Elecraft › [QRO]

KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

Classic

List

Threaded

67 messages Options

1234

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

Let me chime in on this discussion with my opinions. Those who are
already using remote antenna switches are happy with only one port on
the KPA500, and two ports on the KAT500 will be more than sufficient.
OTOH, those who do not use remote switches seem to want multiple (more
than two) outputs from the KPA500 and/or the KAT500.

While I can understand that, I already have a setup that works for me, a
remote 6 way switch, and 3 HF coax runs into the shack, plus one for 6
meters, 2 meters and 432 MHz - total of 6 coax runs. Selection of which
transceiver connects to which coax/antenna is manual, and if the K3 is
not using the coax, it is available for the FT-847, and if neither is
using a particular coax, it is available to a 3rd transceiver.

So for my purposes, a single coax to any one of 3 transceivers is
sufficient. Even the ANT2 connection on the KAT3 serves me no purpose,
it is connected to a dummy load just in case I punch the wrong button.

Dreaming of what "could be" in any one particular situation may be nice,
but multiple RF outputs from any amp or tuner cloud my thinking. While
it may be nice in some specific situations, it is not the ultimate for
all. Those running multiple transceivers will have had their own
antenna switching scheme worked out, and the need for multiple outputs
from any one device evaporates.

Now, how can I disable the ANT1/ANT2 selection from my K3?

73,
Don W3FPR

On 7/12/2011 5:39 PM, ab2tc wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One, two or three antenna outputs makes no difference to me either. I use an
> inexpensive 6-way MFJ switch remotely where the cables from my wire antennas
> come down in the woods behind the house and a single low-loss coax to the
> house. I currently use all 6 ports. The control is with a 100' CAT5 cable
> and a matvhing rotary switch also by MFJ. I don't mind the manual switching.
> Works for me and has at least 3 CNY winters on it. I am ooking forward to
> see the details on the KAT500.
>
> AB2TC - Knut
>

______________________________________________________________
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: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Craig Smith

Craig,

A reasonable suggestion I think.

I wonder why it is taking so long to get detail for the KAT-500? The
surprise announcement of the KX3 and subsequent listing on the website
including accessories etc appears to have overtaken somewhat the expected
release of information on the KAT-500.

It is ONLY an antenna tuner and it is not rocket science and there are
several versions of these already available and so I question why we are not
hearing more definitive information on the KAT-500 which I would have
thought would be a priority after release of the KPA-500 as many of us
wanted the auto-tuner as well as the amplifier but now it appears as though
the tuner may have taken a back seat somewhat as more effort is placed into
getting the KX3 into production.

The KPA-500 is a great product and many of us have flogged it to death
without any catastrophic failures and as we see more units being placed on
air it seems like we should see the auto-tuner appear soon but alas no firm
data has surfaced so the wait continues.....:-(

Being able to expand the antenna ports would be a great enhancement but I
wonder how difficult that would be given we know so little about the
KAT-500?

We can always live in hope...:-)

Gary

On 13 July 2011 07:55, Craig Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I certainly understand the impracticality in terms of cost and size of
> designing the basic KAT500 with a large number of output ports. My personal
> wish is that an optional external Elecraft unit will eventually be available
> that will allow for port expansion based on the user's desire for number and
> configuration. It should be waterproof (or easily made so) and controlled
> by the same bus as the external KAT500.
>
> 73 Craig AC0DS
>
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

--

VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
Elecraft Equipment
K3 #679, KPA-500 #018
Living the dream!!!
______________________________________________________________
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: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

Administrator

Hi Gary,

We simply do not have umlimited staff and do not want to get ahead of
ourselves by releasing details too early. We have a lot of projects in
the fire. :-) The KAT500 is under active development right now, but
putting more details at this time is premature. What I can say is that
the first unit is a compact desktop ATU as I described in my earlier
email. If a remote version comes out, it will be after this unit.

