Re: [Elecraft] Prospective K4

[Erik Basilier]

Elecraft has been good about keeping earlier products available, at least until 
some part becomes impossible for them to source. I sincerely hope the K3s 
remains among the product offerings, as a new bigger radio will be less 
suitable for some portable uses even if it is designesd with portability in 
mind. This would also help the resale value of the K3(s). Generally, I see 
Elecraft radios holding their value much better than other brands in the face 
of new model releases.
73,
Erik K7TV


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Re: [Elecraft] Visalia?

[Erik Basilier]

Tonight I attended a presentation by Ned Stearns AA7A on the Dxpedition version 
of FT8, and his extensive architectural design contributions to the Baker 
Island operation as well as his input to Joe Taylor's work on the protocol. 
While most of us don't need anything like the Baker station setup, the 
technical issues may nevertheless influence the direction and needs of the 
overall amateur gear market. With Elecraft's emphasis on supporting Dxpeditions 
I am sure that they look at such issues when considering new features for the 
K4 etc. Just a few points from the presentation that stuck in my mind: 
* The radio transmit frequency must be controlled by both the logger and the JT 
software, which work together but are separate. I have no personal experience 
with FT8, but I understand that (either with the current version or very soon) 
the DX hunter's transmit frequency will be dictated automatically on the fly by 
the DX starion, within a segment of the overall FT8 frequency window, such that 
the DX can overlap several FT8 qso's in time. This necessitates working around 
the basic "single sender" RS-232 signalling scheme. Ways to do this were 
recently discussed here, and need not be repeated. My point: Elecraft might 
consider an attempt to standardize a new communication scheme for station 
control, such as to simplify the whole setup. Wiring a station is already 
disturbimgly complicated where multiple radios are involved.
* The DX station would thus go beyond "SO2R" to something more like "SO4R". The 
FLEX approach already seems to have an edge in savings on mulit-radio hardware; 
a market-leading Elecraft architecture might optimize overall hardware cost 
when one operator is to use 2,3 or 4 virtual radios. Just hope it can be done 
so modularly that a small configuration is still affordable.
* With the current interest in FT8, there seems to be pressure for the hardware 
to have capability to process a frequency segment that is larger than an SSB 
bandwidth.
73,
Erik K7TV


-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Bill Frantz
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 5:28 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Visalia?

I didn't spend any time at the Flex booth, although their signas touted 
SmartSDR Version 3, so I expect they were also talking about multiFlex.

While there may not be a lot of use for multiFlex in the normal DX chaser, 
perhaps except for those stations that really don't want US responses so 
transmit in the US phone band but listen in the US CW band, there are some 
interesting uses for DXpeditions.

AA7JV was interested in running both CW and FT8 on 160M with one amplifier and 
transmit antenna. (He said setting up two stations was too much work, and you 
needed to be running both modes on those "magic nights" when 160 was open.)

He described an approach using a Flex in his talk at the Topband dinner and in 
his ""The RIB: Radio In a Box for DXpeditions" session.

The idea of RIB is to put the box in the rare DX with a generator and antenna, 
and operate it from the boat off shore via UHF based internet, just visiting 
the DX to set up, service the generator, and tear down.

73 Bill AE6JV


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Re: [Elecraft] K3/K3s filter setting with the K3 Utility

[Erik Basilier]

If I understand correctly what Rich is saying, it could be exemplified like
this: "If you want e.g. a 2.1 kHz bandwidth to receive a digital signal, and
use a 2.1 kHz roofing filter in addition to a DSP setting of 2.1 kHz, you
may find that it won't decode as well as using a 2.8 kHz roofing filter
along with the 2.1 kHz DSP setting." That reminds me of what I have
sometimes imagined observing in receiving SSB. This may be just my
imagination, but I thought the voice sounded bad if I set the DSP to the
same width as the roofing filter. I have used the utility to make sure the
roofing filter is always at leas slightly wider than the DSP setting. Since
that change I have been much happier with SSB receive voice quality. Is this
just in my head? Flames accepted. If I am right, it suggests that the
crystal filters somehow have a negative effect on voice quality. My guess
would be that this comes from phase non-linearity at the edges of the
crystal filters. Haven't we heard that Elecraft checks/selects roofing
filters to ensure minimal phase distortion? Of course, the phase distortion
would negatively affect digital signal demodulation as well.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Richard Ferch
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:06 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3/K3s filter setting with the K3 Utility

Earlier I gave an example of a situation where you might choose to enable a
roofing filter at a bandwidth wider than the bandwidth marked on the filter.
I also gave a poor example of enabling a filter at a narrower bandwidth.
Here is a better one:

You use a variety of digital modes with different bandwidths, one of which
happens to be the same as or close to the bandwidth of one of your roofing
filters. You find that when that roofing filter is engaged, that particular
digital mode does not decode as well as it does with a wider filter setting.
You might find that changing the configuration to switch that filter in at a
narrower setting allows that particular mode to decode well, without having
a noticeable adverse effect on the next narrower bandwidth mode you normally
use. The likelihood of all this happening in combination with an actual need
for a tight roofing filter because of nearby very strong signals might be
quite low, but there is at least a theoretical possibility of such a
scenario. There are probably more likely situations - just pointing out that
it is not impossible that someone might want to do this. The good thing is,
the capability is there if you somehow find that you need it.

73,
Rich VE3KI
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Elecraft] OT: Yamaha CM500 headset mechanical issues

[Erik Basilier]

This list has discussed replacement of the ear-surrounding pillows. My CM500
is not very old, and the ear pillows are holding up fine. However, I
recently hurt an elbow, and I am temporarily one-handed. While putting on
the headset with one hand, I made one side of the headset catch on one side
of the head while positioning the other side correctly over the ear. Finally
I moved the other side over the ear.  In this awkward operation, gently
performed, somehow the soft headband  was tugged on, and it broke loose at
one end. It seems to be normally fastened by a tiny loop of string, and now
that string is broken. I am sure the force on it was not very great, so
maybe it broke because a defect in manufacturing. I could probably fix the
problem with some replacement string and needle/thread, but that will have
to wait until I am two-handed again. In the meantime I wonder if others have
had the same problem, and if replacement parts are available. Maybe the
headset can be worn comfortably for hours with the soft headband removed?
Maybe some foam taped under the hard/springy headband would work even
better?

A separate issue that has bothered me since day one with the CM500: The
sliding adjustment for head size needs to move every time the headset is put
on. As soon as it is taken off, it slides to the minimum head size position,
and the speakers have to be pulled down to the ear on each side. One of
these days I am bound to try stopping this adjustment moving by applying
rubber bands, tape, etc. Has anyone been though this and found the best and
neatest solution?

Thanks,

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] FS: BHI

[Erik Basilier]

On the subject of BHI, I once had an ambitious project to build a switch box 
incorporating some SO2R functions plus two BHI DSP single channel units. Before 
I had finished wiring the unit (starting with just one BHI channel unit) my 
understanding of SO2R requirements grew to the point that I abandoned my build 
and went with a commercial MicroHam SO2R box. At this point I am no longer 
motivated to get a second BHI unit and deploy them. If anyone is inerested in 
buying the one I have, please email me directly and we can discuss a deal. To 
be clear: This is a unit for integration in other equipment, and not a 
standalone box ready to place on your desk. It does incorporate an AF power amp 
for driving a speaker, and the input may be driven from the radio speaker 
output.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Erik Basilier
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 1:11 PM
To: 'Walter Underwood' ; 'Elecraft Reflector Reflector' 

Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Query for new DSP features

The noise level at my QTH is not nearly as bad as many of you have. The K3 
S-meter tends to read around S4 on the background noise noise (SSB bandwidth, 
20m preamp off, atten off). When it comes to engaging NR, like many others I 
have in the past tended to crank up the aggressiveness etc and noted a loss of 
apparent volume on the wanted signal, and apparent loss of the higher frequency 
voice components. I have compensated by cranking up the volume and widening the 
passband (which helped little as the received station had insufficient boost of 
highs). I have admired the apparently better results from other DSP 
implementations such as BHI and other radios. Lately I have modified my 
approach to using the K3 DSP, and found much better results. For ssb I now have 
NR engaged full time and like it. The setting is the least aggressive possible: 
F1-1. I used to have the impression that this setting did little to help, but I 
have changed my opinion. The sound with this weak NR on now s
 eems very normal and comfortably intelligible. If I turn NR off, I can still 
read the signal, but it sounds harsh and tiring. I can't say the NR makes an 
unreadable signal readable, but it makes the copy more comfortable. My old 
brain seems to, slowly, adjust its own filtering to fit what is being heard, 
not just to focus on the wanted cw signal in a wider passband, but also when 
listening to voice when switching between NR on/off. This may be just my 
speculation, but subjectively, even with no radio involved, I seem to need an 
adjustment period also when listening to different adult voices, and especially 
when going between an adult voice and that of a small child. The existing K3 
DSP seems to be optimized based on objectively measurable criteria that are 
somewhat at odds with the strange workings of the human auditory system. 
Perhaps the addition of a tone control that alters the low/high tonal balance 
would be a helpful new resource for those who feel the NR makes signals
  sound weak or too bassy. The tone control setting could be automatically 
engaged with an emphasis on the highs when NR is engaged. It could also be 
helpful as a manual control for adapting to stations that have not adjusted 
their transmit equalizer to fit the operator's voice. Besides a low/high tilt, 
a peak/notch function might be helpful.
73,
Erik K7TV
e delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Query for new DSP features

[Erik Basilier]

The noise level at my QTH is not nearly as bad as many of you have. The K3 
S-meter tends to read around S4 on the background noise noise (SSB bandwidth, 
20m preamp off, atten off). When it comes to engaging NR, like many others I 
have in the past tended to crank up the aggressiveness etc and noted a loss of 
apparent volume on the wanted signal, and apparent loss of the higher frequency 
voice components. I have compensated by cranking up the volume and widening the 
passband (which helped little as the received station had insufficient boost of 
highs). I have admired the apparently better results from other DSP 
implementations such as BHI and other radios. Lately I have modified my 
approach to using the K3 DSP, and found much better results. For ssb I now have 
NR engaged full time and like it. The setting is the least aggressive possible: 
F1-1. I used to have the impression that this setting did little to help, but I 
have changed my opinion. The sound with this weak NR on now seems very normal 
and comfortably intelligible. If I turn NR off, I can still read the signal, 
but it sounds harsh and tiring. I can't say the NR makes an unreadable signal 
readable, but it makes the copy more comfortable. My old brain seems to, 
slowly, adjust its own filtering to fit what is being heard, not just to focus 
on the wanted cw signal in a wider passband, but also when listening to voice 
when switching between NR on/off. This may be just my speculation, but 
subjectively, even with no radio involved, I seem to need an adjustment period 
also when listening to different adult voices, and especially when going 
between an adult voice and that of a small child. The existing K3 DSP seems to 
be optimized based on objectively measurable criteria that are somewhat at odds 
with the strange workings of the human auditory system. Perhaps the addition of 
a tone control that alters the low/high tonal balance would be a helpful new 
resource for those who feel the NR makes signals sound weak or too bassy. The 
tone control setting could be automatically engaged with an emphasis on the 
highs when NR is engaged. It could also be helpful as a manual control for 
adapting to stations that have not adjusted their transmit equalizer to fit the 
operator's voice. Besides a low/high tilt, a peak/notch function might be 
helpful.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Walter Underwood
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2019 9:21 AM
To: Elecraft Reflector Reflector 
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Query for new DSP features

Sorry, KX3. Though I think the K3 and KX2 use similar algorithms.

wunder
K6WRU
Walter Underwood
CM87wj
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:53 PM, John Evans  wrote:
> 
> And yet, I have no idea which Elecraft rig you are referring to here.  Drives 
> us K1, K2, KX3 owners crazy.
> 
> 73 - john - n0hj
> 
> On 1/11/2019 9:49 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
>> It would be really great if the AF gain was automatically to keep the audio 
>> roughly level when NR is engaged. This drives me nuts, always riding the 
>> gain back and forth. I’m sure the gain adjustment would be different for 
>> different conditions, but at least get close.
>> 
>> wunder
>> K6WRU
>> Walter Underwood
>> CM87wj
>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>> 
>>> On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:38 PM, Mike Lichtman via Elecraft 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Wayne,
>>>I would like to see an improved Noise Reduction that doesn’t 
>>> lower the volume or distort as much. Also the digital mode decode has never 
>>> really worked well for me and, yes, I read the manual about using it. Could 
>>> you have the digital choices RTTY, PSK31, etc. instead of the current 
>>> settings like FSK, data, etc?
>>> Pie in the sky thought — Having the radio identify the type of 
>>> digital signal being received with a word in the display and 
>>> automatically change modes/settings to accommodate it.  73 Mike 
>>> KF6KXG
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> wun...@wunderwood.org

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list 

[Elecraft] OT: Surgery on female N-connector

[Erik Basilier]

My apologies for going far OT here. Any replies direct only please.
I am trying to fix the broken N connector on a surplus 100W dummy load, RELM
T44004.
The female part has lost 2 of its 4 fingers, and needs to be replaced. The
connector has a standard size square flange with 4 screws. (This is *not*
the same as the larger square flange of the interchangeable Bird
connectors). On the back is a custom part that connects to the load
resistor. It seems to be crimped to the female N part. My hope is that I
will be able to separate these parts and attach the custom part to a new
N-female part. The combo slides out easily from the teflon insulator. The
first task is to obtain a new N-female part, preferably gold-plated. Taking
a hacksaw to a barrel female-female, or elbow male-female seems like a lot
of work. Even getting the center connector out of a chassis mount N female
might take some work, but seems easier. My junk box is heavy with N
connectors, but to my surprise I couldn't find a single chassis mount N
female. My question to the group: Has anyone attempted to get the center
part out from a female N connector? Was a particular brand of N connector
especially easy to work on? 
Thanks in advance for any tips.
73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Looking at KPA1500

[Erik Basilier]

Ignacy, for many years I was using a legal limit tube amp in combination
with a manual tuner. For 20m and up, where the antenna has low swr and broad
bandwidth, I would put the tuner in bypass position. For 40m the tuner would
be active and I would manually adjust it, which didn't happen very often as
I would mostly stay in the cw portion of the band. The amp could perhaps
have handled the swr on 40m without a tuner, but I used the external tuner
so I could tune up the amp on a dummy load rather than on the air. Over the
years I did occasionally forget to switch the tuner into or out of bypass
when going to a different band. So, manual switching rather than manual
tuning was a bit of a problem. Now used to the KPA500/KAT500, I am spoiled
and don't want to go back to having to remember to switch. I was hoping that
the KPA1500 would not have the tuner built in, but I can see how most users
save money with a built-in tuner. When I said my antenna swr can be up to
4.5, I quoted the worst case I can remember. The 40m coil is copper clamped
onto aluminum elements. When I installed the antenna in 1993 I didn't apply
compound to keep the joints healthy. Over the years, when I have been
inactive for a long period such as a year, I have noticed the higher swr
values that I quoted. Some operation at high power has then restored band
edge swr readings to somewhat lower values, such as 4:1. If I recall
correctly, those readings were well under 4:1 when the antenna was newly
installed.  I intend to service the antenna some day and get back to those
better swr readings, but accessing the antenna for service is for me a big
and difficult undertaking. With the prospect of getting somewhat close to
the 3:1 limit,  I am very interested in detailed derating numbers for the
KPA1500 tuner, as well as any information that might indicate that it can
safely handle somewhat higher swr depending on the actual complex load
impedance..

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Ignacy
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:59 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Looking at KPA1500

The low range tuners up to 3:1 are very low loss and then can be made
reliable. High range tuner for 1.5KW would be less so. 

You may buy MFJ-998 as an extra. I use MFJ-998 with 1.5 KW and a
ladderline-fed dipole for a few years. Only small problems like burnt diode
in SWR circuit or smoked capacitor by the output connector. But it is better
to have such problems outside of the amp.

Another choice is to have an AB switch where the same antenna is connected
to A directly and to B via  capacitor that lowers the SWR where otherwise it
is too high. 


Ignacy, NO9E



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Looking at KPA1500

[Erik Basilier]

Jim, my antenna is somewhat unusual. It is a Sommer XP-708, where the
hardware added to enable 40m is very minimal: just a coil hooked up between
two points on an antenna whose dimensions say "20m and up". Given that each
antenna element is appropriate for 20m or shorter wavelength, and the boom
is no longer than the elements, the narrow bandwidth on 40  is not
surprising. Also, the antenna has no directivity at all on 40. One might
wonder if this antenna might be a compromise in other respects, but the
performance in actual use has always been a positive surprise to me. For the
cost of adding 40m to the basic design, I would say that it is a great
value. 

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:58 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Looking at KPA1500

On 10/16/2018 10:24 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> My main 40m antenna meets that requirement over a significant portion 
> of the band, but at band edges swr can be 4.5:1 or so.

Hmmm. 40M is not very wide (only 4.2%, as compared to 80M which is 14.3%).
What kind of antenna is it? Simple antennas without traps or loading coils
like resonant dipoles and verticals typically cover 40M with SWR below 2:1
if tuned to the center of the band.

80M is the tough one, but can be tamed with some transmission line and or
stub tricks.

73, Jim K9YC

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Looking at KPA1500

[Erik Basilier]

The KPA1500 is right now outside my budget, but there is nothing wrong with
dreaming and planning, right? The latest QST reviews the new Palstar amp,
which first seemed attractive, but I soon noticed that its continuous
carrier capacity is no better than the KPA500. Also, when you add the price
of the matching tuner, you are looking at a total price of $5k, which makes
the full legal power KPA1500 with included tuner look good at $6k. However,
what does dampen my enthusiasm is that the KPA1500 tuner handles swr only up
to 3:1 at full power. My main 40m antenna meets that requirement over a
significant portion of the band, but at band edges swr can be 4.5:1 or so.
The lower bands are where high power is most commonly needed, so it doesn't
make much sense to upgrade from my KPA500 only to have to throttle back to
500W on 40m. That begs the question exactly how much power the KPA1500 tuner
can handle on 40m. Also, it would be desirable to use higher power on the
portion of the band where swr does stay under 3:1. I could set the power to
a lower value on the K3 for 40m, but it would be helpful to be able to set
the power separately for different band segments. The actual power limit at
a higher swr probably depends on the actual impedance presented to the
tuner, and not just the swr value. One could perhaps use an antenna analyzer
to measure the complex impedance at different frequencies within the band,
and then program different drive power levels for the corresponding band
segments (if that capability were implemented). Maybe a future tuner design
could incorporate sensing of complex load impedance and signal the
transceiver to limit drive power accordingly. Or, instead of basing it on
load impedance, the design could directly measure voltages and currents
within the tuner to prevent excessive voltages and currents from being
produced (not dynamically a la ALC, but as a calibration using steady
carrier). 

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Confessions of grounding

[Erik Basilier]

I do something similar, but tin only a very short tip of the braid, then use
an awl to create a hole in the untinned braid near the end. Using 1/2" wide
flat braid.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Jim Cassidy
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 8:13 AM
To: dave 
Cc: Elecraft 
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Confessions of grounding

To connect flat braid to equipment I have simply tinned the end and drilled
an appropriate size hole thru the tinned end.  Simplest form of ring lug.



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Choice of CW pitch

[Erik Basilier]

The ease of changing CW pitch in the K3 is indeed a great asset in setting
things up for best copy, and I have found myself using it quite a few times.
The immediate reason to change pitch has usually been a perception that with
the existing setting, the best copy pitch does not exactly coincide with the
CW tuning indicator (another great CW asset of the K3), or with the peak DSP
filter response. Many times this has led me to change the pitch setting by a
small amount, whether my general preference du jour is for a low or higher
pitch. To make such an adjustment I like to set a wide DSP bandwidth and
slowly tune through a received signal. The apparent loudness doesn't stay
constant, nor does it follow a smooth variation that I attribute to my own
hearing response. Instead I hear peaks within range of piches that would be
reasonable for CW, that I attribute to the speaker and its surroundings. (I
would say that since I went to the SP3, there is less of this variation, but
no matter how good the speaker, there will always be such variations because
objects around the speaker cause reflections. Phones will always be the
better approach) Rather than adjusting the pitch to some value
considered ideal based no prior considerations, I set it for a peak in the
accoustical response of the particular speaker and its surroundings. Then
going back to normal DSP selectivity I generally find better agreement
between perceived loudness and centering the received signal in the
passband, at least until I move things around in the shack...

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] FS: 1.0 kHz roofing filter for K3 / K3S

[Erik Basilier]

$100 shipped to the lower 48.
Contact me by email off list.

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Data transmission on 30 meters with PX3 problem

[Erik Basilier]

As Jim K9YC has pointed out in his writeup on baluns etc, there is a
threshold effect when one applies a choke to reduce common mode current. The
current is determined by driving voltage and total (complex) series
impedance. The choke RF impedance will have a reactive as well as a
resistive component, and so does the circuit before the choke is applied.
The reactances may be of opposite signs and cancel out, in which case adding
the choke may actually make it easier for the common mode current to flow.
It is easy to think that one can add a marginal choke and look for a small
improvement as a reliable indication that a good choke will be worth the
investment or not. Wrong! Only then the choke tried has high enough
impedance to dominate the circuit can one judge whether whether adding
chokes helps. Also, adding the perfect choke near the antenna feed point is
not likely completely to eliminate common mode RF current at the rig end of
the cable. For common mode purposes, the perfect choke acts effectively to
disconnect the outside of the coax from the antenna, but that metal is still
there, close to the antenna, and it will be part of the antenna system as a
parasitic antenna element, affect the radiation pattern, and carry
substantial RF current.
73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Operating KX3/KXPA100 on LiPO3 batteries??

[Erik Basilier]

I have the 20Ah Bioenno battery and am very pleased with it. I did have some 
issues with the company, but the way they resolved the issues makes me want to 
recommend them. The first issue was, I wanted a light battery to power a 100W 
radio, and first ordered a 15 Ah model, based on the website description that 
it could supply 30A continuous. When the battery arrived, its label indicated a 
much smaller continuous output capability. Bioenno acknowledged that the 
website was wrong, and arranged for me to trade up to the 20 Ah model. They 
said I could try the 15 Ah battery in actual operation before deciding to send 
it back. I did, and it did no do well at 100W rf out. Once I was set up with 
the 20 Ah model, I left it on the special charger for weeks between uses. The 
charger automatically stops charging at full charge, which is indicated by a 
red/green LED. However, one day I noticed the LED was dark. The charger had 
died. Bioenno quickly replaced it at no cost. I asked them if 
 it would be better to unplug the charger from the AC when not needed, and they 
said yes. Bottom line: Their customer service is so good, it reminds me of 
Elecraft.

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] For Trade: 1.0 kHz roofing filter, looking for 6.0 kHz

[Erik Basilier]

Finding myself wanting to listen to both sidebands of ham AM stations. Would
keep the 1.0 kHz except no sockets are open for the AM filter. I might
approve some monetary adjustment as part of the trade. Please send me your
offers off list.
73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Breakers for KPA1500?

[Erik Basilier]

Don,
Yes, good point.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Don Wilhelm  
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:56 AM
To: Erik Basilier ; Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Breakers for KPA1500?

Erik,

One of the benefits of using a new and direct line to the breaker box to power 
both 240 and 120 in the shack is that the 120 volt (and the 240
volt) green wire ground is a straight run to the breaker box instead of being 
run willy-nilly from receptacle to receptacle through the house.
The one dedicated run creates less noise on the power to the shack.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 7/10/2018 11:40 AM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> It is abundantly clear that 3 conductors plus protective ground are 
> needed if there will be any load, on the same circuit, that requires 
> 120V as opposed to 240V only. I certainly agree 100%. It is also clear 
> that the person who installs 240V for the PA only could get away with 
> one conductor less. In that case, his other ham equipment would 
> presumably run on older 120V wiring. So, the person contemplating the 
> installation of 240V for the PA has a choice: Should he add the extra 
> conductor to make possible operation of 120V equipment on the new 
> wiring? An argument against it would be that it puts more load on the 
> new wiring and it doesn't utilize the 120V capacity already installed. 
> However, as has been pointed out, ham equipment doesn't constitute 
> that much of a load, even for a station at full legal power. My 
> personal feeling is that it is a good idea to use the new wiring (with 
> all 4 conductors) for all the ham equipment, as mixing the old and new 
> power circuits provides more opportunity for disastrous transient damage with 
> a nearby lightning strike. Just my 2c.

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Breakers for KPA1500?

[Erik Basilier]

It is abundantly clear that 3 conductors plus protective ground are needed
if there will be any load, on the same circuit, that requires 120V as
opposed to 240V only. I certainly agree 100%. It is also clear that the
person who installs 240V for the PA only could get away with one conductor
less. In that case, his other ham equipment would presumably run on older
120V wiring. So, the person contemplating the installation of 240V for the
PA has a choice: Should he add the extra conductor to make possible
operation of 120V equipment on the new wiring? An argument against it would
be that it puts more load on the new wiring and it doesn't utilize the 120V
capacity already installed. However, as has been pointed out, ham equipment
doesn't constitute that much of a load, even for a station at full legal
power. My personal feeling is that it is a good idea to use the new wiring
(with all 4 conductors) for all the ham equipment, as mixing the old and new
power circuits provides more opportunity for disastrous transient damage
with a nearby lightning strike. Just my 2c.

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KAT500 antenna port isolation

[Erik Basilier]

Anyone who has looked inside a good coaxial relay or switch knows that for
that level of isolation the mechanical construction one needs to provide a
more or less complete shield around the chosen signal path, that re-forms
around the new path when the swich is operated. This is complicated and
expensive. I would not expect to find it in a normal HF amateur transceiver,
tuner, or amplifier. Maybe in some specialized equipment for multiradio
operation, SO2R or otherwise. It is certainly something to be hoped for in
future equipment. However, one should not be very confident that a switch
with high isolation numbers would always prevent the sort of signal leakage
mentioned in this thread. "Transmitting on a dummy load" is a common
expression, but I guiess it is seldom representationve of what is actually
going on. More likely, some signal is flowing as on the outside of shields,
and needs common mode chokes for suppression. 

