Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are we always so conservative?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are we always so conservative?

S Sacco
This was published in 2007, and makes no reference to our exalted Elecraft
K3, but it's still very interesting reading, and indirectly on topic.

Thanks to Adam Farson, VE7OJ / AB4OJ, for translation and hosting:
http://www.ab4oj.com/dl/misc/dinosaur_concepts.pdf

73,
Steve
NN4X
______________________________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are we always so conservative?

pd0psb
Nice article!

The only thing (besides initial price levels) that kept me away from SDR based designs for a long time is computer generated interference. That's also why the K3 shines as "stand alone" SDR.

It seems though computers/switching PSU's are finally becoming less RF noisy, making SDR much more usefull. (Perseus/netbook alongside K3 here with lineair power supplies giving virtually no interference)

73'
Paul
PD0PSB


<quote author="S Sacco">
This was published in 2007, and makes no reference to our exalted Elecraft
K3, but it's still very interesting reading, and indirectly on topic.
http://www.ab4oj.com/dl/misc/dinosaur_concepts.pdf
73, Steve NN4X
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are we always so conservative?

Paul - WW2PT
In reply to this post by S Sacco
"However, the radio hobby industry perseveres with narrow-band design concepts even to
the present day - usually with automatically-switched front-end BPF's, the rare exception
being the tracking preselectors in the pioneering JRC NRD-545 (1998)."

Not to quibble over details but JRC's varactor-tuned front end filters predated the NRD-545 by 12 years and two models -- it debuted (at least in their amateur receiver line) with the NRD-525 in 1986 and was carried over to the NRD-535 in 1991. It was also incorporated in the JST-135 and JST-145/245 treansceivers, both of which also preceded the NRD-545 by years. (Not sure about the JST-125, never did get my paws on one of them...)

73 de WW2PT <-- your friendly resident JRC quibbler. ;-)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FD with K3 #1826

Phil and Christina
I ran a 1B field day station in my north meadow this weekend using my 9
month old K3.  I had thought that I would use my K2 instead for its lower
current consumption, since I was using batteries and a solar panel.  I
couldn't give up the K3 performance and features however, so I went with
that.  Power was from a pair of 75 Ah deep cycle lead acid batteries and the
surplus solar panel (probably in the 15W range).  I generally ran the TX at
about 60 to 70 watts to save some current.  I used the first battery until I
went to bed around 0830Z.  I swapped the batteries when I got up in the
morning at about 1400Z.  The power setup and rig worked great.  At the
lowest point for the first battery, the rig showed about 11.9 to 12V key up
and 11.5V transmitting - the rig worked fine at that point.  I operated SSB
exclusively so that my wife could help with the duping (I paper logged since
I don't have a suitable laptop).

I really took advantage of the rigs interference fighting ability to pull
weaker stations out from under the often serious splatter from the stronger
stations (there were quite a few really bad sounding signals on the air - we
need a campaign to teach hams how to adjust their rigs!). 20M was a wall of
noise at times but the K3 worked right through it.  I used my tall
Douglas-fir trees to support two wire antennas.  One was an extended double
Zepp for 40M that worked great on 80 and 40.  The other was the 3 5/8 wave
collinear beam described in the July 2009 QST (cut for 20M).  It worked well
on the eastern path that gave me good coverage from the northern states to
the southeastern states.  I would recommend this antenna for those wanting
good bi-directional gain in a fixed direction.

I am very glad that I used the K3.  It is a great FD rig!

73,

Phil, NS7P
Elmira, OR

______________________________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are we always so conservative?

AC7AC
In reply to this post by S Sacco
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are wealways so conservative?

w7aqk
Hi All,

I think Ron makes a very good point.  I can't contribute much from a
technical standpoint, but I would add that I find the Datong analog filters
(made back in the 80's in the U.K.) are, in my view, superior to most of the
digital filters like those from Timewave and other manufacturers.  If you
haven't tinkered with a Datong filter, you should try and track one down.
Unfortunately, they aren't that easy to get ahold of here in the U.S., but
every so often one pops up on Ebay.  I think there were three models, the
"I", "II", and the "III".  The only real difference between the two latter
models is that the "III" had an automatic notch feature, while the "II" was
manual.

