Elecraft › [K3]

Fw: CQ WW DX Contest CW 2011 - Unofficial claimed scores

Classic

List

Threaded

69 messages Options

1234

k6dgw

Re: K3 AGC Mush ... or "blur"

On 12/5/2011 10:38 AM, David Gilbert wrote:

> If I get the chance during the upcoming ARRL 10m contest I'll give it
> another try. I'll also try to record the entire contest to see if I can
> come up with a decent sound clip.

That would be really cool, David. My K3 replaced my TS-850 [which I
really liked], and I had them both [and my K2] on the desk for awhile.
I easily found CW signals I could copy on the K3, could hear but not
copy well on the K2, and that I couldn't hear at all on the 850. I'd
sure like to hear the "mush" everyone is talking about.

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012
- www.cqp.org
______________________________________________________________
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

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: K3 hardware AGC experiment shows promise

Administrator

In reply to this post by Cady, Fred

No. We don't have a large stock at the factory, as we keep them at our
contract manufacturing site south of here.

I'll post here when we get some in here.

73, Eric

www.elecraft.com

On 12/5/2011 11:50 AM, Cady, Fred wrote:

> Should we call ordering to have a cap or two sent out?
>
> Fred Cady
> fcady at ieee dot org
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Wayne Burdick
>> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 6:59 PM
>> To: Elecraft Reflector
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 hardware AGC experiment shows promise
>>
>> By the way, we'll be happy to send out these surface-mount 1 uF
>> capacitors (or whatever we determine is the best value) to anyone who
>> would like to try the experimental mod, immediately and at no charge.
>>
>> These are huge as SMD parts go. Anyone with a fine-tip iron would have
>> no trouble putting one in. There's no need to take the original,
>> smaller one off; you can just stack the new one on top.
>>
>> If you're in a hurry, you could use any type of capacitor that will
>> fit, including an electrolytic. Just be sure to put the (-) end at
>> ground if you use a polarized capacitor.
>>
>> 73,
>> Wayne
>> N6KR
>>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The K3's hardware AGC time constant is a compromise between recovery
>>> time and IMD due to modulation of the loop. C238, on the bottom of
>> the
>>> RF board near the front, sets this time constant.
>>>
>>> We did a little experiment today
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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

______________________________________________________________
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

wayne burdick

Re: K3 AGC Mush

Administrator

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

Does anyone have a clear recording of this situation using a receiver
that *doesn't* have trouble separating the signals? Better yet, a
recording made of both the K3 and this other receiver at the same
time. That would really help.

tnx
Wayne
N6KR

On Dec 4, 2011, at 6:42 PM, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> When I experience the problem the signals are all quite close ...

______________________________________________________________
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

P.B. Christensen

Re: K3 hardware AGC experiment shows promise

In reply to this post by wayne burdick

Wayne,

For those of us ordering the cap through Mouser or DigiKey, can you reply
with the SMD/SMT cap dimension code (e.g., 0603, 1608, etc.)

Tnx!

Paul, W9AC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Burdick" <[hidden email]>
To: "Elecraft Reflector" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:50 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] K3 hardware AGC experiment shows promise

> Hi all,
>
> The K3's hardware AGC time constant is a compromise between recovery
> time and IMD due to modulation of the loop. C238, on the bottom of the
> RF board near the front, sets this time constant.
>
> We did a little experiment today (thanks to Tree, N6TR) that suggests
> increasing the size of C238 substantially might be a worthy change. In
> the case of signals just large enough to tickle the hardware AGC, the
> first IMD products were reduced by something like 18 dB. This will
> also increase the recovery time for very strong signals, so the jury
> is out on whether this is OK for the average user.
>
> For the experimentally inclined: C238 is easy to get to; just remove
> bottom cover A (the front half). C238 is a large-ish surface mount
> capacitor nestled between two 20-pin connectors. The present value is
> 0.1 uF. Tree tacked a 1-uF cap on top of it. Then he tacked another
> one on, which improved things by another few dB.
>
> Some ops have mentioned problems with signals much lower than this,
> which has always baffled me. But I got to thinking: Suppose you're
> listening to a bunch of S4-S5 signals in your DSP passband. You could
> have larger signals outside the DSP, but inside the crystal filter. Or
> you could have clicks from strong signals that get inside the crystal
> filter but you can't hear because you're using a narrow DSP filter. Or
> you could have noise spikes. Any of these could ping the hardware AGC
> just enough to cause IMD between all of the signals in the passband.
>
> My point is that increasing the loop time constant could have a more
> general benefit when a band is busy and/or noisy.
>
> Let me know if you try this and whether the results are of interest.
> (I live in an RF-free zone, it seems, so I can never recreate the
> problem here. Frustrating!)
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

wayne burdick

Re: K3 hardware AGC experiment shows promise

Administrator

0805.

tnx
Wayne

On Dec 5, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> For those of us ordering the cap through Mouser or DigiKey, can you
> reply
> with the SMD/SMT cap dimension code (e.g., 0603, 1608, etc.)
>
> Tnx!
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne Burdick" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Elecraft Reflector" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 8:50 PM
> Subject: [Elecraft] K3 hardware AGC experiment shows promise
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The K3's hardware AGC time constant is a compromise between recovery
>> time and IMD due to modulation of the loop. C238, on the bottom of
>> the
>> RF board near the front, sets this time constant.
>>
>> We did a little experiment today (thanks to Tree, N6TR) that suggests
>> increasing the size of C238 substantially might be a worthy change.
>> In
>> the case of signals just large enough to tickle the hardware AGC, the
>> first IMD products were reduced by something like 18 dB. This will
>> also increase the recovery time for very strong signals, so the jury
>> is out on whether this is OK for the average user.
>>
>> For the experimentally inclined: C238 is easy to get to; just remove
>> bottom cover A (the front half). C238 is a large-ish surface mount
>> capacitor nestled between two 20-pin connectors. The present value is
>> 0.1 uF. Tree tacked a 1-uF cap on top of it. Then he tacked another
>> one on, which improved things by another few dB.
>>
>> Some ops have mentioned problems with signals much lower than this,
>> which has always baffled me. But I got to thinking: Suppose you're
>> listening to a bunch of S4-S5 signals in your DSP passband. You could
>> have larger signals outside the DSP, but inside the crystal filter.
>> Or
>> you could have clicks from strong signals that get inside the crystal
>> filter but you can't hear because you're using a narrow DSP filter.
>> Or
>> you could have noise spikes. Any of these could ping the hardware AGC
>> just enough to cause IMD between all of the signals in the passband.
>>
>> My point is that increasing the loop time constant could have a more
>> general benefit when a band is busy and/or noisy.
>>
>> Let me know if you try this and whether the results are of interest.
>> (I live in an RF-free zone, it seems, so I can never recreate the
>> problem here. Frustrating!)
>>
>> 73,
>> Wayne
>> N6KR
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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

ab2tc

Re: K3 AGC Mush

In reply to this post by wayne burdick

Hi,

Clearly, audio clips are needed if Elecraft is going to have any chance of getting to the bottom of this. If this problem is real, somebody ought to be able to produce objective evidence of it with comparable evidence of other receivers not having the problem.

AB2TC - Knut

wayne burdick wrote

Does anyone have a clear recording of this situation using a receiver
that *doesn't* have trouble separating the signals? Better yet, a
recording made of both the K3 and this other receiver at the same
time. That would really help.

tnx
Wayne
N6KR

<snip>

Lu Romero - W4LT

Re: K3 AGC Mush ... or "blur"

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

I think Mr. Harper has hit the nail squarely on the head
with this comment:

>I think our expectations of the K3 are based largely on
>what we migrated to the K3 from.

Its the same expectation that I have for transmit audio
punch. It took me six months to feel comfortable with my
audio settings on TX, and a lot of playing ensued. I
learned a lot, too! While I would like to see some of my
pet "additions" that I think are "important" be implemented,
it doesnt sound so bad now, and reality states that there is
just so much that can be implemented in the DSP; Im on my
own to solve my perceived problems, real or imagined.

There is no perfect rig. This one is close, but its not
perfect, and never will be. Where once there was crackly
receiver intermod products, now we hear clicking and
"blur/mush". Not saying its not real, just saying it is an
artifact of this technology's design and our own
perceptions.