This point is well known to high-end competition stations that depend on
separate receive antennas for the low bands. The job of such a receive
antenna is generally not to pick up as strong as possible version of the
wanted signal, but to pick up an adequate sampling of that signal along with
less noise covering up that wanted signal. This involves avoiding noise
pickup where the feedline runs through a high-noise environment (read: the
shack building), as well as long distance signals coming in from the back of
the receive antenna. (A conventional "front-to-back" number is not much
help, one must rather use a complicated measure of back side rejection over
all applicable "back" direction angles.) Noise pickup on the outside of coax
will generally nullify the performance of a well-designed receive antenna
that looks good on paper, unless the installation includes liberal
common-mode choking  and grounding of coax shields. I seem to remember one
report that said the grounding was so critical that a ground connectied only
to one side of the coax was markedly infererior to one that completely
encircled the coax. Installations normally include running the coax through
metal conduits, not just for mechanical protection, but for blocking noise
pickup. If it is not already obvious to the reader, I am referencing noise
pickup on receive antenna feedlines as something that corresponds to
transmit capability as well, allowing transmission "on a dummy load" even if
the dummy load is perfectly shielded. Bottom line: Leakage and crosstalk is
a system characteristic that results from more than the performance of a
given component such as a switch.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of ANDY DURBIN
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 3:54 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KAT500 antenna port isolation

"I suppose the only way to get good isolation data will be to do a sweep of
the KPA500 and Alpha Delta switch"


Sorry - that should have read "I suppose the only way to get good isolation
data will be to do a sweep of the KAT500 and Alpha Delta switch".


TMGS?


73,

Andy k3wuc



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] How to change K3 COM port to a high number (to avoid N1MM/u2R problem)

[Erik Basilier]

The com ports used for physical control of the radios are normally set up
when I first put a K3 into operation. The MicroHAM router deals with
additional com ports that are not physical but serve to provide
communications between pieces of software within the computer. When choosing
those com ports, I avoid the com port numbers already in use for radio
control, as well as any others that I might find to be in use by looking at
Device Manager.  If the MicroHAM router can do anything to change the radio
control physical com ports, I have missed it. Thanks for your input, and
also thanks to others who have replied to my question. Exhausted after FD, I
will need some time to recover before considering each piece of advice and
otherwise looking at this issue again.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of j...@kk9a.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2018 8:58 AM
To: 'Elecraft Reflector' 
Subject: [Elecraft] How to change K3 COM port to a high number (to avoid
N1MM/u2R problem)

Doesn't the MicroHAM router control the com ports?  You should be able to
set it to anything you want in the router. I have had no issues using Com 1,
2 and 3 with Writelog.


John KK9A

K7TV wrote:

I run two K3 radios with MicroHAM u2R for SO2R in N1MMplus.
It has been working, but occasionally I get a message about COM port
conflicts, about the two COM ports that are used to control the radios, and
this causes problems during a contest such as tomorrow

I have spent some time looking for the source of conflict, but don't see
those two COM port numbers used by anything else in Device Manager, even
when using "show hidden devices". When I set up everything related to N1MM,
and the u2R I totally avoided using those two COM ports that are used for
the radios. I never get the errors when just running the radios without
N1MM/u2R. I don't remember any such error from long ago when I was using
N1MM without SO2R. I sought advice on a computer forum and a Microsoft
employee advised me to try using high port numbers such as 25 or higher for
my applications, as any "hidden" usage in Windows would be unlikely to use a
high number. No conflicts are reported for the numbers I use for N1MM and
u2R, so it seems meaningless to change those to high numbers. It seems I
need to try high COM port numbers for communicating with the radios. How can
I do that? Using the Elecraft FTDI adapters.

Thanks,
73, Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] How to change K3 COM port to a high number (to avoid N1MM/u2R problem)

[Erik Basilier]

I run two K3 radios with MicroHAM u2R for SO2R in N1MMplus.
It has been working, but occasionally I get a message about COM port
conflicts, about the two COM ports that are used to control the radios, and
this causes problems during a contest such as tomorrow

I have spent some time looking for the source of conflict, but don't see
those two COM port numbers used by anything else in Device Manager, even
when using "show hidden devices". When I set up everything related to N1MM,
and the u2R I totally avoided using those two COM ports that are used for
the radios. I never get the errors when just running the radios without
N1MM/u2R. I don't remember any such error from long ago when I was using
N1MM without SO2R. I sought advice on a computer forum and a Microsoft
employee advised me to try using high port numbers such as 25 or higher for
my applications, as any "hidden" usage in Windows would be unlikely to use a
high number. No conflicts are reported for the numbers I use for N1MM and
u2R, so it seems meaningless to change those to high numbers. It seems I
need to try high COM port numbers for communicating with the radios. How can
I do that? Using the Elecraft FTDI adapters.

Thanks,
73, Erik K7TV



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] K3 receive audio phenomenon

[Erik Basilier]

I was transmitting wspr on 40 at 100 mW from a WSPRLite tx, and monitoring
on an antennaless K3 in SSB mode (just listening in SP3, not trying to
decode). (Background: I have for a while been fascinated with how room
accoustics will sometimes, with a given head position, make the tone in cw
reception almost disappear). Watching the WSPR signal on the P3 at minimum
span, I could see two sideband peaks well separated from the carrier. Tuning
slowly I noticed something similar to the cw/room accoustics phenomenon: At
a certain tuning point the whistle from the speaker got very quiet. Moving
my head around I concluded that this was probably not room accoustics but
some kind of characteristic of the wspr modulation. Be that as it may, then
came a big surprise, and here is my main issue for the group: Suddenly there
was a loud click followed by complete silence, which lasted a second or so.
It was like someone had ripped the speaker cable out of the radio. The
normal sound then came back, but several seconds later the click and silence
came again. This seemed to cycle forever. The picture on the P3 remained
steady, so the wspr tx did not interrupt its operation, and the K3 front end
kept operating normally. I then tuned around, changed the rx to cw, etc, and
the phenomenon went away. Normally I would take time to study further before
bothering the group, since many things could cause a break in rx audio, but
I have not been able to repeat it. One thought that came to mind was that
somehow the K3 dsp got saturated and hickuped, but the received signal was
quite weak on a quiet band, only about 20 or 30 dB above noise, and hardware
agc should prevent that anyway. While I am waiting for something similar to
happen in the future, I am just asking the group if anyone has had a similar
experience.

Thanks in advance,
73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] 2018 Field Day

[Erik Basilier]

I plan to participate using my K3, mostly on 40m, as part of the W7MOT team.
We do class 2A, and the other station uses a brand K rig.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of aj4tf
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2018 9:49 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] 2018 Field Day

What are your Elecraft plans for Field Day?   I'll be on the air at W4UA
(High Point, NC) with K3S # 10669 and K2 # 7006.  The other two stations
will be some other "Y" gear...

73 de AJ4TF


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K4?

[Erik Basilier]

In the process of listening to the receiver I would not want that overlaid with 
voice responses from a UI dialog. Also, a voice response immediately goes away, 
just like a number temporarlily shown in the B display. On a more personal 
note, I also find all artificial voice applications enormously irritating. I 
refuse to speak to my car to ask it to do something, and refuse to use Alexa or 
Siri etc in a voice mode.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Gerry leary <gerrylear...@icloud.com> 
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 5:33 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>
Cc: Richard Thorne <rtho...@rthorne.net>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K4?

Make the displays audio readouts instead, then you wouldn’t need so much room, 
nor would it take up as much battery life if it were powered by battery!

Sent from my iPhone this time 

On May 19, 2018, at 6:14 PM, Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net> wrote:

I know that many people love controlling everything from a PC, but that is for 
me a don't-want, as I don't want the extra box to start up, and using a mouse 
and keyboard is much less convenient than knobs. Of course, using contesting 
software does involve the PC, but even in that situation I want my knobs. 
Controlling the rig from a PC repulses me even more so lately, since Microsoft 
is forcing software updates on us ever more frequently. Very disruptive. I do 
understand that increased vulnerabilities demand it, but then the 
vulnerabilities are caused by Microsoft itself, always adding functionality 
without concern for security (except for Microsoft job security). Some will say 
that Linux is the answer but I have been there, and I would prefer a special 
version of Windows that removes a lot of bells and whistles and doesn't need 
frequent updates. Has anyone investigated which ham software products work or 
don't work with Windows set to protected mode?

On the subject of panadapter features, I can see some utility in using a mouse, 
as pushing the P3 knob does indeed tend to move the whole box. However, unless 
there is software based automatic fine tuning, I find that mouse clicking on a 
signal usually requires fine adjustment with the tuning knob. The advantage of 
the mouse then is the ability to make large jumps without a lot of knob 
spinning. That need is sharply reduced by using the RIT knob as a coarse tuning 
knob. 

Perhaps the K4 packaging should place most of the P3 electronics as an optional 
plug-in board inside the radio, and place a slightly bigger display in a 
separate, P3-size box. The P3 controls would be on the radio. The existing 
controls for the second rx could be kept for those who can stomach them, but a 
new button on the radio would switch the P3 display to show all aspects of 
second rx settings, and allow adjustment. Another press of the new button, or a 
number of actions such as moving the main tuning knob, would go back to normal 
P3 display.

73,
Erik K7TV



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net> On 
Behalf Of Richard Thorne
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 4:31 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K4?

I was going to make the suggestion for a rig with out knobs.

All of my current equipment is rack mounted.  I operate with software and a 
mouse.  Keeps the desk uncluttered and the monitor below eye level.  The K3 
Remote could be used if one wanted knobs.

Rich - N5ZC


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K4?

[Erik Basilier]

I know that many people love controlling everything from a PC, but that is for 
me a don't-want, as I don't want the extra box to start up, and using a mouse 
and keyboard is much less convenient than knobs. Of course, using contesting 
software does involve the PC, but even in that situation I want my knobs. 
Controlling the rig from a PC repulses me even more so lately, since Microsoft 
is forcing software updates on us ever more frequently. Very disruptive. I do 
understand that increased vulnerabilities demand it, but then the 
vulnerabilities are caused by Microsoft itself, always adding functionality 
without concern for security (except for Microsoft job security). Some will say 
that Linux is the answer but I have been there, and I would prefer a special 
version of Windows that removes a lot of bells and whistles and doesn't need 
frequent updates. Has anyone investigated which ham software products work or 
don't work with Windows set to protected mode?

On the subject of panadapter features, I can see some utility in using a mouse, 
as pushing the P3 knob does indeed tend to move the whole box. However, unless 
there is software based automatic fine tuning, I find that mouse clicking on a 
signal usually requires fine adjustment with the tuning knob. The advantage of 
the mouse then is the ability to make large jumps without a lot of knob 
spinning. That need is sharply reduced by using the RIT knob as a coarse tuning 
knob. 

Perhaps the K4 packaging should place most of the P3 electronics as an optional 
plug-in board inside the radio, and place a slightly bigger display in a 
separate, P3-size box. The P3 controls would be on the radio. The existing 
controls for the second rx could be kept for those who can stomach them, but a 
new button on the radio would switch the P3 display to show all aspects of 
second rx settings, and allow adjustment. Another press of the new button, or a 
number of actions such as moving the main tuning knob, would go back to normal 
P3 display.

73,
Erik K7TV



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Richard Thorne
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 4:31 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K4?

I was going to make the suggestion for a rig with out knobs.

All of my current equipment is rack mounted.  I operate with software and a 
mouse.  Keeps the desk uncluttered and the monitor below eye level.  The K3 
Remote could be used if one wanted knobs.

Rich - N5ZC

On 5/19/2018 5:36 PM, Dauer, Edward wrote:
>Me too.  After I determined some years ago that my then-new K3 was 
> actually working, I gave my Yaesus away - both of them.  I haven't missed 
> them since.  My backups are now a pair of K2s at one QTH and a KX3/KXPA at 
> another.
>
> I suspect many though not all of the capability changes - as opposed to the 
> ergonomic changes - proposed in this thread could be implemented without 
> changing the box.  If there were one additional item on my list it would be 
> having an internal keyer that would make external logging programs redundant. 
>  And the NR system . . .
>
> Apart from that, and apart from my own ergonomic preferences, I am willing to 
> bet that whatever comes next isn't a bigger box but rather the other way 
> around.  I have heard the K3/S described more than once as an SDR with knobs. 
>  Maybe.  But my bet would be , if there is a K4 or some such, it will be an 
> SDR without knobs.  Any takers?
>
> Ted, KN1CBR
>
>
>
>  Message: 16
>  Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 11:51:50 -0700
>  From: Jim Brown 
>  To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>  Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K4
>  Message-ID:
>   <4a95b31d-0210-d98b-20df-7cf649a4d...@audiosystemsgroup.com>
>  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>  
>  
>  My experience is quite different. From the beginning (in 2008), I found
>  the user interface very well thought out. Maybe that's because I started
>  by RTFM.? Everything I need while operating is on the front panel. The
>  menus are organized so that they are almost never needed during
>  operation except to fix a setting that was wrong in the first place. I
>  can't remember the last time I needed to go into menus for anything but
>  setup with new outboard equipment.
>  
>  My K3s replaced a pair of FT1000MPs. Everything about the K3 performance
>  and user interface is far superior. AND the change freed up a LOT of
>  space on my operating desk!
>  
>  73, Jim K9YC
>   
>
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> 

Re: [Elecraft] K4

[Erik Basilier]

I am currently using two K3 radios with various updates including the new 
synthesizers, and see no reason to go the the K3S model. Years ago I added the 
second receiver to my original K3. I liked the diversity capability, but I am 
not much of a DX'er and eventually got rid of the second receiver.

I went to the K3 from an FT-1000D, and found the K3 user interface very well 
thought out. Not at all hard to learn with respect to the most needed controls, 
although more obscure functions still have me looking in the manual. With that 
said, and since we are discussing possible improvements, I can suggest the 
following:

I immediately missed the lack of band and mode buttons. Not a big deal, but 
still noticeable on a frequent basis after many years.

The 4 controls with dual green LED's have a flimsy, cheap feel. The combination 
of multiple functions is perfect, but something used so often should feel super 
solid and expensive.
My short term memory is bad, and I constantly find myself activating one of 
these controls just to see the current power setting and cw speed etc. 
Dedicated display real estate would be an improvement. I am ashamed to say that 
I haven't looked closely at whether one can always display the current setting 
witout changing it, but the reality as of right now is that I frequently go 
through the motions of changing a setting just to get it displayed, and then 
changing it back. This is a lot of wasted effort. 

The pushbuttons can sometimes malfunction if one doesn't push hard enough, and 
the dual functions (good idea in general) should be enough justification for 
buttons with a "Rolls Royce feel". In some cases dedicated buttons would be 
justified as opposed to the dual functions. I got the DVR option for one of the 
radios and expected it to be used a lot for getting a second chance to copy 
something deep in the noise during a contest. I actually never use it because I 
am not consistent enough in achieving the HOLD of the button that is required, 
especially in a busy situation. There were several reasons I sold the 2nd 
receiver. Not involved in DX chasing, I didn't have enough need, and I didn't 
have enough real estate to make the most of the diversity capability. For years 
I didn't have much time to operate, and I often updated the K3 firmware just to 
get on the air for a short period of time. This erased my settings to suppress 
the birdies caused by the second receiver. Being a b
 it of a perfectionist, I would spend an hour entering new settings. Yes, most 
of those birdies were weak enough that they didn't affect my ability to copy 
any given signal, but when tuning around each birdie would cause me to pause 
unnecessarigy for a fraction of a second. Yes, I could have spent some more 
time than I did adjusting the cable positions inside the radio to minimize the 
strength of the birdies, but I did spend time on it, and noone has told me that 
that would eliminate them entirely. I would hope that the K4 will change 
something fundamentally in the design so as to effect complete elimination of 
the birdies. Last but not least, I was never comfortable with the user 
interface for the second receiver. The status of it needs to be more visible 
through dedicated display real estate. 

Although one can argue for additions to the front panel controls and display 
items, I would not want anything like the size of yakencom top-of-the-line 
monsters. For one thing, I want my radios to be easily liftable. Something like 
my old FT-1000D is a nightmare to lift. Also, too much front panel real estate 
is a problem in SO2R operations, where you have to reach everything quickly. I 
think most if not all of what I have asked for above could be achieved in a 
front panel size matching that of the KPA1500. This would be a logical move for 
Elecraft.  Since I have added P3's to both radios, I wouldn't consider being 
without them. I doubt that a P3-size screen could fit in the KPA1500 size front 
panel, but since the P3 takes up the space anyway within the reach of the SO2R 
operator, I would be fine with the KPA1500-sized front panel lengthened by a P3 
width. Surely, the combination of the two units would make possible some 
improvements in panadapter controls and, additional use
 s for panadapter screen display items.

Although I mostly operate cw, I have recently been on 20 ssb a bit. I have 
found that most ssb stations on 20 are effectively channelized. When manually 
scanning the band I save a lot of time by using the RIT knob as a tuning knob 
with 0.5 kHz steps. I sometimes wish that knob were bigger and with better 
feel. The high resolution of the P3 display shows great differences between 
different stations, and the visual differences often correlate with what one 
hears. If a station has inadequate emphasis on the highs (or excessive lows), 
that is easily seen. Also, some stations stand out for having clean smooth 
flanks, while others have ragged flanks. IC-7300 

Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

[Erik Basilier]

Igor, are you saying that you could not view the numbers at his website? If 
anyone has difficulty getting to the numbers, let me know and I can repeat them 
here, but for now I will just refer you to the website again.
Here is a short url for that page:
https://tinyurl.com/ycn9kbss
Scroll down to the first handwritten table. The left-hand column lists the 
different radios tested. 3 columns to the right shows test results for 
different pulse frequencies. Presumably, a higher pulse frequency means the 
interference spectrum is more spread out around the wanted signal. However, 
this is not quantified or described in detail. Remember, results of this test 
method are strongly dependent on the design of the pulse generator etc, so the 
if someone would like to duplicate or compare to his numbers, they would have 
to duplicate his exact equipment, or come up with a new similar test setup that 
could be regarded as a standard. For each radio, there are two rows of results 
(for each pulse frequency). The first row represents the radio without 
preselector (but modified to add a roofing filter, except in the case of the 
IC-7300). The second row represents the same radio with the addition of the 
preselector, which is his personal design, also described at the website. 
 If I am not mistaken, the preselector is entirely passive. All the result 
numbers are negative dBm values. This means that a smaller negative number 
represents a stronger interference signal that is in some sense tolerated. E.g. 
-20dBm is a great result, but -50dBm is a poor result. None of the numeric 
results can be translated into, or compared with, numbers published by Sherwood 
or the ARRL. However, he makes a pretty good case that his measurement method 
might be "better" than those conventional measurements in representing the 
performance characteristics that are relevant in practical ham use under heavy 
interference from close-in strong signals. For the ARRL or Sherwood to adopt 
his approach they would likely have to invest in additional test equipment 
including custom-built items, and justify a standard method of doing this kind 
of testing, so I am not holding my breath. The inclusion of the IC-7300 shows 
that the website content is not very old, but other than the K3 
 he has not included any of the several radios on the market today that 
incorporate roofing filters as a standard part of the design. Perhaps we could 
hope that some kind hams in Europe would lend him additional radios for testing 
with his unique test equipment. As to his own conclusions, they should be 
covered by the text I already translated. Are any of his statements (as 
translated) unclear? Remember, no real world radio has a "true" performance 
level even in principle. Every time we look at performance numbers, they 
reflect imperfect concepts developed in our small human minds, whether they are 
considered "standard" or not. A concept such as "better" is usually not an 
objective way of describing things.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Igor Sokolov
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 6:49 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

Eric,

Can you possible give a summary of the results of his measurements and 
conclusions he has made?

73, Igor UA9CDC




__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

[Erik Basilier]

Correction:
The sentence: 
"However, the improvement from using the preamp shows up only if the
preselector handles large signals at least as well as the rx itself."
Should be replaced by:
"However, the improvement from using the preselector shows up only if the
preselector handles large signals at least as well as the rx itself."

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net> On
Behalf Of Erik Basilier
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 8:28 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

Since I do read German, here is my quick attempt to translate the section
("Fazit") where the author summarizes his findings about testing methods and
receiver performance:

"No IP3 value can be derived from the results of this measurement technique
using broadband pulses with a crystal-based notch filter. However, the
results do show the resistance to interference generated from summation of a
broadband interfering spectrum, which seems crucial to me when it comes to
evaluating the interference handling of an SDR with the ADC at the front.
In any case, the listed signal levels (for +10 dB (S+N)/N) provides a very
good way to compare the relative performance of the tested receivers; the
higher the listed signal level (dBm), the better the better the performance
in handling strong signals.
Roofing filter quality can be observed by proper selection of pulse
frequency for close-in measurement (use e.g. 2 kHz). This is in contrast to
what can be done with two-signal testing (even using many different
frequencies).
In particular, the pulsing measurement technique illustrates how the use of
a preselector influences receive performance. Earlier one could only rely on
subjective impresisons in practical use. Our results show that use of a
preselector always makes sense, even when used with the very best
receivers!!! Even with the RX-OE3HKL receiver design which by itself can
handle levels that are up to 26 dB higher, improvements up to 9 dB from the
preselector are seen. Notable is the performance of the IC-751A with
preselector and roofing filter: Results are almost as good as those of my
own receiver design. However, in contrast to the situation when using the
2-signal method of testing, when using the pulse signal, without the
preselector, the roofing filter doesn't yield much improvement. Apparently
the reason is that the broadband signal quickly overloads the front end
circuits. Without using the broadband pulse signal it would not be possible
to reconcile lab measurements with real-world reception results seen when
using the 2x120m V-antenna! However, the improvement from using the preamp
shows up only if the preselector handles large signals at least as well as
the rx itself.
The K3 is by far the best of the commercial units, and without having to be
modified. This result is confirmed by practical experience in reception
testing using the 120m-V-beam during a contest. Results improved by another
2-4 dB after a firmware update was performed (see the red corrections). 
The IC-7300 clearly performs more poorly than the analog radios with roofing
filters, in practical reception as well as in lab measurement. When the
preselector is added, it partly outperforms the FT-1000 Field with
preselector and roofing filter. Based on this result, I conclude that an SDR
with the ADC in the front end, when used with good antennas and in the
presence of sftong signals, should if possible only be used in combination
with a preselector.
I would like to establish that the here described test setup with its
broadband discrete signal is a better proxy for real-world interference
signals than is the stochastic noise signal used in Noise Power Ratio
testing. Furthermore, by varying the pulse frequency, one can vary the
intensity of the interference in a way that is clearly quantified by
observing spectrum analyzer output. In contrast, the noise level in NPR
measurement is defined by the high ratio of peak value to rms (10 to 11). In
this scenario t would likely take very expensive equipment to perform
measurements with sufficient accuracy for comparison purposes.
I would also like to mention that NPR measurements at 3dB (S+N)/N will not
be sufficient to take into account the effect of higher-order IM products.
To achieve that, one must increase input levels to the point that a further
increase of 1 dB will lead to a 3 dB increase at the output (3rd order).
This is what it takes to get results from the NPR method to agree with
results from the pulse signal method."

My apologies in advance to OE3HKL for any misinterpretation I might have
made.

73,
Erik K7TV


-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net> On
Behalf Of Erik Basilier
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 5:06 PM
To: 'Bob DeHaney' <bobdeha...@gmx.net>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject

Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

[Erik Basilier]

Since I do read German, here is my quick attempt to translate the section
("Fazit") where the author summarizes his findings about testing methods and
receiver performance:

"No IP3 value can be derived from the results of this measurement technique
using broadband pulses with a crystal-based notch filter. However, the
results do show the resistance to interference generated from summation of a
broadband interfering spectrum, which seems crucial to me when it comes to
evaluating the interference handling of an SDR with the ADC at the front.
In any case, the listed signal levels (for +10 dB (S+N)/N) provides a very
good way to compare the relative performance of the tested receivers; the
higher the listed signal level (dBm), the better the better the performance
in handling strong signals.
Roofing filter quality can be observed by proper selection of pulse
frequency for close-in measurement (use e.g. 2 kHz). This is in contrast to
what can be done with two-signal testing (even using many different
frequencies).
In particular, the pulsing measurement technique illustrates how the use of
a preselector influences receive performance. Earlier one could only rely on
subjective impresisons in practical use. Our results show that use of a
preselector always makes sense, even when used with the very best
receivers!!! Even with the RX-OE3HKL receiver design which by itself can
handle levels that are up to 26 dB higher, improvements up to 9 dB from the
preselector are seen. Notable is the performance of the IC-751A with
preselector and roofing filter: Results are almost as good as those of my
own receiver design. However, in contrast to the situation when using the
2-signal method of testing, when using the pulse signal, without the
preselector, the roofing filter doesn't yield much improvement. Apparently
the reason is that the broadband signal quickly overloads the front end
circuits. Without using the broadband pulse signal it would not be possible
to reconcile lab measurements with real-world reception results seen when
using the 2x120m V-antenna! However, the improvement from using the preamp
shows up only if the preselector handles large signals at least as well as
the rx itself.
The K3 is by far the best of the commercial units, and without having to be
modified. This result is confirmed by practical experience in reception
testing using the 120m-V-beam during a contest. Results improved by another
2-4 dB after a firmware update was performed (see the red corrections). 
The IC-7300 clearly performs more poorly than the analog radios with roofing
filters, in practical reception as well as in lab measurement. When the
preselector is added, it partly outperforms the FT-1000 Field with
preselector and roofing filter. Based on this result, I conclude that an SDR
with the ADC in the front end, when used with good antennas and in the
presence of sftong signals, should if possible only be used in combination
with a preselector.
I would like to establish that the here described test setup with its
broadband discrete signal is a better proxy for real-world interference
signals than is the stochastic noise signal used in Noise Power Ratio
testing. Furthermore, by varying the pulse frequency, one can vary the
intensity of the interference in a way that is clearly quantified by
observing spectrum analyzer output. In contrast, the noise level in NPR
measurement is defined by the high ratio of peak value to rms (10 to 11). In
this scenario t would likely take very expensive equipment to perform
measurements with sufficient accuracy for comparison purposes.
I would also like to mention that NPR measurements at 3dB (S+N)/N will not
be sufficient to take into account the effect of higher-order IM products.
To achieve that, one must increase input levels to the point that a further
increase of 1 dB will lead to a 3 dB increase at the output (3rd order).
This is what it takes to get results from the NPR method to agree with
results from the pulse signal method."