73, Eric WA6HHQ

---
www.elecraft.com

On 7/12/2011 3:14 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> Craig,
>
> A reasonable suggestion I think.
>
> I wonder why it is taking so long to get detail for the KAT-500?
>
>
>> I certainly understand the impracticality in terms of cost and size of
>> designing the basic KAT500 with a large number of output ports. My personal
>> wish is that an optional external Elecraft unit will eventually be available
>> that will allow for port expansion based on the user's desire for number and
>> configuration. It should be waterproof (or easily made so) and controlled
>> by the same bus as the external KAT500.
>>
>> 73 Craig AC0DS
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>

Tony Estep

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Gary Gregory

> "...I don't know too many hams with only two or less antennas..."
>
> ================
This is pure conjecture about an empirical question. This one could probably
be settled with a bit of market research. A somewhat more thorny question
is: how many hams who have a lot of antennas want the antenna switching done
in the tuner, versus those who prefer a separate switching system? I dunno,
but that's the sort of marketing/design/cost/benefit question that product
design teams have to hash out. As with any tradeoff, somebody is not gonna
like the final decision. The trick is to find the optimal point that
satisfies the largest number -- not the largest number of kibitzers, the
largest number of buyers.

Tony KT0NY
______________________________________________________________
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: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Gary Gregory

Eric,

I for one would like to be able to switch up to 4 antennas via the K3
including at least one antenna port that will handle a single wire or ladder
line termination.

K3 ANT 1 would connect to the KPA-500 and then to the KAT-500 with ANT1 on
the KAT-500 connected to a KRC2 AND antenna switch with 4 ports selected via
the K3?

ANT2 on the KAT-500 would control another 4 position antenna switch again,
selected via the K3

ANT-2 on the K3 could be set up the same as above?

Workable?....dunno...above my pay grade...:-)

But still waiting...:-(

73's
Gary

On 13 July 2011 08:14, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Craig,
>
> A reasonable suggestion I think.
>
> I wonder why it is taking so long to get detail for the KAT-500? The
> surprise announcement of the KX3 and subsequent listing on the website
> including accessories etc appears to have overtaken somewhat the expected
> release of information on the KAT-500.
>
> It is ONLY an antenna tuner and it is not rocket science and there are
> several versions of these already available and so I question why we are not
> hearing more definitive information on the KAT-500 which I would have
> thought would be a priority after release of the KPA-500 as many of us
> wanted the auto-tuner as well as the amplifier but now it appears as though
> the tuner may have taken a back seat somewhat as more effort is placed into
> getting the KX3 into production.
>
> The KPA-500 is a great product and many of us have flogged it to death
> without any catastrophic failures and as we see more units being placed on
> air it seems like we should see the auto-tuner appear soon but alas no firm
> data has surfaced so the wait continues.....:-(
>
> Being able to expand the antenna ports would be a great enhancement but I
> wonder how difficult that would be given we know so little about the
> KAT-500?
>
> We can always live in hope...:-)
>
> Gary
>
> On 13 July 2011 07:55, Craig Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I certainly understand the impracticality in terms of cost and size of
>> designing the basic KAT500 with a large number of output ports. My personal
>> wish is that an optional external Elecraft unit will eventually be available
>> that will allow for port expansion based on the user's desire for number and
>> configuration. It should be waterproof (or easily made so) and controlled
>> by the same bus as the external KAT500.
>>
>> 73 Craig AC0DS
>>
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile
> Elecraft Equipment
> K3 #679, KPA-500 #018
> Living the dream!!!
>
>

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

Administrator

In reply to this post by Gary Gregory

Hi Gary,

Having 4-5 RG8 antenna cables, plus the input cable, hanging out the
back of the desktop ATU is both likely to pull the ATU off the desk, and
will easily not fit in the box size we are planning. It also adds a lot
of complexity and cost to the basic ATU in order to accommodate more
connections with the needed isolation etc. We certainly do not want to
price the ATU out of the range of most hams, or make it too large.

Many of us use manual or automatic switches external to the amp / tuner
to provide these functions.

