Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
Locked
12
12
Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
 
|
A version minus the 12 Watt exciter would be very easy to implement,
would it not? The SWL BCBDXer community is interested. The DSP synchronous detector will be a major attraction for shortwave listeners. Dave Rickmers KD6IL K3 #3842 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
I applaude any company presenting a new receiver, but it seems to have become a very unprofitable or uncertain market. On the other hand you might say a receiver is a step-up platform for future hams who will choose a tranceiver with receiver brand experience.
The last Icom "ham" receiver was the R75? The last Yaesu the FRG100? The last Kenwood the R5000? The last Drake? It's such a pity the receiver market declined so much. Personally I listen 95 percent of the time. I agree it would be brave and very respectable if Elecraft would present a serious receiver based on the company's proven technology. The good news: AOR and (ex Lowe's/AR7030) John Thorpe will be releasing a new HF receiver soon. And it will be one WITH knobs :-) 73' Paul PD0PSB |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
In reply to this post by Dave Rickmers
I doubt that a receive-only K3 would cost significantly less than a K3/10.
Unless there are licensing issues in a particular country, an SWL could buy a K3/10 with a sub-receiver and enjoy full diversity reception today. Just be careful not to transmit. /Rick N6XI On 3/9/10, Dave Rickmers <[hidden email]> wrote: > > A version minus the 12 Watt exciter would be very easy to implement, > would it not? The SWL BCBDXer community is interested. The DSP > synchronous detector will be a major attraction for shortwave listeners. > > -- Rick Tavan N6XI Truckee, CA ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
If I were looking for a little "receive only" thingie, I would buy a Perseus or something similar. Or an R-390, but I realize there's the risk of spinal injury with something that hefty. I have one, so I don't need another "receive only" thing, although back surgery is something I might consider if I ever have to move it from the operating table :-)
Grant/NQ5T On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Rick Tavan N6XI wrote: > I doubt that a receive-only K3 would cost significantly less than a K3/10. > Unless there are licensing issues in a particular country, an SWL could buy > a K3/10 with a sub-receiver and enjoy full diversity reception today. Just > be careful not to transmit. > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Rick Tavan N6XI
>> A version minus the 12 Watt exciter would be very easy to implement,
>> would it not? The SWL BCBDXer community is interested. The DSP >> synchronous detector will be a major attraction for shortwave listeners. You have looked at the schematic and seen how much stuff is switched back and forth for TX/RX? "Easy to implement" until one counted in the cost of a SEPARATE manufacturing run of mainboards, a SEPARATE manual, SEPARATE assembly instructions for kit form, a SEPARATE firmware that understood that there were no transmit functions, a SEPARATE silk-screening for the case, SEPARATE code for firmware, SEPARATE maintenance, a SEPARATE approach for the audio as the listeners are going to want high end audio, and I doubt that is close to a complete list. ...and all that for a niche that most manufacturers have abandoned? Why did they abandon it? Maybe because demand did not pay for manufacturing? You are kidding, no? Let them buy a K3/10 and have the incentive for getting a license sitting in front of them. Let Wayne work on firmware and P3's and new ham stuff. 73, Guy. ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
Couldn't agree more. I suspect a receive only K3 is a non-starter, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is waning SWBC activity (which is a real shame, although there is still some good stuff out there if you're willing to look for it). Unless you want to just listen to some hoarse and sweaty preacher telling you where you're going to go after you can't go anywhere anymore for hours on end (and why Obama is going to send you there personally) unless you send him (the preacher) a whole lot of unmarked non-sequential $100 bills in a plain brown bag -- or whatever he's collecting in the equivalent of Indulgences these days ;-) Old stories never die -- they're just reinvented by the opportunist du jour.
