Elecraft

K3s

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Rose

K3s

FWIW, my embroidery software allows me to reproduce "K3s" in the ratio
that's used by Elecraft.

88 !

Rose - N7HKW
ElecraftCovers

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 17:15 Fred Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Why not adopt the grammar of the Lao [and Thai] languages which have no
> plural forms. It would be K3S, two K3S, three K3S, one hundred K3S
> ... I've always thought K3S was a misteak, K3.1 would have been better
> ... or not.
>
> 73,
>
> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
> Sparks NV DM09dn
> Washoe County
>
> On 6/27/2018 3:00 PM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote:
> > Would not K3S' be the plural of K3S?
> >
> > Bob, K4TAX
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jun 27, 2018, at 4:44 PM, Ian White <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>> A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
> >> both
> >>> transmit and receive phase noise.
> >> That is far too simplistic. Anyone's personal definition of "the
> >> better synthesizer" will depend on what range of frequency offsets
> >> is more important for their particular type of operating.
> >>
> >> For HF CW in particular, phase noise at small frequency offsets is
> >> of paramount importance and I wouldn't argue with Don's report of "a
> >> huge improvement in both transmit and receive phase noise" - but
> >> *only* in that specific context. There are also several other
> >> advantages that are relevant to high-performance HF CW that could
> >> also justify upgrading to the KSYN3A.
> >>
> >> At close frequency offsets from the carrier, the KSYN3A does indeed
> >> offer a large reduction in phase noise compared with the KSYN3
> >> (which itself was already good). But at wider frequency offsets,
> >> that situation reverses. According to the ARRL review [1], at all
> >> offsets beyond about 6kHz, the older KSYN3 continues to have a lower
> >> noise floor than the newer KSYN3A "upgrade".
> >>
> >> Performance at wider frequency offsets, 10-100kHz and beyond, is of
> >> much greater importance in VHF-UHF contesting. This due to a
> >> combination of factors. The strongest signals at VHF-UHF are often
> >> much stronger than on HF, due to the use of high-gain beam antennas;
> >> and also the weakest signals are *always* much, much weaker due to
> >> the lower levels of natural background noise. These two features
> >> stretch the requirement for dynamic range on VHF-UHF far beyond
> >> those for which most HF transceivers are designed.
> >>
> >> Anyone transmitting wideband phase noise has a much greater risk of
> >> raising the noise floor of many other stations across the whole
> >> contesting segment of the VHF or UHF band. Running the numbers
> >> reveals that anyone aiming to be a Big Gun in VHF contests has a
> >> responsibility to keep their wideband transmitted noise floor below
> >> about -130dBc/Hz at frequency offsets of 50kHz and more [2]. This
> >> can be a major engineering challenge, and the performance of the
> >> transceiver is almost always the most important building block.
> >>
> >> The KSYN3A just about meets the -130dBc/Hz noise floor target at
> >> frequency offsets of 10kHz or more... but according to the ARRL
> >> review [1] the older KSYN3 achieves it much more comfortably, with
> >> 10-15dB to spare.
> >>
> >> I have both a K3S and a very early-model K3. The K3S (with the
> >> KSYN3A, of course) is used for HF contesting where smaller frequency
> >> offsets are important. Meanwhile the old K3 is now used as a
> >> transverter driver for 144MHz and above - and for that particular
> >> purpose there are very good reasons *not* to replace the original
> >> KSYN3.
> >>
> >> 73 from Ian GM3SEK
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ProductReviewsForDeb/2015/pr112015.pd
> >> f
> >>
> >> [2]
> >> https://thersgb.org/members/publications/video_archive.php?id=5703
> >> Sorry, this talk is accessible only to RSGB members, but in a few
> >> words...
> >>
> >> G8DOH runs the numbers to demonstrate that the -130dBc/Hz target
> >> for transmitted phase noise is necessary to avoid raising the noise
> >> floor of other stations many kilometres away, and also many tens to
> >> hundreds of kHz away across the band, whenever their high-gain beams
> >> happen to be pointed at each other.
> >>
> >> That calculation assumes the UK transmitter power limit of 400W PEP
> >> output. For the US power limit of 1500W output, keeping all other
> >> assumptions the same, the target for transmitted noise floor would
> >> need to be better than -135dBc/Hz. The older KSYN3 can still meet
> >> that more stringent target but the KSYN3A probably cannot.
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:elecraft-
> >>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
> >>> Sent: 27 June 2018 14:23
> >>> To: hawley, charles j jr; Charlie T
> >>> Cc: [hidden email]
> >>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] [K3] factory upgrade to K3(s)
> >>>
> >>> Chuck,
> >>>
> >>> A big reduction in receiver noise floor and a huge improvement in
> >> both
> >>> transmit and receive phase noise. It is like getting a new
> >> transceiver.
> >>> If you are strictly a casual operator, those qualities may not be
> >>> important to you, but if you are a DX'er or a contester, or
> >> otherwise
> >>> operate in crowded band condition, those things should be important
> >>> to you.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>> Don W3FPR
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/27/2018 9:03 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
> >>>> I decided to bypass the replacement of the synthesizers. Could
> >> you
> >>> describe the "huge" difference?
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> >>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > Message delivered to [hidden email]
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

k6dgw

Re: K3s

And that's not the only thing you can do with your covers. My K2 cover
is perfect!

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 6/27/2018 4:37 PM, Rose wrote:
> FWIW, my embroidery software allows me to reproduce "K3s" in the ratio
> that's used by Elecraft.
>
> 88 !
>
> Rose - N7HKW
> ElecraftCovers
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]