A much better solution for those needing more than two auto-selected
antennas is to use an external relay switch box, controlled by the
radio. This has the advantage of getting the cables, clutter, and
switching network off the desktop and either under the table or outside.
There are certainly a number of external antenna switches out there that
can do this, but if we offered something that was tightly integrated
with the K3 (and KPA500/KAT500) as a product, what features would be
desirable? (Number of antennas, rigs inputs, switching options etc.)

73, Eric WA6HHQ

---
www.elecraft.com

______________________________________________________________
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

Edward R Cole

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by WD6DBM

Unbelievable thread - my delete key is "smokin"!

MY station has a lot of antenna cables:
1) HF tribander
2) 80/40m dipole
3) 600m inverted-L
4) 30m sloper
5) 6m/10m J-Pole (remotely band switched)
6) 6m 3-elem yagi
7) 6m 6-elem yagi
8) 2m/70cm dual-band base whip (17-foot)
9) 435-MHz CP x-yagi (satellite)
10) 2m 7-elem yagi (satellite)
11) 2.4 GHz patch antenna (satellite)
12) 2m-eme array of four 10-element yagis with one Tx and two Rx coax lines
13) 900-MHz 33 loop-yagi - remote radio has only control cable
14) 1296-MHz 45 loop-yagi with separate Rx coax
15) 222-MHz dual 11-elem yagis Tx and Rx coax
16) 432-MHz 11-elem yagi Tx and Rx coax
17) 144 and 435 MHz Lindenblad omni CP antennas for satellite -
separate coax lines
18) 16-foot dish with 1296 and 432 MHz feeds each with separate Tx
and Rx coax lines
I think I got all of them?

Now I want the KAT-500 to tune 500-KHz to 1296-MHz and provide approx
25 antenna outputs to handle my station needs.
Is this reasonable? duh?

I either manually change coax lines to the radio equipment or use
coax switches to accomplish this - I sure as heck don't expect the
radios to provide it. BTW my K3/10 has ANT1, AUX, and the KXV3 ports
which I think is pretty nice! Sure having ANT2 would be nice but I
use external antenna tuners.

73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-60w, 3400-?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [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

gm3sek

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Craig Smith

Craig Smith wrote:
>I certainly understand the impracticality in terms of cost and size of
>designing the basic KAT500 with a large number of output ports. My
>personal wish is that an optional external Elecraft unit will
>eventually be available that will allow for port expansion based on the
>user's desire for number and configuration. It should be waterproof
>(or easily made so) and controlled by the same bus as the external KAT500.
>

"Waterproof (or easily made so)" is very important because the optimum
location for an ATU is remote from the shack, as close as possible to
the antenna(s) so that the main feedline is operated at low SWR.

Waterproofing requirements vary hugely around the world, and any design
errors will have very expensive consequences, so a designer in
California shouldn't even try to guess what is needed in Scotland, for
example :-). On the other hand, customers in Arizona shouldn't have to
pay for heavy-duty waterproofing that they don't need.

Please let us hope that one version of the KAT500 will be a bare
board-level module that users can package to meet their own
environmental requirements. If anything goes wrong, I'd much rather
blame myself than blame Elecraft.

Returning to antenna switching, most stations will also have a number of
antennas that don't need an ATU. These users may be content with only
two switched outputs on the KAT500 itself, and instead will want to use
a normal 50-ohm remote switch *ahead* of the KAT500.

But look where this discussion is headed... the more antenna switching
possibilities we envision, the less realistic it becomes for the KAT500
to meet them all.

However, there is a half-way solution which could be implemented at
relatively low cost. That is to provide a number of open-collector relay
drivers within the KAT500, remotely configurable through the control
bus. These relay outputs could then be used to create custom antenna
switching arrangements outside of the KAT500. When the KAT500 is
commanded to energize one of its external relay ports, it would know
that a different antenna is being connected to the output of the tuner,
and could then switch to a different bank of stored settings.

This system would greatly expand the flexibility of the KAT500 at very
little hardware cost (no RF-rated parts required, only an addressable
relay driver array and a pin header; all the rest is done in firmware
and the configuration utility). It would also be completely transparent
to anyone who didn't want to use it - they wouldn't even know it was
there.

