Will the 8200 MKII recharge the batteries in the unit?

[svenmarbles]

I know that it’s advertised that the MKIII will recharge the batteries in the unit while plugged in, but is this also true for the MKII or earlier?

 

[Ubbe]

It does in MK1 and I see no reason why they would skip over one generation.
But there have been stories and pictures of batteri covers that has melted from the heat.

/Ubbe

 

[svenmarbles]

Ok thanks!

 

[morfis]

Simple answer is yes
The original model had a very cramped battery compartment. Back then people tended to use higher capacity cells rather than the supplied ones....a mm of diffierince in size was significant.
The later models weren't quite as cramped.

I never recharge cells using the very basic inbuilt charge circuitry on scanners. A decent quality external charger/conditioner will keep your cells in optimium condition and prolong their useful lif significantly.

 

[svenmarbles]

Simple answer is yes
The original model had a very cramped battery compartment. Back then people tended to use higher capacity cells rather than the supplied ones....a mm of diffierince in size was significant.
The later models weren't quite as cramped.

I never recharge cells using the very basic inbuilt charge circuitry on scanners. A decent quality external charger/conditioner will keep your cells in optimium condition and prolong their useful lif significantly.

Hmm. That’s a good point. Do you think the AOR charging circuitry is robust enough? These are a little bit more stoutly built than say a whistler or Uniden product. And also now recently learning that these radios are used in war theater, perhaps they’re engineered enough to have not skimped on the recharge circuitry?

 

[AOR-262]

You don't really have any idea or control over what goes on when recharging batteries on such a device. You should always charge the batteries with the mAh as low as possible -- even if that means the batteries take overnight to charge -- that could be between 12 - 18 hours. With all the handheld receivers I've ever owned, I've always removed the batteries and used an external charger (see link below).

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Youshiko-YC5000-Professional-Intelligent-rechargeable/dp/B019CERQDI

Charging 4 AA batteries inside a device such as the 8200 or any handheld receiver, the unit will get warm, possibly even quite hot. Never use batteries that are warm in anyway -- they should be left to cool for at least 30 minutes in a cool dark place.

With most rechargable batteries you'll always find that fitting the last battery they won't all fit in snug.

I currently use Eneloop Pro batteries in my AOR 8000 and fully charged I can get about 18 hours use -- over 30 hours when using power saving.

https://www.buyabattery.co.uk/brands/panasonic/panasonic-rechargeable-batteries/panasonic-eneloop-rechargeable-batteries/panasonic-eneloop-pro-rechargeable-aa-2500mah-ni-mh-batteries-bk-3hcde-4be-4-pack.html

 

[morfis]

Hmm. That’s a good point. Do you think the AOR charging circuitry is robust enough? These are a little bit more stoutly built than say a whistler or Uniden product. And also now recently learning that these radios are used in war theater, perhaps they’re engineered enough to have not skimped on the recharge circuitry?

The charging circuitry will be 'adequate'. It will do the job, but that doesn't make it close to being the best thing for the job.

I very much doubt they are more stoutly built (in fact, I'd say the green stuff on the original case was a pretty stupid idea) than any other. Again, to take the first released model it suffered from poor electrical sheilding (some of us used glue-backed foil to improve them....and AOR added extra shielding after a few thousand units had been made).
They weren't designed with use in a "war theatre" in mind. They are standard consumer/hobby receivers. There are numerous photos around showing various consumer receivers fitted to military vehicles because they will do a job and are avialable at a cost that is more sensible than the same kit 'designed' for military use with a short production run (and associated high maintenance cost).

Due to the strange 'cell phone block' on radio equipment destined for the USA market some manufacturers designated models as 'Government' ...only available to people who had a exception to the rule (they were no different in function/design to the models sold in Euope and Australia)

 

[Ubbe]

For best battery life you should charge with 1/10 of the marked mAh for 12 hours, if the battery is flat, and the best charger are the one that also senses temperature as when battery are fully charged it converts all charge current to heat and the charging have to be stopped.

