[K3] Tokyo Hy-Power HL-1.2KFX amp interfacing (to ALC or not to ALC?)

[John Shadle]

I'm considering adding a THP HL-1.2KFX solid state amp to the K3S station I
have, and was wondering how others have done this. There seems to be
conflicting info on the "right way" to do things.

1. The THP manual states that ALC should be used to control the amp, but
2. Elecraft support (and documents) suggest that ALC should not be used for
any amps.

Of course, that begs the question "Why is ALC included at all on the
K3/K3S?", but...anyway.

Elecraft support suggested I ask the reflector what other folks do, so I
am. Looking forward to your replies.

Thanks!
-john NE4U
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Don Wilhelm-4]

John,

I don't know what other folks do, and I don't have an amplifier, BUT ---

Using amplifier ALC is a good way to create splatter on the bands, so it
should not be used if you are to present a clean signal.  ALC can be
used as a crude means of power control - the amplifier is overdriven, so
ALC activates and the drive power is reduced at the driving
transceiver.  That is the "bad" use of ALC.  I know of at least one
amplifier manufacturer which instructs the user to run the driving
transceiver at full power and let the amplifier ALC control its power
output - don't do that, it causes splatter on the bands because that
control mechanism is not instantaneous - you go into an overdrive
condition before the power can be reduced.

However, some solid state amplifiers also use it as a means to shut down
the driving transceiver if it detects a fault condition.  The use of ALC
for that purpose is justified IMHO.

Most amplifiers have a control which can set the ALC level.  So if you
choose to use the ALC line for amplifier fault protection, then set that
level well above the point where ALC will be activated by the amplifier
for power control purposes - otherwise just adjust the drive power of
the K3 to drive the amplifier to the desired power output and do not
connect the ALC.

Just a point of opinion, I think the amplifier designers who like to
depend on ALC for amplifier fault protection should find a different
way.  If the amplifier is in a condition where it needs to reduce the
power, that should be done in the amplifier itself without reliance on
any external device, and that includes sending ALC to the driving
transceiver.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 3/28/2016 4:51 PM, John Shadle wrote:

> I'm considering adding a THP HL-1.2KFX solid state amp to the K3S station I
> have, and was wondering how others have done this. There seems to be
> conflicting info on the "right way" to do things.
>
> 1. The THP manual states that ALC should be used to control the amp, but
> 2. Elecraft support (and documents) suggest that ALC should not be used for
> any amps.
>
> Of course, that begs the question "Why is ALC included at all on the
> K3/K3S?", but...anyway.
>
> Elecraft support suggested I ask the reflector what other folks do, so I
> am. Looking forward to your replies.
>
>

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Bill Parris]

I use the same amp with my K3S.  Just connect from the "Key Out" jack to the
"STBY" jack on the amp.  I get very good audio reports.  Forget the "ALC".

Bill, AA4R

-----Original Message-----
From: John Shadle
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:51 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] [K3] Tokyo Hy-Power HL-1.2KFX amp interfacing (to ALC
ornot to ALC?)

I'm considering adding a THP HL-1.2KFX solid state amp to the K3S station I
have, and was wondering how others have done this. There seems to be
conflicting info on the "right way" to do things.

1. The THP manual states that ALC should be used to control the amp, but
2. Elecraft support (and documents) suggest that ALC should not be used for
any amps.

Of course, that begs the question "Why is ALC included at all on the
K3/K3S?", but...anyway.

Elecraft support suggested I ask the reflector what other folks do, so I
am. Looking forward to your replies.

Thanks!
-john NE4U
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]


______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Elecraft mailing list]

I have a THP HL-1.2KFX that I used before the acquisition of my K3. It is a reliable and resilient amp and I have had the ALC connected to the K3 for a year. However
I tend to take Don Wilhelms advice and there have been times when the ALC and SWR inputs to the AMP’s logic seem to fight each other, so I just disconnected
the ALC and will report any issues….silence = happiness.

I mourn the the shutdown THP after the earthquake/floods. It was a terrific company with a lot of great products with leadership in the mould of Elecraft.

Alan/K6ADG
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Edward R Cole]

I thought the best way to drive an amplifier was to increase drive
until output no longer increased proportional to input; eg output
increases 3-dB with an 3-dB increase in drive is linear.  Isn't the
point the increase drops 1-dB the upper limit?