The key to making this work is to incorporate the external relay drivers
*within* the KAT500 control system. Independent external switching
wouldn't work because the KAT500 wouldn't be aware of it, and would be
continually forced to retune.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
______________________________________________________________
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

alsopb

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

How about taking the money you'd spend for the KAT500 and put it towards
antenna(s) that don't need a tuner? There are lots of multiband
antennas out there. Some cost less than the likely cost of a KAT500.

73 de Brian/K3KO

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3761 - Release Date: 07/12/11

______________________________________________________________
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 Brown-10

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

On 7/13/2011 2:58 AM, Brian Alsop wrote:
> How about taking the money you'd spend for the KAT500 and put it towards
> antenna(s) that don't need a tuner? There are lots of multiband
> antennas out there. Some cost less than the likely cost of a KAT500.

That's a REALLY false choice. All of us are limited by what we CAN put
up, both by our real estate (including legal restrictions) and cost. A
smart ham will apply MANY criteria when choosing which antenna(s) are
best for his QTH and operating needs. Mutliband SWITCHING is only one of
those design criteria, and rarely the most important one.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Craig Smith

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by gm3sek

Greetings Ian ...

Yes, your proposed idea would be an acceptable approach for me. As you
point out, the two main things are to have the tuner and antenna switching
at a remote location and to have the control mechanism for all the switching
tightly integrated into the K3/KAT500 or K3/KPA500/KAT500 system. Each band
should have at least two (and preferably 3 or 4) combinations of memorized
tuner settings and relay driver selections similar to the way the current
KAT100 provides for Ant 1 and Ant 2 settings.

I would be comfortable with homebrewing the actual relay switching, antenna
connectors, waterproofing, etc. if Elecraft provides the integrated control
structure and supporting firmware. The user would then select via menu
which of the relay drivers to be activated for each of the (hopefully 4)
antenna selections on a per band basis.

73 Craig AC0DS

<> Please let us hope that one version of the KAT500 will be a bare
<> board-level module that users can package to meet their own
<> environmental requirements.
<>
<> However, there is a half-way solution which could be implemented at
<> relatively low cost. That is to provide a number of open-collector relay
<> drivers within the KAT500, remotely configurable through the control
<> bus. These relay outputs could then be used to create custom antenna
<> switching arrangements outside of the KAT500.

______________________________________________________________
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: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by alsopb

Brian, would you list for us the multi-band antennas you know that can cover all
of several bands with a SWR that will allow full power from the K3 without using
some sort of variable matching mechanism? Of course the SteppIR will do it, but
it has its own variable matching mechanism built in and is very likely much more
expensive than a KAT-500 is likely to be priced. Most Tri-banders have CW and
Phone settings. Most all band verticals will only match 75 KHz or so on 80 or
75 meters and all band dipoles maybe 150 or 200 KHz. G5RVs are difinitely
candidates for matching devices.

Of course, some manufacturers offer products with a built in matching network
that is low Q enough that it appears to have a very wide bandwidth.
Unfortunately these seem to dissapate most of the power in the matching
network. We all know that contacts can be made with very low power radiated.
But no one that I know favors putting out 100 or 500 watts to radiate 5 watts or
less and heat the antenna matcher with the rest.

Joel Hallas, W1ZR has a very nice explanation of why and how Antenna Tuners on
pages 52 and 53 of the August 2011 QST in his "Getting on the Air" column.
Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart

________________________________
From: Brian Alsop <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 4:58:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

How about taking the money you'd spend for the KAT500 and put it towards
antenna(s) that don't need a tuner? There are lots of multiband
antennas out there. Some cost less than the likely cost of a KAT500.

73 de Brian/K3KO

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3761 - Release Date: 07/12/11

______________________________________________________________
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

Ken G Kopp

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

Hi Cookie,

My Alpha-Delta pretty much meets the no-tuner-needed
requirement. It's just a fan dipole with another name. (:-)
I'm aware of at least five of them in this sparsely ham
populated area. It -is- bandwidth limited on 80/75, but
mine's cut for 3550.