If it can be fixed or mitigated, then great! If it cant,
then we have to either live with it or buy something else.

I had a boss who's favorite saying was "Perception is
Reality". He is right.

And I dont think a lot of this will be replicated in a lab
either. Its as much perceived as it is real; we are all
learning how to work in this new digital domain. Its going
to take us a while to get our collective heads around it.

I will record ARRL 10 as well, Im mixed mode, too.

-lu-W4LT-

______________________________________________________________
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

Guy, K2AV

Re: K3 AGC Mush ... or "blur"

In reply to this post by David Gilbert

Not to argue but to move toward clarity...

Low level signals are by definition closer to the noise. That would
also mean that there would be more "stuff" between CW bauds. "Crisp"
to some means that the artifacts which define the beginning and the
ends of a baud are there. The extreme artifact is a key click. A
normal artifact is additional bandwidth occurring at the edges of the
baud, but reduced in level. These are down 6, 12, 18, 24 dB from the
pure sine wave. Without these, the baud sounds soft, and the
transitions on and off only excite the directly on-tone nerves in the
ear, instead of some number of tones.

Once the signal is close enough to the noise the baud start and stop
artifacts become obscured by the noise, but the signal is still
copyable by itself. If there are multiple signals in this state and
the tones are close, our ears lose all clue of baud on/off other than
slow (not "sharp") level transitions. We lose harmonic artifacts, and
now must rely only on very soft level changes. Ancient Bell Labs
studies on these issues for telephone would say that for most people,
a change from one CW signal to another at close to the same frequency,
less than three dB in amplitude, would not be a perceptible change.

On these issues in that QRM situation, one would EXPECT that kind of
"muddyness" in the S unit above the noise level. This would happen in
a perfect receiver. This is why someone's signal sending fast when
they go into the noise "blurs" the CW and the only way to overcome
that is to slow down signficantly.

**IF** the AGC was using settings that removed even those level
differences from hearing, the muddying would begin at higher levels
above noise. This would happen in a perfect receiver.

**IF** the hardware AGC was exposed to significant CW signals outside
the DSP skirts due to use of a much wider roofer than the DSP width
setting (such as one listing of 500-800 Hz DSP under a 1000 roofer)
the variable IF gain stage would be tracking the HAGC imposition on
the gain, and raising and lowering the signal of the collective IN-DSP
signals with foreign on/off information not related to any of the
in-band signals. Muddle would be a good word to describe that effect.
This is in a volume region where one is already losing clarity keying
artifacts to the noise floor.

***This effect would occur the worst in the range between where the
DSP AGC started to take up down to the noise***, and would otherwise
be flattened back by the DSP AGC responding only to the in-band
signals and treating the HAGC variations as "propagation changes".

Slowing down the hardware AGC would prevent in-roofer-out-of-DSP
baud-speed external signal gain modulation to weak, under AGC in-band
signals.

I should note for the record that in contests I am either running a
400 8 pole with DSP at 450 or a 250 8 pole with DSP at 350 or 150.
When the offsets of the filters are carefully adjusted, these produce
the sharpest composite skirts down 30 and 40 dB. There is never any
signal outside the DSP limits making it to the hardware AGC. I always
use slow AGC with the fastest possible decay. I always have my
PRE/ATT and RF gain pushed back to match the band.

There may be something else going on, but with my settings I have
never heard any of the reported muddiness, other than the expected
perfect RX conditions listed above.

I am going to try the cap modification to my KRX3 only and listen in
diversity to a single antenna. I will also set the main RX to keep
the 400 8 pole as roofer all the way down. Then at 350 bandwidth, I
will be listening to a wide roofer on one and an equal roofer on the
other.

Should be easy to put an XG3 + step attenuator tone IN band with a
loud CW signal between the skirts and see what happens. Anything
audio happening to one RX and not the other should be really obvious.

73, Guy.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> "The only time I heard mush on the K3 was when we had worked down the
> pileup and only had very low strength guys all calling on the same
> frequency (the packet/reverse beacon spotting phenomenon)."
>
>
> Multiple low level signals close in frequency is EXACTLY the situation
> that I and at least several others are concerned about. I don't notice
> the problem on stronger signals either, and my low level hearing is
> still pretty good. Operating from ZF-land where you almost always have
> somebody strong calling you is not the typical situation many of the
> rest of us experience from our home QTH's, and I would therefore expect
> that you are less likely to experience the problem. Great sensitivity
> and dynamic range are less useful if what you hear cannot be deciphered.
>
> By the way, it has been pointed out to me that "mush" may not be the
> best descriptor for what I hear, and I agree with that. I think "blur"
> might be a better term. When the problem shows up I can distinguish the
> individual tones (the signals are not dead zero beat) but the crispness
> of the keying disappears. It's as if something is filling in the spaces
> between the keying elements, and I tend to believe that the culprits are
> the sum/difference products of other nearby signals that happen to
> overlap the signal I'm trying to copy.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 12/5/2011 8:34 AM, K5WA wrote:
>> I really can't agree with the mush comment. I've just returned from ZF1A
>> where we put almost 8000 Qs in the log over the CQWW CW weekend. I took my
>> K3 and was able to evaluate it against the station's existing TS-850 since
>> we were M/S and rotated positions. In my opinion, the 850 WAS mushy and the
>> K3 was very clear however, K6AM, our host (who is a VERY serious contester),
>> prefers the 850 since he has been using it for 10 years. He also owns 4 K3s
>> but didn't bring them on the trip since the 850s "live" in Cayman and he
>> brought many pounds of other equipment. Personal preference plays a huge
>> part of this discussion. In this case, K6AM feels like his hearing is
>> limited to a frequency range of 6-7K while mine is still near 20K. Maybe
>> that is part of the puzzle.
>>
>> We regularly saw the 10 minute QSO rate meter in the 300 range and topped
>> 400 occasionally. I loved the way the K3 was able to plow through the
>> pileups which were calling us and work through them as fast as possible.
>> The only time I heard mush on the K3 was when we had worked down the pileup
>> and only had very low strength guys all calling on the same frequency (the
>> packet/reverse beacon spotting phenomenon). These must have been micro-watt
>> QRP'ers or stations with minimal/indoor antennas. I had my AGC on and
>> didn't have any time to try multiple settings but I am extremely happy with
>> the K3's receiver and think it is in the high end competition grade for me.
>>
>> I am sending Eric my configuration file as he requested in case he is able
>> to find an improvement but I will be amazed if one can be found. I've
>> always been extremely happy with Elecraft's commitment and motivation to
>> exceed expectations but they have already exceeded mine as it is. ;-)
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob K5WA
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

wc1m

Re: K3 AGC Mush ... or "blur"

Awesome, Guy. I think your test will answer the questions I have about this
problem. Please post the results of your test with a different title than
above so we don't have to comb through a lot of posts to find it.

73, Dick WC1M

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Olinger K2AV [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:17 AM
To: David Gilbert
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 AGC Mush ... or "blur"

Not to argue but to move toward clarity...

Low level signals are by definition closer to the noise. That would also
mean that there would be more "stuff" between CW bauds. "Crisp"
to some means that the artifacts which define the beginning and the ends of
a baud are there. The extreme artifact is a key click. A normal artifact
is additional bandwidth occurring at the edges of the baud, but reduced in
level. These are down 6, 12, 18, 24 dB from the pure sine wave. Without
these, the baud sounds soft, and the transitions on and off only excite the
directly on-tone nerves in the ear, instead of some number of tones.

Once the signal is close enough to the noise the baud start and stop
artifacts become obscured by the noise, but the signal is still copyable by
itself. If there are multiple signals in this state and the tones are
close, our ears lose all clue of baud on/off other than slow (not "sharp")
level transitions. We lose harmonic artifacts, and now must rely only on
very soft level changes. Ancient Bell Labs studies on these issues for
telephone would say that for most people, a change from one CW signal to
another at close to the same frequency, less than three dB in amplitude,
would not be a perceptible change.

On these issues in that QRM situation, one would EXPECT that kind of
"muddyness" in the S unit above the noise level. This would happen in a
perfect receiver. This is why someone's signal sending fast when they go
into the noise "blurs" the CW and the only way to overcome that is to slow
down signficantly.

**IF** the AGC was using settings that removed even those level differences
from hearing, the muddying would begin at higher levels above noise. This
would happen in a perfect receiver.

**IF** the hardware AGC was exposed to significant CW signals outside the
DSP skirts due to use of a much wider roofer than the DSP width setting
(such as one listing of 500-800 Hz DSP under a 1000 roofer) the variable IF
gain stage would be tracking the HAGC imposition on the gain, and raising
and lowering the signal of the collective IN-DSP signals with foreign on/off
information not related to any of the in-band signals. Muddle would be a
good word to describe that effect.
This is in a volume region where one is already losing clarity keying
artifacts to the noise floor.

***This effect would occur the worst in the range between where the DSP AGC
started to take up down to the noise***, and would otherwise be flattened
back by the DSP AGC responding only to the in-band signals and treating the
HAGC variations as "propagation changes".

Slowing down the hardware AGC would prevent in-roofer-out-of-DSP baud-speed
external signal gain modulation to weak, under AGC in-band signals.

I should note for the record that in contests I am either running a
400 8 pole with DSP at 450 or a 250 8 pole with DSP at 350 or 150.
When the offsets of the filters are carefully adjusted, these produce the
sharpest composite skirts down 30 and 40 dB. There is never any signal
outside the DSP limits making it to the hardware AGC. I always use slow AGC
with the fastest possible decay. I always have my PRE/ATT and RF gain
pushed back to match the band.

There may be something else going on, but with my settings I have never
heard any of the reported muddiness, other than the expected perfect RX
conditions listed above.

I am going to try the cap modification to my KRX3 only and listen in
diversity to a single antenna. I will also set the main RX to keep the 400
8 pole as roofer all the way down. Then at 350 bandwidth, I will be
listening to a wide roofer on one and an equal roofer on the other.

Should be easy to put an XG3 + step attenuator tone IN band with a loud CW
signal between the skirts and see what happens. Anything audio happening to
one RX and not the other should be really obvious.

73, Guy.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:39 PM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]>
wrote:

you hear cannot be deciphered.

>
> By the way, it has been pointed out to me that "mush" may not be the
> best descriptor for what I hear, and I agree with that. I think "blur"
> might be a better term. When the problem shows up I can distinguish
> the individual tones (the signals are not dead zero beat) but the
> crispness of the keying disappears. It's as if something is filling
> in the spaces between the keying elements, and I tend to believe that
> the culprits are the sum/difference products of other nearby signals
> that happen to overlap the signal I'm trying to copy.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
> On 12/5/2011 8:34 AM, K5WA wrote:
>> I really can't agree with the mush comment. I've just returned from
>> ZF1A where we put almost 8000 Qs in the log over the CQWW CW weekend.
>> I took my
>> K3 and was able to evaluate it against the station's existing TS-850
>> since we were M/S and rotated positions. In my opinion, the 850 WAS
>> mushy and the
>> K3 was very clear however, K6AM, our host (who is a VERY serious
>> contester), prefers the 850 since he has been using it for 10 years.
>> He also owns 4 K3s but didn't bring them on the trip since the 850s
>> "live" in Cayman and he brought many pounds of other equipment.
>> Personal preference plays a huge part of this discussion. In this
>> case, K6AM feels like his hearing is limited to a frequency range of
>> 6-7K while mine is still near 20K. Maybe that is part of the puzzle.
>>
>> We regularly saw the 10 minute QSO rate meter in the 300 range and
>> topped
>> 400 occasionally. I loved the way the K3 was able to plow through
>> the pileups which were calling us and work through them as fast as

possible.
>> The only time I heard mush on the K3 was when we had worked down the
>> pileup and only had very low strength guys all calling on the same
>> frequency (the packet/reverse beacon spotting phenomenon). These
>> must have been micro-watt QRP'ers or stations with minimal/indoor
>> antennas. I had my AGC on and didn't have any time to try multiple
>> settings but I am extremely happy with the K3's receiver and think it is
in the high end competition grade for me.

>>
>> I am sending Eric my configuration file as he requested in case he is
>> able to find an improvement but I will be amazed if one can be found.
>> I've always been extremely happy with Elecraft's commitment and
>> motivation to exceed expectations but they have already exceeded mine
>> as it is. ;-)
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob K5WA
>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

1234