Our friend Alan (W2AEW) just published this excellent short video demonstrating how to quickly tune the Penntek TR-45L’s Z-Match ATU. Of course, this same technique can be applied to the Emtech ZM-2 or any other manual Z-Match tuner:
An excellent tutorial, Alan! Thank you!
Many thanks to Paul (W7CPP) who writes:
If you haven’t seen this it is worth watching. Alan does a great job calculating the actual versus selected keyer speed on the KX2 and TR-45:
Click here to watch on YouTube.
Brilliant video! Thanks for sharing this, Paul.
Alan’s YouTube channel is one of my favorites. If you haven’t already, hop over there and subscribe!
Sometimes, we do things for the pure nostalgia of it all!
I mentioned in a previous post that I recently acquired a circa 1995 Index Labs QRP Plus transceiver. Being transparent here, this was an impulse purchase fueled by pure, unadulterated nostalgia.
The QRP Plus was the first QRP transceiver that I’d ever laid my eyes on only a month or so before obtaining my ham radio ticket in 1997. I’ll write about this in more detail in the future–and I speak to this in my video below–but let’s just say that this little cube of a radio made a big impression on me at the very beginning of my ham radio journey.
I thought it might be fun to take it to the field and compare this 1995 state-of-the-art radio with so many of my other field radios. The QRP Plus wasn’t a perfect radio, but it was a marvel at the time it was produced. I can’t think of a smaller, more battery-efficient general coverage 160-10M QRP transceiver at the time.
I was eager to introduce this little radio to the world of POTA so on the morning of Thursday March 21, 2024, I grabbed it and hit the field!
I called the Vance site that morning and learned that a large school group would be arriving around noon. Since I was planning to leave around that time anyway, it was perfect timing for me.
Since I hadn’t created a field kit specifically for the QRP Plus yet, I brought my watertight stackable Husky brand box that basically contains everything I need to set up a field radio station, save the radio.
I unpacked everything I needed: a key, key cable, battery, power cord, cable assembly, antenna, logbook and pencil.
Since the QRP Plus has no internal tuner, I paired it with my MM0OPX 40M EFHW antenna which would give me 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters. Note that Index Labs used to make an external manual ATU for this radio called the QRP Companion–I’ve never seen one in person, though.
Even though the Vance staff told me that the school group would not be using the picnic shelter, thus I could have free reign, I still deployed my antenna in a way that it would not become a trip hazard–keeping it close to the shelter and as conspicuous as I could (I do wish I would have brought along my flagging tape, but I left it at home).
Setting up the QRP Plus station was quick and easy. Time to hit the air!
Note: All Amazon, CW Morse, ABR, Chelegance, eBay, and Radioddity links are affiliate links that support QRPer.com at no cost to you.
I started calling CQ POTA on the 40 meter band, hoping it would be a little productive while we were still in the latter part of the morning. Continue reading My first POTA Activation with the Index Labs QRP Plus Field Transceiver
Many thanks to John (NS6X) who shares the following field report:
by John (NS6X)
I had great plans for a radio-centric, POTA activation road trip from my home in Camarillo, CA (outside Los Angeles) to my first visit to OzarkCon in Branson, MO. The Four State QRP Club hosts the two-day conference. I recently became a kitter (I put together one of the kits) for the club, assembling the parts and shipping the Cricket20 (see kits a 4SQRP.com).
I had the parks planned out along I-40 where I would stop, overnight stops for my little trailer, and my traveling companion Sachiko (Agnes), my Tortie cat.
Long story, but my wife of 48 years died three years ago from ovarian cancer, so I now enjoy traveling alone. I am calling my trip story, “Traveling with Agnes,” a shout out to John Steinbeck and Traveling With Charley. I seldom plan ahead, so to have night stops, parks planned, and such was something for me.
I packed my Elecraft KX2, KH1, FT-891, Penntek TR-35L, and my 22-year-old KX1. I have multiple Bioenno batteries for power, that I packed in an official QRPer.com/HRWB bag and placed next to the door.