My station is often used in major contests (KE7X) and
we put up the AD as a 2nd station antenna that doesn't
need any attention ... just switch to it and go.

It's extremely well-made, but very heavy. It's at 65',
help up with 3/8" Dacron rope and heavy pulleys.

73! Ken - K0PP

______________________________________________________________
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

Dave Wright

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

I'll second that Alpha-Delta reference. Full band coverage on 40/20/15/10,
plus about 100kHz on 75/80, partial-full coverage on 17m although it isn't
cut for it, and some 6m as well. Full coverage 80m-6m with tuner...and even
160m, but the efficiency has to be terrible.

And easily handles 500w+

73

Dave

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ken - K0PP <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Cookie,
>
> My Alpha-Delta pretty much meets the no-tuner-needed
> requirement. It's just a fan dipole with another name. (:-)
> I'm aware of at least five of them in this sparsely ham
> populated area. It -is- bandwidth limited on 80/75, but
> mine's cut for 3550.
>
> My station is often used in major contests (KE7X) and
> we put up the AD as a 2nd station antenna that doesn't
> need any attention ... just switch to it and go.
>
> It's extremely well-made, but very heavy. It's at 65',
> help up with 3/8" Dacron rope and heavy pulleys.
>
> 73! Ken - K0PP
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Edward R Cole

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by WD6DBM

Of course my last post on this topic was in jest (humor).

Here are a couple diagrams and photos to illustrate how ridiculous it is:
http://www.kl7uw.com/station%20layout.htm
this is pretty close to the current configuration (note several
multi-pos coax switches):
http://www.kl7uw.com/2011_Station.jpg
thru-wall coax patch panel (11 N, 9 UHF, 2 BNC, 4 TNC, 2 F
connectors) plus a few coax come thru holes in the panel (picture
before all cables were connected):
http://www.kl7uw.com/Cableway_inside.jpg
This picture shows the antenna switch panel below the FT-847:
http://www.kl7uw.com/shackleft_2011.jpg

No amount of antenna connections on the KAT-500 would come close to
satisfying my needs. I have two 50-foot towers separated 130-feet
apart, plus a short satellite antenna tower and a big dish also
separated by long distance. A single antenna tuner will not do it.

But for the average HF station 3-5 connections probably would.

73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-100w, 1296-60w, 3400-?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [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

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Dave Wright

The request was in response to a statement that the KAT-500 was not required if
an all band antenna was used. The challenge was to name an antenna that
will give full coverage WITHOUT TUNER making the KAT-500 superfluous. Of
course, full coverage of 20 is 14.0 to 14.35 and 80 and 160 are included.
Alpha-Delta makes nice products, but achieving full coverage on 160, 80, 20 and
10 is elusive. Maybe you only work CW and don't care about the phone band or 10
meter FM, but if so, you don't require full coverage. Even 40 requires you to
accept a pretty high SWR at the ends to cover the whole 40 meter band. LPs can
be good for broad banding, but even the RCA LPs that I saw on Guam with the
rotors that weighed about a ton only covered 7.0 MHz and up.
Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart

________________________________
From: Dave Wright <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wed, July 13, 2011 11:43:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

I'll second that Alpha-Delta reference. Full band coverage on 40/20/15/10,
plus about 100kHz on 75/80, partial-full coverage on 17m although it isn't
cut for it, and some 6m as well. Full coverage 80m-6m with tuner...and even
160m, but the efficiency has to be terrible.

And easily handles 500w+

73

Dave

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ken - K0PP <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
Dave
K3DCW
www.k3dcw.net

"Real radio bounces off of the sky"
______________________________________________________________
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

Dave Wright

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

'Cookie'

Noted...but I think full-band, no-tuner coverage of 40/20/15/10 isn't too
shabby.

