I think he was talking about removing the feature that locks both VFOs together
rather than diversity. The writer said that he did not think it was good to
lock both VFOs together, but I think is is required for proper diversity
operation to have both locked. I have not used diversity much because I do not
have a good receive antenna for 160, but I would not want the VFO tracking
feature to go away and I do not see how one could use diversity well without
tracking VFOs. I have a big fear that someday you will listen to one of these
suggestions, but so far you have not. Good work! Willis 'Cookie' Cooke,TDXS
Contest Chairman K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS
From: Wayne Burdick <[email protected]>
To: Elecraft Reflector <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 5:34 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] Who said anything about removing diversity? That would
*never* happen...
I don't know who started this thread, but let me say definitively that we would
never remove Diversity mode. The K3 has one of the best diversity
implementations in any transceiver, and many operators use it all the time.
That is why we wanted to make it easier to use by assigning it as the
regular-hold function of the SUB switch.
Wayne
N6KR
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [email protected]
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [email protected]