My apologies in advance to OE3HKL for any misinterpretation I might have
made.

73,
Erik K7TV


-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net> On
Behalf Of Erik Basilier
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 5:06 PM
To: 'Bob DeHaney' <bobdeha...@gmx.net>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

The German website describes how this om has developed his capabilities over
the years, based on his specific circumstances and needs. This has resulted
in a measurement technique with arguable advantages, achieved with a
homebrew, very specialized test setup, implemented for the 40m band. While
the author apparently had access to some lab-quality test equipment for
testing his home-brew test equipment, it appears to me that it would be much
more expensive to implement his receiver testing setup using only a
combination of off-the-shelf lab test equipment, if that is eve

Re: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements

[Erik Basilier]

The German website describes how this om has developed his capabilities over
the years, based on his specific circumstances and needs. This has resulted
in a measurement technique with arguable advantages, achieved with a
homebrew, very specialized test setup, implemented for the 40m band. While
the author apparently had access to some lab-quality test equipment for
testing his home-brew test equipment, it appears to me that it would be much
more expensive to implement his receiver testing setup using only a
combination of off-the-shelf lab test equipment, if that is even practically
doable. 
I haven't read everything on the website, but for those who find the German
confusing, the following is my summary overview of some of the site content.
He put up a huge horizontal V antenna that picks up high signal voltages
from BC signals etc, so rx overload and even damage is a concern.
His latest home-built rx is good, but he still looks for improvements, and
he focuses on preselectors as a possible way to improve performance.
Preselectors don't seem very popular these days, but the author makes a case
that at least for his extreme conditions, they can contribute in a
meaningful way to how strong, nearby interfering signals can be handled.
This turns out to be the case for his homebrew rx and also several
commercial rigs, including the K3. The K3 of course has its roofing filter
as standard equipment. The IC-751 and an FT-1000 Field have both been
modified to add roofing filters that are not part of the original design.
The IC-7300 which places its ADC at the front end, cannot be so modified due
to its basic architecture, and is tested as manufactured. 
To test for unwanted response to nearby strong signals the author used 3
types of test setups: IP3 (two input frequencies), continuous noise spectrum
(measuring Noise Power Ratio) , and the broadband spectrum carefully
generated by pulses, which varies with pulse frequency. The latter method is
considered the best, and most similar to real band conditions, and
applicable to all the tested receivers (the IP3 method makes no sense for
the IC-7300 type architecture). 
The pulse generator setup has a notch filter that keeps the pulse spectrum
out of the rx passband, which is set to 500 Hz. When the power of the pulses
is cranked up, the rx does respond eventually, but the higher the pulse
power tolerated, the better the rx. The table presented shows "tolerated"
(in some sense) pulse power in dBm for the different receivers with and
without use of the homebrew preselector, which always helps. 

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Bob DeHaney
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 12:52 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] OE3HKL's Measurements


 You are correct Breitband means Wide Band in English. Only his home-built
receiver is better than the K3 measurements

Vy 73 de Bob DJ0RD/WU5T


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K3 powers off when after several minutes of 12W carrier

[Erik Basilier]

Brian, thanks for that tip. I bought this K3 used, so I didn't put it
together. Will have to inspect to find out if pads are installed. The serial
# 2241 suggests to me that the pads might indeed be missing.

Recalibrating the wattmeter plus TX gain did not eliminate the problem of
the K3 powering down, and there is still a gap in obtainable output powers.
After recalibration (without the KPA500) the powers not obtainable on 80m
was anything between 12 and 16. I get the impression that this is normal
behavior. Not a problem for normal hamming, and only a minor annoyance when
using the rig as a variable power test instrument. Running the same
endurance test with power setting 12W on 20m did not seem to lead to the rig
shutting down, and the range of unobtainable output powers is actually
between 9 and 12. I attribute this to variations in wattmeter sensitivities
between 80m and 20m. Of course the wattmeter calibration is performed only
on the 20m band.

As I performed the wattmeter calibration today I ran into a complication
that I don't remember from last time I did this (over a year ago). Following
the manual instructions I set the power to 5.0W. (I did this using the power
knob; first I misread it to mean tweak the power setting to obtain a 5W
indication on the external wattmeter. The manual really should not be
ambiguous on this). I brought up the CONFIG:WMTR LP display as instructed. I
then held TUNE to start transmission, and was ready to adjust the main
tuning knob to get 5W on the external meter. However, the transmission did
not utilize the 5W PWR setting. Instead it used the TUN PWR setting, which
happened to be very different. To complete the procedure I had to go back
and adjust TUN PWR to 5W. I must be missing something here...

73,
Erik K7TV



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Brian Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:24 PM
To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 powers off when after several minutes of 12W
carrier

For folks who run lots of high duty cycle modes, Elecraft is now
recommending 'thermal pads' between the LPA transistors and the bottom
cover. I found this out when I was doing some mods to my 10yo K3 and the
instructions said to install them and I didn't have 'em. You can get them
from Elecraft, not expensive. 

73,
Brian, K0DTJ
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K3 powers off when after several minutes of 12W carrier

[Erik Basilier]

Same result if the K3 is run at 12W without the KPA500. This is a K3 I
bought used; I guess I may have forgotten to check the power calibrations on
it. Will try that next.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net <elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net> On
Behalf Of Erik Basilier
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:42 PM
To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 powers off when after several minutes of 12W carrier

I have been testing sustained power capabilities of wideband HF transformers
for feeding EFHW antennas. This involves running high power through HF
transformers back to back into a dummy load. When running 200W out of the
KPA500, the K3 was indicating 12W, and I think that means the 100W PA was
not operating. After a few minutes the K3 totally shut down. This had
nothing to do with the transformers under test; I get the same result when
running the KPA500 at 200W directly into the dummy load. After restart the
K3 shows no sign of problem unless the 200W endurance test is run again.
Then I increased power just a little bit so that the 100W stage kicked in. I
got 300W out of the KPA500, and now the K3 keeps going without shutting
down. I can see how 12W may be a bit much for the driver stage, but if so,
shouldn't the 100W stage kick in sooner? Also, I expected the K3/KPA500
combo to be able to produce any power level I wanted within its range. What
I see is that when the 100W stage kicks in, the output (as seen on an analog
meter) makes a big jump so that certain power levels cannot be achieved.

Thanks,
Erik K7TV 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] K3 powers off when after several minutes of 12W carrier

[Erik Basilier]

I have been testing sustained power capabilities of wideband HF transformers
for feeding EFHW antennas. This involves running high power through HF
transformers back to back into a dummy load. When running 200W out of the
KPA500, the K3 was indicating 12W, and I think that means the 100W PA was
not operating. After a few minutes the K3 totally shut down. This had
nothing to do with the transformers under test; I get the same result when
running the KPA500 at 200W directly into the dummy load. After restart the
K3 shows no sign of problem unless the 200W endurance test is run again.
Then I increased power just a little bit so that the 100W stage kicked in. I
got 300W out of the KPA500, and now the K3 keeps going without shutting
down. I can see how 12W may be a bit much for the driver stage, but if so,
shouldn't the 100W stage kick in sooner? Also, I expected the K3/KPA500
combo to be able to produce any power level I wanted within its range. What
I see is that when the 100W stage kicks in, the output (as seen on an analog
meter) makes a big jump so that certain power levels cannot be achieved.

Thanks,
Erik K7TV 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] OT: Rocket causes temporary hole in ionosphere, affects GPS

[Erik Basilier]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/spacex-launch-last-year-punched-huge
-temporary-hole-in-the-ionosphere/

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] DMM

[Erik Basilier]

Generally I agree with the idea that it is best to buy quality and only pay
once. If you work with the item all the time, there is no doubt at all.
However, for amateur use the same often applies only if one views the deal
over many years. One should ask oneself whether the high-priced "quality"
item is really built to be used for decades. One risk is technical
obsolescence. If the item is all about the latest hot technology, that is a
significant issue. Someone may consider a Bird 43 to be obsolete, but
personally I don't. Another risk is whether the item might deteriorate
physically over decades. Maybe a Fluke will not, and we have seen some
testimonials of old Fluke meters aging well. But consider my own
precautionary tale: 
Over 40 years ago, my professional experience told me that Keithley made
very accurate, quality equipment. For personal use I bought a new Keithley
128 DMM, which indeed worked very well for a long time. However, about a
decade ago the latch broke on the little door for adjustment access.
Apparently, the plastic had aged and become brittle. The battery door latch
looks similar, and I figured it could break anytime. Or some other plastic
part could break. Now the Keithley sits mostly unused and is supposedly
there only for when I want to confirm a reading taken by my $30 DMM. Never
mind the fact that battery replacements will be needed, threatening plastic
breakage, if I want to use the meter at all. Hmm... I think I haven't used
it for about 3 years... and then I had to change the battery... OK, I got 30
years of reliable use for the high initial investment, so it was still a
good deal. But where plastic is involved, buying top quality is not a given.
Certainly, my Birds with their metal construction make the Keithley look
bad.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On
Behalf Of Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 9:26 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] DMM


I have used numerous cheap meters (now I am playing with a pen-type meter I
got from China for $23). They work, are usually relatively accurate, and
have more features than most of us will use. But one thing I've noticed is
that they take a longer time to take a measurement than the Fluke 79III that
has served me well since time immemorial.

I worked as a mechanic for a while, and the difference between good tools
and almost-good tools may be subtle. But when you have a wrench in your hand
all day, you understand why the astronomical prices of (for
example) Snap-On tools are totally justified. The same goes for meters.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
On 20 Mar 2018 00:46, Bob DeHaney wrote:
> There are a lot of used Flukes on EBay, maybe not the latest model, 
> but for us perfect.  That's where I bought mine, the price is right too.
> 
> VY 73 de Bob DJ0RD/WU5T
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] any KPA500 available

[Erik Basilier]

I bought my KPA500+KAT500 combo (great used condition, but power calibration
was way off) for $2100 shipped on 3/14/2017. I have seen several sell on QRZ
since then. If you keep watching there, you will find some. I just used
their "search" function to see some recent deals. One KPA500 went for $1750
on 2/5/2018. I have seen sellers asking $1900 not long ago; don't know it
they got that much. My impression is that the price is neither going up nor
down. Compared to the KPA1500 the price and capability differences are very
great, and the two markets are mostly separate. Many people probably go from
1.5kW HF tube amp's to the KPA1500. Someone interested in 6m legal limit
gets quite a deal compared to spending $$$ on a 6m-only legal limit amp.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jamie WW3S
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2018 3:14 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] any KPA500 available

with the new amp shipping, whats the going price for a KPA500? Any good
clean gently used ones available
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 and FT8

[Erik Basilier]

Jim, I totally agree about the choice of bandwidth for RTTY, i.e. wider than 
what one would first assume based on the frequency shift. The same surely 
applies to PSK and WSJT modes too, although I haven't yet tried the latter. But 
I don't think PSK31 with its tiny shift requires anything close to 500 Hz. 
Maybe 150 Hz, which is a lot smaller than 2.5 kHz. When I wrote about using a 
wide receiver, I was referring to SSB bandwidth for modes like PSK, which is 
clearly non-optimal. Personally often find it helps to turn off AGC entirely, 
even if the slow setting may minimize decoding problems caused by pumping AGC. 
And, as Dave suggests (and I implied in my previous post) I crank down the K3 
bandwidth to something related to the width of the signal I want to copy. The 
purpose of that post of mine was not to suggest I have problems, but to point 
out that some users of mainly PSK criticize use of high power based on limits 
of their receiver's selectivity or limits of their understan
 ding of how/when to use it, and this leads to myths about higher power being 
harmful. Again, I have no experience with FT8, but I made the assumption that 
the discussion of high power for FT8 is mostly a repeat of the discussion of 
high power for PSK. On the topic of digital myths, it seems many users of 
digital modes look at a strong signal, see that it is visible over certain 
frequency range, and judge it to be "broad" as in improperly modulated based on 
that, even if the signal is properly modulated but just strong. I believe the 
reason of such a mistake is that these modulation types (like also FM) do not 
have a definite cutoff in bandwidth; it just tapers off. Which is another way 
of showing that the filter needs to be wider than what would first be assumed. 
However, as filter bandwidth is increased, the returns in copyability decline 
rather quickly, while interference from other stations steadily increases. When 
I get to trying FT8, I don't expect it to be very differe
 nt from PSK31 when it comes to the choice of power etc, but I may want at that 
time to review advice given in this thread by you and others.

73,
Erik K7TV


-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2018 2:15 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 and FT8

On 3/4/2018 11:58 AM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> The reason seems to be that they have been taught to use a wide 
> receiver in combination with a sound card, so as to get a panoramic 
> view including other stations. This lets a strong nearby station 
> control the agc, and affects reception of stations on a range of frequencies.

There is a VERY good reason why WSJT developer, K1JT, advises users to use wide 
IF bandwidth, and it's NOT the panoramic display. The reason is that filters 
introduce phase shift in the passband, and phase shift is the enemy of good 
decoding. The same physics, by the way, applies to other digital modes, 
including RTTY. Serious RTTY contesters have learned that 500 Hz is a good 
setting. Our ears may hear off-frequency QRM louder than the signal we're 
trying to detect, but the decoder does just fine.

This is true of both WSJT and other decoders I use for RTTY. Indeed, even 
though a strong signal may APPEAR to cover much of the display, if the strong 
signal is  CLEAN and you have your receive audio levels to the computer set to 
that the strong signal doesn't overload the computer, the decoder is likely to 
copy signals that appear to be covered by it. If you consider AGC pumping a 
problem, simply turn it off.

FWIW, with both FT8 and RTTY, I keep AGC on Slow, and set WSJT-X for an 
indicated level as high as 50 dB, using the RF Gain. With this setting, if a 
strong signal reduces gain in the radio, weak signals will still be strong 
enough at the computer to be decoded. I mostly use WSJT-X on 6M and 160M, but 
the few times I've gone to FT8 on HF to work a DX trip, I've more than filled 
the 36 slots in JTAlert. So I guess it's working. :)

73, Jim K9YC


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] KPA1500 and FT8

[Erik Basilier]

Use of more power than necessary is likely to bother someone who is using
the same frequency in a different locale.
There seems to be a large majority of digital modes operators that object to
the use of high power.
The reason seems to be that they have been taught to use a wide receiver in
combination with a sound card, so as to get a panoramic view including other
stations. This lets a strong nearby station control the agc, and affects
reception of stations on a range of frequencies. This negates the dearly
paid for capability of our Elecraft radios, which we bought in part because
they can eliminate the influence of strong nearby signals. Sure, the ease
and cheapness of getting on digital modes with just a soundcard and a wide
receiver helps bring many into the hobby. The large majority of digital
users that use such a setup do benefit if every station is equally strong,
so that agc never makes a gain adjustment (or manual rf gain never needs to
change). However, that goal will never be reached, as common natural causes
will affect signal strength even more than the difference between a a 30W
station and a 1500W station. The operator that has a separate panadapter
like the P3 that is independent of the radio selectivity and agc system, or
an SDR radio that knows to take agc from one station at a time, needs not
have any problem with high-powered stations nearby. The many op's that look
down on high power operation for certain digital modes are in effect saying:
Don't make this hobby into an unfair competition by giving an advantage to
those that spend on their setup beyond the cheap, wide ssb rig plus
soundcard. This is opposite to what applies to traditional modes. It goes
against the natural pursuit of higher performance through improvement of
equipment (at a price). Maybe it is wise to let these anti-progress kids
have their sandbox undisturbed. There is much to be said for allowing
different sub-hobbies for different tastes and pocketbooks. But getting
there would be easier accomplished if the proponents would admit their
motives and stop implying that communication with certain modes doesn't get
better with higher power, like happens with any other modes.

73,
Erik K7TV


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

[Erik Basilier]

Hi Rick,

I distinguish between the radiator and the feed method, and therefore I would 
not say "the compromises add up to make it work".

To me, moving a dipole's feed from center to the end (or to somewhere in 
between) doesn't change its radiating characteristic as a dipole. Whether the 
feed method is free of loss, or free of diverting power off of the dipole are 
complicated questions better answered by serious testing of an individual 
design than by simple rules of thumb. I haven't recently looked into the "box" 
of my Cushcraft vertical, but it has been reported that there is a separate 
impedance transformer and a separate common mode choke. A very low swr is 
achieved without a tuner, at full legal power (within bandwidth limitations; 
people have blown up toroids when going outside bandwidth on 40m on the R7). 
There is obviously not a high level of power lost in the "box", or it would not 
survive full legal power. Thus this is not like some antennas that sacrifice 
efficiency by swamping in order to achieve low swr. Therefore most of any 
observed loss of performance can be attributed to the radiator and its en
 vironment, in combination with some rf going on the outside of the feedline 
(which is not completely prevented by the one CMC in the box). Some end-fed 
antennas use a non-resonant radiatior. This invariably results in swr high 
enough to require a tuner. Since the R5/R7 has low swr and not very high losses 
in the "box", the radiator obviously is resonant on all bands, presenting a 
non-reactive impedance at the end. That impedance must be very high since it is 
at the end. The very high non-reactive impedance makes it comparable to the end 
impedance of a resonant halfwave wire dipole even if the Cushcraft radiator is 
in other respects different. That is my basis for assuming that the Cushcraft 
"box" can be compared to what you would put at the end of a wire dipole when 
moving the feed from its center to one end.

An end-fed dipole can be resonant and present a very high but non-reactive 
impedance on multiple (higher) bands. This can allow a fixed, broad-band 
impedance transformer to provide low swr on multiple bands without a tuner. 
Yes, one has to be suspicious of possible losses in the transformer, and it 
takes a fight to stop rf from going onto the outside of the feedline. But since 
one avoids swr-caused losses in coax, and balun losses, and tuner losses with 
end-feed, I consider it an alternative worthy of serious consideration. If 
optimal protection against high voltages on the coax is a main goal, that just 
might tip the scale to make the end-fed dipole the winner.

73, 
Erik K7TV
 

-Original Message-
From: Rick WA6NHC [mailto:wa6...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:52 AM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

Hi Erik,

I'll keep this short as the thread will likely be closed soon (or should).  
What I have up now is Field Day style, simple antennas (the inverted L for 
example, an 80M dipole, R7) shot into the trees so I could get on, pending the 
install of 'the real station', hi.  The water pipe (300+' in two directions, 
deep enough to never freeze) is the L counterpoise, for now.  It isn't ideal 
but it works and isn't meant for forever.

I will be installing a lightning protection and counterpoise system with lots 
of copper, ground rods etc, which will come to box (for feed line, rotor 
control) at the tower end of the conduit to the shack (AND tie into the house 
grounding per code).  The box will have hardline from the house, coax for the 
tower, matching network for the Inverted L and the surge and lightning devices 
on each feed (static or lightning stays OUTside).  I'll also put an AC power 
outlet at the base, for occasional power tool use and a wifi web cam (may as 
well, I have to power the electric winch motor).

I DX, I don't contest, so I don't need SO2R (other than the second rx for DX 
chasing on splits).  Should that someday change, I'm blessed with the space for 
a tower farm or I'll put the EDZ up (kind of a favorite, I worked a LOT of DX 
on that dipole).  With the KAT500 (or KPA1500), rapid QSY isn't an issue on the 
EDZ.

No slam was inferred or taken on the Cushcraft; only that the compromises add 
up to make it work, but not as well as a tuned dipole.

I'm not sure that an end fed wire antenna will work well on multiple bands 
without a fair amount of effort (remote tuner at least, absolutely a CMC to 
back that up).  The voltages at radical SWR (non-resonant
afterall) can be high.  Isolating the radiation to the wire is a major issue, 
that antenna tends to want the feedline (coax commonly) as the counterpoise, 
bringing RF into the shack (and why I went with the inverted L which partly 
warms the worms).

73,
Rick NHC




___

Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

[Erik Basilier]

Rick,

I didn't mean to imply anything about the efficiency of the R5/R7; they are 
quite short with lots of compromises, and there are certainly ways a vertical 
antenna in general may, in a given installation, have specific limitations. 
Certainly I rarely use mine as I get much better results with my horizontal 
beam (Sommer XP708). My comments regarding the R5 were meant to be only about 
issues with matching and rf in the shack etc.

I agree that reality isn't always in agreement with the theories at hand. That 
is why I plan to compare the end-fed with a center-fed before I commit to it 
for personal use. In a previous thread I have outlined my planned comparison, 
"side by side", trying my darnedest to notice any performance loss resulting 
from the endfeed. We shall see about that. I won't take up space here to repeat 
all the discussion about that testing. What I have tried to say in this thread, 
is that I am rather confident that I can "tame" the end-fed in the sense that 
it won't cause problems with rf in the shack, and regarding performance I will 
assume there is no problem until my comparison shows that there is.

The original poster had a problem with coaxial protection devices, and if I 
understood his configuration correctly, such problems could be anticipated in 
that configuration. I pointed to end-feed with tunerless low swr as a potential 
approach to make those protection devices work as intended, with a radiator 
that is the same length wire as what he had. 

Your antenna farm is a separate subject, as is mine, and in this thread I will 
just comment briefly on those subjects. I got interested in SO2R, but don't 
have space for two towers/beams. You may not be thinking about SO2R, but if you 
are, and if you too can't put up a second tower/beam, then you might want to 
think twice about using SteppIR. With a beam that can work multiple bands 
without retuning, I use a multiplexer that allows two transmitters to use the 
same beam as if I had two separate ones. (Minus the capability to point them in 
different directions!). If an end-fed wire antenna works well without tuner on 
multiple bands, it can also be used with a multiplexer to perform instantly on 
another band, without retuning. Not so with a simple center-fed dipole (but a 
fan or trapped dipole would be ok). My other comment is about your verticals 
fed against a pipe in the ground. When I was using inverted L's for 160 and 80, 
I first tried them against a single, 4" wide copper s
 trap going part way around the house and tied to a few ground rods here and 
there. Then I tried it against two zigging wires used as elevated radials. This 
worked much much better. Like others have said so often and so well: If you are 
going to bury radials, it will take many of them.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Rick WA6NHC [mailto:wa6...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:30 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

I have an R7 (end fed vertical 40-10M).  It and a 80M dipole are my current 
antennas, until I plant a tower later this year (55' US Tower, motor drive, 
tilt over).  I have to admit that I'm not a fan of vertical antennas.

Since I moved here last year and haven't gotten the tower up yet, the R7 is 
'adequate' for a temporary antenna, but dipoles are more effective. It also 
provides decent diversity reception with a horizontal dipole. (The new antenna, 
when it gets up, is a SteppIR DB-42 at 60', resonant 80-6M then I'll add in a 
Beverage for RX only since I have the space now or a K9AY.  I have a 160M 
inverted L up too (bend at about 90'), using the underground water pipe as the 
counterpoise, buried down 4-5', 1:1 CMC at the base, it was quick and simple.  
I'm adding a tuning network to that so that will be a 80/160M resonant 
vertical, giving me another option on 80M.)  The beautiful part is that with 
only 2 resonant antennas, I can cover 160-6M once I'm done, perfectly matching 
the new KPA1500.  Simple ROCKS!

The R7 (like the R5, 8, 9) has a matching network (torroids mostly) in the 
black box and trap and capacitive elements on the main element and short 
radials at the base to get it to load, but that doesn't meant that it's 
efficient; it means it presents a load that is acceptable (so does a dummy 
load).  The EDZ at my last QTH beat  the R7 in almost all scenarios on any 
band, unless the other station was off the ends of the dipole, then it was even 
money; which left the R7 being used for diversity.

So it works, but I wouldn't rate it highly unless one is limited by space, HOA 
or similar.  It reacts badly when near (w/in 10' of) any metal and the base 
must be at least 10' AGL.  Adding more choking is very wise.  I would expect 
similar results from a non-commercial antenna, unless used only on one band 
(and it's still a challenge to tame).

Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

[Erik Basilier]

A lot of users seem pleased with end-fed wire antennas of recent commercial 
models. Such antennas should not behave much differently compared to end-fed 
verticals such as the R5 that I have had for many years and which creates no 
problems even at high power. Like that antenna, the wire models now becoming 
popular use a high ratio wide-band impedance transformer. The R5 also includes 
tiny radials and a common mode choke at the feedpoint. The R5 behaves well even 
at high power with its feedline length of maybe 50ft, and there is not enough 
RF in the shack to affect the operation of radios or other equipment. However, 
for good measure I added a second common mode choke in the form of several 
ferrite snap-on's about 10 ft from the feedpoint and then found a noticeable 
reduction in shack RF (measured in the shack using an MFJ RF current sensor). I 
believe there are lots of satisfied users of the Cushcraft endfed verticals. As 
to the wire end-fed's I am constructing an imitation of a popular commercial 
version, and will find out for myself if there are any difficulties. I will add 
a common mode choke placed either at the feed point (like the R5) and a 
separate counterpoise, or I might try placing the choke a distance away from 
the feedpoint to let a portion of the feedline act as counterpoise. Again, a 
second common mode choke further down the feedline will likely be added. Based 
on the positive reports by so many users of the commercial versions, who 
apparently don't add any common-mode chokes, I am fairly confident of success.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Rick Bates (WA6NHC) [mailto:wa6...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 1:35 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

I’ve always presumed that the ratings were based on 1:1 SWR as there is no 
reasonable way to define it otherwise.   Actual ratings at other loads can be 
inferred on that basis. 