I should have stepped out of the door and put it in my truck or trailer, as I left the batteries at home. I did have a Bioenno solar “generator”, but it doesn’t have power pole output connectors, and I haven’t made power pole-adapted cables for it. And of course, I left my power pole crimpers and connectors at home, too. I didn’t discover this until I stopped at my first POTA park, the US-1058, Homolovi Ruins State Park in Arizona, just outside of Winslow.
My KX2 had a partially charged battery, so after futzing about with the power sources, I set up my KX2 and AX1 antenna. I was able to make 7 QSOs in a little less than an hour, even after spotting myself, but did not have the time to stay longer to complete the activation. My campsite was at a KOA in Albuquerque; it was raining/snowing/hailing, and my next stop at the Petrified Forest was out, too. I was discouraged, so packed up and took off.
I had watched Thomas’, K4SWL’s videos and read about the KH1 being used as a radio for an activation, but after my limited number of contacts in Arizona, I wasn’t too positive about it. However, coming from a suburban lot in a housing tract, the lack of QRN/M noise in the Arizona desert was amazing. I didn’t think that I had turned on the radio, seriously.
So, driving through New Mexico, and part of Texas, into Oklahoma for the evening, stopping at a Harvest Host location for the night, I decided I would listen to the bands, using the KH1. I heard a few signals. My stop was only a few miles from the Washita County Wildlife Management Area, US-8661, so I decided to take the KH1 and mosey over to the POTA site.
I told myself why not, spotted myself on 20 meters at 14.058.2, called CQ and was I surprised. LOUD signals came back. Many stations were calling me. I completed my activation with 12 QSOs in 16 minutes, using the KH1, putting out 4.6 watts. The SWR was about 1.1:1. I was impressed with the stations from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina that called me. Did I say they were LOUD? And no noise.
I just finished the activation – forgot to take photos. I was a photojournalism major (although my career was as a firefighter and paramedic). How could I keep forgetting to take photos?
My takeaway and lesson learned was to pack ahead of time, with a checklist (I am never that organized), and that the KH1 is a real radio, able to do things like be used for a POTA activation.
It didn’t hurt that I had a zero noise level, and that there were QRO stations calling me, as well as the spotting system that makes POTA and other similar activities workable, and fun.
After becoming first licensed in 1966 at 11 years old, I am once again excited about ham radio. The social aspect of ham radio is a real positive. The fun of POTA and SOTA is invigorating my radio life. I am back contesting, and putting up a better antenna at my house: the CC&Rs are no longer valid as they haven’t been enforced for more than 35 years, no HOA, and the city issued a permit to me.
I will be back at another Oklahoma park in the morning. I am writing this in the early evening after getting back to my trailer. My KH1 battery is charged, ready to go, if anyone else is ready at 8 AM.
Off to Joplin, MO tomorrow, then Branson, MO for the conference on Thursday, beginning Friday morning. The conference is over Sunday. I did make a reservation for Sunday night in Branson to hang over and watch the eclipse as the sun passes over Branson on Monday.
72’s, NS6X, John Kitchens
Many thanks to Don (W7SSB) who shares the following photos (via Xiegu) of the new X6200 transceiver. Click images to enlarge:
Update: A number of readers also note that Radioddity has posted the following videos on their website:
Freddy (F5IRO) also notes that Passion Radio will be shipping the X6200 in June 2024 for 899 €. Click here to read on Freddy’s blog.
Many thanks to Davey (KU9L) who shares a link to this news from John (WA3RN), owner, and designer of Penntek radios. John writes:
I have been considering for some time the future of the Penntek Instruments amateur radio products. This old man isn’t getting any younger and is in fact beginning to get tired. With the current production run of the TR-45L QRP transceiver getting close to being complete, I decided that this is a good time to finally retire at 77 years of age and maybe catch a breath. I have therefore chosen not to order parts for another run of these radios. As of late-March 2024, in-house parts remain for about 45 of the standard TR-45L units and about 70 of the “Skinny” version. The remaining TR-35 parts will allow for an additional 65 units, either kits or built radios. As I heard on a radio commercial, “Once they’re gone, they’re gone”. After these remaining radios are sold, I will remain available for repair and service of the Penntek transceivers. Thanks to all those who have purchased and enjoyed WA3RNC products over the years…
It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of Penntek transceivers, so this is sad news. But, I am also very happy for John to make this decision about retiring.
That said, if you’ve been on the fence about buying a TR-45L, TR-45L Skinny, or TR-35, I suggest you do so while John has new units!
These are brilliant radios with excellent audio characteristics, robust front-ends, and some of the best ergonomics you’ll find out there. Keying is smooth and provides proper QSK.
Plus, I think they’re one of the best-looking radios on the market (the TR-45L series especially).
Since all of the Penntek radios started out life as kits, they’re also easy to open and modify/repair.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but I’m willing to bet that once John’s inventory has been depleted, these radios will hold their own on the used market much like other beloved radio models (I’m thinking specifically of the KX1 and MTR-3B). It’ll be interesting to see where used pricing is in, say, 2026.
Again, if you’ve been on the fence, now is the time to make a decision, in my opinion. It looks like John will continue to provide support after his retirement, which is great news as well.
Here’s wishing John all the best in his retirement! Thanks for creating radios that bring so much QRP joy!
Those of you who purchased a fully-assembled and tested version of the QRP Labs QMX are, no doubt, patient people.
While you can order a kit version of the QMX and receive it fairly quickly (still, I believe), the assembled versions take more time as the QRP Labs crew is small and they build and test these by hand.
I ordered mine on June 5, 2023, and it shipped on December 27, 2023.
Truth is, I’ve had a QMX kit since Hans Summers announced it at Four Days In May (FDIM) prior to the 2023 Hamvention. I’ve been meaning to build it but, as many of you know, my life has been a tad crazy these past months and I never got around to it.
I purchased an assembled version of the QMX because I will be reviewing this one and wanted a factory-tested unit. I would have never guessed I’d receive the assembled unit before building it!
The QMX looks so much like my QCX-Minis, I’ve gotten them mixed up in the shack! The menu system is very similar to the QCX, but there are some changes to accommodate band changes, modes, etc., as the QCX-Minin series is mono-band CW only.
The QMX, on the other hand, is a five-band, five-watt, multi-mode (CW, Digital, and likely SSB in the future) transceiver. It’s hard to believe you can purchase the QMX for as little as $90 (bare-bones) kit or $165 (fully-assembled and tested).
I initially thought I had an issue with my QMX because it kept shutting down the transmit function. Turns out, that was all user-error. I mentioned the issue on an episode of the Ham Radio Workbench podcast, and a couple of listeners wrote to tell me what I was doing wrong: I was feeding it too much voltage. The QMX doesn’t want more than 12V or so. If the radio detects even a temporary mismatch, it shuts down the TX to protect the finals, etc.
I was unintentionally triggering the QMX’s self-protection functionality!
Once I figured that out, I decided to simply pair my QMX with my Bioenno 3Ah 9V LiFePO4 battery. That would yield about 3 watts of output power and be a comfortable voltage for the QMX.
On Thursday, March 7, 2024, I finally took the QMX outdoors where it belongs! I had a one-hour window of time to complete a full activation. I decided to pair the QMX with my Chelegance MC-750 vertical.
My QMX is a “low-band” version that covers 80, 60, 40, 30, and 20 meters. I thought the top end of its band coverage would serve me best mid-day, so I planned my activation around 20 meters.
Setup was easy and simple. You can see the full set-up process in my activation video below.
Note: All Amazon, CW Morse, ABR, Chelegance, eBay, and Radioddity links are affiliate links that support QRPer.com at no cost to you.
I hopped on the air and started calling CQ POTA after sorting out my QMX settings–I needed to adjust the sidetone and I had to take it out of split mode! Continue reading Woo hoo! Finally taking my QRP Labs QMX on a POTA activation!
