Nice !!! Ditto. py2adr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Naumann" <[email protected]> To: "'Bil Tippett'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Latest Sherwood table
> Is there a non-engineer's guide to the Sherwood table for those of us who > are not engineers? > > In particular, the table is sorted by Narrow Spaced Dynamic Range, and I > see > that the FT5000 is listed first, but the K3 also gets a 101 in that > column, > albeit with a "pf" footnote instead of just an "f". > > I decode these footnotes to be "f" = "Measurement was Phase-Noise Limited" > And "pf" = "Measurement was Phase-Noise Limited" and was "with 200 Hz > 5-pole > filter" > > OK - so why is the FT5000 at the top of the list? Why no indication of > what > filter was used in the FT5000? > > What is the second sort column for the table? What puts the FT5000 on > top? > > What does this table really tell us? It seems that both of these receivers > are pretty close as many of the numbers are similarly different from those > listed below them. > > When a parameter is higher or lower - which is better? I presume that the > higher the narrow-spaced dynamic range, the better, but what about 100kHz > blocking (for example). Is higher or lower there better? The K3 is a 140 > on > that one, and the FT5000 is a "lowly" 127. The Down-conversion Kenwood > 590 > gets a 144 in this column - is that better or worse than the K3? But, the > 590 only gets an 88 in the narrow-spaced dynamic range, so I guess that > means it's much worse? > > How does one interpret this data? > > 73, > > Bob W5OV > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bil Tippett > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 6:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Latest Sherwood table > > > I wonder how such a high performance filter would work in the K3? > Not that its > needed in the K3. However in the interest of science, it might be a > worthy > pursuit. It also might push the K3 well ahead of the FT5000 in ultimate > performance. > > Not very well since it's at 70 MHz. ;-) The Inrad filters are > already better than whatever is in the FT5000 since Sherwood measured > ultimate rejection in the K3 at 105 dB vs 90 dB for the 5000. > > 73, Bill W4ZV > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[email protected] > > 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:[email protected] > > 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:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
