Discussion:
Icom IC-R3 on 13cm (2.3 - 2.45 GHz)
(too old to reply)
David Norris
2004-10-17 20:54:58 UTC
Permalink
For those who are interested:
After some experiments with my own, I have found the performance compatible
to other devices (such as wireless camera receivers and a videoscanner).
The main reasons people knock the sensitivity seem to be:

Many people do not realise that being several megahertz in bandwidth, your
video signal has to be about 30db stronger to be usable. So you would not
expect the kind of range you get for NFM voice signals of the same power (a
wireless camera has a max. of 100mW);

Also, the regular aerials sold for scanning don't really operate up at
2.4GHz, so you get far superior results even using low gain
(omnidirectional) camera/802.11b wireless networking aerials (which are
SMA, so an adapter is needed). I notice that where comparing the R3 with
other equipment, many people are using the supplied aerial with the R3,
whereas the videoscanner will come with an aerial which is optimised for
the frequency range concerned - so not a fair trial.

I have also found that performance on the 13 and 23cm amateur bands seems to
be roughly identical (using ATV transmitters of 50mW output and 1/4 wave
aerials on both bands). On 13cm, using the legendary Pringles' can antenna,
as well as a dedicated 20db gain G8GML panel antenna, range was extended
considerably.

Incidentally, I have also hooked up the R3 to a Solarcon A99 aerial, which
tunes reasonably from 14 - approximately 35 MHz, covering the upper HF
amateur bands, and whereas I expected it to overload (so I would hear
everything on HF at once, as commonly happens with scanning receivers on
HF) I found that it performed surprisingly well.

My only complaint is: why didn't Icom extend the FMTV range to cover the
whole of 23cm (1240 - 1325 MHz) instead of finishing at 1300? It is still
possible to receive pictures in AM mode by off tuning by 2-3 MHz, but this
is less than ideal.

Having owned this radio for several months now, I say that whereas it's not
for everyone, it was a good investment overall for me as I'm into ATV.

Has anyone else experimented with the R3 I wonder?

DN
Dom G7NPW
2004-10-18 06:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Norris
After some experiments with my own, I have found the performance compatible
to other devices (such as wireless camera receivers and a videoscanner).
Many people do not realise that being several megahertz in bandwidth, your
video signal has to be about 30db stronger to be usable. So you would not
expect the kind of range you get for NFM voice signals of the same power (a
wireless camera has a max. of 100mW);
Also, the regular aerials sold for scanning don't really operate up at
2.4GHz, so you get far superior results even using low gain
(omnidirectional) camera/802.11b wireless networking aerials (which are
SMA, so an adapter is needed). I notice that where comparing the R3 with
other equipment, many people are using the supplied aerial with the R3,
whereas the videoscanner will come with an aerial which is optimised for
the frequency range concerned - so not a fair trial.
I have also found that performance on the 13 and 23cm amateur bands seems to
be roughly identical (using ATV transmitters of 50mW output and 1/4 wave
aerials on both bands). On 13cm, using the legendary Pringles' can antenna,
as well as a dedicated 20db gain G8GML panel antenna, range was extended
considerably.
Incidentally, I have also hooked up the R3 to a Solarcon A99 aerial, which
tunes reasonably from 14 - approximately 35 MHz, covering the upper HF
amateur bands, and whereas I expected it to overload (so I would hear
everything on HF at once, as commonly happens with scanning receivers on
HF) I found that it performed surprisingly well.
My only complaint is: why didn't Icom extend the FMTV range to cover the
whole of 23cm (1240 - 1325 MHz) instead of finishing at 1300? It is still
possible to receive pictures in AM mode by off tuning by 2-3 MHz, but this
is less than ideal.
Having owned this radio for several months now, I say that whereas it's not
for everyone, it was a good investment overall for me as I'm into ATV.
Has anyone else experimented with the R3 I wonder?
DN
I must disagree, I have borrowed an R3 on several occasions for ease of
portable ATV work. It is no where near comparable to the receiver
sensitivity of the common modules used nowadays for 13cm ATV. I am not just
talking about a slight drop in performance, but a massive defence.

I use the 13cm wide coverage receiver from www.13cm.co.uk at home with a
13dB a corner reflector antenna. I can receive the beacon from GB3DH at
about P4 with this setup, Now plug-in the same aerial into the Icom R3 & I
can only just detect Sync and no readable picture.

It takes a drive nearly to sight to kick the R3 into life. The same goes for
local 2.GHz Video Sender signals.

Don't get me wrong its a nice TOOL for anyone wanting full a full coverage
receiver. But not for the ham serious about ATV.
--
Regards Dominic G7NPW

www.derby-radio.co.uk
Howard Long
2004-10-18 11:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Hi David
Post by David Norris
Has anyone else experimented with the R3 I wonder?
I'm afraid I found the R3 to be a big dissappointment at 13cm.

I've had one for a couple of years now and I did some comparisons at 13cm as
you did. My results showed it to be deaf as a doorpost. By adding on a
suitable preamp (either a 20dB gain 3dB NF satellite TV preamp or better
still a 35dB gain 0.6db NF DB6NT preamp), range was an order of magnitude
better.

I used a number of antennas, including two differnet dishes with patch and
helix feeds, direct patches and helices, a colinnear omni and two different
2.4GHz yagi's in the tests. All had been tested and tuned on a network
analyser.

In no way was the R3 even close to the G1MFG ATV or commercial 2.4GHz

Just take a look inside at the way the BNC is connected to the PCB -
definitely not 50 ohm!

Maybe more recent incarnations have taken the criticism to heart, and the
deafness has been corrected.

73 Howard G6LVB

Loading...