Dave

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM, WILLIS COOKE <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The request was in response to a statement that the KAT-500 was not
> required if an all band antenna was used. The challenge was to name an
> antenna that will give full coverage WITHOUT TUNER making the KAT-500
> superfluous. Of course, full coverage of 20 is 14.0 to 14.35 and 80 and 160
> are included. Alpha-Delta makes nice products, but achieving full coverage
> on 160, 80, 20 and 10 is elusive. Maybe you only work CW and don't care
> about the phone band or 10 meter FM, but if so, you don't require full
> coverage. Even 40 requires you to accept a pretty high SWR at the ends to
> cover the whole 40 meter band. LPs can be good for broad banding, but even
> the RCA LPs that I saw on Guam with the rotors that weighed about a ton only
> covered 7.0 MHz and up.
>
> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dave Wright <[hidden email]>
> *To:* [hidden email]
> *Sent:* Wed, July 13, 2011 11:43:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 and KAT500 Ports
>
> I'll second that Alpha-Delta reference. Full band coverage on 40/20/15/10,
> plus about 100kHz on 75/80, partial-full coverage on 17m although it isn't
> cut for it, and some 6m as well. Full coverage 80m-6m with tuner...and
> even
> 160m, but the efficiency has to be terrible.
>
> And easily handles 500w+
>
> 73
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ken - K0PP <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Cookie,
> >
> > My Alpha-Delta pretty much meets the no-tuner-needed
> > requirement. It's just a fan dipole with another name. (:-)
> > I'm aware of at least five of them in this sparsely ham
> > populated area. It -is- bandwidth limited on 80/75, but
> > mine's cut for 3550.
> >
> > My station is often used in major contests (KE7X) and
> > we put up the AD as a 2nd station antenna that doesn't
> > need any attention ... just switch to it and go.
> >
> > It's extremely well-made, but very heavy. It's at 65',
> > help up with 3/8" Dacron rope and heavy pulleys.
> >
> > 73! Ken - K0PP
> >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave
> K3DCW
> www.k3dcw.net
>
> "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Igor Sokolov-2

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Craig Smith

IMHO the demand for a solid state linear amp with antenna tuner and
multiple antenna ports can be split into two niches.

1. Fully integrated portable system of PA, antenna tuner, antenna switch
with multiple ports and programmable band decoder all in one relatively
small package. This system has limited flexibility but appeals to portable
shack users, DXpeditions etc. One good example is Expert 1K-FA which has 2
inputs, 4 antenna ports, limited SO2R using separate RX antenna, built in
antenna tuner with huge number of memories for each of the two inputs/
band/antenna port and very nice built in band decoder that supports any type
of transceiver. Expert 2K-FA goes even further having 6 ports and the
possibility to remote the built in antenna tuner.

2) Separate sophisticated programmable band decoder that controls external
(local or remote) antenna switches.
This is applicable for stations with many different antennas because the
system can be tailored to virtually any need. Microham Station Master with
external antenna switches is a good example.

You may ask how does it relates to this reflector? Simple. I use Elecraft
K3 in combo with Expert 1K-FA and have inverted L for 160, inverted V for
80m, 2el Yagi for 40meters and tribander for 20-15-10 (exactly 4 antennas)
My friend R9DX has 7 towers with multiples stacks and at least 4 antennas
for each band. He is using pair of K3s with pair of Microham Station
Masters and different antenna switches in a pretty complicated SO2R
configuration. Pictures can be found here http://ua9clb.narod.ru/

73, Igor UA9CDC

______________________________________________________________
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

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

In reply to this post by Dave Wright

And full band coverage of 3.5 to 4.0 MHz with an SWR no greater than
2:1 except at the very high end of the band where it goes to 2.5 can
easily be achieved, I have one. Take a look at the ARRL Handbook page
9-16 and you can see it. The "magic" is in the feedline - 1 wavelength
of 50 ohm (RG-213) followed by 1/4 wavelength of 75 ohm RG-11. I hang
mine as an inverted vee.

