltage drop
because of high resistance of the unsoldered connectors is not be a problem.
AA NiMH cells are empty when the voltage is below 1.1V, so even with 5W TX the
voltage stays high enough so that the rig does not shut off before the cells are
empty.
Voltage drop with 5W TX is less than 1,5 volts so either my internal battery
holder springs are still quite good after two years continuos use, or the cells
that I use perform better than those 2300mAh cells that drop 2,1 volts with just
2,5W TX.

What the high resistance can do is that some battery capacity is wasted as heat,
so what you need to test is the capacity and not the voltage.

I did run my own tests with PSK31 mode and beacon transmission, the projected
RX/TX runtime was so close to what it was in real use that I didn't give it
another thought.
I use big brand cheap and high quality AA NiMH cells along with Maha C9000
charger/analyzer so that I know that all the cells perform equally, and I know
that when my rig shuts down when I TX with 5W the cells are 99% drained.

Using soldered battery pack does have it's advantages, but I wanted an option to
use 2-8 Ah capacity without external battery and wires.
Of course recharging is much faster than with soldered pack, and if there are
weak cells in one set it's really easy to find and replace those.

Jani OH9FZU

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Carlo Strozzi <carlos@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:18:27PM -0000, Andy wrote:
> > Yes, that is true, Carlo.
> > At first, separate batteries seem to make life more comfortable.
> > Technically there are better solutions.
>
> Andy,
>
> I did solder the pack and here are the results, also to the benefit
> of others on this e-mail reflector. The subject pack is made with
> 8 x AA 2300 mAh Ni-Mh cells, for a theoretical total voltage of 9.6v
> In fact, with fully charged cells the unloaded voltage is higher.
>
> I have run my tests after running the radio for about half an hour
> on fully-charged cells, to simulate a typical use case.
>
> * unsoldered pack:
>   - unloaded: 9.9v
>   - TX @ 2.5 watts: 7.8v
>
> * soldered pack:
>   - unloaded: 10.0v
>   - TX @ 2.5 watts: 8.3v
>
>
> The difference is significant, so definitely a good pack should have
> all the intra-cell contacts soldered, not simply mechanically in touch
> with each other. I didn't test with 5 watts, but I suspect that with
> the unsoldered pack the radio would turn itself off on TX because of
> the excessive voltage drop.
>
> 73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS
>
> --
> Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
> I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!
>

I'm looking for one of the ATX-MKII Walkabout antennas.  I want the MK-II
because of the 3/8-24 base.  It appears the MFJ-1899 has the BNC base but I
would consider buying one of those if the price was right.

So if you have one that you no longer use or are unhappy with, PM me with your
price including shipping to Minnesota.

Thanks
de George
WD0AKZ

I do not want to muddy the waters for you too bad, but check with your
favorite airline about transporting Li-Po batteries.  When I last traveled
overseas, it was a big no-no.  I ended up buying the A-123 battery packs
from Buddi-Pole, and with the sticker on them certifying them for air
transport, they were only looked at and passed in my carry-on.  NOT in the
checked baggage.

Sorry.  Check it out, then make your decision.  The rules may have changed.

Vy73 - Mike - KD9KC.
El Paso, Texas - DM61rt.
W5-SOTA Association Manager.
NA-SOTA info: http://na-sota.org/




-----Original Message-----
From: FT817@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FT817@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rkrausen
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 03:35
To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FT817] Newb: Battery Advice

Good Morning all - I am receiving my 817ND today!

I am no newbie to the Yaesu line, as I have owned an 857D for some years
now.

I have been reading the forums for a few days now concerning batteries.  My
817 was purchased primarily for use on remote islands in the Bahamas this
December.

Here is what I am considering.....for now leaving the 1400 mah batteries as
is for the moment, but adding the following as an external source:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__10298__Turnigy_3000mAh_3S_40C_Lip
o_Pack.html

With this charger:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21044__Hobbyking_DC_4S_Balance_Ch
arger_Cell_Checker_30w_2s_4s.html


This gives me approximatly another 3000 mah of power in addition to the
1400mah internal battery. On a side note, it will give my RC car a serious
boost of power!

Looking for opinions on this set up!

I am trying to keep cost low, as well as size small as I will have to fly
with the battery!

Thanks!!