An end fed dipole is MUCH harder to tame than a dipole (or fan dipole) and 
inherently challenging to keep the RF away from places like the shack. 

Rick WA6NHC

Smell Czech correction happen

> On Feb 24, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> So, the manufacturer of the protective device should probably not just tell 
> you a wattage rating, but also the acceptable swr level for that power.

> Or abandon the ladder+balun+coax approach and go to an end-fed dipole with 
> transformer that can provide low impedance coax feed on all bands.
> 
> 73,
> Erik 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

[Erik Basilier]

I am not familiar with the protector you use, and how it is specified, but it 
seems to me that any such device intended for use on a transmission line must 
strike a fine balance between low breakdown voltage (for protecting your gear) 
and high breakdown voltage (to accommdate the power level in combination with 
swr). The higher the swr, the higher the max voltage, for a given power level. 
So, the manufacturer of the protective device should probably not just tell you 
a wattage rating, but also the acceptable swr level for that power. The higher 
swr level that is acceptable, the less protection is provided for your rig and 
tuner, etc. My guess would be that those protectors are meant for use at low 
swr. A multiband dipole fed with ladder line + balun + coax will have high swr 
on the coax at least on some bands, regardless of whether it is 1:1 or 4:1 or 
whatever. I would not expect the impedance to be close to 50 ohms on the coax. 
You might want to forget about the protection. 
 Or, build a spark gap protector to be located on the ladder line. Or abandon 
the ladder+balun+coax approach and go to an end-fed dipole with transformer 
that can provide low impedance coax feed on all bands.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Rick WA6NHC
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:41 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 faulting on high VSWR on power rise

One exception is when the dipole is used on multiple bands, then a 4:1 may be 
required.  That was the case for my 370' 80M EDZ (two opposing
5/8 wave, center fed).  That is specifically a non-resonant antenna on any ham 
band but it performed best with the 4:1 instead of the 1:1.  It was a 
compromise either way, this was the better choice since I needed that antenna 
to work on all bands.  If it was only 80M, the 1:1 was the better choice.

While I am not a fan of MFJ so consider it suspect in this case, I also believe 
that since the common mode choke (referred to as a balun in this
thread) should GREATLY exceed the voltage expectations for simple overhead.  
The cost differences for higher ratings are not significant. In my stations, I 
use the 10KW rated devices from DX Engineering (KPA500
amp) and I've had no issues with them, even at extreme SWR mismatch (QRO on 
160M into the above dipole, 20:1 unmatched with a Heathkit tuner). My new 
station will be entirely resonant, so a 1:1 CMC will suffice but I'll still use 
the high power devices.

The bottom line here is that the antenna in this thread is not resonant 
(because of the feed choice, which is understandable for multiband use), the 
voltages presented will be extreme, component overkill (and a more qualified 
tuner) should be used.  It's not a fault of the amp, but of the matching 
network.

It is also KEY that the LEAST amount of coax is used (under 10' to the
final) because the high SWR is present there as well, so the losses will be 
extreme and it could even exceed the voltage limits of the coax, depending on 
brand, age and type.  Been there, done that (darned HOA limits).  This also 
means that the coax should be tested, from time to time, until proven worthy.

Rick NHC

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] KPA1500 duty cycle

[Erik Basilier]

A recent Elecraft newsletter stated that "the KPA1500 is a high duty cycle
amplifier compatible with most digital modes ranging from RTTY through JT65
etc.". The KPA1500 manual specifices  for 50 MHz "Maximum 50 sec key down /
50 sec standby (Rec. Min Fan Speed set = 2)".

My question: For the 50 MHz scenario of alternating 50 sec carrier and 50
sec standby, how much testing has been done? Has anyone run this way for
days on end?

73,
Erik K7TV


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

Hi Frank,

 

I am not giving up on WSPRLite, but after I used EZNEC to look at  interactions 
last night, I will probably have to find a roomier antenna range than my own 
back yard.

 

I agree that it would be nice to move discussion about WSPRLite to somewhere 
else. I do sometimes look at the WSPRLite Facebook group, but I don’t like it, 
partly because I dislike the whole concept of Facebook, and partly because I 
don’t like the cluttery interface that makes it slow to use. I like yahoo 
groups better, even though there is a lot to criticize about the interface for 
those.

 

To those following this discussion in the Elecraft list, I want to apologize 
for the lack of formatting of my latest, very long post (and some earlier 
posts). I just haven’t learnt how to write a post in a proper editor and then 
transfer the content to a post while preserving the formatting. Any suggestions 
would be appreciated. Maybe there is some generic advice somewhere for all 
Nabble lists? In this short post I am separating paragraphs by return 
characters so that I see a single blank line between paragraphs. I am afraid 
that when you receive this, you will see too much space between paragraphs.

 

Also for the Elecrafters that don’t already know the WSPRLite concepts, I want 
to explain that when Frank refers to DXPlorer, that is the actual trade name 
for the proprietary software that takes the free WSPR data and creates from it 
a single performance number for each transmission. (That is also the number 
graphed together with the number from the other transmitter/antenna used for 
comparison.  In my previous posts I wanted to limit the post length by not 
mentioning the DXPlorer name. 

 

73,

Erik K7TV

 

From: donov...@starpower.net [mailto:donov...@starpower.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:42 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Cc: donw...@embarqmail.com; Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

 

Hi Eric,

 

Don't give up on WSPRlite, with experience you'll learn that its an

exceptionally powerful antenna evaluation tool.

 

The "simultaneous spots" comparison tool on DXplorer.net allows you

to select the maximum distance for the WSPR reports being evaluated. 

It also computes the mean and standard deviations in dB between the

two WSPRlite transmitters (and antennas) being compared.   There's

no magic here.

 

Because the ionosphere and your antennas are the media connecting

your WSPRlite transmitters to WSPR receivers all over the world,

its very important that you take steps to reduce interaction

among the antennas being compared and to reduce the ionospheric

variability affecting usefulness the reported data.  The important

necessary steps are:

 

1. The antennas should transmit the same polarization.

 

2. The antennas should be as close as possible but not so close that

they interact with each other (EZNEC helps you reduce interactions)

 

This discussion needs to move off of the Elecraft reflector, it has little

to do with the purpose of this reflector or Elecraft products  The

WSPRlite page on Facebook is a better choice.

 

73

Frank

W3LPL

 

  _  

From: "Erik Basilier" <ebasil...@cox.net <mailto:ebasil...@cox.net> >
To: donw...@embarqmail.com <mailto:donw...@embarqmail.com> , 
donov...@starpower.net <mailto:donov...@starpower.net> , 
elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 8:43:57 AM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

Don, please see my comments below:

>About all you can conclude from the WSPR readings is the relative difference 
>between antennas.  If you want to compare two horizontal antennas, place them 
>end to end.  >The radiation at the end is at a minimum and the antenna will 
>not interact.

Years ago I was under the naïve impression that if you buy a perfectly 
symmetrical GP, put it in a vertical position high up in the air, with no 
nearby metal objects, and run the coax perfectly vertically to a transmitter 
where the feeder hits the ground, you will get a nice pattern that is well 
predicted by a model. After all, the antenna manufacturer probably showed us 
that pattern in their catalog, and we have seen that pattern before in our 
antenna book. Well, not too long ago QST published an article that said 
(paraphrasing): "Not so fast. Sometimes you will get a very different pattern, 
and it may be terrible at the low elevation angles that you want." The reason: 
the feedline has current on the outside. How much will depend on its length. 
Putting a common mode choke at the feedpoint won't save you if the feedline is 
long; you may have to break up the current by several chokes along the line." 
The author supported this by theory as well as measurement. And why not? The 
feedline is a nearby metallic object, so why should it not affect the 

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

 doesn't 
matter much, but I don't see any reason not to  to point both antennas in the 
same direction. It seems like I will need to use considerable feedline lengths 
in order to get the separation while keeping the transmitters close toghether 
so I can use both hands to start both at the same time. That probably means 
that I need more space than my back yard provides. 

I can't help thinking about how the comparison software might take into account 
the distance to receiving stations versus number of stations. I speculate that 
different formulas might be optimal for use cases involving differet types of 
contests. Maybe SOTABeams might be persuaded in the future to let users 
configuse the software for such different needs. Maybe the next step after that 
would be to let the formulas be tailored further to fit the beamwidth of a 
beam, and to compensate for different parts of the worlkd having different 
densities of WSPR receiving stations.

73,
Erik K7TV

>73,
>Don W3FPR

On 11/21/2017 8:40 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> I hope my interest in WSPRLite antenna comparisons doesn't lead this thread 
> too far off topic, but I have further thoughts on how to orient the two 
> antennas being compared.
>
> Frank, who is much more experienced with this comparison system, suggested 
> that two horizontally polarized antennas should be oriented end-to end, due 
> to parasitic interacton between the antennas. I questioned whether the 
> end-to-end configuration would be free from interactions. Be that as it may, 
> but while thinking about configuration choices, I came up with another reason 
> why end-to-end would be the right thing to do.
>
> Suppose we are comparing two omnidirectional antennas such as verticals. Even 
> if the receiving stations are unevenly distributed in different directions, 
> the comparison based on received reports should be fair. If instead we are 
> comparing two horizontal dipoles, that are not pointing in the same 
> direction, and receiving stations are not distributed evenly in all 
> directions, the antenna with fewer receivers in the main lobes would likely 
> be at a disadvantage. If the feed system is the part that is different 
> between the two ontennas, one could compensate, as I suggested, by swapping 
> antennas for each feed system, but the time taken allows the conditions to 
> change, so one would probably have to go back and forth a number of times to 
> gain confidence in any observed difference in performance. Close to the coast 
> receiving stations would be largely missing in roughtly half of possible 
> compass directions, and unidirectional antennas would be affected more than a 
> dipole with its bidirectional pattern. Much seems to depend on the 
> proprietary algorithm used to composite a single performance number for from 
> the WSPR received s/n rations at multiple receiving stations. What is the 
> balance between the number of good reception reports vs. the distance for 
> each one? When we talk about difficulty in comparing one vertical and one 
> horizontal antenna, I suspect that similar considerations may account for 
> result being inconsistent or difficult to interpret.
>

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

I hope my interest in WSPRLite antenna comparisons doesn't lead this thread too 
far off topic, but I have further thoughts on how to orient the two antennas 
being compared.

Frank, who is much more experienced with this comparison system, suggested that 
two horizontally polarized antennas should be oriented end-to end, due to 
parasitic interacton between the antennas. I questioned whether the end-to-end 
configuration would be free from interactions. Be that as it may, but while 
thinking about configuration choices, I came up with another reason why 
end-to-end would be the right thing to do.

Suppose we are comparing two omnidirectional antennas such as verticals. Even 
if the receiving stations are unevenly distributed in different directions, the 
comparison based on received reports should be fair. If instead we are 
comparing two horizontal dipoles, that are not pointing in the same direction, 
and receiving stations are not distributed evenly in all directions, the 
antenna with fewer receivers in the main lobes would likely be at a 
disadvantage. If the feed system is the part that is different between the two 
ontennas, one could compensate, as I suggested, by swapping antennas for each 
feed system, but the time taken allows the conditions to change, so one would 
probably have to go back and forth a number of times to gain confidence in any 
observed difference in performance. Close to the coast receiving stations would 
be largely missing in roughtly half of possible compass directions, and 
unidirectional antennas would be affected more than a dipole with its 
bidirectional pattern. Much seems to depend on the proprietary algorithm used 
to composite a single performance number for from the WSPR received s/n rations 
at multiple receiving stations. What is the balance between the number of good 
reception reports vs. the distance for each one? When we talk about difficulty 
in comparing one vertical and one horizontal antenna, I suspect that similar 
considerations may account for result being inconsistent or difficult to 
interpret.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Erik Basilier
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 11:13 PM
To: donov...@starpower.net; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

Hi Frank,

 

Thanks for your very useful comments. Below my answers:

 

>Radiation results from RF current flowing in an antenna.  An RF

>ammeter is a useful instrument for measuring the relative efficiency

>different types of matching networks feeding similar antennas.

Granted. I might want to add that to my plans. I know that the WSPRLite 
tolerates no more than 100 mW of reflected power, and to avoid accident risk I 
intend to set the transmit power to no more than 100 mW. I do not know how the 
units might fold back transmit power in a scenario where the SWR is good but 
less than perfect. For this reason I am planning to use a tuner whenever SWR is 
not very close to ideal. The location of the tuner would be wherever it would 
make sense to place it in field operation. If I add ammeters, they would be 
placed at the feedpoint, which should work well when I compare different 
impedance transformers using identical wires. If I compare to non-resonant 
wires or center feed, it would be hard to compare ammeter readings.

 

> 1.  The two antennas under test should be located within less than

>one wavelength of each other, otherwise independent selective fading

>becomes a significant source of measurement error.  

Interesting. You are saying that this applies even if the comparison is done 
over several hours?

In my limited back yard, and because I want the feedpoints close to each other, 
I will certainly meet the requirement of staying withing one wavelength.

 

>2;  Horizontally polarized antennas should be oriented end-to-end

>to each other to avoid significant parasitic interaction that washes

>out the other differences in antenna performance

My earlier comments about end-fed antennas focused on vertical wires since the 
thread originator had tall trees that suggest vertical orientation. My 
preferred 24” support poles used with 60+ ft wires lead me to the inverted vee 
configuration which will be horizontally polarized. I am surprised that you can 
avoid parasitic interaction if you place the wires end-to-end. I was under the 
impression that end-to-end vertical wires, as in an elevated vertical with a 
resonant length of vertical feedline under it, with a common mode choke 
preventing current going from the radiator to the coax shield, would still 
suffer from parasitic coupling unless an additional common mode choke is added 
somewhere along the feedline to break up the resonance. I am influenced here by 
a QST article about vhf/uhf verticals where it seemed that multiple common mode 
chokes were found necessary to

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

Ignacy, 
For an end-fed wire, I would see the possibility of power losses not only in
the feed feeder, but also in the tuner, the transformer, and the effective
counterpoise path. For low counterpoise losses, small counterpoise current
is desirable, which means a high antenna impedance. When a long counterpoise
wire is needed, and when that wire is close to the ground, I would also
expect ground losses from the counterpoise current interacting with the
ground, in addition to the ground losses caused by the antenna wire
interacting with the ground. When the feeder (outside or shield)-tuner-radio
path carries all or part of the counterpoise current, I would not rule out
the possibility that the possibiility that the resistance there is
sufficient to cause losses significant enough to affect overall efficiency
of the system. That is why I would like to compare like antennas with
different feed systems. Of course antenna wire configuration is the most
important thing to determine overall performance, but when putting up a long
wire, I usually start with the support structure that already exists, or
that I can put up most easily.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ignacy
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 5:07 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

Antenna performance does not depend on how it is fed (if feeder losses are
low) but on height and ground type. For KX3 with AT, any special length
makes little sense, especially in portable conditions. KX3 matches most
random wires, and KX3 with 4:1 balun matches any wires. Lack of balance is
not too important with battery operation. I try to make random wire +
counterpoise at least 1/4 wave on the lowest frequency for reasonable
efficiency. 

For 1.5 KW, an endfed with a 49:1 or so transformer makes lots of sense as
wideband tuners for QRO are rare, expensive and heavy. "Myantennas.com"
perfected a  transformer that has very small losses and does not
self-destroy at high power. But in inv V configuration, it is way down from
a flattop.

Ignacy, NO9E  



--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

Hi Frank,

 

Thanks for your very useful comments. Below my answers:

 

>Radiation results from RF current flowing in an antenna.  An RF

>ammeter is a useful instrument for measuring the relative efficiency

>different types of matching networks feeding similar antennas.

Granted. I might want to add that to my plans. I know that the WSPRLite 
tolerates no more than 100 mW of reflected power, and to avoid accident risk I 
intend to set the transmit power to no more than 100 mW. I do not know how the 
units might fold back transmit power in a scenario where the SWR is good but 
less than perfect. For this reason I am planning to use a tuner whenever SWR is 
not very close to ideal. The location of the tuner would be wherever it would 
make sense to place it in field operation. If I add ammeters, they would be 
placed at the feedpoint, which should work well when I compare different 
impedance transformers using identical wires. If I compare to non-resonant 
wires or center feed, it would be hard to compare ammeter readings.

 

> 1.  The two antennas under test should be located within less than

>one wavelength of each other, otherwise independent selective fading

>becomes a significant source of measurement error.  

Interesting. You are saying that this applies even if the comparison is done 
over several hours?

In my limited back yard, and because I want the feedpoints close to each other, 
I will certainly meet the requirement of staying withing one wavelength.

 

>2;  Horizontally polarized antennas should be oriented end-to-end

>to each other to avoid significant parasitic interaction that washes

>out the other differences in antenna performance

My earlier comments about end-fed antennas focused on vertical wires since the 
thread originator had tall trees that suggest vertical orientation. My 
preferred 24” support poles used with 60+ ft wires lead me to the inverted vee 
configuration which will be horizontally polarized. I am surprised that you can 
avoid parasitic interaction if you place the wires end-to-end. I was under the 
impression that end-to-end vertical wires, as in an elevated vertical with a 
resonant length of vertical feedline under it, with a common mode choke 
preventing current going from the radiator to the coax shield, would still 
suffer from parasitic coupling unless an additional common mode choke is added 
somewhere along the feedline to break up the resonance. I am influenced here by 
a QST article about vhf/uhf verticals where it seemed that multiple common mode 
chokes were found necessary to prevent feedline radiation. Anyway, these 
situations should be easy to model, and I assume you have looked closely at it. 
I should have enough room to place my inverted vee’s end-to-end if you are sure 
that is the best way. 

 

>3,  Do not attempt to compare horizontally polarized antennas to

>vertically polarized antennas, independent selective fading

>becomes a significant source of measurement error that takes

>an extraordinary amount of data collection to overcome.

Comparison between horizontal and vertical configuration is not part of my 
present plans, but I have to admit previously comparing my R5 vertical to my 
horizontal HF beam. I ran it several hours in several sessions at different 
times.There were times of day where sometimes the vertical seemed to work 
better than the beam, although overall the beam looked much better. Do I 
understand you to say that this comparison was flawed because of insufficient 
time spent?

 

73,

Erik K7TV

 

>Enjoy!

 

>73

>Frank

>W3LPL

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

I am well aware of that, Frank, and in fact I have multiple cores sitting here 
waiting for such measurements. However, performance of an isolated component is 
less important than overall system performance, where the matching to antenna 
impedance as well as counterpoise current routing and losses all play in. After 
the component testing to qualify different transformers as having low loss, I 
am planning to test different versions of resonant and non-resonant end-fed 
antennas against each other in pairs. The resonant (very high impedance) 
versons will include different transformer ratios. I may even include versions 
where the impedance transformation is performed with a tapped, tuned 
parallel-resonant circuit, which is the classic approach from the Zeppelin 
days. I may also include a center-fed dipole (conventional, K9YC?, sleeve 
around coax?). To be able to compare antenna systems with potentially small 
differences, I am set up with a pair of WSPRLite transmitters that let me run 
both antennas simultaneously in synchronization. In this type of testing one 
obtains two overlaid graphs representing the two antennas under test, versus 
time. Each value shows a composite number based on s/n ratios at a number of 
different receiving stations. Over time, the two curves tend to cross back and 
forth against each other, but over a few hours one can see whether one tends to 
dominate over the other. Transmission frequencies will not be exactly the same, 
but the difference will be very small. When done in my back yard, both antennas 
in a test will be influenced by all kinds of metal structures around it, 
including my tower, power lines, metal in the house, and the other antenna 
under test. I will minimize the latter  by erecting the wires at 90 degrees 
angle, with the feed points close together, so that I can always reach both 
transmitters at the same time to push the start buttons at the same time. My 
main method of compensating for interactions with metal objects will be to swap 
the matching/feeding systems while keeping the radiators and transmitters in 
place. I like to deploy wire antennas in the field on 24 ft masts, so I will 
use two of those for the testing and arrange the two wires as inverted vee’s. 
For reasons of space, I will not include 80 m, so the two wires will be in the 
60+ foot range, except for the non-resonant version where 50+ feet are commonly 
used. For possible tests using center feed, I would use different arrangements 
that all resonate as ½ wavelength on 40. By comparing two antenna systems at a 
time, each time taking the winner to compare with the next antenna, I hope to 
determine an idea of what works best for me in field use.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

 

From: donov...@starpower.net [mailto:donov...@starpower.net] 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 3:33 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

 

Its easy to measure transformer loss by measuring the loss through

a pair of identical transformers connected to back-to-back.  

 

The loss in a single transformer will be half of the loss through the

back-to-back pair.

 

73

Frank

W3LPL

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

Bill, I am aware of Jim's innovative way of achieving center feed while 
seemingly attaching the feeder to the end. It should be useful in some 
situations. However, the thread creator wanted coverage of 4 bands with one 
antenna, and my personal interest right now is also solutions that cover 
serveral bands without adjustments and compromises. With that as the goal, I 
see no theoretical reason to want center feed. Only by feeding at the end can 
you get approximately the same impedance for each band, without moving the 
feedpoint, for so many bands. (That said, if you compare reality side-by-side 
to a map, reality tends to win. It would be interesting to compare side-by-side 
to make sure that the high-ratio transformer isn't lossy enough to hurt 
performance.) If you are looking at a single band, with a 1/2 wave vertical 
wire. The current distribution should theoretically be the same whether we feed 
it at the bottom or if we move the feed point to the center at the cost of 1/4 
wav
 elength of additional coax plus the cost of the common mode choke (but there 
may be another justification to have the choke anyway).  If one is willing to 
compromise the requirement of covering several bands with very good match, 
there is also the option of Off-Center-Feed, which can allow operation on 
several bands, but the match on most or all bands will be a compromise that 
likely forces the use of a tuner, similar to the situation with an end-fed with 
9:1 impedance transformer. If you compare the OCF with the end-fed with 9:1 
impedance transformer, it is not clear to me which one has the edge in 
practical use (assuming both have the antenna wire suspended and shaped 
similarly). For the OCF the results will depend on the selection of feedpoint, 
and for the end-fed there is room for a wide range of wire lengths that are 
non-resonant and should produce "medium impedance". One can easily find 
suggestions online for both designs. However, it seems to me that the 9:1 fans 
are 
 more prone to use low elevations and shapes that reduce performance. 

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Bill Frantz [mailto:fra...@pwpconsult.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:03 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>
Cc: 'JT Croteau' <jt.to...@gmail.com>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

A useful post Erik.

Also useful is the "pseudo end-fed" design that K9YC shows on 
<http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf> starting at page 70. This design is really 
a center fed dipole using the outside of the feed line coax as one half of the 
dipole and an extension of the center conductor as the other. The RF-electrical 
length of the feed line outside is controlled by a common-mode choke on the 
feed line.

I built one of these for 30 meters and found that the best tuning occured when 
the coax shield between the common-mode choke and the "center" feed location 
was slightly shorter than the other half of the dipole.

73 Bill AE6JV


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

That group sounds interesting, thanks.
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: VE3GAM [mailto:ve3...@rogers.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 12:09 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>; 'JT Croteau' <jt.to...@gmail.com>;
elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Cc: Al VE3GAM <ve3...@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

there is an End Fed Half Wave Antenna group on Facebook started up by N4LQ.
it certainly promotes the EFHW fed with a 49:1 transformer. Steve loves the
EFHW, but really does not have much love for 9:1 unun antenna. still, it is
an interesting group to monitor.

al ve3gam


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KX3 Field Ant. for 80/40/30

[Erik Basilier]

End-fed antennas have gotten popular lately. When I look closer I see two
different popular approaches. 

The first uses a 9:1 impedance transformer in combination with a wire length
that is not resonant on any band. The idea is that (assuming there is no
significant feedline length) you have a medium impedance (450 ohms) on the
antenna side of the transformer, and because the wire is not resonant so you
might have an impedance into the wire that is also "medium". By adjusting
the wire length, you might get pretty close to 450 ohms on one or two bands,
and with a wide range tuner you can probably get below swr 2:1 for the radio
PA to see.

The second approach, used by MyAntennas and others seems to use a
transformer with much higher impedance ratio. One way to construct such a
transformer would be to cascade two 9:1 units for an effective ratio of
81:1. This would mean the wire should present an impedance of 4000 ohms or
so. Another way would be using a single tranformer with a higher ratio. The
impedance ratio is the square of the turns ratio. With a turns ratio of 9:1
you should again get to about 4000 ohms. Somewhere I saw somebody using an
8:1 turns ratio for an ideal antenna wire impedance of about 3200 ohms.
These impedance levels are achieved by using a resonant wire.

I don't know how you arrived at your parameters, but your wire length is too
close to resonance on 80 and 40. Your transformer ratio wants a non-resonant
wire, so you might see better results if you shorten the wire significantly
and keep using the KX3 ATU. Alternatively, you could replace the transformer
for a much higher impedance ratio, in which case you can probably operate
with the tuner bypassed at least on 80 and 40 with a well adjusted wire
length. With this approach you want the wire resonant on each band. It
should be easy to achieve resonance on 80, 40, 20 and 10. As you double the
frequency, you are changing the number of half wavelengths covered by the
wire; the end feedpoint is always at the end of one of these half
wavelengths, and thus you get the very high impedance that you seek. 30
meters does not fit as clearly into this scheme. The commercial versions use
a small coil in the wire located close to the transformer end, and seem to
be able to achieve a reasoable match for all the bands 80 and up without
using a tuner. Now if you had placed the feedpoint in the center you would
not have been able to get this consistency of feedpoint impedance from band
to band. As I see it, this is a major reason for the popularity of the
end-fed approach as contrasted to the conventional center-fed approach. Note
that the 30m coverage of the 80 meter and up design is not replicated if you
try the same approach with half the wire length. In this case you will need
a tuner to get reasonable swr on 30. 