That is how I determine best drive level on VHF linear amps.  Most
folks run up drive until they reach saturation (no change in output
with increased drive) and then operate SSB there.  No wonder their
voice peaks are cut off causing splatter.  BTW high speed CW should
not be run at saturated power, either.  CW actually has bandwidth
though at 5wpm probably not measurable <ha ha>

ALC was a good concept that never worked very well (negative feedback
gain control).  ALC meter on the K3 is useful for setting audio drive
just to the point ALC begins to act (four bars with 5th flickering).
But I guess all of you know that - right?

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
     "Kits made by KL7UW"
Dubus Mag business:
     [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On Tue,3/29/2016 10:13 AM, Edward R Cole wrote:
> CW actually has bandwidth though at 5wpm probably not measurable <ha ha>

WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is determined by
RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and distortion in the RF stages.

I strongly agree that amplifier output power should NEVER EVER be set
using AGC. It should ALWAYS be set by setting drive power for the
desired output, but always staying below the power level that increases
amplifier non-linearity (distortion).

The use of AGC to set amplifier power has been considered a bad thing
for at least 35 years -- the operating manual for my Ten Tec Titans says
not to use it that way. If you look at the schematics (in the manual)
you'll find K4XU's initials on them. Thank you, Dick!

The ONLY good way to use AGC is to protect the amplifier when something
fails in the antenna system (by reducing drive from the transceiver).
Yes, some rigs produce power spikes at the beginning of a transmission.
Those are bad rigs, and have no business being used to drive a power
amp! If you want to run an amp, buy a REAL radio. :)

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On Tue,3/29/2016 11:28 AM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
> On 3/29/2016 10:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is determined
>> by RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and distortion in the
>> RF stages.
> So, I can occupy zero bandwidth at 10,000 wpm CW and my occupied
> bandwidth will be the same as 5 wpm as long as the keying waveform is
> right?

No, because even the best rise/fall waveform has SOME harmonic content,
and CW speeds of 10,000 WPM have no practical meaning. But you CAN
occupy extremely narrow (a few Hz) bandwidth with a steady carrier,
because there's nothing to excite IMD. Bandwidth would be greater than
that only to the extent that the carrier is modulated by power supply
noise or phase noise. And, of course, any distortion in the RF chain
will produce harmonics.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Vic Rosenthal]

The relationship of bandwidth and speed is that for given rise/fall
times, increasing speed will reach a point when the code elements blur
together.

So you need more bandwidth for super high-speed CW because you need to
shorten the rise and fall times. But the occupied bandwidth doesn't
change as you vary the speed.

The K3's keying waveshape and rise/fall times (the shape is important,
not just the time) are good for far faster CW than I can send!

73,
Vic, 4X6GP/K2VCO
Rehovot, Israel
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 29 Mar 2016 22:36, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Tue,3/29/2016 11:28 AM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote:
>> On 3/29/2016 10:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>> WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is determined
>>> by RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and distortion in the
>>> RF stages.
>> So, I can occupy zero bandwidth at 10,000 wpm CW and my occupied
>> bandwidth will be the same as 5 wpm as long as the keying waveform is
>> right?
>
> No, because even the best rise/fall waveform has SOME harmonic content,
> and CW speeds of 10,000 WPM have no practical meaning. But you CAN
> occupy extremely narrow (a few Hz) bandwidth with a steady carrier,
> because there's nothing to excite IMD. Bandwidth would be greater than
> that only to the extent that the carrier is modulated by power supply
> noise or phase noise. And, of course, any distortion in the RF chain
> will produce harmonics.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Joe Subich, W4TV-4]

 >> On 3/29/2016 10:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>> WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is
>>> determined by RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and
>>> distortion in the RF stages.

The standard word "paris" has 48 elements.  That makes the baud rate
for CW (48/60) x WPM or 0.80 x WPM.

ITU defines the "Necessary Bandwidth" for CW as 3 or 5 times the speed
in bits per second (baud rate) where 3 x is for "non fading circuits"
(where the waveform does not need to be so "sharp") and 5 x for "fading
circuits."    See:
     http://http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm part B.
The same table is found in Title 97, Part 2 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (FCC Rules) as §2.202(g)

The constant 'K' sets the minimum bandwidth needed/occupied for the two
recognized cases.  Occupied bandwidth in excess of K=5 (or 400 Hz for
100 WPM) would be unacceptable due to improper keying waveforms or
distortion in the RF stages.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[k6dgw]

Ummm ... not exactly true but not exactly not-true either.  Occupied BW
is a function of bit-rate [well, technically, number of signal
transitions in a unit time, but they're closely related].  Fairly basic
physics ... or I guess that's information theory now.  The faster you
send, the wider your signal will be, guaranteed, you can't escape it.
Like trying to drive faster than light, discarding angular momentum, or
resigning from Linked-In.

Waveshape also affects occupied bandwidth, although the amount it
increases the BW carries no information ... except for the useless fact
that the dude with huge key clicks is still up there 15 KHz.

At "normal" CW speeds, aka D4C, the BW increase due to speed is hardly
noticeable. With poor wave shaping, it is VERY noticeable, and
information-free.

73,

Fred K6DGW
Sparks NV
Washoe County DM09dn

On 3/29/2016 1:03 PM, Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP/K2VCO wrote:
> The relationship of bandwidth and speed is that for given rise/fall
> times, increasing speed will reach a point when the code elements blur
> together.
>
> So you need more bandwidth for super high-speed CW because you need to
> shorten the rise and fall times. But the occupied bandwidth doesn't
> change as you vary the speed.

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[NK7Z]

On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 17:42 -0700, Fred Jensen wrote:
> Like trying to drive faster than light, discarding angular momentum,
> or resigning from Linked-In.

WHAT!!  I know you are wrong here, else the Enterprise could not work!
--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)

For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net

For MixW support see:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mixw/info

For SSTV help see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MM-SSTV/info



______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

I thought the Enterprise was lost at the battle of the Coral Sea. Must
be some sort of time looping going on here.
     Kevin.  KD5ONS

On 3/29/2016 6:52 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 17:42 -0700, Fred Jensen wrote:
>>   Like trying to drive faster than light, discarding angular momentum,
>>   or resigning from Linked-In.
> WHAT!!  I know you are wrong here, else the Enterprise could not work!

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

On Tue,3/29/2016 1:03 PM, Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP/K2VCO wrote:
> The relationship of bandwidth and speed is that for given rise/fall
> times, increasing speed will reach a point when the code elements blur
> together.

Yes, but that's RX bandwidth, VERY different from occupied bandwidth.
The issue is RX bandwidth is the TIME (phase) response -- every change
in amplitude is accompanied by a change in the phase response, that that
phase distortion (remember, phase is time) blurs the code elements
together.

> So you need more bandwidth for super high-speed CW because you need to
> shorten the rise and fall times.

You need more RX bandwidth, for the reason described above.

> But the occupied bandwidth doesn't change as you vary the speed.

Right. Occupied bandwidth is your "footprint" on the band -- how much
your signal is spread out.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Brown-10]

Unfortunately the guys who wrote the rules failed to understand the
physics and the math. They were WRONG, and it is a misconception under
which we have been laboring for as long as I've been a ham. It was Henry
Ott who woke me up to this when I took his 3-day class on EMC around
2003-4. Henry is a VERY smart guy, one of many who came out of Bell Labs.

73, Jim K9YC

On Tue,3/29/2016 1:28 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

> >> On 3/29/2016 10:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>>> WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is
>>>> determined by RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and
>>>> distortion in the RF stages.
>
> The standard word "paris" has 48 elements.  That makes the baud rate
> for CW (48/60) x WPM or 0.80 x WPM.
>
> ITU defines the "Necessary Bandwidth" for CW as 3 or 5 times the speed
> in bits per second (baud rate) where 3 x is for "non fading circuits"
> (where the waveform does not need to be so "sharp") and 5 x for "fading
> circuits."    See:
>     http://http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm part B.
> The same table is found in Title 97, Part 2 of the Code of Federal
> Regulations (FCC Rules) as §2.202(g)
>
> The constant 'K' sets the minimum bandwidth needed/occupied for the two
> recognized cases.  Occupied bandwidth in excess of K=5 (or 400 Hz for
> 100 WPM) would be unacceptable due to improper keying waveforms or
> distortion in the RF stages.
>
> 73,
>
>   ... Joe, W4TV
>
>

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Vic Rosenthal]

But even if the RX bandwidth is wide enough that there is negligible
distortion, you can't distinguish dits that are 5 ms long if the rise
time is 2 ms.

73,
Vic, 4X6GP/K2VCO
Rehovot, Israel
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 30 Mar 2016 07:17, Jim Brown wrote:

> On Tue,3/29/2016 1:03 PM, Vic Rosenthal 4X6GP/K2VCO wrote:
>> The relationship of bandwidth and speed is that for given rise/fall
>> times, increasing speed will reach a point when the code elements blur
>> together.
>
> Yes, but that's RX bandwidth, VERY different from occupied bandwidth.
> The issue is RX bandwidth is the TIME (phase) response -- every change
> in amplitude is accompanied by a change in the phase response, that that
> phase distortion (remember, phase is time) blurs the code elements
> together.
>
>> So you need more bandwidth for super high-speed CW because you need to
>> shorten the rise and fall times.
>
> You need more RX bandwidth, for the reason described above.
>
>> But the occupied bandwidth doesn't change as you vary the speed.
>
> Right. Occupied bandwidth is your "footprint" on the band -- how much
> your signal is spread out.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Joe Subich, W4TV-4]

On 3/30/2016 12:21 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
 > Unfortunately the guys who wrote the rules failed to understand the
 > physics and the math.

No Jim, you are wrong here. CW is a carrier modulated by a digital
(on/off keyed) signal of a given (baud) rate.  That keying will
generate sidebands +/- the baud rate *just like FSK* or even AM which
can be observed on a spectrum analyzer.  The ITU formula is quite
accurate in terms of the actual bandwidth for signals with *properly*
*shaped keying*.

Again, the excess bandwidth from improperly shaped keying signals
(clicks) and/or amplifier distortion is something else.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 3/30/2016 12:21 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> Unfortunately the guys who wrote the rules failed to understand the
> physics and the math. They were WRONG, and it is a misconception under
> which we have been laboring for as long as I've been a ham. It was Henry
> Ott who woke me up to this when I took his 3-day class on EMC around
> 2003-4. Henry is a VERY smart guy, one of many who came out of Bell Labs.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On Tue,3/29/2016 1:28 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> >> On 3/29/2016 10:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>>>> WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is
>>>>> determined by RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and
>>>>> distortion in the RF stages.
>>
>> The standard word "paris" has 48 elements.  That makes the baud rate
>> for CW (48/60) x WPM or 0.80 x WPM.
>>
>> ITU defines the "Necessary Bandwidth" for CW as 3 or 5 times the speed
>> in bits per second (baud rate) where 3 x is for "non fading circuits"
>> (where the waveform does not need to be so "sharp") and 5 x for "fading
>> circuits."    See:
>>     http://http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm part B.
>> The same table is found in Title 97, Part 2 of the Code of Federal
>> Regulations (FCC Rules) as §2.202(g)
>>
>> The constant 'K' sets the minimum bandwidth needed/occupied for the two
>> recognized cases.  Occupied bandwidth in excess of K=5 (or 400 Hz for
>> 100 WPM) would be unacceptable due to improper keying waveforms or
>> distortion in the RF stages.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>   ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Jim Finan]

I believe that was the 'Lexington'

Jim Finan
AB4AC
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:03 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] CW Speed & bandwidth (was Tokyo Hy-Power HL-1.2KFX amp interfacing (to ALC or not to ALC?))

I thought the Enterprise was lost at the battle of the Coral Sea. Must
be some sort of time looping going on here.
Kevin. KD5ONS

On 3/29/2016 6:52 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 17:42 -0700, Fred Jensen wrote:
>> Like trying to drive faster than light, discarding angular momentum,
>> or resigning from Linked-In.
> WHAT!! I know you are wrong here, else the Enterprise could not work!

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]
______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Charlie T, K3ICH]

The Enterprise referred to was under the command
of  James T. Kirk.

73, Charlie k3ICH



-----Original Message-----
From: Elecraft
[mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Jim Finan
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:35 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] CW Speed & bandwidth
(was Tokyo Hy-Power HL-1.2KFX amp interfacing (to
ALC or not to ALC?))

I believe that was the 'Lexington'

Jim Finan
AB4AC
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message
From: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 10:03 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] CW Speed & bandwidth
(was Tokyo Hy-Power HL-1.2KFX amp interfacing (to
ALC or not to ALC?))

I thought the Enterprise was lost at the battle of
the Coral Sea. Must be some sort of time looping
going on here.
Kevin. KD5ONS

On 3/29/2016 6:52 PM, Dave Cole wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 17:42 -0700, Fred Jensen
wrote:
>> Like trying to drive faster than light,
discarding angular momentum,
>> or resigning from Linked-In.
> WHAT!! I know you are wrong here, else the
Enterprise could not work!

__________________________________________________
____________
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 Message delivered
to [hidden email]
__________________________________________________
____________
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 Message delivered
to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Igor Sokolov-2]

IMHO CW can be seen as 100% AM modulation which will have 2 sidebands.
Therefore the bandwidth will be dependant on speed or baud rate as well as
shape of the wave form.

73, Igor UA9CDC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brown" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] Tokyo Hy-Power HL-1.2KFX amp interfacing (to
ALC or not to ALC?)

> Unfortunately the guys who wrote the rules failed to understand the
> physics and the math. They were WRONG, and it is a misconception under
> which we have been laboring for as long as I've been a ham. It was Henry
> Ott who woke me up to this when I took his 3-day class on EMC around
> 2003-4. Henry is a VERY smart guy, one of many who came out of Bell Labs.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On Tue,3/29/2016 1:28 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> >> On 3/29/2016 10:38 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>>>> WRONG! CW speed has NOTHING to do with bandwidth, which is
>>>>> determined by RISE and FALL times of the keying waveform and
>>>>> distortion in the RF stages.
>>
>> The standard word "paris" has 48 elements.  That makes the baud rate
>> for CW (48/60) x WPM or 0.80 x WPM.
>>
>> ITU defines the "Necessary Bandwidth" for CW as 3 or 5 times the speed
>> in bits per second (baud rate) where 3 x is for "non fading circuits"
>> (where the waveform does not need to be so "sharp") and 5 x for "fading
>> circuits."    See:
>>     http://http://life.itu.ch/radioclub/rr/ap01.htm part B.
>> The same table is found in Title 97, Part 2 of the Code of Federal
>> Regulations (FCC Rules) as §2.202(g)
>>
>> The constant 'K' sets the minimum bandwidth needed/occupied for the two
>> recognized cases.  Occupied bandwidth in excess of K=5 (or 400 Hz for
>> 100 WPM) would be unacceptable due to improper keying waveforms or
>> distortion in the RF stages.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>   ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

One could discourse all day on what "proper" is in this context without
ever a precise consensus among educated gentlemen. At some point of "ugly"
we would all agree that anything that sounds like that is improper.

When the only stateful levels were strictly on and off, and the rise and
fall transition time amplitude curves were set by a resistor and a
capacitor, one could make some simplifications in the discussion.

Today, often, as in the K3, the rise and fall times and shapes of CW are
DATA which goes DIRECTLY to RF via a DAC. For these the nature of the rise
and fall curve is not governed by a charge/discharge time of analog
components, but rather by whatever function generated the waveshape data,
which is stored, *read* as needed and never generated real time. In many
cases it is far more accurate to say that the rise and fall of a baud is
INTRODUCED, rather than the signal is keyed.

If the rise and fall data curves used for "keying" vary their "sharpness"
according to speed, then the description bandwidth increases by speed
certainly does apply. But if not, the bandwidth is governed by the pulse
generated by the rise and fall data, which could be the exact same from 1
wpm to 40 wpm.

We are so easily diverted into our lifelong, unconscious, and utterly
habitual analog thinking (note that I certainly do not give myself a free
pass here).

I was just looking at the P3 display of some traditional BC band stations
around here. A 30 over 9 station at 1490 kHz fills up 1480 to 1500. Using
the K3's AM-S mode on USB side the S9 station at 1500 kHz is clearly
intelligible, but the standard demodulation for 1500 is obliterated by the
1490 station. That ain't your granddaddy's AM out there any more. That's
some really complicated stuff that completely fills up +/- 10 kHz and
clearly not done the same from station to station. I'm going to save
googling that for a free evening when I don't have something broken to fix.

There is so much stuff I was taught by my WCTT Chief Engineer Elmer that I
am having to set aside.


73, Guy K2AV


On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 3/30/2016 12:21 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> > Unfortunately the guys who wrote the rules failed to understand the
> > physics and the math.
>
> No Jim, you are wrong here. CW is a carrier modulated by a digital
> (on/off keyed) signal of a given (baud) rate.  That keying will
> generate sidebands +/- the baud rate *just like FSK* or even AM which
> can be observed on a spectrum analyzer.  The ITU formula is quite
> accurate in terms of the actual bandwidth for signals with *properly*
> *shaped keying*.
>
> Again, the excess bandwidth from improperly shaped keying signals
> (clicks) and/or amplifier distortion is something else.
>
> 73,
>
>    ... Joe, W4TV
>
>

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]