Effective speech processing will be a given. A 30-W PA is purely hypothetical at this point.
Just to save a lot more postings on this subject: The KX3 will be limited to 10 watts PEP in its basic form. 73, Wayne N6KR On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Eugene Balinski wrote: > All, > > The improvement in communications effectiveness of 20 > watts verses 10 watts is valid - much more than the 3 dB > increase in power would seem to suggest. I have seen the > same results as with my SG-2020 as was mentioned below. > Part of the effectiveness of that particular radio is the > VOGAD speech processor as well. A similar algorithm for > the KX3 speech process might be something to consider > later. > > A small 30W PA with antenna tuner that would mount to > the back of the KX3 would be simply amazing. Include a > larger rechargeable battery pack and it probably couldn't > get much better - IMHO > > 73 > > Gene K1NR > > K2 6Kxx > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:26:14 -0700 > Wayne Burdick <[email protected]> wrote: >> We could offer a KXPA30 amplifier to deal with the need >> for more power >> in a much smaller size. But not anytime soon.... >> >> 73, >> Wayne >> N6KR >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:10 AM, juergen wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Dave >>> >>> The point you make about the added complexity is valid. >>> >>> However from a communications effectiveness point of >> 20 watts is a >>> much more realistic power level, especially for SSB >> QSO's. Most of >>> the Mil Manpacks use this output power level. >>> >>> I operate portable using mil HF manpacks with the power >> varying >>> between 20 and 30 watts. I also have a SGC2020. 95% of >> the time on >>> the first call I can get through and have the standard >> cookie >>> cutter qso's and move on. If you try and do the same >> with 10 watts >>> its very frustrating and much more of a struggle. These >> are NA Q's >>> not local stuff. 5 to 10 watts is good power level for >> CW. For SSB >>> 20 watts is far more effective, even with simple whips. >> Everyone >>> will say its only 3db, however that 3db makes a huge >> difference when >>> using simple antennas especially on SSB. >>> >>> While the AMP might be the answer, looking at the >> projected images >>> and size, it will be a huge hassle carrying another box >> around. If >>> you consider the size of Yaesu FT857, which runs a full >> 100 watts of >>> output and its design is very neatly integrated into a >> tiny >>> package, the KX3 with an external amplifier will be >> awkward by >>> comparison. >>> >>> A FT857 with some AA batteries was carried to the top >> of Mount >>> Kilimanjaro by HB9BXE. The operator successfully had >> many qso at 20 >>> watts of output. He probably would not have packed a >> KX3 and >>> amplifier if it was available then. >>> >>> I dont see why a duplicate of the KX3's PA could mot >> be offered as >>> a piggy back box with another set of 8 batteries. I >> would rather >>> follow that option than the 100 watt linear option. It >> certainly >>> would be a lot smaller and portable than the 100 watt >> PA. I am sure >>> many homebrewers will explore this option. >>> >>> Anyway time will tell. There is always the >> hombrew/modification >>> option. The KX3 has a lot of potential and the design >> is 98% there. >>> >>> 73 >>> John >>> >>> --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Dave KQ3T <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> From: Dave KQ3T <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs? >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:40 AM >>>> Here are a couple of additional >>>> factors to consider. >>>> >>>> 1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would >> have >>>> an impact on >>>> either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to >>>> maintain a >>>> desired battery life) or the battery life (the >> existing >>>> batteries would >>>> not last as long at the higher power level). >>>> >>>> 2. It is much easier to add an external power >> amplifier, if >>>> desired, >>>> than to significantly improve receiver performance at >> a >>>> later date. >>>> >>>> 73, >>>> Dave, KQ3T >>>> >>>> On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote: >>>>> Hi Kristinn >>>>> >>>>> What i dont get is why people expect so much >>>> performance from a >>>>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable >>>> operation generally uses poor antennas and is >> optimized for >>>> weight, size and battery life. >>>>> >>>>> While its nice having great receiver specifications, >>>> you do have to be realistic about the real world >>>> requirements that is placed on the receiver when >> operating >>>> portable. >>>>> >>>>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are >>>> very important requirements rather than world beating >>>> receiver specifications. >>>>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over >>>> ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks >> run 20 >>>> to 30 watts for good reasons. >>>>> >>>>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation >> does >>>> not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic >>>> range. >>>>> >>>>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver >>>> performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however >> I can >>>> live with lesser receiver performance when operating >> with >>>> marginal antennas. >>>>> >>>>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that >>>> will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or >> alternatively a >>>> end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver >>>> is important when using short portable antennas. >>>>> >>>>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with >>>> baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a >> 10,000 >>>> dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your >> hand! >>>> After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my >> DC >>>> receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable >> with >>>> full size low dipoles. >>>>> >>>>> 73 >>>>> John >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> > ______________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider. > http://www.nni.com/ ______________________________________________________________ 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
