Motorola HF RIG

[N2NH]

I'm always hearing Motorola users say their rigs are able to withstand a bit more than our average everyday equipment. This is the Motorola Micom-2BF HF DSP TXCR and it's supposed to be "Ruggedized". This is being sold as Amateur gear and I was wondering if this has the capability to operate the bands similar to our average ordinary everyday gear? Or does it need to be programmed for band changes?

Motorola Micom-2BF HF Transceiver <span style='color:darkred'>PDF file</span>

Micom-2BF Description <span style='color:darkred'>Not PDF</span>

Thanks/Merci/Gracias

[WA2ZDY]

The Micom is preprogrammed with RSS - the fabled Motorola software (can you say &#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&#036;&# 036;?) - and is used in channelised fashion. There are options for field programmability, but that still isn&#39;t "spinning the VFO."

Yes, they&#39;re great radios, and the pricetag matches. Also as a side note, the Micom series is made by a company in Israel, not Motorola in the US.

[K9STH]

The plant in Israel is owned by Motorola and has been for several decades. It is because of this plant that Motorola radios are not "officially" allowed in the various Arab countries. However, Motorola radios are all over the place including the military, police, etc. They are just not there "officially".

During the 1970s when I owned the Motorola reconditioned equipment center for the south-central United States we reconditined a lot of equipment that was destined for ARCO. Their headquarters was about two miles straight west of my facilities and there were 2 Motorola salesmen who&#39;s entire life depended on sales to ARCO.

What ARCO would do was to purchase a number of radios, especially HT-200 and HT-220 series portables (these were really "HT" since Motorola holds the trademark). The radios would be tuned for two different sets of frequencies. The radios were then put along with various equipment and supplies intended for deployment in Saudi Arabia. Actually, they were put in two separate boxes divided by frequency.

When the aircraft reached its destination the local government inspectors would "confiscate" the radios that were tuned to their frequencies and allow the others to go through. The "confiscated" radios were then distributed to the various police, fire, military, and other groups. ARCO just "paid" the import fees with equipment. The fact that the equipment manufacturer was on the "banned list" didn&#39;t seem to matter to the Saudi government since the equipment was "confiscated" and not "purchased" the laws of the land were satisfied. As for ARCO and their use of Motorola equipment, a "blind eye" was turned towards them.

Glen, K9STH

[AC0H]

Pretty bad receiver specs, especially the sensitivity.
0.5uV for 10dB? The Tentec Jupiter, a pretty average Ham Radio transceiver, specs at .35uV. What&#39;s this thing cost?

[KY5U]

Quote[/b] (K9STH @ Sep. 27 2005,09:30)]The plant in Israel is owned by Motorola and has been for several decades. It is because of this plant that Motorola radios are not "officially" allowed in the various Arab countries. However, Motorola radios are all over the place including the military, police, etc. They are just not there "officially".

During the 1970s when I owned the Motorola reconditioned equipment center for the south-central United States we reconditined a lot of equipment that was destined for ARCO. Their headquarters was about two miles straight west of my facilities and there were 2 Motorola salesmen who&#39;s entire life depended on sales to ARCO.

What ARCO would do was to purchase a number of radios, especially HT-200 and HT-220 series portables (these were really "HT" since Motorola holds the trademark). The radios would be tuned for two different sets of frequencies. The radios were then put along with various equipment and supplies intended for deployment in Saudi Arabia. Actually, they were put in two separate boxes divided by frequency.

When the aircraft reached its destination the local government inspectors would "confiscate" the radios that were tuned to their frequencies and allow the others to go through. The "confiscated" radios were then distributed to the various police, fire, military, and other groups. ARCO just "paid" the import fees with equipment. The fact that the equipment manufacturer was on the "banned list" didn&#39;t seem to matter to the Saudi government since the equipment was "confiscated" and not "purchased" the laws of the land were satisfied. As for ARCO and their use of Motorola equipment, a "blind eye" was turned towards them.

Glen, K9STH

ARCO and Motorola were joined at the hip for shure. I worked on a whole bunch of Motorola 960mHz microwave for ARCO when they opened SP60 field in Louisiana. We eventually changed it out to Farinon. I worked as a Tech for a Motorola Shop in New Orleans and did mostly all offshore work for several years. I always say, ARCO payed for my first house in the O.T. I made.

I was in a microwave shack in Venice, La. on a 15 degree day alligning a path and channelization. I was waiting on the tech offshore to get ready, so I sat on the floor and went to sleep. I woke up in the hospital. I had gone hypothermic and after they yelled for me on the service channel, they sent the dispatcher over. He found me asleep and blue. I checked out of the hospital and went back and finished alligning the equipemnt. There was a nice space heater in the shack when I got back. ARCO really took care of us. LOL&#33;

[N2NH]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Sep. 27 2005,13:18)]Pretty bad receiver specs, especially the sensitivity.
0.5uV for 10dB? The Tentec Jupiter, a pretty average Ham Radio transceiver, specs at .35uV. What&#39;s this thing cost?

It runs around &#036;2,500+. I didn&#39;t see a provision for CW on this particular rig in the list of emission types though.

[K9STH]

AC0H:

The difference between a "typical" sensitivity of 0.35 microvolts and a "guaranteed" maximum sensitivity of 0.5 microvolts is 3 dB (well, 3.09 dB if the levels are exact).

