Elecraft

KPA500 and KAT500 incompatible frequency interface

Classic

List

Threaded

4 messages Options

ANDY DURBIN

KPA500 and KAT500 incompatible frequency interface

I have known about this for a long time but, once I decided to design and build my own KAT500/KPA500 controller, I lost interest in the issue. Here is the situation:

A KPA500 can be connected to a TS-590 COM port. If configured correctly the KPA500 will "poll" the TS-590 once per second with IF;FA;FB;. TS-590 responds with the values of IF, FA, and FB and KPA500 firmware is smart enough to derive the TX band regardless of which VFO is being used as the TX VFO.

The KAT500 with firmware 1.34 or later will receive a Kenwood format FA word and will use it to select, not only the tuning solution, but also the appropriate antenna. KAT500 only follows VFO A. It cannot track VFO B and does not know which VFO is being used for TX.

I was asked to help another op who, like me, uses TS-590, KAT500, and KPA500. He actually wanted details of my controller but I'm not ready to release anything yet. He had his KPA500 following TS-590 band but the KAT500 only had RF frequency detection. He was sometimes faulting the KPA500 after a band change because the KAT500 had not switched to the required antenna. I told him that it should be possible to make a "Y" cable that kept the TS-590<>KPA500 connection unchanged but which also fed the TS-590 responses to the KAT500. I sent him a draft cable drawing.

He reported he had built the cable but the KAT500 did not do any antenna selection when KPA500 and TS-590 changed bands. After a few emails exchanged I decided I had to build and test the configuration myself. It worked as I had expected with KPA500 and KAT500 both following TS-590 band selection when VFO A was the TX VFO. He eventually worked out what he had mis-configured and now has the interface working.

Now for the point of this post -

Why does Elecraft provide KPA500 firmware that is smart enough to derive TX frequency regardless of VFO selection but KAT500 will only respond to VFO A frequency? Would it not be reasonable to update KAT500 firmware, copying KPA500 code if necessary, so it too will derive TX frequency regardless of VFO usage?

I hope Elecraft will consider this to be a useful enhancement that will make it easier to integrate KPA500 and KAT500 with Kenwood rigs.

73,
Andy, k3wyc

______________________________________________________________
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]

W2xj

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 incompatible frequency interface

Friends don’t let friends use Kenwood. ;-(

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 9, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Andy Durbin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have known about this for a long time but, once I decided to design and build my own KAT500/KPA500 controller, I lost interest in the issue. Here is the situation:
>
> A KPA500 can be connected to a TS-590 COM port. If configured correctly the KPA500 will "poll" the TS-590 once per second with IF;FA;FB;. TS-590 responds with the values of IF, FA, and FB and KPA500 firmware is smart enough to derive the TX band regardless of which VFO is being used as the TX VFO.
>
> The KAT500 with firmware 1.34 or later will receive a Kenwood format FA word and will use it to select, not only the tuning solution, but also the appropriate antenna. KAT500 only follows VFO A. It cannot track VFO B and does not know which VFO is being used for TX.
>
>
> I was asked to help another op who, like me, uses TS-590, KAT500, and KPA500. He actually wanted details of my controller but I'm not ready to release anything yet. He had his KPA500 following TS-590 band but the KAT500 only had RF frequency detection. He was sometimes faulting the KPA500 after a band change because the KAT500 had not switched to the required antenna. I told him that it should be possible to make a "Y" cable that kept the TS-590<>KPA500 connection unchanged but which also fed the TS-590 responses to the KAT500. I sent him a draft cable drawing.
>
> He reported he had built the cable but the KAT500 did not do any antenna selection when KPA500 and TS-590 changed bands. After a few emails exchanged I decided I had to build and test the configuration myself. It worked as I had expected with KPA500 and KAT500 both following TS-590 band selection when VFO A was the TX VFO. He eventually worked out what he had mis-configured and now has the interface working.
>
> Now for the point of this post -
>
> Why does Elecraft provide KPA500 firmware that is smart enough to derive TX frequency regardless of VFO selection but KAT500 will only respond to VFO A frequency? Would it not be reasonable to update KAT500 firmware, copying KPA500 code if necessary, so it too will derive TX frequency regardless of VFO usage?
>
> I hope Elecraft will consider this to be a useful enhancement that will make it easier to integrate KPA500 and KAT500 with Kenwood rigs.
>
> 73,
> Andy, k3wyc
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
>

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

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

Jim Brown-10

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 incompatible frequency interface

On 6/9/2019 9:42 AM, W2xj wrote:
> Friends don’t let friends use Kenwood.

Let's stop with the bashing. Of the JA radios, I consider it the better
one. Further, ARRL Lab tests show their radios to be cleaner on TX,
ranking not all that far behind Elecraft radios.

73, Jim K9YC

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

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

W2xj

Re: KPA500 and KAT500 incompatible frequency interface

Bashing???

Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 10, 2019, at 12:04 AM, Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2019 9:42 AM, W2xj wrote:
>> Friends don’t let friends use Kenwood.
>
> Let's stop with the bashing. Of the JA radios, I consider it the better one. Further, ARRL Lab tests show their radios to be cleaner on TX, ranking not all that far behind Elecraft radios.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]