Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 15-05-2009, 15:06   #46
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by n1iic View Post
Reality: Using ham gear "out of band" is done all the time, and isn't a primary offense.
Among the many rules you would be violating, the primary offense in this case would be using a transceiver not certified for use in marine service. Most likely, a person not using the proper equipment also doesn't have the proper marine license's. They may also be causing harmful interference to others using the marine bands. They are also violating rules in part 97 and part 2...i.e. modifying equipment and operating out of band. How many rules are you willing to break at once? I guess the chances of getting caught is the main issue. If you get caught, they've got you on several offense's and they are known for handing out very stiff fines. I remember when a vendor got fined $10,000 at the Annapolis boat shows for operating a marine radar from land. This was before most radars had a simulation mode.

Quote:
I do believe USB is the mode of choice for Maritime operations.
It's not a choice, it's the rules.

Eric
__________________

__________________
fairbank56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-2009, 22:28   #47
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 9,198
As the OP associates Ham & SSB with "Hell", I think he's better off without any of these radio's and select an Iridium phone instead. Why would you punish yourself like that?

Same for cruisers who don't like- or are afraid of- making a passage under sail: buy a motorboat or book a cruise, stop torturing yourself!

Do what you like to do and enjoy life!

cheers,
Nick.
__________________

__________________
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 21:06   #48
Senior Cruiser
 
unbusted67's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Islesboro, ME
Boat: Looking for a new boat
Posts: 2,196
Images: 24
Thanks Nick! I think I will just say ashore and watch TV. No, no I'll figure it out. I'm going to anchor out for a few days and see what I can figure out.
__________________
unbusted67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 22:34   #49
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 9,198
unbusted,

Good plan! take a 50 foot length of wire with you and after some testing, disconnect your antenna from the tuner and replace with this wire. Hoist it with a halyard. Compare.

If the wire works better you know the antenna needs attention like cleaning contacts etc. We have no backstays on Jedi so I have a fiberglass whip for SSB. When we are at anchor, I hoist a 50 ft wire which performs better than the whip. I made contacts over 7000 nm away easily and even managed Japan and New Zealand with patience (from the Caribbean).

The ground is another part of the antenna that you need to look at. You can test it by connecting the wire to the ground terminal on the tuner (leave the other ground on there too and connect regular antenna again) and throwing it overboard. If that improves your transmissions, you need to work on improving the grounding. It's all simple enough to do yourself; the only thing that can be nasty is the grounding as there are many many techniques to it and most are good.

cheers,
Nick.
__________________
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 23:00   #50
Registered User
 
Cowboy Sailer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: on the boat. Gulf Coast
Boat: C&C 38'
Posts: 351
Images: 2
Is there a transceiver that is licensed for both marine and Ham operation?
__________________
Jerry and Denver
Happy Old cruisers!
Cowboy Sailer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 23:16   #51
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 9,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy Sailer View Post
Is there a transceiver that is licensed for both marine and Ham operation?
No, I don't think so.

I find it amusing that people feel that the electronics in a marine SSB, like the Icom 802 are superior to that of a good HAM radio. My experience is that it is the other way around and the 802 is not so good at all. Like another poster wrote, it even has it's DSP disabled to pass certification while you pay for it dearly. I also think they lowered modulation on this unit to prevent clipping (that's what I think after reading this thread). All in all it doesn't sound good and I think the 710 is better. But my Kenwood TS-480 beats my 710 on any front at half the price.

I also think certification of the radio is a non issue once you reach the tropical cruising grounds, but that statement will probably attract the self-appointed radio posse again.

cheers,
Nick.
__________________
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2009, 23:19   #52
Registered User
 
