Topics

Concerns about the QCX+ for ultra-portable operators

Mike (KN6EZE)
 

Hans,

First off, thanks for making such an amazing rig as the QCX available. As a new ham (Oct 2019), the QCX was and is my doorway to the world of CW and ultra-portable operation, especially while on backpacking and hiking trips. I also do SOTA. As part of the SOTA community here in Southern California, one of the top concerns I have with any rig is pack space. Based on the images provided on the new product page, it looks like the new QCX+ design would take up a considerable amount more space than the original QCX due to the controls and screen being mounted perpendicular to the main PCB. It also has lost its signature microswitch keyer, which is a bummer. I've been touting the amazingly compact design of the QCX for my trips, but the QCX+ seems to make a tradeoff between enclosure friendliness and space savings. I can tell you that the original QCX is very popular in the SOTA community for its portability, but without the ability to shrink down the profile of the QCX+, I have a feeling that many ultra-portable operators will shy away from the new rig due to its increased size profile. Any thoughts here?

- Mike (KN6EZE)

K2DB Paul Mackanos
 

no, they won't 
Paul K2DB 

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 9:37 PM Mike <miguel.d.molina@...> wrote:
Hans,

First off, thanks for making such an amazing rig as the QCX available. As a new ham (Oct 2019), the QCX was and is my doorway to the world of CW and ultra-portable operation, especially while on backpacking and hiking trips. I also do SOTA. As part of the SOTA community here in Southern California, one of the top concerns I have with any rig is pack space. Based on the images provided on the new product page, it looks like the new QCX+ design would take up a considerable amount more space than the original QCX due to the controls and screen being mounted perpendicular to the main PCB. It also has lost its signature microswitch keyer, which is a bummer. I've been touting the amazingly compact design of the QCX for my trips, but the QCX+ seems to make a tradeoff between enclosure friendliness and space savings. I can tell you that the original QCX is very popular in the SOTA community for its portability, but without the ability to shrink down the profile of the QCX+, I have a feeling that many ultra-portable operators will shy away from the new rig due to its increased size profile. Any thoughts here?

- Mike (KN6EZE)

Mike Besemer - WM4B
 

I see the resale value of my QCX’s increasing by the minute!

 

Mike

WM4B

 

From: QRPLabs@groups.io [mailto:QRPLabs@groups.io] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 9:37 PM
To: QRPLabs@groups.io
Subject: [QRPLabs] Concerns about the QCX+ for ultra-portable operators

 

Hans,

First off, thanks for making such an amazing rig as the QCX available. As a new ham (Oct 2019), the QCX was and is my doorway to the world of CW and ultra-portable operation, especially while on backpacking and hiking trips. I also do SOTA. As part of the SOTA community here in Southern California, one of the top concerns I have with any rig is pack space. Based on the images provided on the new product page, it looks like the new QCX+ design would take up a considerable amount more space than the original QCX due to the controls and screen being mounted perpendicular to the main PCB. It also has lost its signature microswitch keyer, which is a bummer. I've been touting the amazingly compact design of the QCX for my trips, but the QCX+ seems to make a tradeoff between enclosure friendliness and space savings. I can tell you that the original QCX is very popular in the SOTA community for its portability, but without the ability to shrink down the profile of the QCX+, I have a feeling that many ultra-portable operators will shy away from the new rig due to its increased size profile. Any thoughts here?

- Mike (KN6EZE)

George Korper
 

If packing space is a key consideration, then either use the space to pack accessories inside the enclosure or don't buy the enclosure and wait for someone to model a thin enclosure. 

Personally I would make something almost identical to the current QCX and build it into a small canvas bag  or the pocket of a knapsack. Think outside the box. Of course as live in Mexico I used a leather bag. The new rig could slide right into the flap of a carry all and actually almost disappear.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, 8:42 PM Mike Besemer - WM4B <mwbesemer@...> wrote:

I see the resale value of my QCX’s increasing by the minute!