"Typical" means that some receivers are better and some are worse. "Guaranteed" means that the receiver will meet or beat (and in most cases it is "beat") the specifications.

Frankly, you will not be able to tell the difference without using some well calibrated test equipment. In the "real world" neither unit is going to be able to "use" all of the sensitivity that the receiver is capable. The ambient noise level on the HF frequencies is considerably above even 0.5 microvolts. You can easily tell this by disconnecting the antenna and then listening. Then reattach the antenna and the noise level will increase, often substantially.

A fairly simple way of measuring the noise level is to use a signal generator with a well calibrated attenuator and what is called an "iso-T". An "iso-T" is a PL-258 UHF "T" connector that has had one of the contacts along the long portion of the connector removed (such that when a PL-259 is inserted into the connector no connection is made). The signal generator is first connected directly to the receiver and the level is adjusted just to the point of quieting the noise from the speaker. The level is recorded. Then the signal generator is connected to the end of the "iso-T" that has had the contacts removed. The "iso-T" is then connected to the receiver and the signal level is increased until the noise from the receiver is just at the quieting point again. This level is recorded. Most signal generator attenuators have a dB scale on them and the dB difference between the two can be read directly. Otherwise the dB can be calculated.

The antenna is then connected to the end of the "iso-T" that is still connected to the receiver. The output from the signal generator is then increased again until the quieting level is achieved. This level is recorded. The dB level of the noise will be the dB difference between the level of the output from the signal generator when the antenna was not connected and the level from the signal generator after the antenna was connected. If the attenuator is calibrated in dB to determine the r.f. level of the noise all you have to do is to go from the reading from when the signal generator was connected directly to the receiver until the dB on the attenuator reads the same increment as the difference between the two readings taken with the "iso-T".

If the attenuator does not have a dB scale then the value of the noise can be calculated.

But, getting back to the "claim" that the commercial unit has "pretty bad receiver specs" is not valid. I would bet that the actual performance of the commercial equipment would come out "on top" of the amateur equipment on virtually all, if not all, frequencies. There is a reason why commercial equipment is more expensive than amateur radio equipment and the primary reason is performance.

NH:

CW is NOT a mode which is allowed by the FCC except for amateur, marine, and certain aircraft operation and marine and aircraft CW operation is almost non-existant these days. Therefore, the commercial SSB equipment does not have provision for CW. However, keying a single tone into the microphone would produce a CW compatible signal.

Glen, K9STH

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Frankly, you will not be able to tell the difference without using some well calibrated test equipment. In the "real world" neither unit is going to be able to "use" all of the sensitivity that the receiver is capable. #The ambient noise level on the HF frequencies is considerably above even 0.5 microvolts

Then, why the price difference?
&#036;1300 vs &#036;2500 just for the Motorola name and a "ruggedized" case?

Quote[/b] ] I would bet that the actual performance of the commercial equipment would come out "on top" of the amateur equipment on virtually all, if not all, frequencies. #There is a reason why commercial equipment is more expensive than amateur radio equipment and the primary reason is performance.

Well, which is it? In the first quote you said becasue of noise limited conditions you couldn&#39;t hear the difference between the two, and in the second you say the commercial gear is clearly superior because it&#39;s "commercial".

Why does everyone automatically assume because it&#39;s commercial its better? That may have been true in the past but I don&#39;t think so anymore. I have poked around inside some of Kenwood&#39;s commercial gear and set it side by side with the amateur equivalent. No noticeable difference other than a slightly thicker case on the commercial gear.

Maybe thats why the government ends up with &#036;500 hammers and &#036;1300 toilet seats. It&#39;s "commercial" so it must be better than the &#036;25 hammer you can buy at Home Depot.

[K9STH]

There are other factors besides absolute sensitivity in determining how well a receiver receives. There is the overload factor, spurious emissions, and so forth.

The transmitter in the commercial equipment has to meet much more stringent specifications than amateur equipment. That adds to the cost.

The frequency stability in the commercial equipment has to meet MUCH more stringent specifications than the amateur equipment and that adds to the cost.

Commercial equipment has to meet requirements for being physical rugged and humidity which amateur equipment does not (try putting an amateur transceiver through various "mil-spec" tests and see how they actually make out).

All in all, most of the amateur radio equipment is not going to come close to meeting the various requirements of commercial equipment and that definitely adds to the cost.

Amateur equipment is fine for amateur use. However, if my life was on the line I certainly would much prefer having commercial grade equipment around.

Glen, K9STH

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]There are other factors besides absolute sensitivity in determining how well a receiver receives. #There is the overload factor, spurious emissions, and so forth. #

Going by Motorolla&#39;s specs the BDR and IMDR3 specs on their receiver is a little better than the Jupiter but doesn&#39;t come close to our higher capability transceivers like the TenTec Orion.

I&#39;ll give you the argument on stability simply because it&#39;s a channelized radio but it don&#39;t cost another &#036;1K to build a high stabilty DDS and VFO.

As for the transmitter, Ten Tec has been building bullet proof finals for years. Again, the commercial version can&#39;t be that much different to justify the extra cost.

I&#39;m not trying to pick a fight but it amazes me that we automatically assume when we see the label "commercial" that the gear is head and shoulders better than what we use.