An important consideration is antenna height. We all know that antennas
usually work better when placed higher. Looking a bit closer, we can look
beyond the general installation height and consider the height(s) of the
antenna part(s) that carry the most current. Antenna modelling may calculate
the field as resulting from current levels in different individual pieces of
the wire, and then it makes sense to elevate those portions more than other
parts of the wire that carry less current. Another reason for this is the
effect of ground losses. Jim Brown, in his article that he just linked to,
shows that ground losses get worse the closer a vertical antenna is to
ground. This makes sense as currents in the lossy soil are caused by
induction from currents in the antenna. When we look at the current
distribution within the vertical antenna wire it again makes sense to place
the part(s) of the wire with high current higher rather than lower. One of
the simplest portable antennas is a short wire or whip of a quarter wave or
less. It will have a low feedpoint impedance that can probably be matched
reasonably without a tuner or with a limited-range tuner. However, with a
low impedance comes a current maximum at the feedpoint. This often means
close to the ground, so even with a good set of elevated radials,
considerable ground losses could be expected. (An actual connection to the
soil would generally be much worse, unless you bury a lot of wires.) With a
longer wire (1/2 wavelengh at the lowest band) we can have a very high
feedpoint impedance, very low feedpoint current, and more elevated
location(s) of high curent portion(s) of the antenna, for lower ground
losses. 

Any antenna feed point needs to provide two terminals for the feed current
to flow through a complete circuit. A end-fed designed for medium to high
feed impedance has small feed current. In practice this means that whatever
is used as the counterpoise side can be small. The applies with a "medium
impedance" design as discussed earlier, but it applies even more for a
resonant end-fed with its tiny feed current. A short piece of wire may be
used, but often not even that is 

[Elecraft] Useful radio features

[Erik Basilier]

Frustrated by the weight, size. cost and wires of a KX3 + KXPA100 combo for
light 100W portable operation, I got a Yaesu FT-891 (but keeping the KX3
which is superior when 100W is not needed). Going into this I knew that the
891 has horrible phase noise, but that is of no consequence since this radio
is not for operation in town, nor in multistation contesting, where nearby
stations would be bothered by the phase noise.

 

What I got is a radio about the same size as the KX3, but putting out 100W,
with a weight of about 5 lbs, and a price under $600. Yes, it relies on
fans, but they are not very loud. The whole 100W radio is about the size of
a smallish 50W VHF FM rig. This suggests to me that Elecraft might want to
design a KXPA100 that is much smaller and lighter than the current model,
and using fans. 

 

The FT-891 architecture is similar to the K3 in important respects. A
roofing filter is used in conjunction with audio frequency DSP processing
for final selectivity and noise reduction.  Many current high end rigs that
seem to have copied such elements of the K3 design, but in a cheap radio
this is not common. Performance of the FT-891 in the presence of strong
signal interference is not competitive with the K3, but it is not bad. Noise
reduction is quite good, and probably competitive with the K3 based on my
very limited testing. But the 891 has an additional tool that is very useful
for improving voice copy. They call it "Contour". I would call it a
parametric equalizer. It also reminds me of an old-time Q-multiplier. The RX
and TXequalizers of the K3 are very effective, but since they are "graphic
equalizers", it takes a while to set one up. Most of us adjust the K3
receive equalizer at most once, and never during a QSO. When I listen to
weak SSB signals in the presence of strong noise, even when using NR, on e.g
40m, it turns out that, at least with the FT-891, a very worthwhile
improvement can often be achieved by fine-tuning RX equalization. On the 891
this can be done very quickly thanks to the parametric approach to
equalization. Instead of varying a series of settings to create a response
curve point by point, we select a frequency to boost or suppress. The width
and height of the peak or valley are adjustable, but most of the time we
don't need to change those in order to make a meaningful improvement in
copyability. If the other station had optimized their TX equalizer (if they
even have one), no RX equalization on our end would be needed, but listening
at random I find most signals become easier to copy after a little RX
equalization tailored to the particular station, The notching mode, with a
moderate notch depth and width is often wide enough and shallow enough to
create pleasant voice reception by applying it somewhere inside the
passband, while deep enough to change effective passband width if applied to
the edge of the passband as a fine adjustment to the DSP bandwidth setting.
All of this is somewhat surprising to me in terms of how effective and easy
it is to use. Some reviewers of the FT-891 have claimed that with the FT-891
they can copy a station that cannot be copied on a much more expensive
radio. I have not compared side-by-side with an Elecraft radio, but it seems
to me that those reviewers are talking about something real and significant.
I am writing this to suggest that the K3 and other Elecraft radios could be
improved by adding parametric equalization to the existing array of receive
enhancement tools.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] kxpd3 question

[Erik Basilier]

I normally use either a dual paddle Begali or Bencher, but recently I purchased 
a (dual paddle) Palm paddle for portable operations. At this point, I haven't 
had time to play with adjustments, but adjusted from the factory it feels 
distinctly soft under finger pressure, almost like the lever itself were 
flexible. What really surprised me is that this "softness" felt so natural. It 
is almost like it reduces my mistakes, and makes sending easier than with my 
other paddles. I suppose the Bencher has a slight amount of flexing too, but 
nothing like this. I wonder if any other paddle models also make softness an 
asset. Maybe there is a downside with the softness when one pushes the speed 
higher. I haven't tried that yet.

73, Erik K7TV


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] On CW

[Erik Basilier]

In my post about setting up the CWOPS training outside of the organization, I 
omitted the following. When discussing the idea with a CWOPS representative, I 
said some of our presumptive participants might not be able to do Skype. I 
suggested that we instead use an FM net over a repeater. I was told that that 
would be just fine. In your case, if you are not in range of a suitable FM 
communications, I assume HF SSB would be fine as long as you select the 
frequency and time to produce solid communications for all participants.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of rkr...@johngalt.biz
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:59 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] On CW

Thanks.

My problem is that I live out in the country so far that there won't be 
broadband for the rest of my life and probably the life of my grandchildren.  I 
have satelite internet which is fine, but I can not do skype, so CWOPs is out.

Ray

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] On CW

[Erik Basilier]

I learnt CW the old way around 1962: starting at slow speed, but I believe that 
is not the best way. Recently a local club I belong to (most of the guys are 
fm/repeater types, but a few are interested in reviving/building their CW 
skills) asked me to think about a possible CW training program. I searched, and 
found the CWOPS CW Academy. I was very impressed! However, I found their 
website a bit confusing, so I dug further. I have found out: They are a club 
with membership fees, but you don't need to be a member to take the training. 
(In fact, you can't become a member unless you are already good at CW.) Their 
beginner classes work the same whether the student had learnt CW in the past or 
is a complete beginner, and I get the impression that the success rate would be 
about the same for both kinds of student. They run only 3 beginner classes per 
year, recruited from all over the world, and the number of students admitted 
per class is quite small. It appears that there is a wait
 ing list of a year or so. When you are already hesitant, that wait has to 
discourage you a bit, and so would the need to align your schedule to their 
start date. I contacted the organization and asked if I (not a member of CWOPS) 
would be allowed to teach the beginner class, using the CWOPS method and 
training materials to local students, at a time of their choice. The answer was 
yes! I didn't ask whether any prospective CW teacher would be allowed to do 
this, but if you know your CW at better than 20 WPM, I think it very likely 
that CWOPS would approve your request to teach using their materials. So, if 
you are a student interested in learning CW the CWOPS way, but don't want to 
wait for a the CWOPS official class, maybe you could find somebody local to 
lead a CWOPS type class for you and a few friends, assuming that that person 
would get approval and training materials from CWOPS. As to my running such a 
class, I am not sure that my club will actually go forward with it, b
 ut it seems like a good idea if the prospective students are eager to learn.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Clay Autery 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:08 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] On CW

CWOPS CW Academy...  Learn by hearing.  Don't EVER use a chart. If YOU doo your 
part, you can be head copying 25 wpm in what I consider a very short time.

I'm not there yet (just finished Level 1), but I'm headed thataway!


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Mobile from 117 VAC

[Erik Basilier]

The 117V  AC may be produced by the vehicle using an inverter similar to those 
sold as separate devices. Years ago I was using one of those and found out that 
they would not allow the ground pin on the AC outlet to be connected to the 12V 
minus connection. If that is the case, you would have to be careful hooking 
things up.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Dauer, Edward
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 8:19 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Mobile from 117 VAC

Previous threads provided a great deal of info about arranging automobile 
electrical systems to power HF rigs.  But as I recall, it all focused on using 
the battery / alternator supply for the 13 VDC.  Though I wanted to go mobile 
and still do, for a number of reasons I could not configure my car to do it 
properly.  I am now thinking of buying a new SUV which has 117 VAC outlets in 
its rear cargo space.  That makes me wonder – could I just use an ordinary 117 
VAC to 13 VDC power supply, exactly as I do at home, just plug it in and – 
staying within the car’s rated current draw – operate without worrying about 
where the ground goes vis-à-vis the battery, what-all needs to be bonded with 
what-all-else, how everything needs to be mummified in ferrite, etc?  Or are 
the problems all the same even though different?  My objective is simple.  I 
want to be able to drive to a rare county, set up my buddipole in a parking 
lot, and use either a XX3/KXPA or a K2/100 to knock out some CW QSOs.  I do NOT 
want to take an electric drill or a rivet gun to a new car.

Has anyone gone mobile using a car’s 117 VAC outlets?  Any thoughts to share?  
Any thoughts from anyone who for any reason hasn’t done it?

Ted, KN1CBR  (operating this week as N0A in the NAQCC anniversary event.  Give 
a call if you hear me.  Mostly 20 or 40 CW)

Tnx.

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] OT: Elecrafters in Europe: What is your A/C?

[Erik Basilier]

Please reply off list only. For those who want to follow this discussion,
just send me an email and I will be happy to include you on my own little
list, that was established some time ago when I sought advice on replacing
my central A/C system without generating RFI.

 

After the previous discussion, I successfully had my old central A/C system,
which was broken and non-repairable, replaced with a new system using old
enough technology that it generates no RFI. However, that did not address
the fact that my radio shack (which is a corner room facing south and west)
is too hot to be comfortable during the hot season here in the Phoenix area
(and that is true even *before* I turn on any of the radio equipment).
Adding a conventional window A/C unit is not practical, as the windows in
the room are obstructed by furniture and equipment. For the same reason a
"portable" A/C unit (that stands on the floor, with a big hose connected to
a window) is not practical. What should work is a "mini-split" room air
conditioner. This consists of a condenser unit mounted on the outside of the
wall, and a separate evaporator unit mounted on the inside. The units are
connected together through just a small hole in the wall, maybe 3". These
units are fairly new to the U.S. maket. Most people here don't even know
that they exist. But when I searched homedepot.com I found that  many
different models are available, priced from under $1000 to several
thousands. Home Depot sent an installer to my house. He told me that every
model available uses variable speed motors, so I can't just buy a single
speed unit in order to avoid RFI. Also, none of their customers would allow
me to go to their house and let me listen for RFI while standing outside
their house. However, he said these kinds of systems have been marketed in
Europe for at least 20 years, and homes there either have no A/C at all, or
they have mini-split's. So, all I have to do is talk to some hams in Europe,
that have A/C, and ask what model they have, and whether it generates RFI. 

 

So far, I have discovered that my sister in Europe has a mini-split, but of
course she cannot listen for RFI. So rather that turn on a radio and start
searching  for European contacts, I thought I would once again draw on this
list. I know there are lots of Elecraft users in Europe, and surely some of
them have A/C units. Please, guys, let me know how that is working out with
respect to RFI! Again, please don't discuss on this list; I will be more
than happy to include you in the discussion using my separate little list,
and if you are kind enough to give me some information, but don't want to
receive email, just let me know.

 

Thanks in advance,

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Radio storage cases

[Erik Basilier]

Great tip, thanks! However for ultimate convenience, padding and shielding
should be provided by one and the same container. 
73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bob Novas
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:51 AM
To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Radio storage cases

http://www.emp-bags.com/

Bob - W3DK

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Dale Chayes
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 2:31 PM
To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Radio storage cases

The true military (metal) ammo cans are (supposed to) have a rubber gasket
between the top and the body. (Just checked one, it does.) Perhaps that
would allow some EM leakage?

It would not be hard to scrape a bit of paint off and solder or silver
solder a ground strap (or foil) bridge between the lid and the body (perhaps
on the inside for durability) but I'm not sure if that solves the (potential
non?) problem?

-Dale/KB1ZKD



On Sep 6, 2017, at 14:00 , Walter Underwood  wrote:

> A military ammo box should work. They are pretty cheap, too. You could
buff off the paint to get good contact around the lid.
> 
> http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/ammunition/ammunition-boxes|/p
> c/104792580/c/104691780/sc/522363780/cabelas-mil-spec-ammo-can/1611284
> .uts?slotId=0 ition-boxes%7C/pc/104792580/c/104691780/sc/522363780/cabelas-mil-spec-
> ammo-can/1611284.uts?slotId=0>
> 
> wunder

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to bob.no...@verizon.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Radio storage cases

[Erik Basilier]

I just googled "EMP frequency spectrum". A quick look suggests that
amplitude is down significantly in the vhf range, so given the size of an
ammo can, it would probably be ok even if the lid is connected at only one
point. However, it seems that there is significant spectral content up into
the GHz range, and I would feel safer with contact all around the edge.
Anyway, an ammo can is rather heavy. It would be nice to be able to bring
the shielding container along on a camping trip without re-packing in a
lighter container. If one accepts the need to re-pack, one might as well use
a bigger container such as a full size trash can, and use it to shield a
variety of electronic devices. In my mind I see some kind of camping food
container made of aluminum that was used in my childhood. I guess that
product has been displaced by plastic containers long ago. OTOH there are
now companies that specialize in selling mesh or conductive fabric for
turning your whole bedroom into a Faraday cage. Could there be a market for
custom radio cases that incorporate a layer of such shielding material?

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Clay Autery
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 11:42 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Radio storage cases

Yes, all true milspec cans have gaskets for water-tight fit...  However...

1) Note that all cans I have seen have a metal lip that overlaps on 2-3
sides, plus the latch, PLUS the pinned hinge.
2) IF you see to it that there is a conductive path via the top to the can
body via the hinge and/or latch(es), AND/OR add a bonding wire between the
lid and can,

...you have an effective electrical faraday cage up to the frequency whose
wave-length is smaller than the larges continuous gap between adjacent metal
surfaces at worst... AND because the on most cans the pulse would have to
turn corners or a 180 even then, still a pretty effective shield.

You could always test it yourself.  

__
Clay Autery, KY5G

On 9/6/2017 1:31 PM, Dale Chayes wrote:
> The true military (metal) ammo cans are (supposed to) have a rubber gasket
between the top and the body. (Just checked one, it does.) Perhaps that
would allow some EM leakage?
>
> It would not be hard to scrape a bit of paint off and solder or silver
solder a ground strap (or foil) bridge between the lid and the body (perhaps
on the inside for durability) but I’m not sure if that solves the (potential
non?) problem?
>
> -Dale/KB1ZKD
>
>
>
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 14:00 , Walter Underwood  wrote:
>
>> A military ammo box should work. They are pretty cheap, too. You could
buff off the paint to get good contact around the lid.
>>
>> http://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/ammunition/ammunition-boxes|/
>> pc/104792580/c/104691780/sc/522363780/cabelas-mil-spec-ammo-can/16112
>> 84.uts?slotId=0> munition-boxes%7C/pc/104792580/c/104691780/sc/522363780/cabelas-mil-s
>> pec-ammo-can/1611284.uts?slotId=0>
>>
>> wunder
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> k...@montac.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Radio storage cases

[Erik Basilier]

I have always used temporary solutions for storage of my smaller radios,
such as the KX3 and KX1. Commercial cases providing padding and ideal fit
have been discussed before on this list. However, I never felt that the
products suggested would meet my needs. In the back of my mind I have long
worried that some rogue state might wipe out our radios by EMP. To position
the nuclear device, they would not even need to use a missile that travels
intercontinentally or is accurately aimed. My frequently used radios are set
up for immediate use, and would be unprotected. The smaller, very portable
radios I don't use that often, and would be stored away. They should be
stored in cases that function as Faraday cages. I am looking for storage
cases made of metal, and with good electrical contact between case and lid.
Light weight is desirable. Any suggestions from the List? My best idea so
far is rectangular cookie tins, such as marketed around Xmas, but finding
the desired sizes is not easy. Note to self: Don't be too upset if you have
to sacrifice yourself and eat some extra cookies in order to find the ideal
tin.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] In Search of Better

[Erik Basilier]

In Search of Better

 

The following is a rambling tale of situations, real and imagined, where my
Elecraft equipment leaves something to be desired. 

Written mostly during my time confined to home while recovering from back
surgery, it reflects a tendency to focus on operating 

from other locations.

 

When I will be able to go operate outdoors again, how can I make a trip go
as smoothly as possible, without spending a lot of time on 

packing and setup, etc? What went right and what went wrong on my last
outing?

 

Field Day was my latest portable operation. I brought my dual 100W K-lines
in SO2R configuration. This was practical because the 

Elecraft equipment is light enough to be used in the field, works well on
12V deep cycle batteries without too much worry about 

minimum acceptable voltage, and compact enough that both radios are easy to
reach by one operator. Operations were successful, 

so that is what went right. Each K3 has its own Pelican Stormcase iM2400
(with foam), which is perfect for protecting one K3. 

For the latest one I got a great price at Nalpak. The radio is placed into a
foam cavity bottom up, with a shelf of foam under the 

knobs covering the display. The case has room for two more small cavities,
suitable for small items such as a power cord and a 

hand microphone. What is not to like about this? Well, it takes a *lot* of
time to set up and tear down the two K-lines with all the 

items and wiring needed for SO2R. That is what went wrong. Our club
president suggested for next year I have all the equipment 

installed in something like a "go-box", ready to use. Although I was offered
help to lift such a monster, I had to reject the idea as 

cumbersome and inflexible in view of my habit to experiment with diffrerent
configurations at home. So, what is the solution? 

The best I can think of right now is to combine the boxes into a number of
modules that are small enough to lift, but where the 

wiring within a module would not need to be disturbed for transportation.
Maybe one module for each K-line, plus one module 

for SO2R controller, sound card, and headphone amplifier. These modules
would remain intact for home use. Each module would 

be held together by a slab of thin plywood onto which the radios etc would
be bolted down. Having the Elecraft boxes so spaced 

would bring an extra benefit in that I would not have to handle the
individual boxes with care, and the boxes would not be able to 

scratch each other. Each module could be wrapped in cloth and transported
sitting on a car seat. The beautiful Storm Cases would 

no longer be used. The main issue then is how to bolt the boxes to the
board. Some radios have threaded mounting holes on the sides, 

intended for mobile mounting brackets. I could add brackets to the module
boards, but that would be extra work and weight. 

Ideally, the K3 would have threaded mounting holes on the bottom. Perhaps
that could be achieved by changing some 2D connectors 

(normally used to hold together the panels of the K3 case) to bigger
versions incorporating the mounting holes, and adding 

corresponding holes to the K3 bottom panels. I might even be able to do this
myself, but being lazy I would much prefer to be able 

to buy the parts ready to use. Even modestly priced cameras come with a
threaded tripod mounting hole. Why doesn't the K3 

come with several? Having such mounting holes on all the K-line boxes would
not just help with my board mounting scheme, but 

would be just as important for those building "go-boxes", and would also
open an approach to mobile mounting. Another approach: 

add some kind of hardware to the sides of K-line boxes that allows them to
be joined together like lego's. This would make the 

boards unnecessary.

 

During these musings, my XYL walked in: "The amount of dust in the house is
unhealthy, and I have scheduled the cleaning lady to 

come next Wednesday. You have cluttered up the tables with equipment
everywhere. How can one dust properly when there is so 

much stuff?" I meakly answered that all pieces of equipment will have
assigned locations when the remaining shelves are in place, 

but the number of items cannot be avoided. It occurs to me that K-line boxes
mounted on a board would allow me to lift the whole 

assembly away to allow the shelf itself to be dusted by the cleaning lady. I
would have to take on the task of dusting the board as 

well as the boxes, maybe using pre-chosen special brushes and/or vac
attachments. If the K-line boxes were mechanically 

connected without the board, I wouldn't have to deal with dust on the board
in the narrow space between boxes and board. Perhaps 

the hardware interconnecting the boxes could be accompanied by special foam
pieces that prevent dust settling in the space 

between boxes (assuming the K3 side panel heatsink function would still be
adequate). When cleaning, I would just have to pull off 

the foam and wash it. What about 

Re: [Elecraft] Make this email list more manageable - a forum instead?

[Erik Basilier]

I have my email client set up automatically to move *all* messages from this
list to one folder. Right now I have enough spare time to go to that folder
every day and read what interests me. I guess that is similar to reading the
digest. At times when I am very busy, I just don't look at the Elecraft
folder at all. My inbox doesn't show anything from this list. Sure, I might
miss an important piece of news about a new product, or an important new
feature, etc, but seriously, if I am really busy, I am better off not
knowing about those things. When I again have more time available, I can
easily go back to the Elecraft folder, and read it all, or just search for
interesting keywords. Faster and more convenient than using the archives.
The folder takes up a lot of disk space, but that is cheap nowadays. My
conclusion: The list is fine as it is.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2017 8:51 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Make this email list more manageable - a forum
instead?

No, you wouldn't have to go to multiple places.  You click your Bookmark for
the Elecraft forum - one place.  If you like to see EVERYTHING that's new,
you click the New Posts button.  If you are only interested in the K3, you
click the K3 subforum that is a link on the main main of the Elecraft forum.

When you're done, you click Mark All Forums Read, and next time you log in,
you see what's new.  

Search is very easy and customizable - by subject, author, title, date
range, etc.  That alone would cut down on considerable traffic, as the same
questions wouldn't be repeated over and over.

It's very easy.  I read probably half a dozen forums (mostly non-ham) and
it's a part of my morning routine.  It's a lot less time consuming and
cumbersome than reading through emails, filters or not.

Of course, the final decision resides with the Elecraft powers-that-be.  It
surprises me that such a customer-friendly and state-of-the-art group hasn't
already taken this step.  Just food for thought...

Barry W2UP


Allan Zadiraka wrote
> Since I own a number of Elecraft products, I am very happy with the 
> current setup.  Separate forums would mean I would have to go to 
> multiple places to follow the different products.  The Elecraft 
> traffic is a minor part of my daily email load (~500/day) and I am 
> interested in seeing trends on other Elecraft products in case I want 
> to evaluate purchasing one.
> 
> zeke
> ab8ou







--
View this message in context:
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Make-this-email-list-more-manageable-a-
forum-instead-tp7633522p7633551.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] OT A/C RFI

[Erik Basilier]

Need to replace my A/C, and worried about getting an RFI generator.

A few years ago I saw some advice about taming a new unit, and maybe even
getting instructions from the manufacturer.

Things change all the time, and at this point I would like to hear from
anyone with fresh advice: Brands to consider with minimal emissions och
solid instructions for filtering them out, etc.

Please reply directly to me, or keep it short on the list.

Thanks in advance,

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] ATU and Bandpass Filter

[Erik Basilier]

* Band pass filters are likely to be specified for operation at any
impedance consistent with a certain maximum allowable swr. Mine (made by
LBS) tolerate swr up to 2:1. As long as the antenna meets that requirement,
there is no need for a tuner between filter and antenna.

* A good multiband antenna that offers a 2:1 match or better over multiple
frequency ranges of interest will work with filters just as well as a
monoband antenna with similar spec's. 

* There are "multiband" antennas out there that do not by design meet the
2:1 requirement, particularly not on all the bands supposedly covered. The
G5RV would be one example. Such antennas owe their popularity to the fact
that they provide something resembling resonance on certain bands (but with
swr higher than 2:1), and many tuners can cover up the mismatch. For a given
multiband antenna it would be a good idea to measure swr across each band
before considering use of bandpass filters, and verify swr lower than 2:1.
Yes, a tuner could be placed between antenna and filter, but it may not be
very practical. The tuner would have to be tuned up on different frequencies
as needed, and the measurement should then be done at the radio side of the
tuner (not measuring through the filter).

* What happens if you use the bandpass filter with an antenna that is not
2:1 swr or better? Isolation is likely to suffer, but whether isolation is
good enough will depend on individual requirements. Power handling is a
major consideration. I have been advised to substantially oversize the power
rating of the filter when connecting to an antenna moderately worse than
2:1. That should be kept in mind when an antenna such as a G5RV is to be
used.

* A true multiband antenna (i.e. one that simultaneously provides low swr on
each band to be used) can be used with a multiplexer that provides separate
radio-side connectors for each band. Such a multiplexer is always used with
separate bandpass filters on each of the radio-side connectors. In this
situation, the multiplexer provides isolation that adds to that provided by
the bandpass filters. The radios using the different branches of this
arrangement are likely to see isolation much better than they would with
separate antennas and bandpass filters only. Multiple radios on different
bands can transmit simultaneously through the one shared multiband antenna.
The need to orient separate antennas carefully relative to each other is
thus eliminated. The cost of the multiplexer can be balanced against the
cost and effort for installing separate antennas. Of course, a multiband
antenna does not offer the freedom to adjust pointing direction
independently for the different bands. To qualify as a multiband antenna in
the multiplexed context, it must be simultaneously "resonant" for multiple
bands. An antenna that must be retuned when changing bands, such as with a
remote motor-driven adjustement, no matter how quick and automated, would
not work.

