Video

Thanks for the comment. A trailer is on the horizon. I am working up a design and what materials to use. Yes, in video 15 towards the end of the slideshow there are some pictures of a guy's trailer I hung out with on the trail for a few days with some notes on my inspiration to make one. There are some drawbacks to a trailer but I think the major benefit - keeping the load and extra forces off the bike frame - out-weigh the negatives. My idea at the moment is to have, more or less, a C channel aluminum frame, sort of like a "Bikes At Work" flatbed trailer design, with an enclosed box on top. The box dimensions I am thinking about are 24" wide, 24" high, and 60" long inside dimensions. The way I came up with the dimensions is by laying out all the gear before I unpacked it for video 15 and measuring out the cube space. With the stuff in the bags (panniers and dry sacks) the overall volume of the gear is noticeably less than the box dimensions, and I added an extra 12 inches in length beyond the "volume" that the bags took. The reasoning for this is by having that extra volume available it opens up the doors to much easier organization. Compartmentalizing gear is very difficult to achieve when you have very little space. If a compartment is too full to close then something that should be in that compartment ends up where it will fit - and there goes the whole idea of compartmentalization and organization in the first place. For example - canned foods and water I want to have in a compartment nearest the axle. Since it is heavy the location over the axle means that weight won't affect balance (hitch weight) nearly as much as if it was in a compartment fore, or aft, of the axle. Another thought about water is it is easy ballast. It wouldn't be hard to move, say, a nalgene bottle or two around to get the hitch weight right (5-15% gross trailer weight I think is a good starting point - it will take some experimentation). Bike repair stuff - frequently used tools, tube, tire levers, etc - should be right up front and easy to get to. Maybe I'll make a compartment with a "tray", or 2 level system, where the most likely to be needed stuff is on top and other tools etc are below. I still think a handlebar bag is a requirement so as far as food for the ride goes - maybe snacks can ride in the handlebar bag, but other foods (lunch fixin's, stove if necessary) could be in the trailer easy to get to. The 24x24x60" box should be close to twice the actual volume I would need so that also brings with it the reality that if I am needing to carry extra supplies - more water or a few more days worth of food, for example - there is space for it inside and I don't have to worry about strapping anything down on the outside. So lots to think about.

The 8935 has been great. I think I got this one in 2010 or 2011. It is the E6380A version - which is high power. The input is rated to 75w continuous. I've run 100w PEP in to it, but very rarely. For an RF signal generator, RF signal analyzer, and spectrum analyzer it is a fantastic tool. I don't think the Tracking Generator is an option - it is standard I do believe. So for tuning filters (like in the video here), duplexers, bandpass, notch, and pass/notch style filters it is a very valuable tool. The negatives I have to say about it are when it comes to antenna testing ability it doesn't have anything. It can show SWR if you get a Return Loss Bridge. That is it. It does not do TDR so you can not measure feed lines from one end. You can only put the feed line in a closed circuit to do either a discrete or swept frequency insertion loss measurement (VERY handy - just need both sides of the cable to do it). If it fits your budget and the abilities are what you are looking for - I say its a good buy. If you need antenna and TDR measurement capabilities then you need to get a separate analyzer (I use a RigExpert AA-600 for example). Or get a VNA that has a time base and will do complex impedance measurements. Anritsu Site Master analyzers are pretty hard to beat, if you can afford one. They have quite a range of them that go back quite a few years so you might find an older one that is more reasonable in cost. The newer the technology the more features they have that cater to the cellular industry etc. For basic ham or CB RF stuff the antiquated gear is fine because all you'll use is the basic RF tools. That is the same with the 8935 - it has CDMA cellular tools in it that are useless to us. Another benefit to the 8935 - it is a nice audio signal generator. You can do a 2-tone test and you can also measure SINAD. That is good for FM radios, and even more so if you do any FM repeater work/repair. If you have more questions just ask!

@@qrptoqro7834 wow great response, thanks for that. I really want it for the tracking generator feature. Then all the other stuff would just be a bonus. I currently have a r&s cmu200 that I do enjoy but no tracking generator. Keep up the great videos!

Thanks for the note. I am not real sure where to send the radio. There are lots of places that may do it. If I had more appropriate tools (better rework station) I would offer to help, however as I mention in the video - I took on the challenge and risk on my own radio. I wouldn't be so inclined to take on that risk for others, even after having a successful run on mine for the experience. If you are a member on any of the ham radio forums - eham, qrz, etc - you may want to post on there for some suggestions. There may be others out there that have proper rework stations that can handle the lead-free solder that could do it easier. Best of luck to you.

