[Elecraft] Remote K2

[Larry Phipps]

John, the only way to do what you want and have the control software at 
home is to use a serial device server. There is info on this on my 
website as Richard mentioned.

Serial device servers can either be hardware devices or software run on 
a remote computer. I use the hardware approach. I got the best results 
with an ISDN modem, but I have tested dialup as well. Lantronix makes a 
line of devices that work well. I have several models which control from 
one to 8 devices. The remote site needs a modem with ethernet 
connection, like the 3COM OfficeConnect LanModem that I used. The rig 
plugs into the lantronix using a serial cable... the Lantronix plugs 
into the 3COM using an ethernet lan cable.

The serial server translates the serail port data on the rig into tcp 
port data which can be accessed remotely. At home, a program called a 
com port redirector sets up a virtual com port which any program can 
access as though it were a real com port. Lantronix offers a free 
redirector program.

I haven't tried N4PY's software with this, but it works fine with 
TRX-Manager.

The only way QSK is going to work is if you key an audio oscillator at 
home and send the audio to the remote site to key the rig. I did this 
with ISDN for cw, phone and PSK with good results. A standard pots phone 
line can't be used for cw... but you could probably condition it at the 
remote site to clean it up with filtering... or make a tone actuated 
fast relay circuit with a simple detector or better still a PLL... even 
then, you will get some latency since a phone line has up to 50ms or so 
of latency due to a number of factors depending on the distance.

73,
Larry N8LP


John Huffman wrote:

> Richard -
>
> Thanks for the info.  I'd like to avoid tcp/ip if I could because of 
> what I assume is the latency involved.  I want to operate a remote 
> radio and yet still want to have QSK CW.  Does your set-up allow QSK?
>
> I don't have an internet connection faster than dial-up and doubt I 
> could get anything better at a remote site.
>
> The latency may be an incorrect assumption on my part and I'd 
> appreciate being corrected.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> 73 de NA8M
> John
>
>