* The multiplexer is similar to the bandpass filters in requiring low swr
(such as 2:1 or better), so if modestly higher swr's will be encountered,
both the multiplexer and bandpass filters must be substantially oversized in
terms of power rating.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bob McGraw K4TAX
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 7:47 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] ATU and Bandpass Filter

If one chooses to use band pass filters then one should anticipate using 
an external antenna tuner as well.   This of course depends largely on 
the antenna and the impedance of the antenna at a given frequency.If 
one is using resonant antennas with a reasonably close 50 ohm impedance then
all is well.  If one is using a multiband antenna the impedance is 
likely to vary widely and be far from 50 ohms.   As to a beam, if it is 
correctly adjusted, it should provide a reasonably close impedance to 50
ohms on all band for which it is designed.

I find many hams are grossly over concerned with SWR values.  For example;
100 ft of RG-8X operating with a 2:1 SWR at 14 MHz will have a 
total loss of 1.5 dB.   Where as the same length of coax with a 1:1 SWR 
will have a loss of 1.2 dB.  A difference of only 0.3 dB.  With the same
configuration at 28 MHz, the loss with a 2:1 SWR will be 2.1 dB and with a
1:1 SWR the loss will be 1.8 dB a difference of 0.3 dB.

My point is..hams are grossly over concerned about having a 1:1 
match.  Factually, it isn't that dang important.   As you can see, there 
is little difference in total loss.  Thus of 100 watts power fed into the
line at 14 MHz and a 2:1 SWR the power at the antenna will be 70 watts.
Where as 100 watts fed into the line at 14 MHz with a 1:1 SWR the power at
the antenna is 75.8 watts.  These are real numbers, thus a difference of
only ~5 watts.  The only thing affecting loss is the loss in the
transmission line which is 

Re: [Elecraft] OT Learning Morse anew

[Erik Basilier]

I learned morse by copying from 78 rpm phongraph records, gradually
increasing the speed, but I believe modern methods based of Farnsworth are
far superior. 

My club asked me to think about how the club could conduct cw training. I
searched for resources online, and was very impressed when I found the cwops
program some time ago. Students must participate in a series of lessons
where they each both receive and transmit, always at 20 wpm, but with extra
space between characters a la Farnsworth. 3 courses are conducted each year,
via Skype, with students from around the globe. You can easily find that out
online, but here is some additional detail. I asked cwops if they would let
me teach their curriculum locally to our club members, with a time schedule
of our own choosing, and over an FM repeater rather than Skype. The answer
was yes. So, if their schedule doesn't fit you, do ask them, and maybe you
can get something going with your club. Neither instructor nor students need
to be or become cwops members. So far, nothing has come of these ideas in my
club. The requirements that students obtain paddles and keyers suitable for
sending at 20 wpm, and commit to attend the full series of lessons, may be a
strumbling block. Nevertheless I think the program looks great, and I would
be very interested to hear about the experiences of others that have
actually used the cwops program. 

Another thought: For copy practice, you want to listen to speeds faster than
what you are currently comfortable with. That can be frustrating if there is
no way to compare what you caught with the full and correct text. Here is a
way to get that access to the corect answer. Participate in a contest such
as Field Day, where a given station's exchange is the same for every qso.
Find a station using the desired speed that is running CQ on a frequency.
Listen to a few of his qso's until you have copied his callsign and exchange
information (something like 3A SFL, which stands for class 3A in the Section
of South Florida; you should already know the corresponding info for your
own station). Once you are at that point, give him a call when he is done
with a qso. You know that it is time to call him when he sends something
like QRZ or FD or CONTEST. Don't send his callsign, only your own, and don't
bother with K or BK or variations thereof. It is ok to send at a lower speed
as long as you don't send any unneeded info in addition to your callsign.
Once you hear him send your callsign, send your own exchange information.
Etc.  Repeats are often requested by AGN (send it all again) or CLS (send
your class) or SEC (send your section). The qso is over when both stations
have sent R or QSL or some equivalent. The whole qso is so short that you
don't need to send your own callsign again at the end; when you sent it at
the beginning, that also counts as the end. The fact that you can take
plenty of time to copy his information, and that the information is short
and follows a predictable pattern, makes you comfortable communicating at a
speed higher than your normal capability, and meanwhile your brain is
getting used to the sound of high speed morse. 

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of dgb
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 3:37 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT Learning Morse anew

Yes, the best is

http://www.cwops.org/cwacademy.html

73 Dwight NS9I


On 6/11/2017 5:25 PM, Jim Sr Sturges wrote:
> I think I learned code all wrong. Can't ever seem to get my speed up.
>
> Surely some of the astute among you _know_ The Perfect Method, and I 
> hope you will share?
>
> To complete the OT-ness of this msg, I recently completed the QRP Labs 
> Ultimate WSPR/QRSS kit and re-learned the joys of soldering iron 
> burns, again. Certainly nothing wrong with Hans' excellent kits, and 
> the price is amazing for the functionality, design, and quality.
>
> Then I installed the PAE heat sink end panels on my KX2. The latter is 
> not for the faint of heart! I STRONGLY recommend the somewhat buried 
> hint in PAE's instructions to remove the AT board before attaching the 
> PA transistors to the heat sink. Tried it the other way and 
> re-discovered that my micromanipulation skills are right up there with 
> my CW -- maybe better, which is damned depressing.
>
> So, any help mastering Morse?
>
> Thanks in advance and 73,
>
> Jim N3SZ
>

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: 

Re: [Elecraft] 6m off-frequency

[Erik Basilier]

Ian,

I don't have any suggestions for a solution beyond what others have already
mentioned, but as a side note I would like to discuss the concept of "off
frequency". 

It seems to me that these days, on the HF bands that I frequent, more and
more people tune SSB to where the displayed frequency is on an 500 Hz
boundary, and their rigs have sufficient frequency accuracy that excellent
copyability results without any further adjustment. This approach is much
faster than tuning by listening for most natural voice, which for me takes a
few moments. When I look over the shoulder of operators at Field Day, a
surprising percentage of people take a long time trying to tune for natural
voice, and still don't end up even close to correct tuning, so they should
be helped even more by just "going for the zeroes". While I haven't used 6m
recently, I would guess that the "zeroes" approach has become common there,
although the average rig may not be as frequency-accurate there as it would
be on the lower bands. Further to how to tune in other stations quickly, I
just found another way to minimize SSB tuning time when scanning the bands.
I configured the K3 to use the RIT knob to act as a coarse tuning knob
(CONFIG: VFO OFS), with 500 Hz steps (CONFIG: VFO CRS). I also set the main
tuning knob to a 500 Hz boundary. After setting things up this way, I use
the P3 with a span of +- 25 kHz to identify the next SSB station up or down
the band, then turn the RIT knob to put the passband over it. That puts me
close enough that only one more 500 Hz step will tune to perfect voice
clarity, and many times I will be tuned perfectly with no adjustment at all.
Much, much faster than cranking the VFO knob, first to approximate frequency
and then fine adjustment by listening. Occasionally it happens that the
station is not on a 500 Hz boundary, and I have to turn on RIT and fine
adjust by the RIT knob. Then I will usually soon hear that the station
saying that he is using an older rig. That is becoming rather rare, though.
After I am finished listening to the "off frequency" station, I just turn
off the RIT, and the RIT knob lets me tune in the next station quickly using
500 Hz steps, while leaving the main tuning knob alone. Now tuning SSB
stations is a bit like tuning FM "channels". I am not advocating
"channelizing" the HF bands, as we should have the freedom to select our
frequenciy according to the situation, but a lot of times, using a frequency
ending in zeroes saves time and effort.

73, 
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ian Kahn
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2017 8:46 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] 6m off-frequency

All,

I've been operating a little in the ARRL VHF contest this weekend, on 6m,
and I'm having an interesting, and not good, experience. Everyone I try to
work is reporting that I'm off frequency by about 500 Hz. I don't have
RIT/XIT enabled. My K3, s/n 281, went to Elecraft earlier this year for some
upgrades and a tune-up, and came back with a clean bill of health and
meets/exceeds specs.

I admit, I am new to 6m operation, but this constant report of being
off-frequency concerns me. Is there some calibration step, specific to 6m,
that I missed? I don't get this report on any other band, and have never
gotten it in over 6 years of operating this rig. My assumption is that if it
came back from the Mother Ship clean, and I've never used 6m before, that it
should be properly calibrated.

Any guidance/advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks and 73,

--Ian
Ian Kahn, KM4IK
Roswell, GA  EM74ua
km4ik@gmail.com
10-10 #74624  North Georgia Chapter #2038 PODXS 070 #1962
K3 #281, P3 #688 KAT500 #860, KPA500 #1468
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K3 Display is Dated...

[Erik Basilier]

Just for the record, when I refer to a possible dot matrix display for a
radio, I envision something with the resolution of an iPad, i.e. you can't
see the dots, and it can be made to look exactly like the current display.

73,
Erik

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 11:22 PM
To: Nr4c 
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 Display is Dated...

Looks like there is a winner somewhere.  The Image is changing. Look at the
display in the KPA1500.

A preview of something to match?

73,
Bob
K2TK ex KN2TKR (1956) & K2TKR




On 5/31/2017 12:03 AM, Nr4c wrote:
> I'm not sure why users get so involved in a discussion on topics like
this. The amber LCD display is part of the Elecraft image. They use it on
the K3, KX2, KX3 and K3S. It's not going to change so pick another battle!
One you can win.
> 
> Or, wait for the K4 in a couple years and it will likely have all or most
features that have been suggested but never added to the K3 line.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> ..nr4c. bill
> 
> 
>> On May 30, 2017, at 9:00 PM, brian  wrote:
>>
>> Don,
>>
>> Agree.  However, there is a need to update the "displays" for functions
that were shoe horned into the K3 well after the display was cast in
concrete.
>>
>> Things like a flashing decimal point.  What the heck does that mean?
>> There are about a dozen such "non-intuitive" displays which could benefit
from some more obvious icon.
>>
>> It would also be nice if the DATA display would actually tell us which K3
data mode is being used.
>>
>> The chief beneficiaries would be people who use the K3 stand alone with
no computer.  Logging programs generally solve the above problems.
>>
>> 73 de Brian/K3KO
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/31/2017 0:26 AM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
>>> I have to agree, "the kiss principle" Keep is simple stupid - works 
>>> every time.
>>> While 'glitsy' displays are pretty to watch, they often do not 
>>> convey relevant information, or that information is buried in the 
>>> 'glitz' and not easily recognized at a glance.
>>>
>>> The K3, KX3, KX2 displays show the VFO frequency as the predominate 
>>> display with the VFO B as a slightly lesser predominance.  Other 
>>> functions are indicated to tell you what is going on.  Everything 
>>> needed is there.
>>>
>>> I have to contrast that to some of the displays I see on my tablet.  
>>> I have to hunt around the display to find the item of interest.
>>>
>>> Touchscreen - no thanks - I would need a stylus and not all stylus 
>>> touches produce the desired action (if my tablet is any example).  
>>> That uncertainty is not something I need in a radio.
>>>
>>> 73,
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] K3 Display is Dated...

[Erik Basilier]

Controls: There are some people for whom everything ought to be controlled
from a general purpose computer, but I think most Elecrafters agree that
"real knobs" are better, and Elecraft has done a superb job in judging what
variables are deserving of the real knob approach. There will always be
things that can be relegated to menus, but to think that touch screens would
make it acceptable to hide more adjustments in menus would be a mistake.
Lots of people seem to find that the IC-7300 menus are a big pain.

Display size: There are good reasons not to make the display bigger:
*  I appreciate the modest size and weight of the current K3(s). A bigger
display would require a bigger front panel. 
* As others have said: unneeded clutter is distracting. Revealing personal
deficiencies is not pleasant, but I cannot resist. At my age I more and more
experience situations like the following. I go into the kitchen to get a
pair of scissors that reside on the countertop. The scissors have bright
orange handles, and are the only object with such color. The countertop also
has a number of knives and other kitchen implements on it. I stare but don't
immediately find the scissors. Or I may be reading a newspaper when I am
interrupted by a phone call. Years ago, after the phone call my focus goes
back to the paper, and magically, without effort, my eyes would go
immediately to the paragraph and sentence where I had left off. Somehow,
subconsciously, my brain had recorded information about the surrounding text
and so also recorded exactly where I left off. That rarely happens any more,
so I end up spending time searching for where I was. We don't want that to
happen as our gaze moves back and forth between the radio display and the
contest computer screen, or even when looking back and forth between
different items on the radio screen. Another example is reading world news
on the web. It has become very popular to present news items as a
two-dimensional clutter of images, each of which represents a news item. It
makes me confused about which of the items I have already looked at. So much
better to see a one-dimensional bullet list. Yes, the existing K3 display
can also be perceived as a confusing clutter, even if one is familiar with
the displayed items. I would not want to lose any of the displayed items
though. I do wish some of the front panel hardware buttons had different
colors. After a decade of using the K3, I still have to read the labels on
the BAND, MODE and POWER buttons to make sure I push the right one.

Display content: It is very helpful to find the same information in the same
places over the long term. Software developers (I used to be one) like to be
able to create "a new fresh look" every now and then. The fixed format of
the K3(s) LCD is wonderful for preventing such abuse. Nevertheless, I would
consider it an improvement to use a dot-matrix display that can be changed,
as long as that freedom is not used often. The selectivity graphics could be
improved. There could be more specific informaton about the new preamp
settings. Integration between radio and amplifier, while good today, could
go even further. When we are used to press a single button to run the ATU
for a new frequency, do we have to use more than one button after the
amplifier with its ATU is added? (Yeah, I know you don't really have to do
that every day if you rely on the memories, but that is beside the point.)
It would be nice if the radio display could show the amplifier output power.
Etc. Achieving better integration would probably require hardware changes
beyond the display screen, but when we are talking about changing the
display we are already talking about hardware changes in a new model radio.
Do I mean to say that the current display provides all the information we
need? Absolutely not, but the radio is made to suit a wide variety of use
cases. As others have said, a PC display can provide additonal information,
and it can be tailored to be optimal for a specific purpose, such as
contesting. Trying to provide all the information for all types of use on a
single screen is a recipe for hopeless clutter. Configurability is a nice
idea, but I wouldn't personally want to spend the time to use it for most
things. Life is too short to keep reinventing the wheel that others have
spent many hours on, and then save and backup my personal choices,
especially for the basic display items that most everyone needs. Having the
spectrum on a separate device such as the P3 is to me a positive, as the
very different look of the screen helps the brain go to the correct screen
without thinking, while avoiding having to search among many items on a
given screen. That said, the separate spectrum screen could be even more
useful by showing more spectrum-related information, including even spots
from an external program such as a contest logger.

Display color: Adding color to the radio display could be useful in helping
the eye find and return to 

[Elecraft] OT: Security camera on your mast

[Erik Basilier]

Sorry if this is too OT for most:

 

I am considering security cameras for my home/qth. There are a lot of
package systems available these days, but my initial interest is for a
single camera mounted near the top of my tower/mast (rotatable of course).
Already available at the mounting point is a 50 ohm coax that I would use as
the only connection to the camera. The systems I see marketed use other
types of connections. Question: can anyone point me to a source for a
security camera for outdoor use, without additional weatherization, that can
be connected by a single coax only? Secondary considerations: Small wind
load is desirable. Good sensitivity for night use is desirable, but without
use of illumination devices (IR or visible) in the camera (another of my
hobbies is astronomical imaging). Of course, there is also the issue of
suitable recording devices, which may demand certain types of cabling.

 

Thanks in advance for any ideas. Please email me off list.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 Enhancement

[Erik Basilier]

Doing the switching outside the amplifier box may be an easier and more 
economical way to achieve that isolation. There may be further economy as well 
as simplification to be had if this switching hardware is combined as a single 
product with the antenna selection switch (2 antennas out of 6 etc). While some 
may be happy running without tuner, many would want duplicated tuners external 
to the shared amplifier. Incorporating separate tuners would not impose 
additional RF switching requirements, but possibly some additional 
considerations relating to the control scheme. Of course, the user would want 
to be able to purchase the amp without built-in tuner.

73.
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Igor 
Sokolov
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 5:00 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 Enhancement

May I mention that for SO2R in the same box the isolation should be in order of 
80db for  1500 w power level.

This is not that easy to obtain.

73, Igor UA9CDC


27.04.2017 7:59, Erik Basilier пишет:
> Of course, in an SO2R scenario where the shared amplifier alternates 
> between two different bands with every transmission, a shared ATU 
> would exercise the relays a lot. Separate tuners might be needed in 
> order to avoid the relays wearing out.
>
> 73,
> Erik K7TV
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of 
> Matthew Cook
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:45 PM
> To: Thomas Donohue <tomdo...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Elecraft Reflector <Elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 Enhancement
>
> If that were to happen then adding a second 15-way connector at the 
> same time to said module to allow two K3/K3s to drive the one amp 
> through each respective antenna input and matched output would start 
> this amp towards the "basic" SO2R path.  From there a smart 2x6 
> antenna switching unit some well designed BPF filters and your well on 
> your way.  The rest of the magic is then just firmware (says he that 
> writes said firmware every day) within the upgraded processor the KPA1500 has 
> been blessed with.
>
> I'm fingers crossed..
>
> 73
>
> Matthew
> VK5ZM
>
> On 26 April 2017 at 22:37, Thomas Donohue <tomdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi to all:
>>
>> Wayne or Eric. Are there any plans or thoughts about adding a second 
>> RF input to the amp, similar to what the Yaesu VL-1000 has?
>>
>> Best 73,
>> Tom/W1QU
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>> __
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this 
>> email
>> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
>> vk...@bistre.net
>>
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> ebasil...@cox.net
>
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> ua9...@gmail.com
>

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 Enhancement

[Erik Basilier]

Of course, in an SO2R scenario where the shared amplifier alternates between
two different bands with every transmission, a shared ATU would exercise the
relays a lot. Separate tuners might be needed in order to avoid the relays
wearing out.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of
Matthew Cook
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:45 PM
To: Thomas Donohue 
Cc: Elecraft Reflector 
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA1500 Enhancement

If that were to happen then adding a second 15-way connector at the same
time to said module to allow two K3/K3s to drive the one amp through each
respective antenna input and matched output would start this amp towards the
"basic" SO2R path.  From there a smart 2x6 antenna switching unit some well
designed BPF filters and your well on your way.  The rest of the magic is
then just firmware (says he that writes said firmware every day) within the
upgraded processor the KPA1500 has been blessed with.

I'm fingers crossed..

73

Matthew
VK5ZM

On 26 April 2017 at 22:37, Thomas Donohue  wrote:

> Hi to all:
>
> Wayne or Eric. Are there any plans or thoughts about adding a second 
> RF input to the amp, similar to what the Yaesu VL-1000 has?
>
> Best 73,
> Tom/W1QU
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> vk...@bistre.net
>
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] OT: Package shippers

[Erik Basilier]

Don,

I, too have been through the procedure where I had to hand off the package
valued over $1000 to the driver rather than the store, and that was over a
year ago. The later  case of the expensive amplifier was just a few months
ago, and it was at a "UPS store" that I understand not to be an "independent
shipping center". Of course, the particular employee may have misstated the
limit, or I may have misheard. Regardless, my main point is that the rule
was so rigid. The fact that the employee was able to examine the empty
packing materials and see that they were customized and in good contition
made no difference at all. Such rigidity must surely end up costing the
customer, and it is up to the customer to determine whether perceived
reliability of the company is worth the extra cost. Although I have shipped
many packages, I bow to your even greater experience. BTW, once I shipped a
small package in the same store, in a box that was a once-used USPS Priority
Mail box. The employee berated me for using that box since it was supposed
to be used only for purposes of USPS shipping. I believe he was correct in
that such a rule exists. It doesn't make sense for USPS to allow their
freely handed out boxes to be used with other shippers. However, after the
original USPS shipment had been paid for and completed, didn't I own the box
and didn't I do a good deed by reusing the box? The fact that the box had
been used previously for USPS shipping was plain to see.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Don
Wilhelm
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:17 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: Package shippers

Erik and all,

I believe that amount is $1000 rather than the $100 that you quoted - unless
the particular packing store you used sets their own rules.
If you shipped at a UPS store, this new rule is unknown to me.

I do have a UPS account (but not regular pickup), and do not have a problem
with any package where the value is less than $1000.
If it is greater than that value, I can pack it, but I have to hand it off
to a UPS driver rather than dropping it off at a shipping center. 
The driver is required to sign a form for my records, and he takes
responsibility for it from that time.

Independent shipping centers that ship UPS are free to set their own rules,
and yes, if I take a package to one of them for shipment and declare $1000
or greater value, they will insist on packaging it.  That is fair, because
they share in responsibility for that parcel.

You learn those things after you have been shipping frequently for a while.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 4/26/2017 2:46 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Basilier [mailto:ebasil...@cox.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:43 AM
> To: 'Rick Tavan' <r...@tavan.com>
> Subject: RE: [Elecraft] OT: Package shippers
> 
> In the past I have used UPS extensively, but recently they refused to 
> ship my expensive tube amplifier, in its original packing materials, 
> unless I would pay them to re-pack in their own, new packing 
> materials. I was told that their new policy is that, unless the 
> insured value is less than $100, the customer must pay for new packing
materials, provided and packed by UPS.
> Even before the extra packing expense, their price was much higher 
> than FedEx.
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] OT: Package shippers

[Erik Basilier]

-Original Message-
From: Erik Basilier [mailto:ebasil...@cox.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:43 AM
To: 'Rick Tavan' <r...@tavan.com>
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] OT: Package shippers

In the past I have used UPS extensively, but recently they refused to ship
my expensive tube amplifier, in its original packing materials, unless I
would pay them to re-pack in their own, new packing materials. I was told
that their new policy is that, unless the insured value is less than $100,
the customer must pay for new packing materials, provided and packed by UPS.
Even before the extra packing expense, their price was much higher than
FedEx.

Regarding FedEx, I had one bad experience years ago, when they delivered a
package to a large apartment complex across the street, instead of to my
single family house. Since then, I have been using them many times for bulky
items, always successfully. 

I agree that USPS has an excellent record of delivering packages undamaged.
For small packages they are also great on price, but not so much for bigger
items.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Rick
Tavan
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:14 AM
To: Ken G Kopp <kengk...@gmail.com>
Cc: Elecraft Reflector <elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: Package shippers

The radio world seems to be converging on your opinion, Ken. Almost all
packages I've received in the past few years have come via UPS and I use it
myself for my occasional outbound shipments. That being said, there is a
disturbing relationship between UPS and USPS: In some rural areas, and maybe
elsewhere, UPS can hand off a package for ultimate delivery by USPS.
Seems reasonable except that the two providers have different conditions of
carriage. UPS agrees to deliver to a home doorstep while USPS requires that
a home have an official USPS mailbox which they use when able. If USPS
delivers a package too large for the mailbox, then they will deliver to the
doorstep. However, if there is no mailbox, USPS will not deliver any package
of any size. They return the package to the sender, no notice to or recourse
for the intended recipient. UPS and mail-order shippers don't disclose this
occasional glitch (at least I've not seen it) so both shippers and
recipients get screwed. Moral of the story: If you don't have a mailbox,
don't order packages that will be shipped by UPS. Better, use someone else's
delivery address that has a mailbox. If you have a PO box, some US Post
Offices will accept courier packages addressed to their own street address
with an appended box number. But the shipper must specify that street
address because UPS will not deliver to a PO Box explicitly!
Catch 22.

73,

/Rick N6XI

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Ken G Kopp <kengk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect for each of us our view of shippers will vary widel.
>
> While certainly not a "large" shipper, Rose (Elecraft Covers) ships a 
> number of packages a week, with many going to foreign destinations.
>
> She -always- ships via the USPS and mostly via Priority Mail.
> In almost ten years she's had one package go astray, and that was due 
> to me typing a wrong ZIP code.  A Priority Mail package will reach any 
> US destination in no more then three days.
>
> FedEx is absolutely terrible!  One fat envelope of legal papers from 
> our bank was left on the driveway, laying in two inches of water.
> Another was tossed over a fence into the yard.  Yet another was 
> dropped near the BACK door of the house.  Didn't find it until a trace 
> was instituted for the "missing" delivery.
>
> When we order fabric, webbing, Velcro supplies, the vendor is told in 
> no uncertain terms if the order is sent vis FedEx it will be the last 
> one they get.  A gawd awful company! (:-)
>
> FedEx problems may stem from their use of non-company contract drivers 
> in their trucks ... at least in this area.
>
> UPS is OK in our view ... all of Rose's orders are shipped via UPS or 
> the USPS.
>
> Trivia:  A case shipped to Istanbul via USPS Airmail was delivered in 
> Turkey in -five- days!!
>
> FWIW ...
>
> 73!
>
> Ken - K0PP
> elecraftcov...@gmail.com
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> rta...@gmail.com
>



-- 

Rick Tavan
Truckee, CA
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: 

Re: [Elecraft] KPA 1500 - SO2R

[Erik Basilier]

When the original poster referred to SO2R capability, I think he meant one 
amplifier being able to handle transmission from both radios. At 100W having a 
separate amp as part of each radio is no big deal, but at the price of a 
KPA1500, one really wants to pay for only one, given that SO2R means only one 
radio can be transmitting at a given time. 

I am just a beginner at SO2R, but I have already spent a lot of time thinking 
about various aspects of the subject. 

First there is the "SO2R controller" issue. There seem to be a lot of different 
designs out there, and they don't necessarily try to solve the same problem. 
Rather, different users seem to form personal opinions of what functions are to 
be implemented, and available implementations reflect that. Issues that may or 
may not be addressed in depth include routing of radio inputs, radio outputs, 
and radio controls, including interlocks to ensure that only one radio can 
transmit at a time.

Second, there is the configuration of the radio boxes. Normally the two radios 
operate on different bands. With 5 or 6 bands used in a HF contest, there will 
be many combinations of band choices for two transceivers. One can set each 
radio manually to the proper band, but sometimes one might want to use a 
central control to select a combination of bands rather than individual bands. 
When amplifiers are added to the picture, the situation becomes more complex. I 
have one KPA500, on the main K3. That works well if that radio is on say 40 and 
the second radio is on 15, since power is often needed on the lower bands, 
while 15 often doesn't need much power if open. Now suppose 15 closes and I 
want to go to 80 with the second radio. 80 might need the amp more than 40, so 
how do I quickly switch the amp over to the other radio? A similar situation 
would exist if I had two amp's with different power capabilities. The ability 
to "share" one amp between both radios would be very attractive. On the other 
hand, if I did not have that capability, but instead had a second KPA500 in 
addition to my existing one, I might in a given situation want to combine both 
for 40 while running barefoot on 15. Clearly, it may be shortsighted to address 
such individual capabilities individually, and from a manufacturer's standpoint 
it would make sense to have a generalised scheme of configuration, maybe with 
GUI software that allows the user to configure things by drawing and storing 
interconnection schematics. Of course, that is just the control side of it. The 
physical switching side, with proper isolation may be both complex and 
expensive. 

Third, antenna selection. One user may use many feedlines, while another tries 
to use only one. Antennas themselves may be monobanders or multi. I think most 
of us have been struggling with how to best utilize the fixed numbers of 
antenna connectors on different radios and tuners. What seems like ideal 
features to one user may seem totally wrong to another, even in a single radio 
scenario. With SO2R, we want to be able to select between several different 
antennas used by two radios. Isolation must be excellent so that neither radio 
will be interfered with by the other. The antennas themselves may sabotage the 
isolation by their proximity and configuration. The ideal station would perhaps 
have separate antennas widely spaced from each other. The average ham is more 
likely to use fewer,  multiband antennas. A typical switch box has two radio 
connectors and several antenna connectors, and it should not allow both radios 
to connect to the same antenna. In any case, the switching hardware operates at 
high power and is likely to be expensive. Ulitmately, it might be best seen as 
part of the expensive switching network that configures the radio box 
interconnections as discussed in the previous paragraph. 

To summarize, SO2R is a complex subject, and it is currently addressed mostly 
in a fractured way, using a conglomeration of hardware solutions to solve 
different pieces of the puzzle. There is such a diversity of user requirements 
that any "total solution" that would hypothetically be offered by any one 
manufacturer is likely to seem wrong to many potential customers, unless the 
archictecture is extremely advanced. Nevertheless, even a manufacturer that 
offers only pieces of the puzzle should over time gain an edge if its products 
supports major classes of configuration requirements.

I don't know if there is room in this forum to have much discussion of what 
features would be appropriate in future SO2R-related offerings from Elecraft, 
but previous posts have started to touch on the subject. Personally I would 
suggest that hams like myself with limited real estate and going to SO2R are 
likely to be using multiband antennas but still need antenna switching other 
than what may exist in radios, amplifiers and tuners. In other words, 
discussing how many connectors a radio or tuner should have may be a 

Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet

[Erik Basilier]

Great idea, Bill! 
Something I might experiment with: how thick a block is required to make
sure the soft part is always touched by the next box, while the potentially
sharp parts cannot be touched.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Bill Johnson [mailto:k9...@live.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 3:03 PM
To: Clay Autery <caut...@montac.com>; Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>;
elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet

How about a small block under the soft handle? The handle would then easily
protect another piece of equipment.

73,
Bill
K9YEQ

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Clay
Autery
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:12 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet

I have given a "proper" spacing/protecting engineering solution serious
thought on a number of occasions.

I will simply come up with something that meets the requirements when I get
to that bridge.

I'm more inclined to incorporate a spacing plan with a replacement of the
side panels or some way to protect the vulnerable front/rear panels.

73,

__
Clay Autery, KY5G
MONTAC Enterprises
(318) 518-1389

On 4/22/2017 11:33 AM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> Clay wrote: " I am perfectly happy with the stock side panel protectors.
> :-)"
>
> Let me be more specific on why additional side panel protectors might 
> be desired. The standard side panel feet work great when the boxes of 
> a K-line are placed in the order shown in the ad's. However, when you 
> go to a 2-radio configuration for SO2R, you probably want the most 
> often looked at, or touched, front panels close together in the 
> middle. The quick pace of SO2R operations really demands the very best 
> ergonomics that you can achieve. I currently have the two transceivers 
> in the middle for easy access to the knobs, with the P3's immediately to
the right and left of the two radios.
> That means on the right hand side, the boxes are in the standard "K-line"
> order, but on the left hand side, the transceiver handle is free to 
> scratch the neighboring P3. That is what actually happened, but it 
> could have been a speaker or other box getting scratched. With the two 
> transceivers side-by-side in the middle, the side feet of the 
> left-hand radio are positioned next to the handle of the right-hand 
> radio, but they are thinner than the handle, and there is the 
> potential for the handle to scratch the left-hand radio in spite of the
feet.
>
> I realize that most people are not interested in dual-radio 
> configurations, but some may have their own reasons for placing their 
> boxes in a unique order. It seems to me that the handles could be 
> redesigned so as to have no sharp edges that can cause scratches, or 
> even better, redesigned so at to incorporate rubber bumpers. Also, the 
> standard side panel feet could be made slightly thicker (i.e. thicker 
> than the handles) , and/or available as add-on options for those who 
> don't use the standard box ordering. Just an idea, and I am not 
> holding my breath. In the meantime, I may go with removable stick-on 
> feet, whether the common non-durable types or the better quality ones 
> suggested by Clay. (In his original suggestion it was not clear to me 
> that they were easily removable.) As to glue remaining after a cheap 
> rubber foot has fallen off, I have in the past been successful 
> removing it with denaturated alcohol, but the paint was left slightly 
> dull. That was on a "Fine Junk" box, and I would not be surprised it 
> the high quality Elecraft paint stands up much better. Goo Gone may be 
> better, but I think the dullness was caused by the glue reacting with the
inferior paint, not the alcohol, as surrounding areas touched by the alcohol
did not become dull.
>
> Not lacking solutions here, just in the mindset of discussing ideals. 
> My comment was triggered by the image showing the KPA1500 handle. It 
> was not intended to detract from the fact that the KPA1500 comes so 
> close to so many of our wishes for the ideal legal power amplifier, 
> including my own. I really believe the KPA1500 fills a need, and that 
> the price is reasonable for what it is. For me it is not immediately 
> affordable, but that is a separate issue. Maybe one day 
>
> 73,
> Erik K7TV
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Clay Autery [mailto:caut...@montac.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:14 AM
> To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 
> watt amp
>
> Never said I would use that soluti

Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet

[Erik Basilier]

Clay wrote: " I am perfectly happy with the stock side panel protectors.
:-)"

Let me be more specific on why additional side panel protectors might be
desired. The standard side panel feet work great when the boxes of a K-line
are placed in the order shown in the ad's. However, when you go to a 2-radio
configuration for SO2R, you probably want the most often looked at, or
touched, front panels close together in the middle. The quick pace of SO2R
operations really demands the very best ergonomics that you can achieve. I
currently have the two transceivers in the middle for easy access to the
knobs, with the P3's immediately to the right and left of the two radios.
That means on the right hand side, the boxes are in the standard "K-line"
order, but on the left hand side, the transceiver handle is free to scratch
the neighboring P3. That is what actually happened, but it could have been a
speaker or other box getting scratched. With the two transceivers
side-by-side in the middle, the side feet of the left-hand radio are
positioned next to the handle of the right-hand radio, but they are thinner
than the handle, and there is the potential for the handle to scratch the
left-hand radio in spite of the feet. 

I realize that most people are not interested in dual-radio configurations,
but some may have their own reasons for placing their boxes in a unique
order. It seems to me that the handles could be redesigned so as to have no
sharp edges that can cause scratches, or even better, redesigned so at to
incorporate rubber bumpers. Also, the standard side panel feet could be made
slightly thicker (i.e. thicker than the handles) , and/or available as
add-on options for those who don't use the standard box ordering. Just an
idea, and I am not holding my breath. In the meantime, I may go with
removable stick-on feet, whether the common non-durable types or the better
quality ones suggested by Clay. (In his original suggestion it was not clear
to me that they were easily removable.) As to glue remaining after a cheap
rubber foot has fallen off, I have in the past been successful removing it
with denaturated alcohol, but the paint was left slightly dull. That was on
a "Fine Junk" box, and I would not be surprised it the high quality Elecraft
paint stands up much better. Goo Gone may be better, but I think the
dullness was caused by the glue reacting with the inferior paint, not the
alcohol, as surrounding areas touched by the alcohol did not become dull. 

Not lacking solutions here, just in the mindset of discussing ideals. My
comment was triggered by the image showing the KPA1500 handle. It was not
intended to detract from the fact that the KPA1500 comes so close to so many
of our wishes for the ideal legal power amplifier, including my own. I
really believe the KPA1500 fills a need, and that the price is reasonable
for what it is. For me it is not immediately affordable, but that is a
separate issue. Maybe one day 

73,
Erik K7TV



-Original Message-
From: Clay Autery [mailto:caut...@montac.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:14 AM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net>; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt
amp

Never said I would use that solution  and it would not affect resale as
it is cleanly removable without tool or solvent and no marring of the
surface.

I am perfectly happy with the stock side panel protectors.  :-)

__
Clay Autery, KY5G


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

[Erik Basilier]

Clay, that sounds like a proper engineering solution, but overkill since
Elecraft has already found a solution used for the side panel feet, that
shows no signs of failure over 10 years. Moreover, using your approach would
likely affect the resale value negatively, while an official solution
(adding more feet like the existing side feet, or slightly thicker) from
Elecraft might not.

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Clay
Autery
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 10:37 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt
amp

OK.

1) For the "feet", find a supply of little discs of desired thickness made
from Sorbothane.
2) Buy the appropriate 3M Command strips. removable.  Even if the glue
goes, it will come right off.

Or you can do the research and get the right glue chemistry for the
application and have it applied to the Sorbothane discs...

73,

__
Clay Autery, KY5G
MONTAC Enterprises
(318) 518-1389

On 4/22/2017 12:32 AM, Erik Basilier wrote:
>  
>
>  
>
> From: Erik Basilier [mailto:ebasil...@cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:45 PM
> To: 'Harry Yingst' <hlyin...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 
> watt amp
>
>  
>
> Harry, I have considered doing the same. However, my experience with using
the stick-ons is that the glue goes bad in a few years, and the foot falls
off, leaving an ugly residue of glue.
>
>  
>
> From: Harry Yingst [mailto:hlyin...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 8:35 PM
> To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net <mailto:ebasil...@cox.net> >; 
> 'Nr4c' <n...@widomaker.com <mailto:n...@widomaker.com> >; 'Clay 
> Autery' <caut...@montac.com <mailto:caut...@montac.com> >
> Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 
> watt amp
>
>  
>
> I put little stick on feet where two peices of gear may touch
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net <mailto:ebasil...@cox.net> >
> Date: 2017-04-21 10:59 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: 'Nr4c' <n...@widomaker.com <mailto:n...@widomaker.com> >, 'Clay 
> Autery' <caut...@montac.com <mailto:caut...@montac.com> >
> Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 
> watt amp
>
> As the number of Elecraft boxes on my shelf has grown, what I have 
> long feared has recently happened: The handle on one box (or probably 
> a screw on the handle) created a small scratch on the nude side of 
> neighboring box. It looks like the KPA1500 handle design is unchanged. 
> Maybe it is time for an upgrade of the handle design, or maybe we 
> could use a kit of add-on feet or spacers?
>
> 73,
> Erik K7TV
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of 
> Nr4c
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:44 PM
> To: Clay Autery <caut...@montac.com <mailto:caut...@montac.com> >
> Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp
>
> It's for carrying and the little feet keep the case from getting
scratched. 
>
> There's no space or - in Elecraft products.  
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ...nr4c. bill
>
>
>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Clay Autery <caut...@montac.com
<mailto:caut...@montac.com> > wrote:
>>
>> Cannot wait to get a look inside
>>
>> There IS a handle on the left side (as you look at it).  I don't know 
>> if the small feet on the right side are for vertical orientation or 
>> to prevent the total blockage of the vents if shoved up next to 
>> another K-line product OR the power supply box...
>>
>> __
>> Clay Autery, KY5G
>>
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email 
> list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to 
> hlyin...@yahoo.com <mailto:hlyin...@yahoo.com>
>
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft

[Elecraft] FW: Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

[Erik Basilier]

 

 

From: Erik Basilier [mailto:ebasil...@cox.net] 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:45 PM
To: 'Harry Yingst' <hlyin...@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

 

Harry, I have considered doing the same. However, my experience with using the 
stick-ons is that the glue goes bad in a few years, and the foot falls off, 
leaving an ugly residue of glue.

 

From: Harry Yingst [mailto:hlyin...@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 8:35 PM
To: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net <mailto:ebasil...@cox.net> >; 'Nr4c' 
<n...@widomaker.com <mailto:n...@widomaker.com> >; 'Clay Autery' 
<caut...@montac.com <mailto:caut...@montac.com> >
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net> 
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

 

I put little stick on feet where two peices of gear may touch

 

 

 

 



---- Original message 
From: Erik Basilier <ebasil...@cox.net <mailto:ebasil...@cox.net> > 
Date: 2017-04-21 10:59 PM (GMT-05:00) 
To: 'Nr4c' <n...@widomaker.com <mailto:n...@widomaker.com> >, 'Clay Autery' 
<caut...@montac.com <mailto:caut...@montac.com> > 
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net>  
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp 

As the number of Elecraft boxes on my shelf has grown, what I have long
feared has recently happened: The handle on one box (or probably a screw on
the handle) created a small scratch on the nude side of neighboring box. It
looks like the KPA1500 handle design is unchanged. Maybe it is time for an
upgrade of the handle design, or maybe we could use a kit of add-on feet or
spacers?

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Nr4c
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:44 PM
To: Clay Autery <caut...@montac.com <mailto:caut...@montac.com> >
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net <mailto:elecraft@mailman.qth.net> 
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

It's for carrying and the little feet keep the case from getting scratched. 

There's no space or - in Elecraft products.  

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill


> On Apr 21, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Clay Autery <caut...@montac.com 
> <mailto:caut...@montac.com> > wrote:
> 
> Cannot wait to get a look inside
> 
> There IS a handle on the left side (as you look at it).  I don't know 
> if the small feet on the right side are for vertical orientation or to 
> prevent the total blockage of the vents if shoved up next to another 
> K-line product OR the power supply box...
> 
> __
> Clay Autery, KY5G
> 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to hlyin...@yahoo.com <mailto:hlyin...@yahoo.com> 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Handles and feet - was KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

[Erik Basilier]

As the number of Elecraft boxes on my shelf has grown, what I have long
feared has recently happened: The handle on one box (or probably a screw on
the handle) created a small scratch on the nude side of neighboring box. It
looks like the KPA1500 handle design is unchanged. Maybe it is time for an
upgrade of the handle design, or maybe we could use a kit of add-on feet or
spacers?

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Nr4c
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 7:44 PM
To: Clay Autery 
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA 500 vs New 1500 watt amp

It's for carrying and the little feet keep the case from getting scratched. 

There's no space or - in Elecraft products.  

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill


> On Apr 21, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Clay Autery  wrote:
> 
> Cannot wait to get a look inside
> 
> There IS a handle on the left side (as you look at it).  I don't know 
> if the small feet on the right side are for vertical orientation or to 
> prevent the total blockage of the vents if shoved up next to another 
> K-line product OR the power supply box...
> 
> __
> Clay Autery, KY5G
> 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] New KX products

[Erik Basilier]

Would it not make sense to produce a KX3S that combines the KX3 with the PX3, 
doubles the output power, and provides a full complement of I/O connectors, and 
a new powerful Li-based battery?

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of KD6QZX
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 9:20 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Mounting a KX3+PX3 ?

Go to gemproducts.com I have mounts for just this need!   73 Scott AK6Q
 

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:52 AM, Colin VE3MSC [via Elecraft] 
 wrote:
 

  Any recommendations on how to mount a KX3+PX3 ?  I want to try it out with my 
microwave setup, and would like to mount them on flat board or aluminum base, 
and was wondering what people have done for mounting brackets?

Thanks in advance and 73,

Colin VE3MSC

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to [hidden email]
 
 
   If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion 
below: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Mounting-a-KX3-PX3-tp7628702.html   
To unsubscribe from Elecraft, click here.
 NAML 

   



-
K3 #348 KX3 #2499
--
View this message in context: 
http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Mounting-a-KX3-PX3-tp7628702p7628961.html
Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message 
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Amp Thoughts: 1000 watts or 1500 watts?

[Erik Basilier]

Being able to clearly "hear the difference" might be a good criterion if you
are focused on the individual contact. If you are in a contest, making
hundreds of contacts, 1 dB makes a meaningful difference even if you cannot
hear the difference on any of the contacts.

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Ron
D'Eau Claire
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:01 PM
To: 'Richard Thorne' ; 'Elecraft Reflector'

Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Amp Thoughts: 1000 watts or 1500 watts?

2 dB might make a difference if you are only interested in having your call
sign dug out of the noise for a contest or DXCC contact.

Way back the early books from the 1930's that I read and the OT commercial
operators from that era I knew said that under typical conditions found on
the air, 6 dB was about the minimum change to hear a real difference in the
signal while exchanging messages or other extended information. Those
stations would not try a direct contact if the signals were "in the mud"
opting instead for trying again at different time or getting a relay.

In commercial operations we did not use the Ham RST system, but rather QSA 1
through 5. 1 was a barely detected signal in the mud. 5 was a loud signal
with perfect copy. I confess to doing about the same with Ham signals,
choosing between at most five levels by ear for my report without reference
to an S-meter.  

Personally, I've never gotten very excited about anything less than a 10 dB
improvement, but the only DX I work are those calling me - usually for a rag
chew - and I don't contest. 

And, for me, Ken's observation is quite right. If I get the bug to drop my
Inverted L, rub some RF grease on the wire, neaten things up in general and
restring it, I do think I am getting out better and stations seem to come
back more quickly. Expectations are everything!

73, Ron AC7AC




__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Amplifier thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

Using my KAT500/KPA500 installation, I notice that I avoid using the tuner in 
AUTO mode, because the loud relays distract me when I am tuning around. In 
fact, I tend to disable the KAT500 and turn on the KAT100 in the K3. 

Therefore: A KAT1500 should either have sound absorbent materials built in, or 
else be mounted away from the operating position.

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Linear thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

Perhaps a new, legal limit power amplifier should be non-linear so as to
achieve very high efficiency. Broadcasters seem to use such designs
routinely, and the latest QEX described a ham version under development.


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Linear thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

Now I have the KPA500 and KAT500 actually up and running for the first time.
I am very happy with my purchase, and the combo is better integrated than
anything else I have used. 
By integrated, I mean the boxes work together well.
The fact that they are separate boxes, that I could purchase at different
times, is a big plus for me.
However, I have to disagree with those that have said that it all works like
having a 500W transceiver.
Examples:
* Antenna selection now has to be done from the KAT500. I can't do it by the
ANT button on the K3, so the labels on the antennas defined there are now
useless.
* The Power readout is now on the amp, and the Power knob on the K3 just
shows the drive power. It is certainly valuable to be able to read the drive
power, but in a 500W transceiver that would be a separate readout, and the
Power adjustment readout would show the final output power.
Again, I am happy, and all is good.
But a future Electraft architecture that is to overshadow the competition
would use a more global approach to settings that reflect the whole system
rather than settings per box, and to achieve this the actual settings in a
box (e.g. antenna selection in the tuner) would be controlled through a
network rather than local panel controls. The controls would all originate
from a controller (or multiple controllers in case of multiple operators
operating independently), which could be dedicated devices a la Maestro, or
PC's (for cheap users), or hardware transceivers such as the K3. Of course,
the K3 would have to get firmware updates that would include more ANT
choices, drive power display mode, selection of classic operation mode
versus global controller mode, etc.

73,
Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Linear

[Erik Basilier]

Chris,

Shack simplification and cable reduction are indeed big values. But it can
lead to big boxes that are identified with a pre-conceived use case vision.
Other companies have made a good living from selling new generations of such
boxes. There will always be a market for that, with customers that can
afford it and enjoy the process. Elecraft has given us lower costs,
especiall as seen over time, by allowing some separation of boxes. This
results in more cables, but the proliferation of cables can be limited by a
network design that does more up front than allow for the next incremental
feature, in combination with some early planning for needed RF
interconnectons.

Erik

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Chris
Tate - N6WM
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:50 AM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com
Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Linear

Jim,

I would suggest testing the more mainstream 1.3 or 2kfa.  I agree that their
"clean ness" is important ( thus the observe and improve suggestion) but
what I was trying to emphasize is feature set.  They are on to something
with the solution in a box.  Cable reduction, shack simplification are way
up on the value scale.  Putting 2 inputs, and including the antenna ports
and isolation to provide listening on a band while transmitting on another
along with swr tolerance eliminates outboard bpf, tuner, wattmeter and a
second set of QRO equipment may just add the value to charge more for it
because you save in the end.  Clean tx is something all manufacturers should
strive for.

Thanks
~C.


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Linear

[Erik Basilier]

Well said Chris. I would add: 

Modularity should include combinations of power amplifier modules. 
Once there is more than one amplifier module, one may ask: Does it ever make
sense to use them in a way where the output power is not combined? When
output is to be fed alternately to different antennas, some switching can be
avoided by dedicating amplifier modules to specific antenna lines, but I
think fast enough switching capability available that this is not necessary.
However, if someone has invested in dual radio capability for running SO2R,
might he not someday want to run a contest in 2O2R, dedicating one radio and
amplifier module to each operator? Even if only one multiband antenna is
available, with a multiplexer it can transmit simultaneously with two
transmitters on different bands. Along this line of thinking, the user
interface is also to be considered. A control console would be awkward to
use by 2 operators, so you would need two consoles. This would be expensive,
and using existing K3's as user interfaces would look good.

Making small incremental improvements leads to quick success until it backs
you into a corner. Flex is showing an ability to take a broader view with
their SO2R support. What is missing there is looking beyone SO2R and
providing a path forward that doesn't necessitate replacing expensive boxes.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Chris
Tate - N6WM
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 9:22 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Linear

Lots of great feedback from all on the Elecraft brain trust.

There is a market shift occurring in the full or near qro market.  The 2
standouts are the Expert amp line, and the yet to be released Flex/4o3a
power genius.

One has to ask where the primary market for a full legal limit amp with
automation would be.  My opinion would be contesters, dxers and remote
station users.   Others would want such a device but may be less fickle on
feature set

Things like full qsk, quiet operation, modularity, and over engineering for
reliable operation at spec are already something that I think Elecraft would
provide as part of their well respected methodology.

In order to really be marketable it will need to provide additional value
above and beyond expert and flex/4o3a.

So again ability to use the 1 amp with 2 radios seamlessly in a rapid SO2R
environment would be huge.  The flex amp is professing to offer this sans
tuner.  The expert doesn't quite offer this but has a tuner.  Taking the
best of both and exceeding that would create a unique market differentiator.
If Elecraft could build an amp that could do the SO2R as well as handle high
swr tolerance and maintain their usual high standard of construction,
performance, reliability and support this would be THE go to amp in the
performance ham community IMO.  Keeping it as compact, lightweight and quiet
as possible is something Elecraft does with all their devices so it's the
features that will set it apart.  

Thanks
~C.
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Linear thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

Regarding spending capacity, I agree that the Elecraft KPA1500 with tuner
would be too expensive to appeal to a lot of people, including myself.
However, looking back I can see that I have been able to spend a smaller but
substantial amount several times. A modular approach to the design would
make it possible to get to 500W first, for a price not too different from
the KPA500, and then add modules/capability later. This approach also makes
more sense for hams in countiries where 1500W or even 1000W is not allowed.
Combining lower power modules leads to higher production numbers, which
should help reduce per-unit cost.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of w7aqk
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 6:59 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector 
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Linear thoughts

Hi All,

I don't really have an oar in this debate, since I am 99.99% sure I won't be
buying one--a 1500 watt linear, that is.  However, it seems to me that all
this advice to Eric should include some reasonable estimate of what one
would be willing to pay for it!!!  So far, I think I've only seen one such
estimate--3 times the cost of a KPA500, which is probably a fair guess!  If
you throw in the upgraded tuner, you are talking $7500 or so!  Wow!  $5000
more just to gain slightly less than 1 S unit!  I like to think in terms  of
$/S unit, rather than $/watt.  The latter seems meaningless at this level!

Well, some folks will probably spend that in a heartbeat!  I guess that's
about what the new Flex amp everyone is talking about will cost.  If
Elecraft could do it for much less, they may be on to something!  Still, at
this price level, a few hundred bucks one way or another may not mean that
much.  Nonetheless, I think we do need some feel for a price point to keep
appetites in check.

For what it is worth, I think keeping the ATU external gives people an
opportunity to control cost somewhat.  A big plus would be access to
Elecraft support!

Even sitting on the sidelines this is rather fascinating!

Dave W7AQK


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message
delivered to ebasil...@cox.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Linear thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

To add to my thoughts on new Elecraft QRO amp's in a new system
architecture:

Amp modules could be produced in multiple generations as RF power transistor
technology evolves. I envision models capable of 500, 750 or 1000 W pep, and
it should be possible to combine up to 4 modules for use with any one
virtual radio. 

A virtual radio could be a physica radio like a K3/K3S, or it could be truly
virtual, based on an ADC working with signals at on-the-air frequency.

