Elecraft › [K3]

K3-Twin with Remoterig

Classic

List

Threaded

21 messages Options

Doug Joyce

K3-Twin with Remoterig

Folks:

Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would explain a couple of things for me.

1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500 Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way? Would appreciate some further details.

2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3 override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12 o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.

3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load - a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1 & 2. Further details would be helpful.

Thanks for your time.

73, Doug VE3MV

______________________________________________________________
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

Mitch Wolfson, DJØQN / K7DX

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

Doug,

You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should post
your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
<http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>

to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the remote
K3.

to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
latest RemoteRig manual at <http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
or drop me a note and I can help you directly.

73,
Mitch DJ0QN

On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:

> Folks:
>
> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would explain a couple of things for me.
>
> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500 Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way? Would appreciate some further details.
>
> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3 override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12 o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>
> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load - a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further details would be helpful.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> 73, Doug VE3MV
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
> Mitch Wolfson
> DJØQN / K7DX
> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378

______________________________________________________________
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

Gary Gregory

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

Liked it better when it had a balanced line connection as part of the unit.

There are plenty of 4:1 Baluins on the market already.

Without knowing what this Auto-Tuner will do it is indeed hard to judge whether it will be a product that rates a "Must Have" over "just another ATU"....????

YMMV

Gary

VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
Elecraft Equipment
K3 #679, KPA-500 #018
Living the dream!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: Mitch Wolfson DJØQN
To: D Joyce
Cc: Elecraft List
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3-Twin with Remoterig

Doug,

You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should post
your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
<http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>

to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the remote
K3.

to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
latest RemoteRig manual at <http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
or drop me a note and I can help you directly.

73,
Mitch DJ0QN

On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:
> Folks:
>
> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would explain a couple of things for me.
>
> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500 Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way? Would appreciate some further details.
>
> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3 override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12 o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>
> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load - a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further details would be helpful.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> 73, Doug VE3MV
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> --
> Mitch Wolfson
> DJØQN / K7DX
> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
______________________________________________________________
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

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

Administrator

In reply to this post by Mitch Wolfson, DJØQN / K7DX

We will also be putting up a K3 Remote page on the Elecraft page shortly
with app notes, FAQ etc.

Elecraft will also be offering the Remoterig boxes and matching K3
cables for sale on our web page shortly, along with a K3/0 control rig
(no RF inside). Stay tuned!

73, Eric

www.elecraft.com

On 12/7/2011 11:02 PM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:

> Doug,
>
> You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should post
> your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
> <http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>
>
> to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
> essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
> K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the remote
> K3.
>
> to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
> latest RemoteRig manual at<http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
> If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
> or drop me a note and I can help you directly.
>
> 73,
> Mitch DJ0QN
>
> On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:
>> Folks:
>>
>> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would explain a couple of things for me.
>>
>> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500 Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way? Would appreciate some further details.
>>
>> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3 override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12 o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>>
>> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load - a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further details would be helpful.
>>
>> Thanks for your time.
>>
>> 73, Doug VE3MV
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mitch Wolfson
>> DJØQN / K7DX
>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Vic Rosenthal

Re: KAT-500 (was: K3-Twin with Remoterig)

In reply to this post by Gary Gregory

It is a common misconception that a 4:1 balun is the best choice to feed a tuned balanced
line. The assumption is often made that this is appropriate because the characteristic
impedance of ladder line or open-wire line is higher than the 50-ohm coax that's connected
to the balun's input.

Actually, since the tuned line is being operated at a high SWR, the impedance seen by the
balun will vary all over the map. It may be very high or very low. This is a very tough
job for the balun, and in some circumstances it can be quite lossy. This is why a real
balanced tuner is better than an unbalanced tuner followed by a balun.

A 1:1 balun is likely to have lower losses in this application, although there might be
combinations of frequency and line length where a 4:1 is better. I hope that Elecraft is
planning to make their balun either 1:1 or switchable.

On 12/7/2011 11:35 PM, Gary VK4FD wrote:

> Liked it better when it had a balanced line connection as part of the unit.
>
> There are plenty of 4:1 Baluins on the market already.
>
> Without knowing what this Auto-Tuner will do it is indeed hard to judge whether it will be a product that rates a "Must Have" over "just another ATU"....????
>
>
> YMMV
>
> Gary
>
>
> VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
> Elecraft Equipment
> K3 #679, KPA-500 #018
> Living the dream!!!
>

--
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

______________________________________________________________
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

Jim Bennett

Re: KAT-500 (was: K3-Twin with Remoterig)

I can attest to what Vic says. I have an 88-foot long doublet, hung about 45 feet up, fed with 85 feet of 600-ohm ladder line. At the shack end I have a 1:1 balun, and then about six feet of RG/8X running to the K3. The K3's tuner likes the combination. I tried replacing the 1:1 balun with a 4:1 from the same manufacturer. The K3 was quite unhappy with the change in components. The 4:1 went back on the shelf, the 1:1 went back inline. YMMV

Jim / W6JHB

On Thursday, Dec 8, 2011, at Thursday, 9:14 AM, Vic K2VCO wrote:

Jim Bennett

Re: KAT-500 (was: K3-Twin with Remoterig)

In reply to this post by Vic Rosenthal

I can attest to what Vic says. I have an 88-foot long doublet, hung about 45 feet up, fed with 85 feet of 600-ohm ladder line. At the shack end I have a 1:1 balun, and then about six feet of RG/8X running to the K3. The K3's tuner likes the combination. I tried replacing the 1:1 balun with a 4:1 from the same manufacturer. The K3 was quite unhappy with the change in components. The 4:1 went back on the shelf, the 1:1 went back inline. YMMV

Jim / W6JHB
On Thursday, Dec 8, 2011, at Thursday, 9:14 AM, Vic K2VCO wrote:

> It is a common misconception that a 4:1 balun is the best choice to feed a tuned balanced
> line. The assumption is often made that this is appropriate because the characteristic
> impedance of ladder line or open-wire line is higher than the 50-ohm coax that's connected
> to the balun's input.
>
> Actually, since the tuned line is being operated at a high SWR, the impedance seen by the
> balun will vary all over the map. It may be very high or very low. This is a very tough
> job for the balun, and in some circumstances it can be quite lossy. This is why a real
> balanced tuner is better than an unbalanced tuner followed by a balun.
>
> A 1:1 balun is likely to have lower losses in this application, although there might be
> combinations of frequency and line length where a 4:1 is better. I hope that Elecraft is
> planning to make their balun either 1:1 or switchable.
>
> On 12/7/2011 11:35 PM, Gary VK4FD wrote:
>> Liked it better when it had a balanced line connection as part of the unit.
>>
>> There are plenty of 4:1 Baluins on the market already.
>>
>> Without knowing what this Auto-Tuner will do it is indeed hard to judge whether it will be a product that rates a "Must Have" over "just another ATU"....????
>>
>>
>> YMMV
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
>> Elecraft Equipment
>> K3 #679, KPA-500 #018
>> Living the dream!!!
>>
>
> --
> Vic, K2VCO
> Fresno CA
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Ed Gray W0SD

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

In reply to this post by Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

I have the Elecraft "TWIN" setup working with the Microbit control and
remote boxes. The instructions in the Micorbit RRC-1258 MII manual are
pretty good. The URL is www.remoterig.com. The one thing that is not
clear IMHO is the last line of the setup for the K3 TWIN:
COM2 Mode listed as Logical Parallel with COM0 is not in the radio
settings but are in the Serial settings and are for both the control and
remote(radio) boxes.

It is also not mentioned that USB used as COM0 should be YES under the
Control Radio Settings and USB used as COM1 and USB used as COM2 should
be NO.

One thing I missed without going over things a second time is that the
cable between the Control box COM2 and the K3 CAT is a cross over. The
cable between the remote box COM2 and the K3 CAT on the remote K3 is a
straight cable.

The Microbit documentation never talks about the information from
Elecraft on getting in and out of the TERM mode. This was necessary for
me to get things working. Once it is running then it happens
automatically unless you get out of TERM and back to NORM.
You need the cables as describe in the Microbit documentation.

It is very impressive and works "SUPER" and makes remoting over the
Internet or over LAN a breeze once you get by some lack of documentation.

For logging/control one can use say COM1 from your computer and a serial
cable to COM1 on the Control Microbit box. These settings are discussed
under Logging or computer control, RTTY etc. in the Microbit manual but
IMHO they are not complete. If you want to use a serial cable between
your computer for logging and control and use say COM 1 out of your
computer. Set your logging control program to the same in this case COM1
and be sure the baud rate is the same everyplace. You still leave USB to
COM0 as YES. Be sure to do what the Micorbit manual says in regards to
the mode 7 settings.

If you want to use your USB cable to the RCC control unit for
logging/control and not have a serial cable then you have to set USB to
COM0 to NO and set USB to COM1 to YES and set your logging/control for
the virtual COM port that your computer has for COM 1 if that is what
you are using.

REMEMBER TO APPLY YOUR SETTINGS and not just SUBMIT!!!

If you want to control a K3 remotely using the Microbit boxes, ie not
use two K3's but just the remote one I have documented that in the
Microbit forum and how to control one rotor and do CW. I have RTTY to do
yet and control of rotors and antenna switching outside the Microbit
boxes. You can do virtually everything with TXR manager in regards to
controlling the K3.

The "TWIN set up is very nice but you have to spend the money for a
second K3. This makes the prospect of a K3 (0)with no RF that Eric
mentioned very interesting! It would be nice to have something less
valuable and smaller to carry with you and most things are a bit easier
to do on the control radio although there are a few things on TRX
manager that are IMHO easier than the radio such as band changes. I
need to do a lot more before I form much of an opinion on way or the
other. Obviously the "TWIN" set us is the easiest!

It is possibly I made an error someplace in this information but I have
tried to be very careful. Anyway I do have it working all OK and it is
impressive so it can be done. It is just a matter of getting the correct
settings. What you can do with remoting has got to be a very big deal
over the upcoming months as it is rapidly getting a lot easier to do. It
is very real solution to problems a lot of hams have with noise of all
kinds, RFI, lack of antennas, restrictions, on the road a lot, needing
to be at different locations and the list goes on, the hassle of taking
a radio various places; especially if there will be a K3 (O) or you can
do it without the "TWINS".

Ed W0SD

On 12/8/2011 10:22 AM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:

> We will also be putting up a K3 Remote page on the Elecraft page shortly
> with app notes, FAQ etc.
>
> Elecraft will also be offering the Remoterig boxes and matching K3
> cables for sale on our web page shortly, along with a K3/0 control rig
> (no RF inside). Stay tuned!
>
> 73, Eric
>
> www.elecraft.com
>
>
> On 12/7/2011 11:02 PM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should post
>> your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
>> <http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>
>>
>> to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
>> essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
>> K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the remote
>> K3.
>>
>> to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
>> latest RemoteRig manual at<http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
>> If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
>> or drop me a note and I can help you directly.
>>
>> 73,
>> Mitch DJ0QN
>>
>> On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:
>>> Folks:
>>>
>>> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would explain a couple of things for me.
>>>
>>> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500 Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way? Would appreciate some further details.
>>>
>>> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3 override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12 o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>>>
>>> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load - a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further details would be helpful.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>
>>> 73, Doug VE3MV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mitch Wolfson
>>> DJØQN / K7DX
>>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

Mitch Wolfson, DJØQN / K7DX

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

Hi Ed,

Thanks for letting us know about your experiences with the Elecraft Twin
firmware.

As you know, I have been testing this for a couple of months now and
have been very impressed. There are a couple of bugs on the K3 firmware
side that I am sure will be resolved soon, but this is not top
priority.....we are all waiting for the KX3 firmware to be completed! ;-)

The details about the cables is actually well documented in the
RemoteRig manual; there are schematics for all the cables in that
section. Of course, someone may of course choose to buy a cable set, but
you can make your own if you wish. The most important custom cable is
the one that allows powering-on the remote K3 when you power-on locally,
since the K3 does not allow one to turn it on by using a CAT command.

Where I disagree with you is your comment about having to set COM1 to
USB. I have never experienced a need to do so, and indeed have none of
my serial ports set to USB mode (although of course I could switch COM1
to USB for CAT if I wanted to).

I run COM2 as "logical parallel with COM0" as per the manual, as well as
COM1 in mode-6 (CAT to COM2). This allows one to use CAT both on the
remote PC without any wiring change when operating locally, as well as
CAT over the remote RRC. Of course, then you can't use COM1 for rotor or
other control, but there are other solutions for that.

The K3/0 will be a killer for high-performance remote stations......the
current most popular rig with a separate control head used by RemoteRig
installations is the TS-480. The Elecraft solution will allow the same
type of flexible (hardware based) experience for multiple remote users,
by sharing one fully equipped K3 at relatively low cost per user, but
providing significantly better performance than the TS-480 provides.

Anyone that is interested in remote operation using a hardware radio
panel interface should be very excited about this new offering from
Elecraft and Microbit.

73,
Mitch DJ0QN

On 09.12.2011 05:09, W0SD Ed Gray wrote:

> I have the Elecraft "TWIN" setup working with the Microbit control and
> remote boxes. The instructions in the Micorbit RRC-1258 MII manual are
> pretty good. The URL is www.remoterig.com. The one thing that is not
> clear IMHO is the last line of the setup for the K3 TWIN:
> COM2 Mode listed as Logical Parallel with COM0 is not in the radio
> settings but are in the Serial settings and are for both the control and
> remote(radio) boxes.
>
> It is also not mentioned that USB used as COM0 should be YES under the
> Control Radio Settings and USB used as COM1 and USB used as COM2 should
> be NO.
>
> One thing I missed without going over things a second time is that the
> cable between the Control box COM2 and the K3 CAT is a cross over. The
> cable between the remote box COM2 and the K3 CAT on the remote K3 is a
> straight cable.
>
> The Microbit documentation never talks about the information from
> Elecraft on getting in and out of the TERM mode. This was necessary for
> me to get things working. Once it is running then it happens
> automatically unless you get out of TERM and back to NORM.
> You need the cables as describe in the Microbit documentation.
>
> It is very impressive and works "SUPER" and makes remoting over the
> Internet or over LAN a breeze once you get by some lack of documentation.
>
> For logging/control one can use say COM1 from your computer and a serial
> cable to COM1 on the Control Microbit box. These settings are discussed
> under Logging or computer control, RTTY etc. in the Microbit manual but
> IMHO they are not complete. If you want to use a serial cable between
> your computer for logging and control and use say COM 1 out of your
> computer. Set your logging control program to the same in this case COM1
> and be sure the baud rate is the same everyplace. You still leave USB to
> COM0 as YES. Be sure to do what the Micorbit manual says in regards to
> the mode 7 settings.
>
> If you want to use your USB cable to the RCC control unit for
> logging/control and not have a serial cable then you have to set USB to
> COM0 to NO and set USB to COM1 to YES and set your logging/control for
> the virtual COM port that your computer has for COM 1 if that is what
> you are using.
>
> REMEMBER TO APPLY YOUR SETTINGS and not just SUBMIT!!!
>
> If you want to control a K3 remotely using the Microbit boxes, ie not
> use two K3's but just the remote one I have documented that in the
> Microbit forum and how to control one rotor and do CW. I have RTTY to do
> yet and control of rotors and antenna switching outside the Microbit
> boxes. You can do virtually everything with TXR manager in regards to
> controlling the K3.
>
> The "TWIN set up is very nice but you have to spend the money for a
> second K3. This makes the prospect of a K3 (0)with no RF that Eric
> mentioned very interesting! It would be nice to have something less
> valuable and smaller to carry with you and most things are a bit easier
> to do on the control radio although there are a few things on TRX
> manager that are IMHO easier than the radio such as band changes. I
> need to do a lot more before I form much of an opinion on way or the
> other. Obviously the "TWIN" set us is the easiest!
>
> It is possibly I made an error someplace in this information but I have
> tried to be very careful. Anyway I do have it working all OK and it is
> impressive so it can be done. It is just a matter of getting the correct
> settings. What you can do with remoting has got to be a very big deal
> over the upcoming months as it is rapidly getting a lot easier to do. It
> is very real solution to problems a lot of hams have with noise of all
> kinds, RFI, lack of antennas, restrictions, on the road a lot, needing
> to be at different locations and the list goes on, the hassle of taking
> a radio various places; especially if there will be a K3 (O) or you can
> do it without the "TWINS".
>
> Ed W0SD
>
>
>
> On 12/8/2011 10:22 AM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:
>> We will also be putting up a K3 Remote page on the Elecraft page shortly
>> with app notes, FAQ etc.
>>
>> Elecraft will also be offering the Remoterig boxes and matching K3
>> cables for sale on our web page shortly, along with a K3/0 control rig
>> (no RF inside). Stay tuned!
>>
>> 73, Eric
>>
>> www.elecraft.com
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/2011 11:02 PM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should post
>>> your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
>>> <http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>
>>>
>>> to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
>>> essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
>>> K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the remote
>>> K3.
>>>
>>> to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
>>> latest RemoteRig manual at<http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
>>> If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
>>> or drop me a note and I can help you directly.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Mitch DJ0QN
>>>
>>> On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:
>>>> Folks:
>>>>
>>>> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would explain a couple of things for me.
>>>>
>>>> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500 Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way? Would appreciate some further details.
>>>>
>>>> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3 override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12 o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load - a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further details would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Doug VE3MV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mitch Wolfson
>>>> DJØQN / K7DX
>>>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>>>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>>>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> --
> Mitch Wolfson
> DJØQN / K7DX
> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378

Ed Gray W0SD

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

Hi Mitch,
I certainly have some things to learn. There really is not a lot of
detail on how the "paths" work but Mike from Microbit is very helpful.
What is was trying to say for logging/control with say TRX Manager is
that I can do it two ways.

First way uses my laptop COM1 and set USB to COM0 to YES.
Second way uses my laptop set to the Virtual port for COM1 and I set USB
to COM1 YES and USB to COM0 and USB to COM2 to NO

I will have to try what you say in regards to to mode-6 etc. In the
manual mode-6 did not seem to apply to logging/control with say TRX
Manager at all but says such as antenna switching control. Apparently
you are telling me I can do logging/control with say TRX Manager this way.

I also heard an exciting thing this morning from Mike at Microbit and he
gave me a download URL. As I understand it with this version I can use
the TWINS or just use remote control with very little changes, ie just
one K3. There are a lot of advantages to this and certainly increases
the flexibility a good deal. It will not be as important when the
Hardware radio panel interface shows up and if it is at a price that
people will want to spend. However I think it will always be important
for flexibility to be able to operate remotely with a TWIN(eventually a
hardware radio panel interface) with the Microbit Control RCC box or
just with the computer and control RCC box and make changing between
them very easily so as you say it just makes it even more feasible for a
number of people to share one fully equipped K3 at a very good site with
good antennas as a relatively low cost per user. I think a big key to
this is to not have to do much reconfiguring as the control goes from
one person to another and they can use a K3 or a hardware radio panel
interface, just a computer with say TRX Manager, etc.

Thanks for your continued help Mitch! I think people thinking about
using the K3 remotely can do so with confidence that there is plenty of
help in getting things working and already in just a few days it has
gotten a lot easier.

Ed W0SD

On 12/9/2011 6:35 AM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> Thanks for letting us know about your experiences with the Elecraft
> Twin firmware.
>
> As you know, I have been testing this for a couple of months now and
> have been very impressed. There are a couple of bugs on the K3
> firmware side that I am sure will be resolved soon, but this is not
> top priority.....we are all waiting for the KX3 firmware to be
> completed! ;-)
>
> The details about the cables is actually well documented in the
> RemoteRig manual; there are schematics for all the cables in that
> section. Of course, someone may of course choose to buy a cable set,
> but you can make your own if you wish. The most important custom cable
> is the one that allows powering-on the remote K3 when you power-on
> locally, since the K3 does not allow one to turn it on by using a CAT
> command.
>
> Where I disagree with you is your comment about having to set COM1 to
> USB. I have never experienced a need to do so, and indeed have none
> of my serial ports set to USB mode (although of course I could switch
> COM1 to USB for CAT if I wanted to).
>
> I run COM2 as "logical parallel with COM0" as per the manual, as well
> as COM1 in mode-6 (CAT to COM2). This allows one to use CAT both on
> the remote PC without any wiring change when operating locally, as
> well as CAT over the remote RRC. Of course, then you can't use COM1
> for rotor or other control, but there are other solutions for that.
>
> The K3/0 will be a killer for high-performance remote
> stations......the current most popular rig with a separate control
> head used by RemoteRig installations is the TS-480. The Elecraft
> solution will allow the same type of flexible (hardware based)
> experience for multiple remote users, by sharing one fully equipped K3
> at relatively low cost per user, but providing significantly better
> performance than the TS-480 provides.
>
> Anyone that is interested in remote operation using a hardware radio
> panel interface should be very excited about this new offering from
> Elecraft and Microbit.
>
> 73,
> Mitch DJ0QN
>
> On 09.12.2011 05:09, W0SD Ed Gray wrote:
>> I have the Elecraft "TWIN" setup working with the Microbit control and
>> remote boxes. The instructions in the Micorbit RRC-1258 MII manual are
>> pretty good. The URL is www.remoterig.com. The one thing that is not
>> clear IMHO is the last line of the setup for the K3 TWIN:
>> COM2 Mode listed as Logical Parallel with COM0 is not in the radio
>> settings but are in the Serial settings and are for both the control and
>> remote(radio) boxes.
>>
>> It is also not mentioned that USB used as COM0 should be YES under the
>> Control Radio Settings and USB used as COM1 and USB used as COM2 should
>> be NO.
>>
>> One thing I missed without going over things a second time is that the
>> cable between the Control box COM2 and the K3 CAT is a cross over. The
>> cable between the remote box COM2 and the K3 CAT on the remote K3 is a
>> straight cable.
>>
>> The Microbit documentation never talks about the information from
>> Elecraft on getting in and out of the TERM mode. This was necessary for
>> me to get things working. Once it is running then it happens
>> automatically unless you get out of TERM and back to NORM.
>> You need the cables as describe in the Microbit documentation.
>>
>> It is very impressive and works "SUPER" and makes remoting over the
>> Internet or over LAN a breeze once you get by some lack of
>> documentation.
>>
>> For logging/control one can use say COM1 from your computer and a serial
>> cable to COM1 on the Control Microbit box. These settings are discussed
>> under Logging or computer control, RTTY etc. in the Microbit manual but
>> IMHO they are not complete. If you want to use a serial cable between
>> your computer for logging and control and use say COM 1 out of your
>> computer. Set your logging control program to the same in this case COM1
>> and be sure the baud rate is the same everyplace. You still leave USB to
>> COM0 as YES. Be sure to do what the Micorbit manual says in regards to
>> the mode 7 settings.
>>
>> If you want to use your USB cable to the RCC control unit for
>> logging/control and not have a serial cable then you have to set USB to
>> COM0 to NO and set USB to COM1 to YES and set your logging/control for
>> the virtual COM port that your computer has for COM 1 if that is what
>> you are using.
>>
>> REMEMBER TO APPLY YOUR SETTINGS and not just SUBMIT!!!
>>
>> If you want to control a K3 remotely using the Microbit boxes, ie not
>> use two K3's but just the remote one I have documented that in the
>> Microbit forum and how to control one rotor and do CW. I have RTTY to do
>> yet and control of rotors and antenna switching outside the Microbit
>> boxes. You can do virtually everything with TXR manager in regards to
>> controlling the K3.
>>
>> The "TWIN set up is very nice but you have to spend the money for a
>> second K3. This makes the prospect of a K3 (0)with no RF that Eric
>> mentioned very interesting! It would be nice to have something less
>> valuable and smaller to carry with you and most things are a bit easier
>> to do on the control radio although there are a few things on TRX
>> manager that are IMHO easier than the radio such as band changes. I
>> need to do a lot more before I form much of an opinion on way or the
>> other. Obviously the "TWIN" set us is the easiest!
>>
>> It is possibly I made an error someplace in this information but I have
>> tried to be very careful. Anyway I do have it working all OK and it is
>> impressive so it can be done. It is just a matter of getting the correct
>> settings. What you can do with remoting has got to be a very big deal
>> over the upcoming months as it is rapidly getting a lot easier to do. It
>> is very real solution to problems a lot of hams have with noise of all
>> kinds, RFI, lack of antennas, restrictions, on the road a lot, needing
>> to be at different locations and the list goes on, the hassle of taking
>> a radio various places; especially if there will be a K3 (O) or you can
>> do it without the "TWINS".
>>
>> Ed W0SD
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/8/2011 10:22 AM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:
>>> We will also be putting up a K3 Remote page on the Elecraft page
>>> shortly
>>> with app notes, FAQ etc.
>>>
>>> Elecraft will also be offering the Remoterig boxes and matching K3
>>> cables for sale on our web page shortly, along with a K3/0 control rig
>>> (no RF inside). Stay tuned!
>>>
>>> 73, Eric
>>>
>>> www.elecraft.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/7/2011 11:02 PM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:
>>>> Doug,
>>>>
>>>> You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should
>>>> post
>>>> your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
>>>> <http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>
>>>>
>>>> to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
>>>> essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
>>>> K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the
>>>> remote
>>>> K3.
>>>>
>>>> to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
>>>> latest RemoteRig manual at<http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
>>>> If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
>>>> or drop me a note and I can help you directly.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Mitch DJ0QN
>>>>
>>>> On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:
>>>>> Folks:
>>>>>
>>>>> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the
>>>>> "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made
>>>>> up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and
>>>>> have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running
>>>>> things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very
>>>>> slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few
>>>>> settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were
>>>>> able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would
>>>>> explain a couple of things for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control
>>>>> system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500
>>>>> Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn
>>>>> the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance
>>>>> parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with
>>>>> this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way?
>>>>> Would appreciate some further details.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two
>>>>> K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3
>>>>> override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings
>>>>> at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and
>>>>> sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12
>>>>> o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on
>>>>> the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two
>>>>> channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave
>>>>> DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go
>>>>> to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load -
>>>>> a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of
>>>>> the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new
>>>>> ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to
>>>>> configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further
>>>>> details would be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, Doug VE3MV
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mitch Wolfson
>>>>> DJØQN / K7DX
>>>>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>>>>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>>>>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mitch Wolfson
>> DJØQN / K7DX
>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>
>

Ed Gray W0SD

Re: K3-Twin with Remoterig

I wanted to add the importance of flexibility not for just a group
situation but when just one person is involved. I have been blessed to
be able to travel a lot and taking a K3 or future K3/0 can be a real
hassle sometimes even in the USA to say nothing to some countries. If
you have ever had your equipment confiscated, stolen etc. you know about
the hassles. Certainly flying it is always a hassle at every check where
a computer goes through no problem. Also sometimes you want to use the
K3 where you are at and still use your home station remotely with out a
bunch of reconfiguation changes. There are many others as to why
flexibility is important and it appears Microbit understands this and
that one can pretty seamlessly move from TWIN to future K3/0 to remote
control via say TRX Manager and just a computer, etc. Why not let the
software do the work rather than have to do a bunch of re-configuring
all the time. It is exciting to me that this looks like it will soon be
reality and should make it easier for people to use a station remotely.

Looking to the future I will say for most K3 owners I believe the
popular way to do remote operate with their K3 will be the K3/0 with say
a Microbit control box. It will be really easy and not a lot to carry
around. A key here is when you are home that you can use your station
locally with out much hassle and from what my experience has been so far
this is not an issue.

Ed W0SD

On 12/9/2011 9:38 AM, W0SD Ed Gray wrote:

> Hi Mitch,
> I certainly have some things to learn. There really is not a lot of
> detail on how the "paths" work but Mike from Microbit is very helpful.
> What is was trying to say for logging/control with say TRX Manager is
> that I can do it two ways.
>
> First way uses my laptop COM1 and set USB to COM0 to YES.
> Second way uses my laptop set to the Virtual port for COM1 and I set USB
> to COM1 YES and USB to COM0 and USB to COM2 to NO
>
> I will have to try what you say in regards to to mode-6 etc. In the
> manual mode-6 did not seem to apply to logging/control with say TRX
> Manager at all but says such as antenna switching control. Apparently
> you are telling me I can do logging/control with say TRX Manager this way.
>
> I also heard an exciting thing this morning from Mike at Microbit and he
> gave me a download URL. As I understand it with this version I can use
> the TWINS or just use remote control with very little changes, ie just
> one K3. There are a lot of advantages to this and certainly increases
> the flexibility a good deal. It will not be as important when the
> Hardware radio panel interface shows up and if it is at a price that
> people will want to spend. However I think it will always be important
> for flexibility to be able to operate remotely with a TWIN(eventually a
> hardware radio panel interface) with the Microbit Control RCC box or
> just with the computer and control RCC box and make changing between
> them very easily so as you say it just makes it even more feasible for a
> number of people to share one fully equipped K3 at a very good site with
> good antennas as a relatively low cost per user. I think a big key to
> this is to not have to do much reconfiguring as the control goes from
> one person to another and they can use a K3 or a hardware radio panel
> interface, just a computer with say TRX Manager, etc.
>
> Thanks for your continued help Mitch! I think people thinking about
> using the K3 remotely can do so with confidence that there is plenty of
> help in getting things working and already in just a few days it has
> gotten a lot easier.
>
> Ed W0SD
>
> On 12/9/2011 6:35 AM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:
>> Hi Ed,
>>
>> Thanks for letting us know about your experiences with the Elecraft
>> Twin firmware.
>>
>> As you know, I have been testing this for a couple of months now and
>> have been very impressed. There are a couple of bugs on the K3
>> firmware side that I am sure will be resolved soon, but this is not
>> top priority.....we are all waiting for the KX3 firmware to be
>> completed! ;-)
>>
>> The details about the cables is actually well documented in the
>> RemoteRig manual; there are schematics for all the cables in that
>> section. Of course, someone may of course choose to buy a cable set,
>> but you can make your own if you wish. The most important custom cable
>> is the one that allows powering-on the remote K3 when you power-on
>> locally, since the K3 does not allow one to turn it on by using a CAT
>> command.
>>
>> Where I disagree with you is your comment about having to set COM1 to
>> USB. I have never experienced a need to do so, and indeed have none
>> of my serial ports set to USB mode (although of course I could switch
>> COM1 to USB for CAT if I wanted to).
>>
>> I run COM2 as "logical parallel with COM0" as per the manual, as well
>> as COM1 in mode-6 (CAT to COM2). This allows one to use CAT both on
>> the remote PC without any wiring change when operating locally, as
>> well as CAT over the remote RRC. Of course, then you can't use COM1
>> for rotor or other control, but there are other solutions for that.
>>
>> The K3/0 will be a killer for high-performance remote
>> stations......the current most popular rig with a separate control
>> head used by RemoteRig installations is the TS-480. The Elecraft
>> solution will allow the same type of flexible (hardware based)
>> experience for multiple remote users, by sharing one fully equipped K3
>> at relatively low cost per user, but providing significantly better
>> performance than the TS-480 provides.
>>
>> Anyone that is interested in remote operation using a hardware radio
>> panel interface should be very excited about this new offering from
>> Elecraft and Microbit.
>>
>> 73,
>> Mitch DJ0QN
>>
>> On 09.12.2011 05:09, W0SD Ed Gray wrote:
>>> I have the Elecraft "TWIN" setup working with the Microbit control and
>>> remote boxes. The instructions in the Micorbit RRC-1258 MII manual are
>>> pretty good. The URL is www.remoterig.com. The one thing that is not
>>> clear IMHO is the last line of the setup for the K3 TWIN:
>>> COM2 Mode listed as Logical Parallel with COM0 is not in the radio
>>> settings but are in the Serial settings and are for both the control and
>>> remote(radio) boxes.
>>>
>>> It is also not mentioned that USB used as COM0 should be YES under the
>>> Control Radio Settings and USB used as COM1 and USB used as COM2 should
>>> be NO.
>>>
>>> One thing I missed without going over things a second time is that the
>>> cable between the Control box COM2 and the K3 CAT is a cross over. The
>>> cable between the remote box COM2 and the K3 CAT on the remote K3 is a
>>> straight cable.
>>>
>>> The Microbit documentation never talks about the information from
>>> Elecraft on getting in and out of the TERM mode. This was necessary for
>>> me to get things working. Once it is running then it happens
>>> automatically unless you get out of TERM and back to NORM.
>>> You need the cables as describe in the Microbit documentation.
>>>
>>> It is very impressive and works "SUPER" and makes remoting over the
>>> Internet or over LAN a breeze once you get by some lack of
>>> documentation.
>>>
>>> For logging/control one can use say COM1 from your computer and a serial
>>> cable to COM1 on the Control Microbit box. These settings are discussed
>>> under Logging or computer control, RTTY etc. in the Microbit manual but
>>> IMHO they are not complete. If you want to use a serial cable between
>>> your computer for logging and control and use say COM 1 out of your
>>> computer. Set your logging control program to the same in this case COM1
>>> and be sure the baud rate is the same everyplace. You still leave USB to
>>> COM0 as YES. Be sure to do what the Micorbit manual says in regards to
>>> the mode 7 settings.
>>>
>>> If you want to use your USB cable to the RCC control unit for
>>> logging/control and not have a serial cable then you have to set USB to
>>> COM0 to NO and set USB to COM1 to YES and set your logging/control for
>>> the virtual COM port that your computer has for COM 1 if that is what
>>> you are using.
>>>
>>> REMEMBER TO APPLY YOUR SETTINGS and not just SUBMIT!!!
>>>
>>> If you want to control a K3 remotely using the Microbit boxes, ie not
>>> use two K3's but just the remote one I have documented that in the
>>> Microbit forum and how to control one rotor and do CW. I have RTTY to do
>>> yet and control of rotors and antenna switching outside the Microbit
>>> boxes. You can do virtually everything with TXR manager in regards to
>>> controlling the K3.
>>>
>>> The "TWIN set up is very nice but you have to spend the money for a
>>> second K3. This makes the prospect of a K3 (0)with no RF that Eric
>>> mentioned very interesting! It would be nice to have something less
>>> valuable and smaller to carry with you and most things are a bit easier
>>> to do on the control radio although there are a few things on TRX
>>> manager that are IMHO easier than the radio such as band changes. I
>>> need to do a lot more before I form much of an opinion on way or the
>>> other. Obviously the "TWIN" set us is the easiest!
>>>
>>> It is possibly I made an error someplace in this information but I have
>>> tried to be very careful. Anyway I do have it working all OK and it is
>>> impressive so it can be done. It is just a matter of getting the correct
>>> settings. What you can do with remoting has got to be a very big deal
>>> over the upcoming months as it is rapidly getting a lot easier to do. It
>>> is very real solution to problems a lot of hams have with noise of all
>>> kinds, RFI, lack of antennas, restrictions, on the road a lot, needing
>>> to be at different locations and the list goes on, the hassle of taking
>>> a radio various places; especially if there will be a K3 (O) or you can
>>> do it without the "TWINS".
>>>
>>> Ed W0SD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/8/2011 10:22 AM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:
>>>> We will also be putting up a K3 Remote page on the Elecraft page
>>>> shortly
>>>> with app notes, FAQ etc.
>>>>
>>>> Elecraft will also be offering the Remoterig boxes and matching K3
>>>> cables for sale on our web page shortly, along with a K3/0 control rig
>>>> (no RF inside). Stay tuned!
>>>>
>>>> 73, Eric
>>>>
>>>> www.elecraft.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2011 11:02 PM, Mitch Wolfson DJØQN wrote:
>>>>> Doug,
>>>>>
>>>>> You and anyone else having specific Elecraft Twin questions should
>>>>> post
>>>>> your questions directly on the Microbit (RemoteRig) forum at:
>>>>> <http://www.remoterig.com/forum/index.php>
>>>>>
>>>>> to answer question 2: The remote K3 becomes your local K3. You are
>>>>> essentially using the local one only as a control panel for the remote
>>>>> K3, so of course the audio and other settings will be that of the
>>>>> remote
>>>>> K3.
>>>>>
>>>>> to answer question 3: You will find the directions on page 167 of the
>>>>> latest RemoteRig manual at<http://www.remoterig.com/wp/?page_id=97>
>>>>> If you have any further questions, just post a message on their forum,
>>>>> or drop me a note and I can help you directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Mitch DJ0QN
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.12.2011 00:30, D Joyce wrote:
>>>>>> Folks:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following Eric's announcement last Friday, I setup a K3/10 as the
>>>>>> "local" and the K3/100 as the "remote" along with a KPA-500, made
>>>>>> up the one new E3c keying cable for the "remote / radio" site and
>>>>>> have been trying things out since Monday night. Still running
>>>>>> things over my local LAN, but for the most part things work very
>>>>>> slick. I still have some things to configure properly and a few
>>>>>> settings I don't fully understand. Perhaps some of those who were
>>>>>> able to work with the pre-Beta versions for a few weeks would
>>>>>> explain a couple of things for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. It's not obvious how the KPA-500 fits into this control
>>>>>> system. In the previous (non-twin) approach, I used the KPA-500
>>>>>> Utility through the "free" Com1 channel of the RRC-1258 to turn
>>>>>> the KPA-500 on / off and to monitor power and other performance
>>>>>> parameters. Is it still the intention to use the KPA Utility with
>>>>>> this new Program mode "14" approach or is there another way?
>>>>>> Would appreciate some further details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. It's not clear how the audio and rf gain settings on the two
>>>>>> K3s should be set. Seems that the settings on the "remote" K3
>>>>>> override whatever has been set on the "local" K3. So my settings
>>>>>> at the moment are to have rf gain set at full CW for both main and
>>>>>> sub on both K3s, to have AF gain on the "remote" K3 set at 12
>>>>>> o'clock for both main and sub and then use the audio controls on
>>>>>> the "local" K3 for final admjustments. BTW I'm running the two
>>>>>> channels of AF output from the "local" RRC to a pair of Timewave
>>>>>> DSP-9+ units which feed separate speakers and the line outputs go
>>>>>> to an old IBM PIII-600 running XP SP3 with two instances of MMTTY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. The Microbit setup Mgr v1.10 ( I couldn't get v1.12 to load -
>>>>>> a Windows problem) sets up four virtual Com ports (see pg 75 of
>>>>>> the new rev A17 RRC manual) Com 0, 1, 2 and FSK. I have the new
>>>>>> ComFSK port working for FSK keying but I'm not sure how to
>>>>>> configure for eg DX4Win to make use of Com 0, 1& 2. Further
>>>>>> details would be helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73, Doug VE3MV
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mitch Wolfson
>>>>>> DJØQN / K7DX
>>>>>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>>>>>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>>>>>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mitch Wolfson
>>> DJØQN / K7DX
>>> Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 42, 81829 Muenchen, Germany
>>> Skype: mitchwo - Home:+49 89 32152700 - Mobile:+49 172 8374436
>>> Echolink: 3001 - IRLP: 5378
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

Jim Dunstan

Re: 4:1 balun

In reply to this post by Jim Bennett

At 03:03 PM 12/9/2011 -0800, you wrote:

>In the 1960's one very popular and cheap H.F. antenna was the folded dipole.
>Often they were made from the ubiquitous 300 ohm "twin lead" used on TV
>antennas and fed with the same twin lead since the impedance of a folded
>dipole is close to 300 ohms. The first time I saw 4:1 baluns being sold to
>Hams was to make it easy to connect the 300 ohm feeder to such a folded
>dipole to the output of a rig designed to feed 50 ohms.
>
>As Hams migrated away from rigs with tunable output networks to rigs with
>fixed tuned outputs, MFJ and others produced a line of antenna tuners
>specifically designed to correct feed line mismatches since that could no
>longer be done at the rig. They included the popular 4:1 balun for those who
>were feeding various open wire lines (typically 300 to 600 ohms but which
>may have significant SWR - so the impedance might vary much more).
>
>It seems that many Hams considered the 4:1 ratio some sort of magic number,
>when all it was intended to do was provide a good transfer between 300 ohms
>and 50 ohms.
>
>
>Ron AC7AC

Hi

Back in late 50's early 60's I bought my first balun from Heathkit ... made
from special Bifiler wound
Airdux coils which could be connected in either 1:1 or 4:1
configuration. I still have that balun in its
5"x9"x9" aluminium case. I used it with my first Xmiter which was
homebrew, 300 watts, and
plate modulated AM.

I used a folded dipole made of 300 ohm twinlead fed by the same twinlead
and the balun in a 4:1
configuration. The dipole was strung between 70ft towers. It was a
wonderful setup at a wonderful
time (from a propagation point of view). The ZL's and VK's were like
locals! es we used to chat
about the best way to grow tomatoes hihi

These days I still use a balanced feed system with either 300 or 450 ohm
feed line ... but with
fixed impedance output xmiters and vy much lower power. I no longer use
fixed resonant
folded dipoles ... but a nonresonant dipole that is useable on multiple
bands with a matching
unit at the shack. The matching unit I use is a link coupled L network ..
often referred to as
a "Z-match".

The system seems to be vy efficient as I have no problem working the world
with 20 watts. SSB
for local contacts and nets and CW/PSK for DX. No problems with RFI
!! Back in the day .. my 300
watt AM xmiter was a TV killer .... but then no one in out neighborhood
watched TV during the day
(week-ends excluded) and the (1 station) shut down at midnight. I just had
to stay up late and/or
skip school hi hi.

Jim, VE3CI

>-----Original Message-----
>
>I can attest to what Vic says. I have an 88-foot long doublet, hung about 45
>feet up, fed with 85 feet of 600-ohm ladder line. At the shack end I have a
>1:1 balun, and then about six feet of RG/8X running to the K3. The K3's
>tuner likes the combination. I tried replacing the 1:1 balun with a 4:1 from
>the same manufacturer. The K3 was quite unhappy with the change in
>components. The 4:1 went back on the shelf, the 1:1 went back inline. YMMV
>
>Jim / W6JHB

P.B. Christensen

Re: 4:1 balun

> It seems that many Hams considered the 4:1 ratio some sort of magic
> number,
> when all it was intended to do was provide a good transfer between 300
> ohms
> and 50 ohms.

I just modeled a typical 20m folded twin-lead dipole using 4Nec2 and TLD
software. Had never tried that one before.

The antenna feed-point Z at a half-wave height (33 FT) above average ground
computes to 291-j7.7. That's surprisingly close to 300 ohms resistive.
With TLD software, I then coupled the feed-point with 300-ohm twin-lead
line. Finally, I varied line length between 0 and 1/2 electrical wavelength
and watched the resulting Z at the line input. Z always stays between 290
and 310 ohms with very little reactance. Total system loss never exceeds
0.25 dB. The 300-ohm VSWR stays near 1.05:1 and not surprisingly, the
50-ohm VSWR stays near 6:1. While a 4:1 balun can probably result in
efficient transfer of power into the line from a modern 50-ohm output Z
transceiver, I think a 6:1 ratio current balun would be a better choice
under these circumstances, assuming one wanted to avoid an ATU at (or
within) the rig altogether.

No wonder this antenna was so popular. The antenna and line all use the
same inexpensive 300-ohm twin lead material. The match at the antenna is so
good that line VSWR (300) and loss is negligible.

Paul, W9AC

______________________________________________________________
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: 4:1 balun

The down side of the 300 ohm twin lead folded dipole is that 300 ohm twin lead usually is made from small wire and not mechanically very strong, so it is not durable for fixed stations with varying weather conditions and the wire is too small for anything but low power. With either the 300 ohm twin lead or a folded dipole fabricated from #14 or heavier conductors a 4:1 balun is needed to tune well with a 50 ohm output or to transition to coax. Then it is about as good as a well made dipole.

Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart

________________________________
From: Paul Christensen <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 4:1 balun

> It seems that many Hams considered the 4:1 ratio some sort of magic
> number,
> when all it was intended to do was provide a good transfer between 300
> ohms
> and 50 ohms.

I just modeled a typical 20m folded twin-lead dipole using 4Nec2 and TLD
software. Had never tried that one before.

The antenna feed-point Z at a half-wave height (33 FT) above average ground
computes to 291-j7.7. That's surprisingly close to 300 ohms resistive.
With TLD software, I then coupled the feed-point with 300-ohm twin-lead
line. Finally, I varied line length between 0 and 1/2 electrical wavelength
and watched the resulting Z at the line input. Z always stays between 290
and 310 ohms with very little reactance. Total system loss never exceeds
0.25 dB. The 300-ohm VSWR stays near 1.05:1 and not surprisingly, the
50-ohm VSWR stays near 6:1. While a 4:1 balun can probably result in
efficient transfer of power into the line from a modern 50-ohm output Z
transceiver, I think a 6:1 ratio current balun would be a better choice
under these circumstances, assuming one wanted to avoid an ATU at (or
within) the rig altogether.

No wonder this antenna was so popular. The antenna and line all use the
same inexpensive 300-ohm twin lead material. The match at the antenna is so
good that line VSWR (300) and loss is negligible.

Paul, W9AC

______________________________________________________________
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

P.B. Christensen

Re: 4:1 balun

> "The down side of the 300 ohm twin lead folded dipole is that 300 ohm twin lead usually is made from small wire and not mechanically very strong, so it is not durable for fixed stations with varying weather conditions and the wire is too small for anything but low power. With either the 300 ohm twin lead or a folded dipole fabricated from #14 or heavier conductors a 4:1 balun is needed to tune well with a 50 ohm output or to transition to coax. Then it is about as good as a well made dipole."

I think the mechanical issues can be managed. Generally, there's also less opportunity for water ingress than a coaxial line termination, unless more complex measures are taken for water-proofing. I've got new respect for the folded dipole (FD). The bandwidth of the FD is about 40% better between 2:1 VSWR points than a straight wire dipole. This is due primarily to an effectively larger radiating conductor size (rather than end stub effects), wire size remaining constant. For 80m-75m operating, the FD would be a good choice among the die-hard "I only use resonant antenna" ops. For K2 or K3 owners, any common ratio current balun ratio would work reasonably well if equipped with the internal ATU. If no ATU, then a 6:1 current balun would do the best job of transferring power into the line.

The big drawback is that the FD won't work efficiently on even harmonics, even with a tuner at the shack end of the line. But for mono-band performance, cost, ease of construction, it seems tough to beat.

Paul, W9AC
______________________________________________________________
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

Nate Bargmann

Re: 4:1 balun

Advice I read years back cautioned to stay away from the foam dielectric
300 Ohm ribbon lead. The solid dielectric handles more power and
doesn't get water contamination in the dielectric.

How does modeling with 450 Ohm window lead work out? That would suggest
a 9:1 balun. The reason I ask is because I built a double Zepp type
antenna in the early '90s and fed it with 300 Ohm ribbon lead from the
doublet to the shack. There was a noteable performance increase when the
wind took it down and I used 450 Ohm window lead instead. Also, the 450
Ohm window lead has proven very rugged for me. The doublet has been up
at three different QTHs and is almost 20 years old.

73, de Nate N0NB >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
______________________________________________________________
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: 4:1 balun

> How does modeling with 450 Ohm window lead work out? That would suggest
> a 9:1 balun.

Someone earlier (K2VCO, I believe) cautioned against falling into the trap
of believing that the characteristic Z of the line is always the impedance
actually present at the end of the line. The Z seen at the line end is
determined by several factors, including the magnitude of the line-to-load
(mis)match, type of feedline, and feedline length. For multi-band wire
antennas, the line input Z can range from less than 10 ohms with some short
antennas to over 5K ohm. These numbers appear at the line input. Just
because it may be "450-ohm line" does not mean that's the target Z to tune
and match. The only time 450-ohm line presents a 450-ohm impedance at the
line input regardless of distance, is when the characteristic Z of the line
equals the load Z and line loss is small.

In the case of the folded dipole for mono-band operation, the antenna
feed-point Z can easily be made 300 ohms with little or no reactance with a
bit of antenna length pruning and perhaps slight height change. Feeding it
only with a 300-ohm characteristic Z line makes best sense, since the Z at
the line input, regardless of line length is going to be near 300-ohms at
the cut operating frequency, with little reactance.

Paul, W9AC

______________________________________________________________
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

W2RU - Bud Hippisley

Re: 4:1 balun

In reply to this post by P.B. Christensen

On Dec 10, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Paul Christensen wrote:
> I've got new respect for the folded dipole (FD). The bandwidth of the FD is about 40% better between 2:1 VSWR points than a straight wire dipole.

Yes, and a 3-wire dipole nearly doubles the SWR bandwidth relative to a regular dipole.

As you say, the antenna is not useable on even harmonics but for some, having to put up a separate 40-meter dipole is a small price to pay for being able to cover a large chunk of 80/75 meters without having to retune an antenna coupler.

Bud, W2RU

______________________________________________________________
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

Jim Dunstan

Re: 4:1 balun

In reply to this post by Cookie

At 09:12 AM 12/10/2011 -0800, you wrote:

>The down side of the 300 ohm twin lead folded dipole is that 300 ohm twin
>lead usually is made from small wire and not mechanically very strong, so
>it is not durable for fixed stations with varying weather conditions and
>the wire is too small for anything but low power. With either the 300 ohm
>twin lead or a folded dipole fabricated from #14 or heavier conductors a
>4:1 balun is needed to tune well with a 50 ohm output or to transition to
>coax. Then it is about as good as a well made dipole.
>
>
>Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
>K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart

Hi,

No problem using good quality 300 TV twinlead with high power. Remember
current is much reduced when feeding into a 300 ohm load vs a 75 ohm
load. As I mentioned, I consistently used such an arrangement with a 4:1
balun feeding the folded dipole at 70 ft running with 300watts and fully
plate modulated AM. In addition since the twinlead is operating with no
standing waves there is no chance of magnified voltages and currents as a
result of phase shifting. Never had a problem with RF power. Now to be
fair TV twinlead was commonly available in at least 3 grades ... heavy,
medium, or light. I am not sure what is available today in what is called
TV twinlead. I understand it is possible to buy 300 ohm twinlead that is
manufactured for power handling .... I don't know if anyone uses it for
making folded dipoles (I suspect not). If one were to construct such a
folded dipole for any HF band I can guarantee they will not have any power
handling problems to today's legal power limit.

I have also used TV twinlead to feed non-resonant doublets (100 inverted
vee is a favourite) and used a 100watt AM transmitter (DX-100) with a
balanced transmatch .... again, never had a power problem with the feed
line. This arrangement is a bit tricky. Choosing a useable feed line
length solves any power problems.

However, you are correct about mechanical reliability. I did have to fix
the antenna several times a year.

At one time the cable manufacturers also made 75 ohm twinlead in both a
lightweight and heavy duty version. The 75 ohm versions were more
susceptible to current/heat damage due to the much greater current feeding
an antenna with with a 75 ohm resonant impedance. The light weight version
was only good for 25 to 50 watts but great for portable work as it was very
light. It used to be the standard configuration for commercial portable
radio service used by northern trappers es miners. Their radios only ran 3
to 5 watts. I used the heavy duty 75 ohm twinlead to feed a cubical quad
for years ... again 100watts AM.

Jim, VE3CI

______________________________________________________________
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

Augie "Gus" Hansen

Re: 4:1 balun

On 12/10/2011 2:35 PM, Jim Dunstan wrote:
> ... I don't know if anyone uses it for making folded dipoles (I
> suspect not). If one were to construct such a folded dipole for
> any HF band I can guarantee they will not have any power handling
> problems to today's legal power limit.

In this weekend's ARRL 10m contest, one of the antennas I'm using is
a vertical folded dipole fashioned from transmitting quality 300 Ohm
window line and matched at the TX end via a 4:1 balun. I'm running
only 100 watts for this contest, but it can handle full legal limit
with ease.

This antenna system provides a minimum VSWR of about 1.4:1 at
resonance (28.5 MHz) due to the slight mismatch (75 vs 50 Ohms) and
less than 1.7:1 at the 10 meter band band edges.

73,
Gus Hansen
KB0YH

______________________________________________________________
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