For some time I have been interested in the all-in-one type WSPR  transmitter. A fellow blogger Paul PA0K posts his WSPR adventures using the SOTAbeams WSPRlite model. This unit is no longer available and when I did a web search I found very few units on the market. The unit I  purchased was the Zachtek WSPR Desktop transmitter. The desktop transmitter has great reviews on Eham. The YouTube videos I watched about this product emphasized its compact size, works right out of the box, is easy to set up and can run independently without a PC. 

The unit I ordered was the 80m to 10m WSPR desktop. The package came from  Sweden and was at my door in under 6 days. Along with the Desktop device, you also get a USB to USB-micro cable and a GPS antenna with a 3m cord with an SMA connector. If you do plan to order one of these units be aware you will need an SMA to SO239 pigtail as it does not come with the unit. They can be ordered at Zachtek's website. Fortunately, I had one as it is used with my NANO VNA unit. 

Needed cable

Some of the selling points for me were:
- It's small size.
- Great reviews.
- Option to run it with or without a PC.
- Easy setup software available on Zachtek site.
- An LED light on the unit that indicates good or bad GPS lock, when transmitting and when idle.
- Automatic band switching.
- The unit is not affected by an extremely high SWR.

It was time to connect up the unit and I went to Zachtek and downloaded the operating software. I connected the unit to my PC via the USB to micro cable for the first time setup of the WSPR desktop, I connected the  GPS antenna and connected my Hustler 4BTV to the antenna port via the  SO-239 to SMA connector.  I entered my call in the box provided and selected the bands I wanted the unit to work on. As a side note, there is also a download for USB to serial driver but I already had that and it was working with no problems with my NANO VNA. I then pressed the start button on the software. I was supposed to see GPS information and the device status. Instead, I saw absolutely nothing.

Nothing happened

 I tried changing the USB port I was using, I then downloaded and installed the USB to serial driver from Zachtek as maybe it was a more up-to-date driver. I tried again and nothing happened. I know my NANO VNA has no issues working on my PC and using the USB to serial port driver, maybe a Win10 update messed things up. I connected the NANO VNA via its USB cable and it came to life. I then plugged the VNA into the same port the WSPR desktop was plugged into and it worked fine. I plugged the NANO VNA into the cable that came from Zachtek and the NANO VNA refused to start! I  plugged the WSPR desktop into the NANO VNA USB cable and the unit came to life. The device status came up and the GPS showed connection status. The issue was the USB-Micro cable from Zachtek it was defective right out of the box. I informed Zachtek of this a few days ago but as of yet, I have not heard back. 

The unit sprang to life

 Once the cable issue was solved the unit worked like a dream. In my next post the result of a 24-hour WSPR run with my Hustler 4BTV as well why the heck did I get this thing and how is it going to help my contesting adventures?

In ham radio, we often use Handie-Talkie or HT to describe a compact, handheld transceiver. My first exposure to the term Handie-Talkie was when I first became a licensed radio amateur in 1977. While I was a student at Purdue University (W9YB), the absolute coolest VHF radio to have was the Motorola HT-220. Even a used one commanded a high price so they were out of my price range and I never owned one. These were 6-channel crystal-controlled transceivers…back then you had to set up the radio with the particular 2m frequencies you wanted to use. Because it was such an iconic radio, there are many HT-220 enthusiasts still around with websites with tons of useful information. See the HT-220 Page.

Motorola trademarked the name Handie-Talkie and used that nomenclature for many years with its line of portable radios. However, this trademark has expired, so now Handie-Talkie is a generic term.

The First Handie-Talkie

But the HT-220 was not the first Handie-Talkie, so I started poking around to find out how this name originated. Back in World War II, the SCR-536 was a portable “hand-held” transceiver developed in 1940 by Galvin Manufacturing (later Motorola, Inc.)  I put “hand-held” in quotes because, by today’s standards, it was a Hand FULL. But most people consider the SCR-536 to be the first modern, self-contained HT transceivers. The Wikipedia article for the SCR-536 describes the radio quite well. The radio put out about 360 mW of RF power on 3.5 and 6.0 MHz (Oops, I mean 3500 to 6000 kilocycles) using Amplitude Modulation (AM). The circuitry relied on smallish vacuum tubes, creating quite a design challenge. Motorola has a page on its website that talks about the origins of the radio. IEEE Spectrum also published an excellent article: The SCR-536 Handie-Talkie Was the Modern Walkie-Talkie’s Finicky Ancestor. The January 2005 issue of QST has an interesting article by Gil McElroy, VE3PKD, A Short History of the Handheld Transceiver. It provides more history and insight to this fun topic.

The First Walkie-Talkie

A few years later (1942), a backpack portable radio was introduced, called the SCR-300. I always assumed that the backpack-style radio would have come first and the more compact radio SCR-536 would be later. (Actually, there were previous backpack radios, such as the SCR-194). This new backpack-style radio was referred to as a Walkie-Talkie. According to the manual, the SCR-300 was “primarily intended as a walkie-talkie for foot combat troops”. I suppose the emphasis was on how you can walk and talk, with a radio on your back.

This article: SCR-300 WW2 Radio Backpack: The “Walkie Talkie” That Shaped the War describes this radio as a game-changer for frontline troops. The radio weighed a heavy 35 pounds, and used Frequency Modulation (FM) on 40 to 48 Megacycles.

Of course, with technology development, there is always the question of “who was first”? The SCR-194 that predated the SCR-300 might be considered the first walkie-talkie. However, the SCR-300 and the SCR-536 seem to get all of the glory, probably due to their impact on the war effort. However, take a look here if you want to dig deeper: TALK the WALK or WALK the TALK: Who actually developed the first Walkie-Talkie?

This article describes the development and use of the SCR-300 and mentions some of the limitations of the SCR-194: SCR-300 History Development Employment and Details Final Draft This is a big file with many photos but worth reading if you have the time.

Today’s Terminology

Fast forward to today and we see that the HT and Handie-Talkie nomenclature is common in the amateur radio world. The photo to the left shows a modern 2m/70cm HT, the Yaesu FT-4X.

The term “walkie-talkie” has morphed to something quite different and is used generically to describe a handheld radio. This term covers a wide range of radios, from low-cost Family Radio Service (FRS) radios to higher-quality professional radios. This is quite different from the original Walkie-Talkie, a backpack radio weighing 35 pounds.

The military has progressed with improved communication technology, still using backpack-style radios, now referred to as manpack radios. These are amazing radios that pack extensive capability into a relatively small package. The AN/PR-158 shown below covers 30 to 2500 MHz in frequency, satellite comms, advanced encryption, narrowband and wideband modes: AM, ASK, FM, FSK, PSK, CPM, GMSK, and plenty more. This radio weighs 12.7 pounds with the battery installed, so a lot lighter than the old SCR-300.

So that’s a quick tour through some radio terminology along with a bit of historical perspective. I discovered there is an infinite supply of information out there on the history and technology of military radios. If you want to dig deeper, go for it!

73 Bob K0NR

The post Handie-Talkie or Walkie-Talkie? appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

In this episode, we join Martin Butler M1MRB, Chris Howard (M0TCH),  Frank Howell (K4FMH), and Leslie Butterfields (G0CIB) to discuss the latest Amateur / Ham Radio news. Colin Butler (M6BOY) rounds up the news in brief and the episode's feature is Little Amateur Radio Book Review.

We would like to thank our monthly and annual subscription donors for keeping the podcast advert free. To donate, please visit - http://www.icqpodcast.com/donate

• ARRL Defends 902-928 Amateur Radio Band
• FT8 - SUPERFOX Cracked
• National Preparedness Month: Ensuring Family Safety
• Canadian Teens Gain Licenses After Ham Radio Coursework
• Sri Lankan Girl Guides Find Power in Ham Radio
• New ACMA Licensing Fees
• UK Paper Amateur Radio Exams to End

Hello and welcome to the 556th installment of Linux in the Ham Shack. In this short topics episode, the hosts discuss National Preparedness Month, the AMSAT Space Symposium for 2024, Jamboree on the Air, new versions of Pop!_OS and Haiku, Gnome 47 and much more. Thanks for listening and have a great week.

73 de The LHS Crew

AmateurLogic is celebrating 19 years and you could win a great prize package. We’re giving away an Icom IC-705 HF, 6-meter, 2-meter, & 70-cm Multimode Portable Transceiver.
Gigaparts is joining the party with Power Supply and Antenna from their new Intellitron line of products, plus Airborne-5 coaxial cable from Messi & Paoloni.
Get all the details and register to win today.
https://amateurlogic.tv/contest

This is the final installment on my analysis of the RAC Survey 2021 on Canadian amateur operators. The previous article examined RF power reported by this national sample of ham operators. The other shoe on power use is the prospect of gain residing in the antenna used for transmitting. I begin with the HF through six-meter results for the basic antenna type used by Canadian hams. Figure 1 contains these results.

Just shy of two-thirds (62%) report a single-element antenna. The common dipole is an example of such an antenna. This is not a surprising result per se. The dipole antenna is often the first antenna described in license examination material. It is also the most frequent first-time build antenna for most new ham licensees. These results illustrate how the single element antenna serves the HF and six-meter frequencies well even today.

Multi-element arrays, most always having both gain and direction, are used by almost one-third (31%). For this frequency region, most are of the Yagi-Uda type, although there are wire beams as well as phased verticals, too. In results not shown, I examined whether multi-element array antennas on these bands are related to DXing or Contesting activities. They are in both. DXers and contest operators about about twice as likely to report typical use of multiple-element arrays than those who do not participate in these activities.

The magnetic loop is reported in use on HF by about 8 percent in this survey. This antenna design for the HF and six-meter bands is available for homebrew construction with many plans available. But it is also readily available from several commercial manufacturers. Putting a number on the share of hams reporting they use it for transmitting and receiving on HF tells us something about this type of design, which is known to have a high Q coefficient as well as lower noise than the single wire antenna. I examined the results by province, age group, and whether DXers or contest ops were more or less likely to use magnetic loops but do not present the results here. There were no appreciable differences regarding magnetic loop use in those groups of respondents.

Turning now to antennas used in the VHF and UHF bands, Figure 2 shows that the vertical antenna is almost ubiquitous. Three-fourths (77%) use a vertical antenna on these bands. About one-fifth (19%) use a multi-element array, with either a horizontal or vertical polarization. This is likely a Yagi beam design but others are possible. Only a handful say they use a single-element horizontal antenna on these bands.

It is reasonable to assume that most of the multi-element array designs are used for DXing or Contesting or both. As was the case with the HF bands, the use of multi-element arrays for the VHF and UHF bands were about twice as high (40% or so vs 20% or so) as for hams who say they do not do those activities.
Only a small fraction of hams operating in the VHF or UHF frequencies say they use a horizontal single-element antenna. It is likely that the mobile use of these bands may deter an alternative polarization if the operator is at a fixed location.

Heading now to the microwave bands, we noted in a previous article on this blog a small group using higher power levels for transmission. But power in watts is not readily necessary on these bands due to the higher gain often realized in the antennas used. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of antenna gain (dBi) reported by amateur operators. While a small portion use antennas with less than 5 dBi gain, the median figure is about 22 dBi. Some say they have very high gain of over 40 dBi which makes even small power in watts effectively “high power” on the bands.

These antennas are typically designed to be much physically smaller than those used on lower frequencies. This provides a potential for more accessible use. However, the dangers of a very high effective power rating (power in watts plus antenna gain) can actually work against this flexibility. As manufacturers release more commercial equipment for these varying microwave frequency bands, it is likely that the numbers of amateur operators will dip their toes into the microwave bands. This survey only captures a small number of them because their relative share of the population is small.

This concludes this article series. The full report is available in PDF format at my FoxMikeHotel.com website here.