Robert
AK4BM



------------------------------------

and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked Questions ) see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FT817/database
Some really good technical info at:
http://www.ussc.com/~turner/ft817pg.shtml
Please note that your messages and files sent to this group may appear
anywhere on the Internet or in print without notice or compensation.

Yahoo! Groups Links

You can hit someone who does not know the regs, or it can be a very strict
airline.

Many airlines have two thresholds - 100Wh and 160Wh for Lithium based
technology.

You can generally carry batteries (of any number of cells) or individual cells
in unlimited numbers carry on only if each battery or loose cells have a
capacity of less than 100Wh. It does not need to be declared as a dangerous
item. The terminals of the battery or each loose cell needs to be secured.

If the capacity is over 100Wh, (eg a 5000mAh 22.2V 6S Lipo is 111Wh) then you
may carry 2 of these carry on and the airline must be informed. (Hint: getting a
written letter from the airline about this or printing out their goods policy
would be a good idea to take to the airport). Again terminals need to be
secured.

Generally packs of greater than 160Wh will not be carried under any
circumstances.

73 de Wayne VK3WAM

--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Olbrisch" <mike-2007@...> wrote:
>
> I do not want to muddy the waters for you too bad, but check with your
> favorite airline about transporting Li-Po batteries.  When I last traveled
> overseas, it was a big no-no.  I ended up buying the A-123 battery packs
> from Buddi-Pole, and with the sticker on them certifying them for air
> transport, they were only looked at and passed in my carry-on.  NOT in the
> checked baggage.
>
> Sorry.  Check it out, then make your decision.  The rules may have changed.
>
> Vy73 - Mike - KD9KC.
> El Paso, Texas - DM61rt.
> W5-SOTA Association Manager.
> NA-SOTA info: http://na-sota.org/
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: FT817@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FT817@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> rkrausen
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 03:35
> To: FT817@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FT817] Newb: Battery Advice
>
> Good Morning all - I am receiving my 817ND today!
>
> I am no newbie to the Yaesu line, as I have owned an 857D for some years
> now.
>
> I have been reading the forums for a few days now concerning batteries.  My
> 817 was purchased primarily for use on remote islands in the Bahamas this
> December.
>
> Here is what I am considering.....for now leaving the 1400 mah batteries as
> is for the moment, but adding the following as an external source:
>
> http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__10298__Turnigy_3000mAh_3S_40C_Lip
> o_Pack.html
>
> With this charger:
>
> http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__21044__Hobbyking_DC_4S_Balance_Ch
> arger_Cell_Checker_30w_2s_4s.html
>
>
> This gives me approximatly another 3000 mah of power in addition to the
> 1400mah internal battery. On a side note, it will give my RC car a serious
> boost of power!
>
> Looking for opinions on this set up!
>
> I am trying to keep cost low, as well as size small as I will have to fly
> with the battery!
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Robert
> AK4BM
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> and for a great FAQ ( Frequently Asked Questions ) see
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FT817/database
> Some really good technical info at:
> http://www.ussc.com/~turner/ft817pg.shtml
> Please note that your messages and files sent to this group may appear
> anywhere on the Internet or in print without notice or compensation.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

My view about different devices:

- Phone:
1) Supplies the microphone voltage for electret condenser microphones. Most
microphones require 300uA, so the phone should support the current requirements
of this circuit - a overriding design consideration as discussed.

2) The phone will require a load across the microphone pin to ground. This
circuit provides effectively 30k involved with supplying and biasing Q1. When
TXing, there'll be about 20k AC load through Q1 for the PTT switching, in
parallel with 2K + effectively 5k (across part of the trimmer and the 10k input
impedance on the data audio input on the FT-817. The total impedance would then
be about 6k, and this should be enough to activate the microphone input on most
phones. I would anticipate that this input impedance might vary a little on
different rigs, but the potentiometer can be used to adjust for this.

3) When TXing, the sound coming out of the phone would normally be used to drive
headphones. The level is controllable by the volume control on the phone. I
designed the circuit to deliver an acceptable voltage to the FT-817, with it's
10k input impedance from a standard consumer -10dBV line level. There should be
little difficulty supplying the required voltage level into the radio for it to
be happy, however higher volume out from the phone might overload the rig.