Bill - thank you for your question. I do not own the individual pieces of equipment that you are asking for a demonstration of (step attenuator, stand-alone RF volt meter, stand-alone signal generator). The signal generator and RF volt meter are tools in the service monitor I use instead. By varying the signal level of the generator to the required level per step of the process there is no need, in my case, for an external attenuator. The method used for a signal to be generated and injected in to the radio doesn't matter so long as it is the levels specified for each step of the process. The processes in the radio were the primary subjects of the video tutorial, not the method of signal generation/injection. You may need to do some unit conversions to get to appropriate signal levels, however I don't think that will pose any issue. If you are reasonably close the radio will work fine so don't get caught up on accuracy/precision. The only area where accuracy/precision will matter more than anywhere else is frequency calibration - not signal level. Please note that the Technical Supplement for the FT-857D does not specify the classic "-73dBm or 50uV" level for S9. They specify the S9 level (on 15m/21mHz band SSB) at 36dBuV. Also note Yaesu uses the dBuV (or, in short - dBu) unit - not dBm or uV as are the classic points you mentioned. If you convert units, the 36dBuV Yaesu specifies is higher than 50uV. In fact, it is about 70uV (50uV would be about 34dBuV). The meter response for the radio is calibrated with a 3 point calibration over the range from S1 to full scale. The S1 reading signal injection level varies per band, though - there is no uniform level across all bands in the radio as outlined in the video. You have to start with the S1 levels. If you note, from page 19 in the Technical Supplement, this is listed as the "RX Gain Adjustment". You can not set any other S meter value without first setting the S1 values as this is imperative for the receiver gain set-point. Those S1 set-points will affect the whole S meter's response, but most importantly the receiver gain. In your question, Bill, I think the above is where you could run in to the greatest difficulty in the process as you need multiple signal injection levels at multiple frequencies to properly calibrate the receiver. That does not mean that you can't throw some arbitrary values in the radio to get it to "work" - you most certainly can. It will just be less accurate. Some other important points while I am thinking about it - Yes, there are certainly inaccuracies introduced in various areas and the overall accuracy of the meter has some question as a result. However, that is well outside the scope of the tutorial in the video. The meter response of the radio, now, is very usable. The prior problem I had after the filter replacement with the receiver gain being stuck was a more significant problem, but did not kill the operability of the radio even still. My point - if the accuracy of the S9 level of the meter is a bit loose (and I would venture a guess mine is very close) that has 0 affect on the usability of the radio. Getting the receiver gain curve set is is much more important. Watching the meter isn't going to allow me to make contacts, or prevent them. Its just a meter. Getting the receiver gain to lift signals to be loud enough, and not so far as to distort them, does more to help the operability of the radio than at what signal level the meter hits S9. If you notice in the video when I set the S1 levels that if the values were low (where as I increased the gain on the radio the signal came up/got louder) the receiver was initially very quiet with the specified signal level being injected in to the radio. The number that is being adjusted in these points in the process (S1 levels in this specific example) is the receiver gain. That number is NOT just a meter set point. If the calibration steps were just set points of the meter the sound level coming out of the speaker would be the same regardless of what the meter showed. That is simply not the case - the meter is actually a visual representation of the response of the receiver gain to the signal, not the signal itself. This is what AGC, or Automatic Gain Control, works off. However, AGC has to have a calibration curve - and that is the underlying receiver functionality you are calibrating with the meter level responses and why they are important. This goes right back to my example of the stuck receiver gain after the filter replacement - it wasn't just that the meter was pegged at full scale, the receiver gain (AGC) wasn't responding properly also. Page 9 in the Technical Supplement has a brief description of the AGC, I wish it was more descriptive. I hope this helps! Steve KC8QVO

Absolutely! There will be many opportunities. Another trek I've done is up to Waldo to G&R Tavern. They are famous for fried balogna sandwiches. That is, from where I am, about a 62 mile run. Theres also the Ohio to Erie Trail. I haven't mentioned this much, but I am doing a talk at Hamvention for the BMHA group. Looks like its on Friday this time around. Historically we have tried to do a bike ride sometime that weekend also. I don't have any specifics yet but as that begins to form I will see about generating some more interest - probably with a video invite/update. It is a great way to hang out with some like-minded cycling and radio nuts. For now though, for anyone else reading - keep Friday on the radar for the Bicycle Mobile Hams of America (BMHA) forum. Everyone is welcome and please bring bikes for display and maybe some show and tell before/after the forum.

Thanks for the note. Yea, this was one of the times an announcement of passing on the left worked. Maybe that was because the joggers didnt have a pack of dogs on a leash. Usually when I announce Im passing "on the left" people walking dogs go "left" right in front of my path. In any event, even though it was cold it was a gorgeous day to be out!