 

Mike

WM4B

 

From: QRPLabs@groups.io [mailto:QRPLabs@groups.io] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 9:37 PM
To: QRPLabs@groups.io
Subject: [QRPLabs] Concerns about the QCX+ for ultra-portable operators

 

Hans,

First off, thanks for making such an amazing rig as the QCX available. As a new ham (Oct 2019), the QCX was and is my doorway to the world of CW and ultra-portable operation, especially while on backpacking and hiking trips. I also do SOTA. As part of the SOTA community here in Southern California, one of the top concerns I have with any rig is pack space. Based on the images provided on the new product page, it looks like the new QCX+ design would take up a considerable amount more space than the original QCX due to the controls and screen being mounted perpendicular to the main PCB. It also has lost its signature microswitch keyer, which is a bummer. I've been touting the amazingly compact design of the QCX for my trips, but the QCX+ seems to make a tradeoff between enclosure friendliness and space savings. I can tell you that the original QCX is very popular in the SOTA community for its portability, but without the ability to shrink down the profile of the QCX+, I have a feeling that many ultra-portable operators will shy away from the new rig due to its increased size profile. Any thoughts here?

- Mike (KN6EZE)

 

Seems like half-height back and front panels, for connectors and controls respectively, and a lid drilled for the display would be a good mod... One might squeeze batteries in the lid behind the display...
--
Julian, N4JO.

Ted 2E0THH
 

Hi Mike

I'm not with you on this.

Just for info, the QCX PCB was 10 x 8cm and the QCX+ is 13 x 10cm, just 3cm longer and 2 wider.

For the QCX, I wanted a home rig very similar to the QCX+, so I built it. Sure there were a few issues to work out, but that is what this hobby is all about.

Looking at the photos of the QCX+, it is pretty clear to me that with a little ingenuity the front PCB could easily be folded over and installed into a case that physically supports both PCBs. You could even rotate the front panel by 90 degrees if you wanted to keep the "QCX retro" look.

My QCX is installed in a box very similar to the QCX+ and before the lockdown I lugged it over many lumps in the Lake District here in the UK and I am no spring chicken any more :(

73s Ted
2E0THH  

George Korper
 

This is exciting! I'm now looking forward to attaching an  over the shoulder
sling directly to the radio walking up the hill, turning it on and operating. Plenty of room inside,
for battery and antenna. You can even put a handle on the top. 
Slip the amp in a pocket and run 50 watts,
Or velcro the Amp to the bottom. Best radio ever. 


On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:46 AM Ted 2E0THH <qrp@...> wrote:
Hi Mike

I'm not with you on this.

Just for info, the QCX PCB was 10 x 8cm and the QCX+ is 13 x 10cm, just 3cm longer and 2 wider.

For the QCX, I wanted a home rig very similar to the QCX+, so I built it. Sure there were a few issues to work out, but that is what this hobby is all about.

Looking at the photos of the QCX+, it is pretty clear to me that with a little ingenuity the front PCB could easily be folded over and installed into a case that physically supports both PCBs. You could even rotate the front panel by 90 degrees if you wanted to keep the "QCX retro" look.

My QCX is installed in a box very similar to the QCX+ and before the lockdown I lugged it over many lumps in the Lake District here in the UK and I am no spring chicken any more :(

73s Ted
2E0THH  

Kevin Zembower
 

I agree with Mike, and wish that it were possible to continue to purchase the original QCX. I personally didn't have any problem assembling the smaller size unit, and like the ability to have a minimal transceiver, and pair it with other minimally sized components of my own choosing, rather than packing them into the QCX+'s case. I disagree with Han's decision to drop the QCX, and don't fully understand the business logic, since by design the components are almost identical and the main difference is the PCB itself.

Thank you, Hans, for considering this request to maintain production of the original QCX.

-Kevin
KC3KZ

Rod Smith
 

I’m delighted with my QCX, and pleased that a QCX+ is next.  

I’ve crammed my QXC very neatly into a die cast box and would like some day to build another that way on a different band. 

If Hans doesn’t want to supply QCXs any more then that has to be taken on the chin. 

i wonder if it would be possible to make the QCX pubs available?  Either stand alone or as an optional extra to the QCX+. 



Rod

G0VKX

Rod Smith
 

PCBs!!!  not pubs 🥴

ohwenzelph
 

Actually, if Hans were so inclined, there is an opportunity to ALSO make an ultra portable version for the SOTA op. Probably not as small as Steve Webber’s, KD1JV. But an alternative.
This was to see if changing some of the op amps would reduce the current use a little. Check out the resistors, caps are stock.
JT aa1of

Ted 2E0THH
 

Hi Kevin

Reading the price list, the case is not a mandatory purchase with the QCX+.
So just put it in your own case.
With the front PCB folded in the same plane as the main PCB, the length and width of your box would need to increase by 3 and 2 cms respectively from a similarly packed QCX but the depth looks as if it will work out the same. 
Let me know if I am missing something, it has happened.

73s Ted
2E0THH

Alan G4ZFQ
 

there is an opportunity to ALSO make an ultra portable version for the SOTA op.
QCX- (minus) SMD version?

73 Alan G4ZFQ

Dave
 

Catchy eh? 😄

On Jun 3, 2020, at 11:53, Alan G4ZFQ <alan4alan@...> wrote:



there is an opportunity to ALSO make an ultra portable version for the SOTA op.
QCX- (minus) SMD version?

73 Alan G4ZFQ


Gary Bernard
 

With all the recommendations that Hans should make he would have to plan on being the next Yaesu.
73, Gary W0CKI


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan G4ZFQ <alan4alan@...>
To: QRPLabs@groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2020 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Concerns about the QCX+ for ultra-portable operators

>there is an opportunity to ALSO make
> an ultra portable version for the SOTA op.

QCX- (minus) SMD version?

73 Alan G4ZFQ



Dave
 

In many ways my QCX is a better CW rig than my Yaesu FT-817ND.  Of course having multi band performance isn’t one of those ways.  Oh well.  Have to give up something for the price difference.

Just sitting here wondering how much effort is required to put together a SMD QCX board, order all the parts, etc.

Dave




On Jun 3, 2020, at 11:57, Gary Bernard via groups.io <garybernard2@...> wrote:


With all the recommendations that Hans should make he would have to plan on being the next Yaesu.
73, Gary W0CKI


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan G4ZFQ <alan4alan@...>
To: QRPLabs@groups.io
Sent: Wed, Jun 3, 2020 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [QRPLabs] Concerns about the QCX+ for ultra-portable operators

>there is an opportunity to ALSO make
> an ultra portable version for the SOTA op.

QCX- (minus) SMD version?

73 Alan G4ZFQ



ajparent1/KB1GMX
 

My thoughts....

The supplied aluminum box may not be ideal for some but you can make your own.
Also the height can be alter as the front panel is the determinant of the vertical height.
Flatter than ACX is possible with care.

But based on images and dimensions,  Since it can easily carry 8-10 AA cells
or 4 LifePo4 as internal battery makes packing easier.

The key, its a switch, if you want it, put on on or in the box.  Its easy to wire
to the key jack!

While the ACX base unit in the Bamatech case was a bit mroe compact it
had little room so every thing needed was external.  That being:

Battery,
Key,
Feedline,
Antenna (and maybe tuner),
Headphones

It strikes me if even just the battery is inside that is actually a space savings.
With a little effort much more could be in in there as desired.

Allison
-------------------------------
Please reply on list so we can share.
No private email, it goes to a bit bucket due address harvesting

@KC2TAU
 

Question,

If you place the batteries inside of the transceiver then presumably you're going to need to remove the case to remove the batteries in order to charge them. It seems like the screws used to secure the cover to the rest of the case and the threaded holes that those screws go into will get worn down very quickly from the constant tightening and loosening. Once the threading is gone, and if you don't have the tools to re-thread the holes,  you then need another case. So, how does one overcome this problem?

jjpurdum
 

Any way to put a charger connector on the case?

Jack, W8TEE

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, 2:09:12 PM EDT, <greencolouredpencils@...> wrote:


Question,

If you place the batteries inside of the transceiver then presumably you're going to need to remove the case to remove the batteries in order to charge them. It seems like the screws used to secure the cover to the rest of the case and the threaded holes that those screws go into will get worn down very quickly from the constant tightening and loosening. Once the threading is gone, and if you don't have the tools to re-thread the holes,  you then need another case. So, how does one overcome this problem?

Evan Hand
 

Use rechargeable batteries and build the charger into the case, or provide an external connector for the charger and/or backup batteries for extended use.

73
Evan
AC9TU