Grant/NQ5T On Mar 9, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: >>> > > Let Wayne work on firmware and P3's and new ham stuff. > > 73, Guy. > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
In reply to this post by Rick Tavan N6XI
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:06 -0800, Rick Tavan N6XI wrote:
> I doubt that a receive-only K3 would cost significantly less than a K3/10. Looking at the schematics, it looks to me like it would save the 12W power amplifier, some $2 relays, the T/R switching circuitry, and several connectors. I doubt if the savings in parts would be enough to pay for the re-engineering involved when amortized over the number of units sold. > Unless there are licensing issues in a particular country, an SWL could buy > a K3/10 with a sub-receiver and enjoy full diversity reception today. Just > be careful not to transmit. I agree. A QRP K3 with suitable options makes a pretty cost-effective high-performance SWL receiver just as it is. Al N1AL > /Rick N6XI > > On 3/9/10, Dave Rickmers <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > A version minus the 12 Watt exciter would be very easy to implement, > > would it not? The SWL BCBDXer community is interested. The DSP > > synchronous detector will be a major attraction for shortwave listeners. > > > > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
I agree that the hardware savings would be minimal, but yet another
firmware option that would be a global TX disable might make somone who wanted to use it as a SWL RX more comfortable. Or would just pulling the PA jumper be enough? That'd disable TX effectively, I think. 73, doug ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Bloom
Maybe just a software change to disable transmit for areas where unlicensed persons can't have one. I agree, the cost savings of leaving out the transmit circuitry is not worth the redesign effort. The K3/10 is not outrageously priced compared to other high end SW receivers. Rob NV5E > From: [hidden email] > To: [hidden email] > Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:36:03 -0800 > CC: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3? > > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:06 -0800, Rick Tavan N6XI wrote: > > I doubt that a receive-only K3 would cost significantly less than a K3/10. > > Looking at the schematics, it looks to me like it would save the 12W > power amplifier, some $2 relays, the T/R switching circuitry, and > several connectors. I doubt if the savings in parts would be enough to > pay for the re-engineering involved when amortized over the number of > units sold. > > > Unless there are licensing issues in a particular country, an SWL could buy > > a K3/10 with a sub-receiver and enjoy full diversity reception today. Just > > be careful not to transmit. > > I agree. A QRP K3 with suitable options makes a pretty cost-effective > high-performance SWL receiver just as it is. > > Al N1AL > > > > > /Rick N6XI > > > > On 3/9/10, Dave Rickmers <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > A version minus the 12 Watt exciter would be very easy to implement, > > > would it not? The SWL BCBDXer community is interested. The DSP > > > synchronous detector will be a major attraction for shortwave listeners. > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
Actually, the K3/10 is far less expensive than its nearest competitors as far as RX performance from what I can see. Even to get close, you have to spend 5 grand (i.e. for a Flex plus computer, some of the top end rigs from the big three, etc). In fact, the only RX I've seen that exceeds the K3 on anything (at least on paper) is the Icom 7800 - and at that it seems to only have a higher IP3 and falls behind elsewhere. And that rig will blow a possibly fatal sized hole in your savings/retirement account, etc.
Er, so I'm a little mystified by the thought that the K3 is expensive or just has too much stuff in the box and needs to be pared down? Seems like the highest bang/buck ratio, far far and away, available in amateur radio already from what I see. Just don't plug in the mike or key hi hi... 73, LS W5QD |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dave Rickmers
Instead of removing circuitry from the K3 for SWL use, why not add
some... For SWLing the best thing that could happen to the K3 would be to add an internal mains power supply (for receive use only). Then the K3 would be a self-contained receiver instead of having to be tethered to an external supply. An external supply is an acceptable limitation for a transmitter but very unsuitable for a light, portable receiver. I suppose a 1-amp "wall wart" having a power-pole plug would do the job, as long as you are careful not to transmit. Still, I'm not too crazy about wall wart supplies-- got a whole drawer full of them. It would be great if the K3 had a standard IEC power cord socket so it could be used as a grab and go receiver. Also, for SWLing the K3 could use a better scanner, and frequency memory management. 73, Drew AF2Z On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:17:40 -0800, Dave Rickmers wrote: >A version minus the 12 Watt exciter would be very easy to implement, >would it not? The SWL BCBDXer community is interested. The DSP >synchronous detector will be a major attraction for shortwave listeners. > >Dave Rickmers >KD6IL >K3 #3842 >______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
This sounds like a wonderful business opportunity for someone. Buy