/Ubbe

 

[svenmarbles]

The charging circuitry will be 'adequate'. It will do the job, but that doesn't make it close to being the best thing for the job.

I very much doubt they are more stoutly built (in fact, I'd say the green stuff on the original case was a pretty stupid idea) than any other. Again, to take the first released model it suffered from poor electrical sheilding (some of us used glue-backed foil to improve them....and AOR added extra shielding after a few thousand units had been made).
They weren't designed with use in a "war theatre" in mind. They are standard consumer/hobby receivers. There are numerous photos around showing various consumer receivers fitted to military vehicles because they will do a job and are avialable at a cost that is more sensible than the same kit 'designed' for military use with a short production run (and associated high maintenance cost).

Due to the strange 'cell phone block' on radio equipment destined for the USA market some manufacturers designated models as 'Government' ...only available to people who had a exception to the rule (they were no different in function/design to the models sold in Euope and Australia)

Yeah I’d imagine a purpose made battery recharger is always going to be best.

I’m not sure if I’m entirely clear on your other points though. I’ve owned the original (green) 8200 and in my opinion, it was definitely a stoutly built radio above and beyond the plastic-y and very consumer grade construction feeling Uniden/whistler/gre/RadioShack things. The AOR products just seem to be more utility oriented, and engineered for actual task oriented applications and less so for hobbiests, although widely in use by hobbiests as well.

The 8200 is actually the standard LLVI radio that is in use in Afghanistan to intercept and direction find enemy radio coms, and that version is purpose built for this application as it has a night vision readable display. This is the true 8200 with the “government” designation.

The point is, they’re not made like toys like I kind of feel like the Uniden and Whistler scanner housings are. And I’d bet the internals represent that same level of quality.

See here https://youtu.be/8oKWtRAvuE4

 

[Ubbe]

In the video they try and find unencrypted coms with their scanner. That would be best done by Whistlers spectrum sweep feature. AOR doesn't have anything in the AR8200 scanner that would help the soldiers find the enemy coms, if they didn't already know all the frequencies they use and just scan preprogrammed channels with the low speed rate of a AOR scanner.

I guess they have a command post with an advanced spectrum analyze tool with a high gain directional antenna and report to the soldiers at the attach front what frequency to dial in to or program into a scanner memory for the guy that holds the scanner and knows the native lingo.

/Ubbe

 

[svenmarbles]

In the video they try and find unencrypted coms with their scanner. That would be best done by Whistlers spectrum sweep feature. AOR doesn't have anything in the AR8200 scanner that would help the soldiers find the enemy coms, if they didn't already know all the frequencies they use and just scan preprogrammed channels with the low speed rate of a AOR scanner.

I guess they have a command post with an advanced spectrum analyze tool with a high gain directional antenna and report to the soldiers at the attach front what frequency to dial in to or program into a scanner memory for the guy that holds the scanner and knows the native lingo.

/Ubbe

�� yeah I guess maybe they needed to detect frequencies from more than 200 feet away, which is what that old GRE “signal stalker” function is good for. I’m sure they already have intel on the radio types they are using, thus know the complete spectrum of frequencies they would be chattering on. I doubt the 8200 is what they use to actually sweep the spectrum, but it’s clearly what they rely on for solid and dependable RX. Not a RadioShack.

 

[svenmarbles]

Also scan rate is an over stated metric. When factoring for standard spacing on a band, 37 frequencies per second is more than fine. Don't be like the video game nerds and frame rate. the human eye can only detect 30 frames per second. When it's higher than that it's only for the silly people to nerd out and buy the product.How many useful analog channels are you keeping in a bank to need 1,000 channels per second?

 

[morfis]

Also scan rate is an over stated metric. When factoring for standard spacing on a band, 37 frequencies per second is more than fine. Don't be like the video game nerds and frame rate. the human eye can only detect 30 frames per second. When it's higher than that it's only for the silly people to nerd out and buy the product.How many useful analog channels are you keeping in a bank to need 1,000 channels per second?

Straying away from the original but interesting none the less!

Scanning speed is very significant if you are searching for activity. I agree that filling a scanner with 4000 memory channels and then scanning them all is fairly silly but if you are trying to DX a signal you need speed - first you have to actually find which frequency is in use and then you need to find out where it is being transmitted from.

...and yes, the AOR receivers (sic) are better quality than the Bearcrap and Whistler -how much better is rather subjective. Better built containers...I'm not convinced...better quality components, probably.. I own numerous AOR receivers (including a pre-production AR8200) and if what I want is sensitivity and decent audio I'll pick one of those up before a Uniden/Whistler...if I'm near the local airfield wanting to listen to what is going on there I'll more than likely use something smaller and that will also resolve the trunked comms (like a Bearcrap....getting half the trunked stuff is better than none!)

 

[svenmarbles]

Yeah I think it's maybe an apples to oranges comparison. Each radio has it's purpose. I think the first error being made is to think of an 8200 as a "scanner". It's a receiver that has a scan function, and it works fine for flying through channels and stopping on something that breaks the squelch.

As far as scan speeds. I really do feel like it's something of a marketing thing, and the importance of it is way overstated. Say for example that 100 channels per second is about what a quick scanning scanner will do now, but next year something advertises as 300 channels per second. Is that now better? We're talking about the amount of channels the scanner can glance at PER SECOND. The downside of a slower scanning scanner is what exactly? That it will stop on a channel a fraction several zeros after the decimal of a second later? I can tell you that I've not had more than 10-20 channels in a search bank at a time since I've been in this hobby, and as long as that continues to be true I'm still able to scan the entirety of my banks in a sub 1 second time with a 37 channel per second scan function.

if you are trying to DX a signal you need speed

I have no idea what you mean by that. Anytime I've ever DX'd a signal I would usually be more concerned about the radio sensitivity and such. Never once have I ever thought about if my radio can scan fast enough to DX a signal. I really don't mean to come off as argumentative or rude or anything, but are you sure you know what DXing is?

 

[morfis]

I have no idea what you mean by that. Anytime I've ever DX'd a signal I would usually be more concerned about the radio sensitivity and such. Never once have I ever thought about if my radio can scan fast enough to DX a signal. I really don't mean to come off as argumentative or rude or anything, but are you sure you know what DXing is?

You only appear argumentative at the point where you point out you aren't ;-)


We are also perhaps a bit apples and oranges regarding scan speeds. I don't really care what a manufacturer might claim for a 'scan speed' and it's unlikley that I'd use the figure as a detrermining factor for purchasing.

When a signal lasts for a relatively long time and you know where in the spectrum it will be then sensitivity and selectivity matter. If the signal lasts a fraction of a second then you need more...you have to find the signal within some spectrum before you can ascertain the direction.

Using Probe software with an Optoelectronics 535 always worked well for me on a relatively slow scanner!
I rarely scan memory channels - fairly sure that if I filled some modern scanner with 8000 channels I'd miss more activity than I'd catch on them whatever the quoted scan speed. (Incidentally, the AR8200 definitely scans faster if channels are in frequency order and arranged by mode).
Back to where speed matters. Last week the NATO HQII Net 3 was in use locally. I didn't notice on any conventional scanner/receiver sweeping milair band but on a relatively cheap SDR which was doing sweeps of 230-400MHz + 30-50MHz AM + 30-50MHz NFM and 137-144MHz I was hearing the comms perfectly (I do have to keep TETRA freqs locked out of the sweep) - Probe was always good for things like this as a hit on one freq could switch the scan to a different set.

We have now strayed to the point of barely having anything to do with your original post and the bulletin board police will be on our tails. A new thread might be best if you want to continue

 

[svenmarbles]

I understand what you’re saying now.

Yes, if a mod happens to come by, perhaps this thread can be split.