Yesterday, I posed the following question and asked for your input:
“Which aspect of a QRP radio holds more importance for you: its ergonomics (ease of use, comfort, display, size, etc.) or its performance (receiver test data, dynamic range, etc.)?”
Thank you to everyone who participated in my recent quickie poll, which has now closed. There were so many interesting points in the feedback. Here are the results from the 252 votes cast within a 20-hour window:
In essence, a slight majority preferred ergonomics, with 57.1% of respondents indicating it as more important, while 42.9% favored performance.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I’m well aware that this question paints with broad brush strokes. There’s not a give-and-take between the two: an investment in the user interface typically doesn’t mean performance is going to suffer. Indeed, I would say most of our modern transceivers sport decent ergonomics and decent performance.
If anything, the relationship between price and performance plays a proper tug of war. Even that’s nuanced, though!
I also received a number of comments and messages from readers who pointed out that my survey was flawed because it didn’t define what I meant by ergonomics and performance carefully enough. I agree that this wasn’t a carefully considered and properly worded poll.
That said, the way I wanted to present this was more like an informal raise of hands–something I often ask for during radio club presentations.
The comments from readers were excellent and what I would expect to hear from people who’d raised their hands in a club meeting.
Here are snippets from a few of them, (for all of the comments, click here):
From Scott (KK4Z):
A tricky question. I actually prefer a balance between ergonomics and performance. If you have a good performing radio with mediocre ergonomics, it might not be used to its full potential. A radio with good ergonomics and mediocre performance might be used to its full potential which may be above a good radio with poor ergonomics.
From Mark (NA4O):
My assumption is that performance would have to be good enough for the radio to be in the running. Likewise, ergonomics would have to be good enough for it to be considered usable.
From Nick (KC0MYW):
As I consider the radios that I have and have used and which ones I like better and why, I think that the performance of the radio can almost be considered an ergonomic characteristic with regard to how comfortable and easy the radio is to operate. While a radio with poor ergonomics is not a lot of fun to operate, a lower noise floor and smoother QSK can add as much to the enjoyment level as an easy to access RIT control.
From William (KR8L):
Difficult to say… Since my field operations are very casual affairs I suppose performance is a secondary consideration, although I don’t think I’d enjoy doing a POTA activation with my HW-8.
Ergonomics can be very important — for example, although my FT-817 performs well enough, the number of button pushes and knob twists required to change the keyer speed (or just about any other setting) can be very annoying.
The well thought out controls of my KX2 make it my favorite for field operating, but then it’s a good performer too.
From Brian (K3ES):
Tough question. I will say ergonomics, but what I really mean is easy access to the features I need. I don’t necessarily need contest grade performance, but I do rely on features like a tuner, cw speed adjustment, vfo, etc.
From Emily Clark:
I pick performance for a few reasons: I do contest QRP at times (most recently ARRL RTTY Roundup). I like the filtering, the clarity of the screen, the true FSK for RTTY, and the ability to put an IF spectrum out into N1MM+. I only have wire antennas, and with the AH-705 I virtually do entire contests on my 80m OCFD.
From Michael (N7CCD):
If taken to the extreme on both options, I think I would have to choose performance. I would rather operate a radio that can handle QRM (overloaded front end, etc.) with confusing menus, than the opposite. If not taken to the extreme, then I may choose ergonomics…
From Mark (W8EWH):
Ergonomics for me because I, like many, have many field portable radios and as I cycle between them I need to be able to use them without the need to consult a user manual or waste time fumbling around a menu system looking for a particular feature or setting.
From Shawn (WS0SWV):
Performance! As a retired design engineer, I learned that good design addresses the performance needs of the user(s) in an intuitive manner. If it is cumbersome or overly complex then users will tend to migrate away from it. Some communities have specific ergonomic requirements and for QRP field radios I would argue the primary ones are size, weight, current consumption there are others depending on mode of operation like keyer memories and narrow filters for CW but those are the big ones.
From Wlod (US7IGN):
Different people have different preferences and ideas about ergonomics and performance. It’s important to find a balance, or better yet, have different radios for different tasks.