I would think the same principle could be extended to 160 meters if full
band coverage there is desired.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 7/13/2011 1:28 PM, Dave Wright wrote:

> 'Cookie'
>
> Noted...but I think full-band, no-tuner coverage of 40/20/15/10 isn't too
> shabby.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM, WILLIS COOKE<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The request was in response to a statement that the KAT-500 was not
>> required if an all band antenna was used. The challenge was to name an
>> antenna that will give full coverage WITHOUT TUNER making the KAT-500
>> superfluous. Of course, full coverage of 20 is 14.0 to 14.35 and 80 and 160
>> are included. Alpha-Delta makes nice products, but achieving full coverage
>> on 160, 80, 20 and 10 is elusive. Maybe you only work CW and don't care
>> about the phone band or 10 meter FM, but if so, you don't require full
>> coverage. Even 40 requires you to accept a pretty high SWR at the ends to
>> cover the whole 40 meter band. LPs can be good for broad banding, but even
>> the RCA LPs that I saw on Guam with the rotors that weighed about a ton only
>> covered 7.0 MHz and up.
>>
>> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
>> K5EWJ& Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Dave Wright<[hidden email]>
>> *To:* [hidden email]
>> *Sent:* Wed, July 13, 2011 11:43:49 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Elecraft] KPA500 and KAT500 Ports
>>
>> I'll second that Alpha-Delta reference. Full band coverage on 40/20/15/10,
>> plus about 100kHz on 75/80, partial-full coverage on 17m although it isn't
>> cut for it, and some 6m as well. Full coverage 80m-6m with tuner...and
>> even
>> 160m, but the efficiency has to be terrible.
>>
>> And easily handles 500w+
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Ken - K0PP<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Cookie,
>>>
>>> My Alpha-Delta pretty much meets the no-tuner-needed
>>> requirement. It's just a fan dipole with another name. (:-)
>>> I'm aware of at least five of them in this sparsely ham
>>> populated area. It -is- bandwidth limited on 80/75, but
>>> mine's cut for 3550.
>>>
>>> My station is often used in major contests (KE7X) and
>>> we put up the AD as a 2nd station antenna that doesn't
>>> need any attention ... just switch to it and go.
>>>
>>> It's extremely well-made, but very heavy. It's at 65',
>>> help up with 3/8" Dacron rope and heavy pulleys.
>>>
>>> 73! Ken - K0PP
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>> K3DCW
>> www.k3dcw.net
>>
>> "Real radio bounces off of the sky"
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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: KPA500 and KAT500 Ports

Administrator

In reply to this post by Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

I'd like to redirect this discussion to what is be desired for an
external antenna / rig switching add-on box for the K3/KPA500 and/or
KAT500. This question may have been missed in my original posting (below).

From that posting:

A much better solution for those needing more than two auto-selected
antennas is to use an external relay switch box, controlled by the
radio. This has the advantage of getting the cables, clutter, and
switching network off the desktop and either under the table or outside.

There are certainly a number of external antenna switches out there that
can do this, but if we offered something that was tightly integrated
with the K3 (and KPA500/KAT500) as a product, what features would be
desirable? (Number of antennas, rigs inputs, switching options etc.)

73, Eric WA6HHQ

---

www.elecraft.com

On 7/12/2011 3:34 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> Having 4-5 RG8 antenna cables, plus the input cable, hanging out the
> back of the desktop ATU is both likely to pull the ATU off the desk, and
> will easily not fit in the box size we are planning. It also adds a lot
> of complexity and cost to the basic ATU in order to accommodate more
> connections with the needed isolation etc. We certainly do not want to
> price the ATU out of the range of most hams, or make it too large.
>
> Many of us use manual or automatic switches external to the amp / tuner
> to provide these functions.
>
> A much better solution for those needing more than two auto-selected
> antennas is to use an external relay switch box, controlled by the
> radio. This has the advantage of getting the cables, clutter, and
> switching network off the desktop and either under the table or outside.
> There are certainly a number of external antenna switches out there that
> can do this, but if we offered something that was tightly integrated
> with the K3 (and KPA500/KAT500) as a product, what features would be
> desirable? (Number of antennas, rigs inputs, switching options etc.)
>

1234