Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs -> Nomenclature

2016-05-24 Thread Phil Wheeler
I guess they'd have to avoid such as the names as those of the seven dwarfs -- and these days even "Grumpy, Snotty and Snort" might be problematic re copyrights and such. Phil W7OX On 5/24/16 5:23 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: It's their business, lock, stock and barrel. They could call their

Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs -> Nomenclature

2016-05-24 Thread Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft
Guys - we are drifting way OT. Lets end this thread at this time. 73, Eric /elecraft.com/ __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mai

Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs -> Nomenclature

2016-05-24 Thread Guy Olinger K2AV
It's their business, lock, stock and barrel. They could call their models Grumpy, Snotty and Snort if they wanted to. Ain't no laws and nuthin in the bible about it, except maybe can't name something with a cuss word or something on the FCC banned word list. No IEEE standards. Just so long as the c

Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs -> Nomenclature

2016-05-24 Thread Mike Morrow
Phil wrote: > Interesting analysis, Mike -- though relating the various *AT* acronyms > to rigs is a bit mind bending :-) Don't I know it, Phil! K1AT, K2AT, K3AT, KX1AT, KX2AT, KX3AT, etc. would be clearer and cleaner. Then, there's KAT100, KAT500, KXAT100...perhaps K2AT100, K3AT500, KX3AT100

Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs

2016-05-24 Thread Phil Wheeler
Interesting analysis, Mike -- though relating the various *AT* acronyms to rigs is a bit mind bending :-) But another point, an important one, is that the KX2 has fewer band (no 160 and no 6) compared to some of the other rigs, so needs an ATU with less L and C range. So it's capabilities fo

Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs

2016-05-24 Thread Mike Morrow
16 11:33 AM >To: Mike Morrow >Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net >Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs > > Mike, > > Your analysis of combinations is correct. But the KXAT2 should be compared to > the > KXAT3 (etc.), not the T1. Here's why: > >

Re: [Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs

2016-05-24 Thread Wayne Burdick
Mike, Your analysis of combinations is correct. But the KXAT2 should be compared to the KXAT3 (etc.), not the T1. Here's why: The KXAT2 only has to cover 80-10 meters. The KXAT3 has one additional L and C, but it has to cover 160-6 meters. Over the range of 80-10 meters, for virtually any fie

[Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs

2016-05-24 Thread Mike Morrow
Bill wrote: > As to the ATU in the KX2, 7L/7C is the same range as the KX1, T1 and > I think the K2 ATU. That is wildly inaccurate, especially for the KXAT1 ATU!!! The reactance configuration for all Elecraft ATUs is an L-network of series inductance, with a capacitance connected to common befo