Dave W7AQK

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]>
To: "'Elecraft Reflector'" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are
wealways so conservative?


> Right now the cheapest and most powerful tool in most designer's arsenal
> is
> digital signal processing and digital control systems.
>
> Remember the old saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything begins
> to look like a nail."
>
> We humans are designed to process and analyze analog data, not digital
> data.
> That's why we love pictures and graphs but can't make sense out of the
> racket of a raw digital signal fed to an audio transducer. All of our
> senses
> work with analog inputs.
>
> The fastest computers I ever used are still among the fastest today at the
> tasks they are designed for, and that was back in the 1960's. They were
> analog computers.
>
> Digital systems became popular in recent decades because the hardware
> became
> absurdly cheap, both in cost and energy demand. With this technology, one
> can take an absurd "brute force" approach to a problem, including going to
> extremes trying to produce an analog output humans can work with
> efficiently, and come up with an acceptable result at an acceptable price
> (aided by an overwhelming amount of marketing saying "if it's digital it's
> better!").
>
> But just considering the millions of active devices and the huge number of
> lines of code it takes to accomplish even a simple task shows just what a
> "brute force" solution digital systems are today, especially when one
> realizes that 99.9% of the same results can be had with a handful of
> analog
> parts and one or two active devices.
>
> What we haven't done over the past few decades is develop analog
> technologies that can be "cookie-cutter" stamped out by the billions at
> cheaply as digital integrated circuits.
>
> It is true that digital systems are amazingly valuable and useful but,
> like
> Alley Oop's stone axe in Moo, because they're invaluable today doesn't
> mean
> they aren't just a stop gap until we develop a more efficient technology
> better adapted to our analog senses.
>
> In the meantime there are those right here who prefer a K2 or K1 to a K3.
> And many who prefer an older vacuum tube rig to any of those. They aren't
> just 'conservative' or 'dinosaurs'. Many, perhaps most, are just
> connoisseurs of good analog signal processing which, for their purposes,
> they find better than even the best of today's digital systems.
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> This was published in 2007, and makes no reference to our exalted Elecraft
> K3, but it's still very interesting reading, and indirectly on topic.
>
> Thanks to Adam Farson, VE7OJ / AB4OJ, for translation and hosting:
> http://www.ab4oj.com/dl/misc/dinosaur_concepts.pdf
>
> 73,
> Steve
> NN4X
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are wealways so conservative?

pd0psb
If we're talking signal integrity, analog (endless resolution) will always win from digital (chopped-up resolution). The best sounding circuits to me are analog  with the least amount of active components.
(listen to a passive LC filter...)
Not the most practical and versatile in many cases though.

I think K3 is a great hybrid and digital resolution is getting on a high level nowadays.

73'
Paul
PD0PSB


<quote author="David Yarnes">
Hi All,

I think Ron makes a very good point.  I can't contribute much from a
technical standpoint, but I would add that I find the Datong analog filters
(made back in the 80's in the U.K.) are, in my view, superior to most of the
digital filters
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Interesting Read: Dinosaur Concepts - why are wealways so conservative?

pd0psb
In reply to this post by w7aqk
If we're talking signal integrity, analog (endless resolution) will always win from digital (chopped-up resolution). The best sounding circuits to me are analog  with the least amount of active components.
(listen to a passive LC filter...)
Not the most practical and versatile in many cases though.

I think K3 is a great hybrid and digital resolution is getting on a high level nowadays.

73'
Paul
PD0PSB


<quote author="David Yarnes">
Hi All,

I think Ron makes a very good point.  I can't contribute much from a
technical standpoint, but I would add that I find the Datong analog filters
(made back in the 80's in the U.K.) are, in my view, superior to most of the
digital filters