In the scenario of multiple amp modules working in parallel, external tuners
are mandatory. However an amp module could have space inside for an internal
tuner option.
There could be a weatherization option that allows such an amp module to be
mounted outdoors. Remember, every amp module is built for remote control
rather than front panel controls. One amp module using KPA500 technology
would cost a little less than an actual KPA500 with its fancy front panel.
There would be an upgrade/addon that would make the KPA500 able to play the
role of one of the new amp's based on KPA500 technology and capabilities.

If you forgive me for the antropomorphic approach, the persona of a "display
module" might present itself as follows: 
" Hi, in my old job I used to be a panadapter. I would be the team member
doing everything related to panadapter work, but not much else. Well,
recently I have accepted some additional tasks such as transmitter
monitoring and user interface for communications. In my new job, I make my
hardware resources (display and processing power) available to serve any
capability the team wishes to implement, and even multiple simultaneous
capabilities." That attitude of serving multiple purposes would exist in
other modules as well.

73,
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Erik
Basilier
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 3:00 PM
To: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Linear thoughts

To make this an Elecraft amp, it should be designed based on the best
architectural ideas from the Elecraft tradition. At this point of the
evolution, this must be seen at the system level, including the (never-to-be
?) "K4" and all other "K-line" components.

 

Why such a broad scope? The present chaining together of control cables is
showing its limits. When major features are to be introduced, maximum
flexibility is achieved when control signals from A to B don't have to
travel through multiple boxes. A client-server approach is appropriate,
maybe using Ethernet as backbone. Won't this shut out the owners of
non-Elecraft equipment? No, each box will still have a a more conventional
control interface. Once a user adds more than one Elecraft box, fast
intercommunication between those boxes may provide features not practical if
the second box were of a different brand.

 

Key Elecraft philosophies to build on. Value retention. No need to buy a
whole new rig to add functionality. Modularity. Today we can add options
inside the K3(s). That is great as long as the box is small and light. It is
particularly valuable for portable use. Having to bring extra boxes on a
camping trip, and deal with the wiring between them, is aggravating.
Elecraft put paddles on the KX3 box, and a microphone in the KX2 for a
reason. For the home shack adding boxes is necessary to avoid any box
becoming too big or heavy. It also is necessary to make possible extensive
additions to functionality. A challenge with multiple boxes is to make sure
the functional assets in a given box are all available to global
applications that depend on resources spread among the boxes. The networking
architecture is key for this. 

 

High power amplifiers should probably be limited to less than max legal
power, but the overall architecture should include the components needed to
run more than one such amplifier in parallel. Each amp should be designed to
work with a separate controller, and have a minimum of front panel controls.
With multiple amp's available one should be able to quickly reallocate those
resources between a single or multiple virtual radios.

 

Graphic display resources. We should still have the option for a very
compact and portable user interface, such as the K3 without P3. When an
upgraded P3 is available, it should be able to display more information than
what is the case today. A new display box would make sense for even greater
capabilities (higher resolution external display compared to P3, as well as
bigger built-in screen options). Could be part of new control console. 

 

Central controllers. There should be multiple options. Some people may love
to work from a PC screen, and that might also suit the user who starts out
with just one box from the new architecture. Others may prefer a special
harware console, or working from a slightly upgraded K3 (or K4). 

 

73,

Erik K7TV

 

 

__
Elecraft m

[Elecraft] Linear thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

To make this an Elecraft amp, it should be designed based on the best
architectural ideas from the Elecraft tradition. At this point of the
evolution, this must be seen at the system level, including the (never-to-be
?) "K4" and all other "K-line" components.

 

Why such a broad scope? The present chaining together of control cables is
showing its limits. When major features are to be introduced, maximum
flexibility is achieved when control signals from A to B don't have to
travel through multiple boxes. A client-server approach is appropriate,
maybe using Ethernet as backbone. Won't this shut out the owners of
non-Elecraft equipment? No, each box will still have a a more conventional
control interface. Once a user adds more than one Elecraft box, fast
intercommunication between those boxes may provide features not practical if
the second box were of a different brand.

 

Key Elecraft philosophies to build on. Value retention. No need to buy a
whole new rig to add functionality. Modularity. Today we can add options
inside the K3(s). That is great as long as the box is small and light. It is
particularly valuable for portable use. Having to bring extra boxes on a
camping trip, and deal with the wiring between them, is aggravating.
Elecraft put paddles on the KX3 box, and a microphone in the KX2 for a
reason. For the home shack adding boxes is necessary to avoid any box
becoming too big or heavy. It also is necessary to make possible extensive
additions to functionality. A challenge with multiple boxes is to make sure
the functional assets in a given box are all available to global
applications that depend on resources spread among the boxes. The networking
architecture is key for this. 

 

High power amplifiers should probably be limited to less than max legal
power, but the overall architecture should include the components needed to
run more than one such amplifier in parallel. Each amp should be designed to
work with a separate controller, and have a minimum of front panel controls.
With multiple amp's available one should be able to quickly reallocate those
resources between a single or multiple virtual radios.

 

Graphic display resources. We should still have the option for a very
compact and portable user interface, such as the K3 without P3. When an
upgraded P3 is available, it should be able to display more information than
what is the case today. A new display box would make sense for even greater
capabilities (higher resolution external display compared to P3, as well as
bigger built-in screen options). Could be part of new control console. 

 

Central controllers. There should be multiple options. Some people may love
to work from a PC screen, and that might also suit the user who starts out
with just one box from the new architecture. Others may prefer a special
harware console, or working from a slightly upgraded K3 (or K4). 

 

73,

Erik K7TV

 

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Linear thoughts

[Erik Basilier]

I recently sold my legal limit tube amp after a bit of a mental struggle.
The seller in me finally won after I realized that "if I can't lift it, I
shouldn't own it". I was tempted to replace it with an ALS-1306, but I
operate RTTY and in that mode the 1306 wouldn't be good for more output than
a KPA500. Today I received my (new to me) KPA500. However, in a contest
someone with 1500 Watts will have a big advantage over my 500 W, so the
subject of higher power may soon come back to me. With the competion today
in solid state linears, I have to believe that Electraft will in the future
offer a bigger linear. To me it would be sad if the new Elecraft amplifier
were a lot heavier than the KPA500. I am a fan of linear supplies, but I
would have to hope that the bigger Elecraft amp would use a switching
supply, located in a separate box. In the meantime, I am set up with two
radios (both K3) and only one amp. For SO2R one would want an amp on each
radio. With two KPA500's one would have two radios with 500 W each, and when
that little extra is needed, one could run both amp's in parallel from a
single radio. Liftability would be very good! I know that is not a new idea,
but implementing it seems a little messy. Might Elecraft consider offering
special cabling and firmware to allow operation with the two amp's in
parallel be as slick as running the single amp? Even slicker would be the
ability to go back to one amp per radio, without any change in cabling. 

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] VOX/PTT select macro ?

[Erik Basilier]

These problems bother me too. With a sound card hooked up, for RTTY I don't
see a need for FSK, and I don't want to deal with PTT, except for SSB where
I don't like VOX. So: Please Elecraft, let VOX/PTT be remembered separately
for DATA and SSB. And, yes, the macro capability suggested is really needed
too.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] Augment KX3 or buy K3?

[Erik Basilier]

I too have compared the K3 against a KX3 (with 100W) on field day. The K3 is
much more practical, in that you can have everything cabled up for all modes
of interest, so you can switch modes quickly. With the KX3, you have a bit
of a rat's nest to begin with, and you end up unplugging the microphone to
plug in your sound card, etc.

 

Once you upgrade a K3 with the new synthesizer, there is very little
difference in capability between the K3 and the K3S. I recently sold my
KXPA100 and used the money toward a K3 in excellent condition (100 W, ATU,
IF output options included; as were all the minor hardware changes
recommended over the years) which cost $1600. After I paid for the
synthesizer upgrade and a CW roofing filter, I had spent much less than what
I might have spent on a new K3S. Sure, I didn't get the improved preamp for
6, 10 and 12 and a few other, rather unimportant improvements that come with
the K3S. This tradeoff made good sense for me. It would have been even
better if the used K3 had had more upgrades, such as the synthesizer
upgrade, the preamp upgrade, optional roofing filters.  Remember, all those
options are easy to plug in, and bring the K3 very close to a K3S. It would
have been less good if the used K3 had needed a lot of small hardware
changes involving soldering to bring it up to date as a K3.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] [K3} AGC White Paper

[Erik Basilier]

Al, your paper looks very helpful for the situation when the concepts need
to be studied. After one has a reasonable understanding of the concepts, the
stituation that comes up now and then is wanting to change some of the AGC
parameters in the K3. I don't know about others, but I tend to forget the
direction of parameters such as AGC "slope". Do I want to increase or
decrease the number to achieve my intended result? That is not about
understanding the concepts, but simply about an arbitrary definition that
can be equally "right" whether it is one way or the other. There are many
other examples of K3 parameters that have names that don't fully describe
what they do. Of course, the parameter names must be (too) short because of
the display limitations. However, when one has a P3, that opens up a whole
different world in terms of graphic displays. It seems to me that something
like an AGC curve could be displayed graphically (as in your paper) right
when the parameter is being changed. That way one would not have to worry
about a detailed definition; just turn the knob and see the effect. The
graph would be made extra helpful by the fact that the actual noise level is
visible at the same time. No doubt other K3 parameters could become more
user-friendly if treated in a similar way.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

[Elecraft] RX Mush, why the fuss?

[Erik Basilier]

I tend to use the CWT display a lot, and then the S-meter doesn't show 20 dB
over S9. Actively using RF gain, ATT, PRE, as one should, makes the S-meter
even less interesting. Eyes tend to spend a lot of time on the P3 display
when available. Spectrum peaks don't show how close we are to the maximum
ADC input level. How about adding more information to the P3 display?
Besides the existing display of the DSP bandwidth, the width of the roofing
filter could also be shown in a similar way. And to address the hardware AGC
function, how about some kind of vertical thermometer showing how close we
are to it kicking in? Perhaps a horizontal line across the vertical
bandwidth ribbon could show this, with the top of the bandwidth ribbon
representing saturated ADC or hardware AGC activation. Just an idea.

 

73,

Erik K7TV

 


-

One problem here is that a lot of the discussion has been in analog terms.

 

We have to remember that in the K3, the digital AGC controlled by the AGC
parms is just that, a digital algorithm. What it does has nothing to do with
diodes. It can do anything weird and completely non analog resembling, it
only cares about the program code.

 

The graphs I have seen are entirely based on steady or very slow moving
signal states, not a photo of an audio rate amplitude varying signal
traversing the AGC knee. They seem intended, well-enough done, just to
convey the rudimentary function variants.

 

You need to have the program code to estimate exactly what is happening to
the AGC at audio rates. Good luck with that.

 

The only control you have over the non parameterized hardware AGC is to
reduce the gain in front of it so it isn't engaged. You can't turn it off,
it's always potential if the signal coming through the roofing filter is
getting up to around 20 over 9.

 

If you have a pile-up of 20 over signals, it's time to turn off PRE, or turn
on ATT, or back off the RF gain. Otherwise you are engaging the hardware
AGC, not sophisticated, which is only there to properly range input to the
ADC chip.

 

This ain't your grand-daddy's analog radio.

 

73, Guy

 

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] FW: Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

Vic, thanks for your comments!
Erik K7TV

-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Vic
Rosenthal 4X6GP
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 12:21 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] FW: Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

Regarding using a tower as a vertical:

Some years ago I had a 50-foot mast with a tribander on it next to my house.
I ran two wires out my window, one down to the base of the mast and one to a
point on it that produced a reasonable SWR on 80 meters. 
The rotor cable and feedline for the beam ran down to the ground, and then
back up to the shack. No ferrites or anything on the feedline. I wrapped the
rotor cable around a ferrite rod at the rotor controller. I had a system of
16 radials, each about 20' long, and in a half-circle.

I ran about 600 watts to this arrangement and didn't notice RF issues in the
shack. It worked surprisingly well, producing contacts from here into the US
as far west as Illinois.

73,
Vic, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com

Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

Rich,

 

Thanks for your reply; very helpful!

Something similar to your shunt feeding method is what I have had in mind.
Since my tower is a crankup (55 ft topped by about 22 ft of mast+antennas),
I do have some misgivings about managing the wire running parallel to the
tower, in the scenario where the tower sections are telescoping and
releasing the tension on the wire. Maybe I should first try attaching the
feed to the top of the bottom section rather than the top of the tower.

The most interesting part of your installation is your grounding of most of
the coax cables at the tower base, and also at the entry box. When I
installed my tower in 1993 I had read a recommendation to let the cables
form a gentle curve almost touching ground, which is what I did. The idea of
grounding them at the tower base did not occur to me, and doesn't seem
compatible with the gentle curve concept. At the house I did think about
feedthrough panel that could be grounded, but I was in a hurry and didn't do
the work. Some of my vhf/uhf cables are of the thick variety (much thicker
than RG-213, and extra connectors cost significant money. Since then, it has
been on my to-do list to go back, cut the cables, install connectors, and
install a grounded plate or box. At the time when I wanted to try the tower
as a 160 vertical, I didn't feel confident that doing that work would be as
effective as choking off common mode currents with ferrites, and that did
seem to work well as long as the cables fit in the device. After reading
your post I get the impression that instead of obtaining choke(s) for the
cable bundle as it is today, I should do the work of grounding the cables at
the house entry and also at the tower base. For non-coax control cables I
could apply my choke. You state that not all of your cables were grounded.
For such a situation my first thought is that the result would depend on
cable length and frequency, and if there is no problem in your situation
then luck might have played a role. You did not mention trying your setup
for 80. In my case, I have more need for 80m than 160, and I am still unsure
if the whole metal tree might be on the big side for 80. That should be easy
to determine with a model. Thanks for the details of your ground system. If
I were to erect a separate vertical for 80, I would have to install a lot of
radials, so doing the same around the tower is not a big deal. Like in your
case, most of the radials would be on one side of the tower (directed away
from the house). When I did feed the tower on 160 as an experiment years
ago, I had (and still have) just two ground rods at the base, plus copper
ribbon, which was meant to encircle the house, a project that was never
finished, but has been on my to-do list ever since. I see a lot of
similarity with your situation, but I need to put in some work to catch up!
Now, supposing I get it all done, and it all works as expected, the next
step is seeing the resulting 80m capability in the context of a 2-radio
system. Obviously, only one radio can be on 80 at a given time, and it will
use a bandpass filter but not a multiplexer. The 80m antenna (=tower) will
be closer to the beam than my high-band vertical.The 80m rf will flow in
very close proximity to the beam, the use of which by another radio is
protected by both the multiplexer and the applicable bandpass filter. Will
that be enough protection, given that the proximity situation is worse than
with the high-band vertical? I am not totally sure, but it seems a
reasonably good bet to me. 

 

73,

Erik K7TV



---

Erik,

I've been feeding K3 RF to my house bracketed, 75 ft Rohn 25 tower for years
with great success on 160 Meters. The tower is topped with HF and VHF yagis
which act as a capacitive top hat. The 50 Ohm coax feedline is connected to
a tap on the coil of a parallel tuned circuit. The top of the LC circuit is
connected to a #16 THHN wire which runs parallel to the tower, about 18"
outside one of the legs and connects to a bolt around 10 ft down from the
top of the tower. At the base of the tower I simply tune the capacitor and
find the best spot on the coil to tap to obtain the lowest SWR. There are 16
quarter wave radials around the tower, most of them on the tower side of the
house from south to north and a few wrapping around and under the back deck
toward the northeast. There are around a dozen 8 ft ground rods connected to
the tower with #6 wire and the tower also is connected to a perimeter ground
system surrounding the house.

 

The shields of most, but not all, of the coax cables leaving the tower are
grounded at the tower base. Before all coax and control cables enter the
shack they all are grounded at the steel entry box around 30 feet from the
tower base.

 

 

So how does a shunt fed 75 ft 

[Elecraft] FW: Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

.

Alan N1AL


On 02/28/2017 10:41 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Your approach would provide 40m capability to 
> replace the 40m capability that my (Sommer) beam loses through detuning.
> However, I wonder how hard your tuner must work on 40? Enough to 
> create substantial feedline losses when the tuner is in the shack?
> Anyway, I have another reason not to choose your approach:
> I am rebuilding my station to support SO2R, and it is tough to avoid 
> interference between the two radios operating on different bands, 
> especially
> 40 - 20 and with the antennas close together.
> I found to my surprise, before the QST review came out, that the Low 
> Band Systems multiplexer and band pass filters (my setup includes 40m) 
> eliminates the interference problem. However, this scheme requires 
> that the antennas be on a shared feedline. With your approach the 40m 
> antenna would no longer be on the same feedline as the higher bands.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of 
> Alan Bloom
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:09 PM
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80
>
> I use two of the top guy wires as an inverted vee.  There are 
> insulators near the top of the guys and about 50 feet or so down.  The 
> vee is brought to resonance on 80 meters with a center-tapped loading 
> coil, which also acts as a balun.  The best match was with the coax 
> tapped right about at the end of one side of the coil (and of course 
> the coax shield to the grounded center tap).
>
> Works great on 80 meters without a tuner and on 40 meters with a tuner.
>
> Alan N1AL
>
>
> On 02/28/2017 09:42 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:
>> Years ago, after putting up a heavy-duty crank-up tower with several 
>> antennas on a tall mast at the top, I was interested in loading up 
>> the whole metal tree for 160 and/or 80. However, I didn't like the 
>> prospect of transmitted power getting back into the shack via the 
>> existing feedlines, causing all kinds of problems including losses.
>> From a surplus vendor I obtained four square slabs of ferrite (no
>> spec's) and taped them together to form a box-shaped common mode 
>> choke around the existing feedlines (and rotor control cable etc). I 
>> didn't have radials at the tower base, but a couple of long and wide 
>> copper strips buried and connected to ground rods to which the tower 
>> was grounded. I opened up the tower ground connection and I had a 
>> feed point. Finding resonance was not as easy as using my antenna
analyzer.
>> The signal from the analyzer was overwhelmed by picked-up broadcast
> signals, rendering the analyzer unuseable. I got by using a custom 
> measurement setup.
>> It turned out that the entire metal tree resonated in the broadcast 
>> band and was inductive at 160. I tuned it with a serial variable 
>> capacitor, and found the antenna worked very well on 160. However, I 
>> didn't continue using it, as I didn't feel safe not to have the tower 
>> grounded. I pondered schemes to add some kind of gamma-like matching 
>> device, but never got around to it. Also I never tried it on 80, but 
>> I suspect it would not been ideal for low angle radiation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Later I added more antennas to the mast, and with the added cables, 
>> the whole bundle would no longer fit in the makeshift ferrite choke.
>> Out of curiosity I once again tried ungrounding the tower to check on 
>> its characteristics as a vertical antenna. I could no longer find the 
>> resonance I had seen and used before. Apparently, the ferrite choke 
>> had been a crucial part of the scheme.
>>
>>
>>
>> At this point I still don't have an antenna for 160 or 80. (I did try 
>> an inverted vee off the tower for 80, but it caused terrible 
>> de-tuning of the 40m part of my beam on the tower, so I gave up on 
>> that. Maybe I should try a
>> sloper.)  I am thinking of putting up a dedicated vertical, but on my 
>> small lot it would couple to the tower. Perhaps it would be better to 
>> give the tower another look as my low-band vertical? My source of 
>> ferrite slabs dried up years ago. I wonder if anyone else on the list 
>> has used a similar approach and found a good way to choke off RF on a
> bundle of feedlines?
>> Individual chokes don't seem very attractive to me as I have many 
>> cables, but if one has to go that route then it would make sense to 
>> look very carefully at the choice of chokes. I would also be 
>> interested in knowing abo

Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

Alan,

Thanks for your reply. Your approach would provide 40m capability to replace
the 40m capability that my (Sommer) beam loses through detuning.
However, I wonder how hard your tuner must work on 40? Enough to create
substantial feedline losses when the tuner is in the shack?
Anyway, I have another reason not to choose your approach:
I am rebuilding my station to support SO2R, and it is tough to avoid
interference between the two radios operating on different bands, especially
40 - 20 and with the antennas close together. 
I found to my surprise, before the QST review came out, that the Low Band
Systems multiplexer and band pass filters (my setup includes 40m) eliminates
the interference problem. However, this scheme requires that the antennas be
on a shared feedline. With your approach the 40m antenna would no longer be
on the same feedline as the higher bands. 



-Original Message-
From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Alan
Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:09 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

I use two of the top guy wires as an inverted vee.  There are insulators
near the top of the guys and about 50 feet or so down.  The vee is brought
to resonance on 80 meters with a center-tapped loading coil, which also acts
as a balun.  The best match was with the coax tapped right about at the end
of one side of the coil (and of course the coax shield to the grounded
center tap).

Works great on 80 meters without a tuner and on 40 meters with a tuner.

Alan N1AL


On 02/28/2017 09:42 PM, Erik Basilier wrote:
> Years ago, after putting up a heavy-duty crank-up tower with several 
> antennas on a tall mast at the top, I was interested in loading up the 
> whole metal tree for 160 and/or 80. However, I didn't like the 
> prospect of transmitted power getting back into the shack via the 
> existing feedlines, causing all kinds of problems including losses. 
> From a surplus vendor I obtained four square slabs of ferrite (no 
> spec's) and taped them together to form a box-shaped common mode choke 
> around the existing feedlines (and rotor control cable etc). I didn't 
> have radials at the tower base, but a couple of long and wide copper 
> strips buried and connected to ground rods to which the tower was 
> grounded. I opened up the tower ground connection and I had a feed 
> point. Finding resonance was not as easy as using my antenna analyzer. 
> The signal from the analyzer was overwhelmed by picked-up broadcast
signals, rendering the analyzer unuseable. I got by using a custom
measurement setup.
> It turned out that the entire metal tree resonated in the broadcast 
> band and was inductive at 160. I tuned it with a serial variable 
> capacitor, and found the antenna worked very well on 160. However, I 
> didn't continue using it, as I didn't feel safe not to have the tower 
> grounded. I pondered schemes to add some kind of gamma-like matching 
> device, but never got around to it. Also I never tried it on 80, but I 
> suspect it would not been ideal for low angle radiation.
>
>
>
> Later I added more antennas to the mast, and with the added cables, 
> the whole bundle would no longer fit in the makeshift ferrite choke. 
> Out of curiosity I once again tried ungrounding the tower to check on 
> its characteristics as a vertical antenna. I could no longer find the 
> resonance I had seen and used before. Apparently, the ferrite choke 
> had been a crucial part of the scheme.
>
>
>
> At this point I still don't have an antenna for 160 or 80. (I did try 
> an inverted vee off the tower for 80, but it caused terrible de-tuning 
> of the 40m part of my beam on the tower, so I gave up on that. Maybe I 
> should try a
> sloper.)  I am thinking of putting up a dedicated vertical, but on my 
> small lot it would couple to the tower. Perhaps it would be better to 
> give the tower another look as my low-band vertical? My source of 
> ferrite slabs dried up years ago. I wonder if anyone else on the list 
> has used a similar approach and found a good way to choke off RF on a
bundle of feedlines?
> Individual chokes don't seem very attractive to me as I have many 
> cables, but if one has to go that route then it would make sense to 
> look very carefully at the choice of chokes. I would also be 
> interested in knowing about others' experiences with feed systems that
leave the tower grounded.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any useful ideas!
>
>
>
> 73,
>
> Erik K7TV
>
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: ma

[Elecraft] Using your tower as a vertical - 160 or 80

[Erik Basilier]

Years ago, after putting up a heavy-duty crank-up tower with several
antennas on a tall mast at the top, I was interested in loading up the whole
metal tree for 160 and/or 80. However, I didn't like the prospect of
transmitted power getting back into the shack via the existing feedlines,
causing all kinds of problems including losses. From a surplus vendor I
obtained four square slabs of ferrite (no spec's) and taped them together to
form a box-shaped common mode choke around the existing feedlines (and rotor
control cable etc). I didn't have radials at the tower base, but a couple of
long and wide copper strips buried and connected to ground rods to which the
tower was grounded. I opened up the tower ground connection and I had a feed
point. Finding resonance was not as easy as using my antenna analyzer. The
signal from the analyzer was overwhelmed by picked-up broadcast signals,
rendering the analyzer unuseable. I got by using a custom measurement setup.
It turned out that the entire metal tree resonated in the broadcast band and
was inductive at 160. I tuned it with a serial variable capacitor, and found
the antenna worked very well on 160. However, I didn't continue using it, as
I didn't feel safe not to have the tower grounded. I pondered schemes to add
some kind of gamma-like matching device, but never got around to it. Also I
never tried it on 80, but I suspect it would not been ideal for low angle
radiation. 

 

Later I added more antennas to the mast, and with the added cables, the
whole bundle would no longer fit in the makeshift ferrite choke. Out of
curiosity I once again tried ungrounding the tower to check on its
characteristics as a vertical antenna. I could no longer find the resonance
I had seen and used before. Apparently, the ferrite choke had been a crucial
part of the scheme.

 

At this point I still don't have an antenna for 160 or 80. (I did try an
inverted vee off the tower for 80, but it caused terrible de-tuning of the
40m part of my beam on the tower, so I gave up on that. Maybe I should try a
sloper.)  I am thinking of putting up a dedicated vertical, but on my small
lot it would couple to the tower. Perhaps it would be better to give the
tower another look as my low-band vertical? My source of ferrite slabs dried
up years ago. I wonder if anyone else on the list has used a similar
approach and found a good way to choke off RF on a bundle of feedlines?
Individual chokes don't seem very attractive to me as I have many cables,
but if one has to go that route then it would make sense to look very
carefully at the choice of chokes. I would also be interested in knowing
about others' experiences with feed systems that leave the tower grounded.

 

Thanks in advance for any useful ideas!

 

73,

Erik K7TV

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com