From Andrew:
Ergonomics is nice, but without performance … it has no use, imagine a coffee mug; it may be hyperergonomical, but then it has a hole at the bottom…
From Dick (K7ULM):
Interesting question. It is interesting how the ergonomics of the KH1 over shadows the performance of the KX2 for some use cases. In some uses the KH1 is definitely the the choice due to its ergonomics. For other radios of its size it will be chosen because of performance and ergonomics. The specific use case is the controling factor IMHO. Performance slightly over ergonomics, generally for me, kind of?
If there was one comment that reflected my thoughts most closely, it would be this one from John (AE5X):
There’s a lot of overlap between these two characteristics. Too little of one undoes the effectiveness of the other.
I find that most radios do have “good enough” performance (barring an outright flaw or deviation from legal requirements), therefore I pay attention to ergonomics more than to lab numbers of dynamic range and other electronic specs…if I need lab equipment to discern whether or not my radio’s performance is acceptable, it’s acceptable. I don’t like buried menus for commonly-used features.
John’s right. We’re lucky these days in that most of our modern QRP field radios have acceptable performance for our field activities like POTA, SOTA, IOTA, QRP Contests, and some even have the chops for the RF density of, say, Field Day.
If performance is acceptable, I tend to give more weight to ergonomics because it’s important to me that the radio be fun to use.
What makes this show of hands a hot mess, when we look at it under the microscope, is the fact that both ergonomics and performance are nuanced. Herein lies the challenge I find in writing radio reviews: I believe it’s important to explore those nuances so that the review can inform a potential buyer (who might not share my same point of view) in a meaningful way. Sometimes it’s difficult to do that within a print publication’s word count.
As we often say, there is no “perfect” radio that will please everyone, so I think it’s important before we make a purchase decision that we’re realistic with ourselves and understand what we actually value.
Here’s one real-life example–outside the world of QRP transceivers–I’ll share from a friend who, sadly, is now Silent Key. Since I can’t ask for his permission, I won’t mention his name.
Back in 2010, he came to me for advice on buying an SDR (Software Defined Radio)–a PC-connected black box receiver.
Even though not that long ago, keep in mind this was still during the infancy of modern, high-performance, SDRs and most of the options were going to set you back $1,000 or much more. In other words, a substantial investment.
This friend was an avid SWL DXer and was considering an SDR that, at the time, had a slight performance edge over popular SDR models from manufacturers like Microtelecom, RF Space, and WinRadio. I’m not going to call out this SDR by name either, but I’m sure some of you can guess which one I’m referencing.
This particular SDR had fabulous receiver characteristics on paper, but it was well known that the proprietary PC application that controlled it was a bit of a nightmare to use.
My friend purchased it. I tried to help him set this SDR up and learn how to use some of the basic functions and features, but we both found it a struggle. The GUI (graphic user interface), one could tell, was likely designed by the hardware engineer, not someone with experience creating usable software applications, also, unlikely someone who was a DXer or SWL.
He ended up selling this SDR after having owned it for less than a month. He agreed that the performance was brilliant, but hated using the app that controlled it. In the end, he purchased the venerable Microtelecom Perseus and absolutely loved it.
This topic of our personal preferences is such a deep one; I think I might put together a club presentation, exploring some of the nuances.
Speaking of presentations, if you’ve never seen Rob Sherwood’s excellent presentation exploring transceiver performance, I highly recommend you check this one out. Rob will be the first to tell you that modern transceivers tend to perform so well that the operator should give weight to ergonomics and usability.
Also, consider listening to this episode of the Ham Radio Workbench podcast when Rob was the guest.
I’m in the midst of writing several radio reviews, and this process always brings up a few inherent dichotomies.
For example—and the point of this quickie poll—some operators seek, first and foremost, a radio with brilliant performance specs. This is especially the case when we’re talking about contest-grade, pricey transceivers. Dynamic range, sensitivity, filtering, and blocking? Yeah, those are looked at very carefully by contesters and DXers.
On the other hand, for some, a radio’s performance is less important than how enjoyable the radio is to actually operate. Are the ergonomics well thought through so that common tasks are easy to perform? Is the display easy to read? Is the encoder weighted correctly? Is the radio compact but useable, etc.?
Even though field radios are typically not thought of as “contest-grade,” many of them have superb contest chops and receivers that can handle RF-dense environments with ease (I’m thinking about my KX3 with roofing filter here).
However, some radios might lack precision filtering and a contest-grade receiver architecture but are designed with field use in mind interface-wise. The Elecraft KX1 and Penntek TR-45L come to mind, although there are many more. Both have great receivers, actually, but the designers obviously placed an emphasis on user a user interface that is field-friendly. I find both such a pleasure to use.
I recognize fully that I’m painting with broad brush strokes here—there are so many other variables in evaluating a radio. I’m sure most of us want a good balance of both performance and ergonomics.
But if pressed for an answer, where do you fall? What do you give higher priority: performance or ergonomics?
If you’d like to cast your vote, please consider participating in the poll below:
You might recall a recent POTA activation where Jonathan (KM4CFT) joined me at the Vance Birthplace K-6856 US-6856–?
Jonathan used my Penntek TR-45L for his portion of the activation, and I was pleased he got to spend some time with this magnificent CW machine. You might also recall that it still had a buzz in the speaker audio–something inside the radio was vibrating.
I tried to track down the buzz as Jonathan operated by tightening some of the screws holding on the speaker grill (yeah, I’m sure that was annoying, and he’ll think again before activating with me in the same space–!). I knew, though, it was something inside the chassis that was vibrating with audio.
As I also mentioned, my TR-45L was a prototype unit (I helped Beta test it)–it had a couple of mods and wasn’t exactly representative of the upgraded production model.
John (WA3RNC) at Penntek reached out to me after I published my recent field report and video; he offered to upgrade my TR-45L to the production chassis which would sort out the buzz. I was most grateful, of course!
He then asked if I would be interested in checking out the TR-45L “Skinny,” which is essentially a TR-45L in a much skinnier chassis. The Skinny model lacks the ATU and battery options but is lighter weight and more portable. I mentioned to John that I’d like to purchase one, actually. Since John was interested in sponsoring QRPer, we ended up working out a barter (at full market price) for ad space. I love this arrangement, actually, because I was going to approach him about sponsorship at some point anyway.
Now keep in mind that the TR-45L is one of my favorite CW radios. I love the audio, the receiver characteristics, and the “Apollo era” aesthetic. I think it’s one of the best-looking and best-sounding radios on the market.
The Skinny is just like the bigger TR-45L, just roughly half the depth. I did have concerns that the audio wouldn’t be as good since the acoustic chamber would be smaller, but turns out, I had nothing to fear. The Skinny’s audio is on par with its bulkier sibling.
There was no learning curve with the Skinny because 1.) it’s identical in operation to my TR-45L and 2.) Penntek radios have super simple interfaces, and almost every function has a top-level direct control.
On Tuesday, February 27, 2024–the day after receiving the TR-45L Skinny–I packed it up and took it to the Vance Birthplace for its inaugural POTA activation!
That day, I had about 90 minutes to enjoy an activation, and I was looking forward to spending time with the new Skinny.
Vance was a great choice that day because the weather was moody; it was gusty, rainy, and I knew their picnic shelter would provide excellent cover.
The TR-45L Skinny, unlike my original TR-45L, has no internal Z-Match ATU, nor does it have an internal battery. In fact, there’s no room for either in the Skinny, so it’s not even an option.
I paired the Skinny with my Chelegance MC-750, which is a resonant antenna when deployed correctly, so there was no need for a matching device. I supplied power via one of my 3Ah Bioenno LiFePO4 batteries.
Setup was simple and easy!
Note: All Amazon, CW Morse, ABR, Chelegance, eBay, and Radioddity links are affiliate links that support QRPer.com at no cost to you.
I hopped on the air with the intention of working 20 and 17 meters. Continue reading A Slimmed-Down Solution: My first POTA activation with the Penntek TR-45L “Skinny”