Cowboy Sailer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: on the boat. Gulf Coast
Boat: C&C 38'
Posts: 351
Images: 2
I hate it when that happens and the posse comes after me!
__________________
Jerry and Denver
Happy Old cruisers!
Cowboy Sailer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 08:11   #53
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bow, N.H.
Boat: Chevy Yukon lol
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy Sailer View Post
Is there a transceiver that is licensed for both marine and Ham operation?
The correct term is 'type accepted' not licensed.
People have been making their own radios since before the amateur service started. Maybe just receivers, but they were homebrew none the less. Once those people could get on the air, they added transmitters to their radios thus the reason why amateur gear is not type accepted. Amateur radio has always been about being able to design and build their own equipment and about being technologically savvy.
When operating anything other than amateur radio, the rig needs to be type accepted to legally be able to use it there. This is a series of tests done and the results are submitted to the FCC for approval. Type acceptance is good and bad- good because it proves the integrity of the transceiver and bad because it increases the cost significantly- typically out of the reasonable cost for hams, at least when the radios are new.
Also, commercial service has different operation goals than hams do. Hams are a technically advanced group, and to be licensed we need to learn all the different modes that are available to us, since we have quite a range of methods to communicate. Commercial gear is meant to be much simpler to operate.
So, if you want to be on ham radio you can use anything, but out of the amateur bands type acceptance is the only legal way. Thus, any of the type accepted radio is ok to use for amateur service.

Jason
__________________
n1iic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 08:58   #54
Registered User
 
Cowboy Sailer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: on the boat. Gulf Coast
Boat: C&C 38'
Posts: 351
Images: 2
Jason, that was a good answer. I always thought that hams were responsible for their transmissions and could use what ever they determined met the specs. Nick made it sound as though an Icom 802 would not be acceptable as a ham radio. I am sorry I misused the term "licensed". Did you know that a airplane pilot doesn't have a license? He has an airman's certificate! Precision in language makes for clarity of communication.
Cheers,
Jerry
__________________
Jerry and Denver
Happy Old cruisers!
Cowboy Sailer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 09:01   #55
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 718
The main reason a ham radio should not be used on the marine bands is because of spurious emissions. I don't believe there are any HF ham radios that meet the specs for this and some rigs are terrible. The main issue isn't about rule violations, its about your signal splattering all over the place interfering with others trying to use the marine bands. You can use any certified marine radio on the ham bands though. Icom's fix for the 802 clipping problem is not reducing modulation, but reducing the aggressive nature of the automatic power control circuitry at high swr. The fix is technically simple, but physically difficult. Iv'e done them.

Eric
__________________
fairbank56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 10:14   #56
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz
Boat: Boatless Again
Posts: 4,310
The reality of spurious emissions is that you will be far more likely to get interference on Marine SSB frequencies from stations operating between the ITU assigned frequencies, usally speaking Chinese, Russian, or Spanish. Splatter will occur from both ham and marine SSB rigs transmitting in the same anchorage.
__________________
donradcliffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2009, 22:04   #57
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 9,198
Carrier and sideband compression are listed in the specifications for every radio. I do not believe that the transmitter of a good HAM radio wouldn't qualify for marine acceptance; the reason they don't have it is that the radio has functions that are needed for HAM but not allowed for marine acceptance.

Take this example; this JRC marine SSB spec's: JRC Marine SSB Radio Telephone JSB-196 specifications/Components shows a 40 dB suppression so that is good enough for acceptance. Here's the specs for my Kenwood HAM radio: Kenwood TS-480 Specifications which shows the same 40 dB. This means that the Kenwood does not generate more interference than the JRC.

In all the years I've been on the marine bands, I have never experienced interference caused by a HAM radio operating in the band. I have been annoyed by cruisers using a manual tuner on-channel but that is operator practice, not the radio.

About the 802: so that clipping problem, that's not related to less modulation depth than for example the 710? I did read in this thread that the 710 is "louder" which translates to higher power output. When I use the DSP for modulation compression on my Kenwood, I can easily go to 60% modulation for normal voice, drawing 25A for 200W output power setting. When the 802 only draws 8A for it's 150W, the modulation is roughly 30%... did I calc that correctly? 25 / 200 * 150 = 18.75A so the 802 (8A) uses less than half the power so is modulated 30%. I wonder what happens when the compressor is enabled in the 802 !!

cheers,
Nick.
__________________
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2009, 07:57   #58
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 718
The FCC rules for suppression of spurious emissions on HF are 43+10 log PEP. That means for a 100w radio which most ham rigs are, the suppression must be -63db. The specs for the TS-480 is -50db. I don't know of any ham HF that meets the spec for spurious emissions which is not the same thing as unwanted sideband suppression.

Other people have indeed experienced the splatter from ham rigs on the marine bands.

As for your other remarks about power/modulation/current draw, you clearly do not have an understanding of the theory.

Eric
__________________
fairbank56 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2009, 08:06   #59
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chesapeake Region and Maine
Boat: 42' Bob Perry sloop
Posts: 4,038
Images: 4
Eric is right. Suppressed carrier is NOT the same thing as spurious emissions.

I, too, know of NO HAM RIG which can meet the stringent type-acceptance requirements for marine radios. Some of the older ones are pretty close, but the newer ones tend to be quite "dirty".

Further, the manner in which a ham rig is adjusted has a lot to do with the purity of its emissions. It's quite possible to take a perfectly acceptable voice signal and screw it up badly by messing with, e.g., compression levels, substitute mics, etc.

Ham rigs are wonderful beasts...I've a whole house full of them. But -- much as one might want to believe that in terms of purity of emissions they are "as good as a marine radio" -- they simply are not. They cannot meet the design requirements of marine, aircraft, military radio services. Not a single one, for example, can meet the new NTIA standards....a fact which has caused quite a furor amongst the MARS crowd.

Bill
__________________
btrayfors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2009, 16:34   #60
Do… or do not
 
s/v Jedi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in paradise
Boat: Sundeer 64
Posts: 9,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by fairbank56 View Post
The FCC rules for suppression of spurious emissions on HF are 43+10 log PEP. That means for a 100w radio which most ham rigs are, the suppression must be -63db. The specs for the TS-480 is -50db. I don't know of any ham HF that meets the spec for spurious emissions which is not the same thing as unwanted sideband suppression.

Other people have indeed experienced the splatter from ham rigs on the marine bands.

As for your other remarks about power/modulation/current draw, you clearly do not have an understanding of the theory.
Eric,

I believe we've been at each other before and if so, you must surely remember that I was educated in this stuff and designed and built it too.
I find your aggressive stance not amusing so please be nice if you want others to respect you too. You're not paying me for something so normal etiquette would be much appreciated.

May be it was too long ago, but in "my days", there was an almost linear relation between modulation depth, power output and power consumption.

About the FCC: that is a US organization; it is the ITU (United Nations organization) who define all technical standards for marine radio equipment worldwide but I suppose the FCC is a signatory to that and enforces the same specs. Where did you find these? I couldn't get Google to come up with anything.

I understand that spurious emissions are different from sideband suppression but couldn't find the figures for the radio's. I got my manual out and that lists it at -50dB or less for the 160m-10m bands and -60dB or less for the 6m band. So, it's -50dB for the marine bands, which is 13dB short for approval assuming the FCC rules apply.

I was looking at sideband compression because of the remarks about splatter. I am now thinking that I am caught in my lack of English with these terms. What is splatter? I thought this is what we call "overspraak" in Dutch which is caused by a station on a neighboring channel/frequency and that has nothing to do with spurious emissions which are mostly the harmonics and thus out of band, right? (can be supressed further with an external LP filter). I hear splatter often but it's just as likely from a type accepted marine SSB than from a HAM radio. More often from a marine radio even because they are mostly at higher power output settings.

So, educate me, what is the definition of the English terms splatter and spurious emissions? And where can I find the requirements for type acceptance. Aren't the CE requirements the same?

Is a 50dB suppresion considered "dirty"? It sounds pretty clean to me...

cheers,
Nick.
__________________

__________________
s/v Jedi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Psycho Crew from Hell! Ocean Girl The Sailor's Confessional 96 11-07-2009 06:51
One Hell of a Powerboat BadFish Powered Boats 11 08-07-2009 20:41
Toronto - Hell Yes, Finally KrisAubrey General Sailing Forum 0 09-06-2009 08:31
Battery Replacement from Hell.... markpj23 Electrical: Batteries, Generators & Solar 6 14-02-2009 00:47



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 22:04.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.