4) For RX, there needs to be a "microphone" level of input into the phone. The
FT-817 also has 10k source impedance. If this was driving a line input, it would
also have a an input impedance of 10 to 15k. The input impedance of a microphone
input is lower, typically around 2k. This will mean lower voltages at the phone.
They'll still be too high however. and this is managed by R7, a 33K resister,
which is effectively a voltage divider on the input to the phone. 33k will mean
over 9/10ths of the signal will be consumed on this resister, leaving a smaller
voltage on the input of the phone. This is about 8mV peak to peak, a level that
a microphone would typically be putting out. The voltage level, again can be
adjusted through the potentiometer, but I designed for the potentiometer to be
at 9/10ths of 10k, meaning 1k is part of the input impedance 9k is a shunt to
ground. Moving the potentiometer lower than 9/10ths decreases the shunt to
ground, and increases the input impedance. This will act to lower the voltage at
the microphone pin. R12 is also 33k and this is on the source side. This means
that if the source impedance in the rig is 5k or 15k rather than the FT-817, it
should not matter. I understand that the source impedance of the FT-897 is
600ohms. This means that the total impedance on the source side is a little
under 34k rather than 43k. It should not make a huge difference, aside from a
small turn on the potentiometer.

73 de Wayne VK3WAM


--- In FT817@yahoogroups.com, Pam & Mario Chomicz <chomicz@...> wrote:
>
> A BIG THANK YOU
>
> the design is smart and looks easy to adapt to other rigs , "computers
> "   and peoples requirements
>
> I can work with this.. being of the old school like to have paperwork in
> front of me ..makes faulty finding after building something a whole lot
> easier.
>
> so THANK YOU  again
>
> Mario G8ODE
>
> On 18/08/2012 12:35, Wayne wrote:
> >
> > I updated the posted circuit diagram at:
> > http://waynemerry.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/designing-a-phoneradio-interface/
> >
> > As there is interest in this, people have several options. Josh VK3XJM
> > may update his circuit for lower current draw, or I can design either
> > a mainly through hole, or surface mount based pcb.
> >
> > 73 de Wayne VK3WAM
> >
> > --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FT817%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "georgep1111" <georgep1111@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, this is Wayne's project and it sounds like it's still a
> > work in progress so I'd rather leave it up to him to post a suitable
> > for printing circuit when he's ready.
> > >
> > > I was just giving an example of how it can be done, but having the
> > original done properly in B&W is still the best.
> > >
> > > George
> > >
> > > --- In FT817@yahoogroups.com <mailto:FT817%40yahoogroups.com>, Pam &
> > Mario Chomicz <chomicz@> wrote:
> > > > Care to share the result with the group?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mario G8ODE
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 07:25:17PM -0000, egsise wrote:
> I use the internal battery holder with AA NiMH cells and the voltage
> drop because of high resistance of the unsoldered connectors is not
> be a problem.

> Voltage drop with 5W TX is less than 1,5 volts so either my internal
> battery holder springs are still quite good after two years continuos
> use, or the cells that I use perform better than those 2300mAh cells
> that drop 2,1 volts with just 2,5W TX.

Jani,

yes, maybe your cells are of better quality than mine. However, if we
consider the cost of good quality cells, not to mention the amount
of work needed to add the recommended (tiny) fuse - which I did -
and possibly solder the cells together if one wishes to do that too,
it is probably cheaper just buy an original Yaesu replacement pack
and accept its limited capacity.

I have finally taken a different route. As I wrote in my first post,
when I go /P I need to carry an antenna tuner anyway, and that's a
homebrew one. I made it with enough internal space to host a pack of
10 x AA NiMh cells and I use it as the usual source to supply the radio.
If it happens that the external pack runs out at an inappropriate time,
then I revert to the internal (original) pack as a "reservoire".
The cells inside the tuner are placed in a common solderless holder,
but the associated voltage drop then becomes a non issue because
there are 10 cells in the pack instead of 8.

That solution has ended my quest for a more powerful internal
pack, along with the associated hassle. But I use the radio almost
exclusively on HF, especially when /P. If one needs to use it also on
VHF/UHF then having to rely upon the tuner-hosted battery may become
annoying. But for portable V/UHF I personally prefer to use a much
more handy HT anyway, not the FT-817 with the associated complications
(microphone, cables, shoulder strap, antenna, ....). A capable HT is
no bigger than even just the 817's microphone.

73 de Carlo/IZ4KBS

--
Software Patents kill Innovation: say NO to Software Patents!
I Brevetti Software uccidono l'innovazione: di NO ai Brevetti Software!