K3/10 kits from Elecraft. Build them up and add an AC power supply in the space where the 100-watt PA normally goes. Market them to the SWL crowd at a modest profit. Al N1AL On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 08:36 -0500, drewko wrote: > Instead of removing circuitry from the K3 for SWL use, why not add > some... > > For SWLing the best thing that could happen to the K3 would be to add > an internal mains power supply (for receive use only). Then the K3 > would be a self-contained receiver instead of having to be tethered to > an external supply. An external supply is an acceptable limitation for > a transmitter but very unsuitable for a light, portable receiver. > > I suppose a 1-amp "wall wart" having a power-pole plug would do the > job, as long as you are careful not to transmit. Still, I'm not too > crazy about wall wart supplies-- got a whole drawer full of them. It > would be great if the K3 had a standard IEC power cord socket so it > could be used as a grab and go receiver. > > Also, for SWLing the K3 could use a better scanner, and frequency > memory management. > > 73, > Drew > AF2Z ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by lstavenhagen
I disagree. Perseus is $1199 in the US and is the current hot ticket for SWLers. Why? Because it can receive the entire MW band for recording and analysis later. RX performance is comparable to a K3 (maybe better) and Perseus can receive the entire 10 kHz - 30 MHz range as is (the K3 cannot). http://www.ssbusa.com/perseus.html 73, Bill |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
I agree with Bill's comments about Perseus, I bought one last year to use
primarily as a backup spectrum analyser. Not only is Perseus' performance as a receiver good in all modes, but it also does a fine job as a spectrum analyser and/or a panadapter, which would be useful to a SWL should she/he become licensed. The software version I use provides coverage up to 40 MHz. The usual disclaimers apply. 73, Geoff GM4ESD Bill W4ZV wrote on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM > I disagree. Perseus is $1199 in the US and is the current hot ticket for > SWLers. Why? Because it can receive the entire MW band for recording and > analysis later. RX performance is comparable to a K3 (maybe better) and > Perseus can receive the entire 10 kHz - 30 MHz range as is (the K3 > cannot). ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
In reply to this post by Bill W4ZV
The Perseus is an SDR, so you have to consider the extra costs:
- a computer powerful enough to take advantage of the software - fighting the software, bugs, config problems, chasing down drivers over the internet, calls, emails to whoever that go unanswered etc.... That's a lot of additional overhead in terms of cost and labor you have to take into account along with it. The K3 eliminates all of that (except for FW updates which require using the updater) so it's at least comparable. And for me, not having to battle broken SW and computers to get on the air is exceptionally valuable. YMMV as far as your labor, but it's still a consideration. 73, LS W5QD |
|
|
A 200 dollar netbook with (atom270 processor/Windows XP) handles the Perseus just fine.
A one-time-install running steady for over a year now. 73' Paul PD0PSB |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
Er, we may be running the risk of extending the thread too much, so I'll be brief and will strongly consider going QRT on the thread after this post hi hi.
Anyway, yes perhaps a $200 netbook is enough but the point is a) that expenditure is not optional with an SDR and b) may be a minimal configuration for many folks. neither is the case with the K3. You don't have to use a computer at all to SWL with a K3 if you don't want to. Everything you need to fully exploit the radio goes right in the box with no (or very little) extra fiddling and hidden costs. You might have to update the FW from time to time and that's about it. But that's just my take on it, I'd rather play with a radio when doing amateur radio and not a computer hi hi. 73, LS W5QD |
|
|
I like both; the knobs of the K3 and the "eagle spectrum view" of the Perseus.
Just wanted to correct your statement. The Perseus is not at all "a project" to use, it's plug&play and light on CPU. Not more difficult than an RS232-USB converter :-) 73' Paul PD0PSB |
Re: Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3?
|
|
Er, there's no such thing as a Windows SW package that's not a "project" to use hi hi.
But I stand by my original point that a computer running a SW package is not an optional expense with an SDR, but that such a thing is optional with the K3 and is probably it's chief advantage over the SDR. Plus or minus problems encountered of course, where there's going to be a wide range of experiences that will affect the value of the SDR. Now I'm definitely QRT on the thread as I've said my piece... 73, LS W5QD |
|
|
In reply to this post by pd0psb
I hadn't looked at the Perseus before but before I would spend 1200 bucks on
one, I would spend 1449 for another K3 and add 139 for the KBPF3 General Coverage Banpass Module - 1588. Well worth the extra 389 to me to have another K3 instead. Now I have two REAL radios. 73, de Jim kG0KP ----- Original Message ----- From: "pd0psb" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Any Consideration of a Receive Only K3? > > I like both; the knobs of the K3 and the "eagle spectrum view" of the > Perseus. > Just wanted to correct your statement. The Perseus is not at all "a > project" > to use, it's plug&play and light on CPU. > > Not more difficult than an RS232-USB converter :-) > > 73' > Paul > PD0PSB > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://n2.nabble.com/Any-Consideration-of-a-Receive-Only-K3-tp4704530p4716794.html > Sent from the [K3] 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:[hidden email] > > 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:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |