K3 in the CQWW contest
Locked
12
12
 
|
On 1 dec 2009, at 00.14, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> Operators were mixed > when it came to receiving a single signal on a quiet band > - those who preferred other radios felt the K3 was too > "noisy." The K3 can feel a little "over charged" with full RF Gain and preamp inline... like driving a race car in rush hour traffic. As an experiment I used NR throughout the CQ WW CW contest and it worked great, especially when bands where a little quiet it made static and hiss a little less fatiguing. Anyone else tried this? 73 de Björn, SM0MDG SE0X ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10
On 30 nov 2009, at 22.49, Jim Brown wrote:
> Thanks to my K3, I didn't even know they were there, and > couldn't hear them with my IF opened up to 400 Hz. I had a very strong station throwing a couple of hundred dits into my passband when I was trying to copy a weak JA. Just narrowed the passband from 200 to 50 and the offender was gone and JA station in the clear. NIce, really nice! 73 de Björn, SM0MDG SE0X ______________________________________________________________ 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: K3 in the CQWW contest
|
|
In reply to this post by juergen piezo
Hi John,
While I agree with much of your argument, there could be a price to pay in the form of Equipment Type Approval.if further regulations were imposed on the Amateur Service. Without doubt Type Approval would increase the selling price of the "black boxes", and put an end to the use of homebrewed equipment. As matters stand, the Amateur Service is viewed by most Authorities as a "Self Regulatory" Service. The standards for amateur transmitter harmonic and spurious levels are intended to protect Services other than the Amateur Service from interference caused by amateur transmitters, a fact that I am sure you already know. There is talk about reducing these levels. IMHO the problem of clicks, splatter ad nauseum must be solved somehow by us amateurs without having further regulations imposed. For example here in Europe deliberate jamming is a serious problem, but attempts have been and are being made by amateurs to find the culprits. 73, Geoff GM4ESD juergen piezo <[hidden email]> wrote on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 at 8:35 PM: Hi Matt Most of us are black box operators. We need regulations for the amateur service that specifies how our transmitters must perform, just like every other HF spectrum user. Its amazing how the amateur service holds its head up high as some sort of technical demigod society, yet we cant even clean up our own camp. Arguments that transmitter standards interferes with technical development is a nonsense argument in my view. Its time that the ARRL lobbied the FCC for standards for amateur transmitters, and these standards should include keyclicks and SSB transmitter and amplifier IMD levels. We know keyclicks are unacceptable, why would it be so hard to specify by how much keyclicks should be suppressed by and what the maximum bandwidth should be? How does setting such standards interfere with technical development? We already have standards for harmonic and spurious levels. The FCC said a long time ago that we cant interfere with televisions or other services if our transmitters are crap. They set harmonic levels for transmitters. Its now time for them to say its also unacceptable for hams to interfere with hams using crap equipment. Its a disgrace that anyone can go buy a cheap 12 volt mobile radio and then go buy a cheap RM Italy amplifier and then get on the ham bands and call CQDX. Its equally sad that such operators think that they are legally entitled to do so without worrying about the consequences to others. Its selfish and not in the ham spirit. How is it fair that this kind of brain dead operation is classed as "technical experimenting" when it causes so much interference to others? Why the law stinks, is that if I decided to tune up on this individual for 1 hour I would be breaking the law because I am causing deliberate interference. Yet if I use a class C CB amplifier with a substandard transmitter it would be okay to cause interference all day and I am legal. We need to wake up to ourselves and our regulations. John ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy
Hi Geoff The Icom 7800 costs more than most commercial HF transceivers which are all type approved for marine radio or land mobile service. Currently radios have to be Type accepted by the FCC before being sold. I cant see how adding 2 more test criteria onto checklist will add costs when this pre-compliance has to be carried out and payed for anyhow? Anyway its nice to see that Yaesu is using decent RF FETS in their new FT-5000 design. Its also great to see that ADAT is also using advanced RF methods in their radios PA for better linearity. John --- On Tue, 12/1/09, Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy <[hidden email]> wrote: > From: Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 in the CQWW contest > To: "juergen piezo" <[hidden email]> > Cc: "Elecraft Discussion List" <[hidden email]> > Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 2:20 PM > Hi John, > > While I agree with much of your argument, there could be a > price to pay in the form of Equipment Type Approval.if > further regulations were imposed on the Amateur Service. > Without doubt Type Approval would increase the selling price > of the "black boxes", and put an end to the use of > homebrewed equipment. > > As matters stand, the Amateur Service is viewed by most > Authorities as a "Self Regulatory" Service. The standards > for amateur transmitter harmonic and spurious levels are > intended to protect Services other than the Amateur Service > from interference caused by amateur transmitters, a fact > that I am sure you already know. There is talk about > reducing these levels. > > IMHO the problem of clicks, splatter ad nauseum must be > solved somehow by us amateurs without having further > regulations imposed. For example here in Europe deliberate > jamming is a serious problem, but attempts have been and are > being made by amateurs to find the culprits. > > 73, > Geoff > GM4ESD > > > juergen piezo <[hidden email]> > wrote on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 at 8:35 PM: > > > > Hi Matt > > Most of us are black box operators. We need regulations for > the amateur service that specifies how our transmitters must > perform, just like every other HF spectrum user. > > Its amazing how the amateur service holds its head up high > as some sort of technical demigod society, yet we cant > even clean up our own camp. > > Arguments that transmitter standards interferes with > technical development is a nonsense argument in my view. > > Its time that the ARRL lobbied the FCC for standards > for amateur transmitters, and these standards should include > keyclicks and SSB transmitter and amplifier IMD levels. > > We know keyclicks are unacceptable, why would it be so > hard to specify by how much keyclicks should be > suppressed by and what the maximum bandwidth should > be? How does setting such standards interfere with technical > development? > > We already have standards for harmonic and spurious > levels. The FCC said a long time ago that we cant interfere > with televisions or other services if our transmitters are > crap. They set harmonic levels for transmitters. Its now > time for them to say its also unacceptable for hams to > interfere with hams using crap equipment. > > Its a disgrace that anyone can go buy a cheap 12 volt > mobile radio and then go buy a cheap RM Italy > amplifier and then get on the ham bands and call CQDX. > Its equally sad that such operators think that they are > legally entitled to do so without worrying about > the consequences to others. Its selfish and not in the > ham spirit. How is it fair that this kind of brain dead > operation is classed as "technical experimenting" when it > causes so much interference to others? > > Why the law stinks, is that if I decided to tune up > on this individual for 1 hour I would be breaking the law > because I am causing deliberate interference. Yet if I use a > class C CB amplifier with a substandard transmitter it would > be okay to cause interference all day and I am legal. > > We need to wake up to ourselves and our regulations. > > John > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by juergen piezo
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
|
|
You tell them, Ron.
--- On Wed, 12/2/09, Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 in the CQWW contest To: "'juergen piezo'" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 8:38 AM John wrote: Most of us are black box operators. We need regulations for the amateur service that specifies how our transmitters must perform, just like every other HF spectrum user... ----------------------------------------- That may be true for some, perhaps even "most", but a great many of us are Hams because we can build and tinker with equipment on the air, including our own designs. It's not just a matter of technical advancement. It's also a matter of having fun "learning by doing" building and using sometimes far from the state-of-the-art equipment. It's that freedom from regulation equipment and procedure that has set Ham radio apart from other services. I'd hate to see that change in spite of the occasional clueless operator. Learning to communicate in spite of some abysmal signals also makes us better operators -- another key justification for having our Amateur frequencies even for "black box" operators. Ron AC7AC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: K3 in the CQWW contest [ END of Thread]
|
Administrator
|
List posting level limit has now been reached for this thread on key
clicks, regulation etc. ;-) this thread is ENDED for now in the interest of lowering the ambient list noise level and improving overall propagation.. 73, Eric WA6HHQ Elecraft Moderator ==== Wes Stewart wrote: > You tell them, Ron. > > --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote: > > From: Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 in the CQWW contest > To: "'juergen piezo'" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] > Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 8:38 AM > > John wrote: > > Most of us are black box operators. We need regulations for the amateur > service that specifies how our transmitters must perform, just like every > other HF spectrum user... > > 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: K3 in the CQWW contest
|
In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV
ARRL160 is the true test of just how close folks can get in the US contests ;o)
Sounds like you had similar experiences, I had been running about an hour when an EU slide within 300 Hz of me and tried to start something, I slide down caught the multiplier, slide back up and kept running... well until 3V3S started CQ right on top of me (less than 100Hz), maybe they were running a K3 too, slide up and worked them, but decided the fight wouldn't work out in my favor so went S&P, picked up 8 new multipliers inside of 20 minutes. Losing a run freq isn't always bad ;o) I did run tighter than normal, 400Hz and lower. 20 was packed to around 14.145 Sunday morning, so very narrow was worth it. 73, Julius n2wn
Julius Fazekas
N2WN Tennessee Contest Group http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html Tennessee QSO Party http://www.tnqp.org/ Elecraft K2 #4455 Elecraft K3/100 #366 Elecraft K3/100 |
Re: K3 in the CQWW contest
|
|
In reply to this post by Bjorn
Hi Bjorn,
The only band I had my preamp on was 15, and only for select stations. On 160 and 80, I generally run with the attenuator selected and RF around the 11 o'clock position (what will we do when there are no longer clocks with hands?) I think when I hear about noise issues with the K3, the rig most often noted was the FT1K. I suspect folks are used to different AF/RF settings. I thought the Yaesu rig was noisier than my K2 the one time I used it. Too, thought I could pick signals much quicker with the K2. I've not used a Yaesu since then, so can't compare. The 1K has been a contesting standard for a lot of years. It will take a bit of adjustment moving to another radio. Same as from a K2 to K3 IMHO... I have to say I didn't feel "CW stress" after CQWW, but suspect I will after this weekend on 160. I don't tend to use NR all that often either... 73, Julius n2wn
Julius Fazekas
N2WN Tennessee Contest Group http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html Tennessee QSO Party http://www.tnqp.org/ Elecraft K2 #4455 Elecraft K3/100 #366 Elecraft K3/100 |
Re: K3 in the CQWW contest
|
|
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy
While I agree with much of your argument, there could be a price to pay in
the form of Equipment Type Approval.if further regulations were imposed on the Amateur Service. Without doubt Type Approval would increase the selling price of the "black boxes", and put an end to the use of homebrewed equipment. *** Aren't there already standards in effect? At least for commercially marketed radios? As matters stand, the Amateur Service is viewed by most Authorities as a "Self Regulatory" Service. The standards for amateur transmitter harmonic and spurious levels are intended to protect Services other than the Amateur Service from interference caused by amateur transmitters, a fact that I am sure you already know. There is talk about reducing these levels. IMHO the problem of clicks, splatter ad nauseum must be solved somehow by us amateurs without having further regulations imposed. For example here in Europe deliberate jamming is a serious problem, but attempts have been and are being made by amateurs to find the culprits. *** Indeed Geoff, the big problem is not due to a lack of regulations, it's due to a number of folks who are very deliberate in their actions. Particularly when it comes to DXing and Contesting. Enforcement is a problem. Many have been getting away with it for years, and why not, there is little in the way of getting caught or getting punished. In the RadioSport world, it appears more and more contest sponsors are taking harder looks at various violations and beginning to take what some may consider draconian action. The sad part is that a very very very very small group has taken advantage of the goodwill and trust of the entire community. CQ WW DX has taken a pretty large first step with the potential of on-site inspectors. Sadly, there is much on the secondary market and new technologies that do keep some of these folks one step ahead some of the time... Honor and goodwill are commonplace. Sadly, so are rotten apples... 73, Julius
Julius Fazekas
N2WN Tennessee Contest Group http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html Tennessee QSO Party http://www.tnqp.org/ Elecraft K2 #4455 Elecraft K3/100 #366 Elecraft K3/100 |
Re: K3 in the CQWW contest [ END of Thread]
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ
One more time..
> List posting level limit has now been reached for this thread on key > clicks, regulation etc. ;-) > > this thread is ENDED for now in the interest of lowering the ambient > list noise level and improving overall propagation.. > > 73, > Eric WA6HHQ > Elecraft Moderator > ==== > > Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [K3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |