KX3-2M extended receive?
Locked
 
|
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I've been off the list for a
while and haven't found an answer in the archives. Is there any chance the KX3's 2 meter option could cover receive-only up to about 155 MHz? If not, without going into horrendous detail, what are the technical limitations preventing this (or are they financial as well?) I was glad to see that a 2 meter option is being considered. This sealed the deal for me on the KX3, as I like the idea of a compact HF mobile (and even desktop) unit, and I like to have 2 meters available in the mobile as well - but mainly as a scanner for my local FD/police freqs. I was (an still am) very interested in having this extended receive capability in the K3 as well, but I do understand it's not an option there. Do the KX3 and K3 share the same limitations (or whatever) in regards to lack of extended VHF receive? Not looking to start a "wish list" war but I suspect extended VHF receive is a pretty common desire for 2 meter users. Even without extended receive on VHF, this rig looks incredibly promising. A "K3-ish rig in a K2 package" was on my wish list years ago and it looks like Elecraft is about to deliver just that. Thanks, --Andrew, NV1B .. ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Andrew,
I am very impatiently awaiting the details like you are on this subject. What I can share from what I have learned here on the list is that this has not in fact been detailed yet, that has been announced. The 2m module is still in development. That having been said, it has been alluded to that extended receive beyond the 2m band is probably not feasible. There is a sensitivity limitation with the receiver. Also, the "IF" for the 2m "transverter" is 6m so there will not be the 2MHz band limitation as would happen if 10m were used. If the KX3 receiver is general coverage and goes beyond the 6m band I could see where some extended receive may be possible outside of the 2m band, seeing as 6m is the pseudo IF. What I would like to see is the 2m module allowing receive up through the weather band above 162MHz. When out backpacking it is a great aid to get the NOAA weather reports. I got stuck hiking in the remnants of Tropical Storm Lee in the Smoky Mountains last year and my HT was most often tuned to NOAA hihi. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Moore-3
Guys, Guys
Doing any extension of the front end capability would open the transverter up to all the pagers, repeaters etc that live above 149 I live next to a hospital and the internal pagers rip apart the DEM verter I use ,,, it would be Madness Bob K3DJC On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 16:13:25 -0800 (PST) Steve KC8QVO <[hidden email]> writes: > Andrew, > > I am very impatiently awaiting the details like you are on this > subject. > What I can share from what I have learned here on the list is that > this has > not in fact been detailed yet, that has been announced. The 2m > module is > still in development. That having been said, it has been alluded to > that > extended receive beyond the 2m band is probably not feasible. There > is a > sensitivity limitation with the receiver. Also, the "IF" for the 2m > "transverter" is 6m so there will not be the 2MHz band limitation as > would > happen if 10m were used. > > If the KX3 receiver is general coverage and goes beyond the 6m band > I could > see where some extended receive may be possible outside of the 2m > band, > seeing as 6m is the pseudo IF. > > What I would like to see is the 2m module allowing receive up > through the > weather band above 162MHz. When out backpacking it is a great aid to > get the > NOAA weather reports. I got stuck hiking in the remnants of Tropical > Storm > Lee in the Smoky Mountains last year and my HT was most often tuned > to NOAA > hihi. > > -- > View this message in context: > 63080.html > Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.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 > > 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33 The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4f08e2d7d5f53c6450m03vuc ______________________________________________________________ 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 Steve KC8QVO
One of the most exciting things about this KX3 is its ability to be very
close to a "one rig for everything" rig. While it's not a dedicated contest rig, a dedicated trail rig, a dedicated mobile rig, etc., it seems to come close to a good blend of all. If it's already capable of receiving VHF through 148 MHz, but doesn't make that extra stretch to 155 or 162 (WX), I'll be disappointed, because for adding just a little more coverage, this rig could fulfill a VHF scanner role (and much municipal VHF stuff is between 148-162 MHz). BUT... That said, I'll understand if it's not implemented, because I'm sure Elecraft has been through the thought process already. On top of that, they have insight into financial tradeoffs which we don't. They're smart designers and it just comes down to a "wish list" issue. I suspect that if they could easily implement extended receive at the price point they're aiming for, they would have done it. Until then, I'll just keep my fingers crossed, and if it doesn't work out, I'll still be thrilled that a high performance K2/K3 blend can be had for under $1K. Thank you, Elecraft --Andrew, NV1B .. On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Steve KC8QVO <[hidden email]> wrote: > Andrew, > > I am very impatiently awaiting the details like you are on this subject. > What I can share from what I have learned here on the list is that this has > not in fact been detailed yet, that has been announced. The 2m module is > still in development. That having been said, it has been alluded to that > extended receive beyond the 2m band is probably not feasible. There is a > sensitivity limitation with the receiver. Also, the "IF" for the 2m > "transverter" is 6m so there will not be the 2MHz band limitation as would > happen if 10m were used.\ 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 Andrew Moore-3
> If it's already capable of receiving VHF through 148 MHz, but doesn't make
> that extra stretch to 155 or 162 (WX), I'll be disappointed, because for > adding just a little more coverage, this rig could fulfill a VHF scanner > role (and much municipal VHF stuff is between 148-162 MHz). The real value of two-meter band coverage is to provide a *all-mode* VHF capability for the KX3. Outside 144 to 148 MHz, all-mode capability is pure waste, since almost everything outside that is FM mode, including all MARS operation that I've ever been aware of. Considering the give-away pricing on very small VHF FM HTs like the Yaesu VX-3R, that's what should be carried along with a KX3 station. Such HTs are fine general-purpose wide-range FM scanners, and even provide VHF-AM and UHF-AM aviation band coverage. It would be foolish to tie up the KX3 just for monitoring of weather and public service frequencies. Such is certainly an unnecessary design goal for the two-meter transverter option which would fall very short of the out-of-band capability provided by a cheap well-designed HT. In addition, it is often very convenient and sometimes necessary to cover two-meter FM and HF bands simultaneously. The only extended two-meter coverage that *might* be worthwhile is enough to cover MARS operation above and below the two-meter band. Mike / KK5F ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Agree. A small low price Chinese made H/T will simply fulfill the purpose.
TNX & 73, Johnny VR2XMC 從︰ Mike Morrow <[hidden email]> 收件人︰ [hidden email] 傳送日期︰ 2012年01月8日 (週日) 11:13 AM 主題︰ Re: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? > If it's already capable of receiving VHF through 148 MHz, but doesn't make > that extra stretch to 155 or 162 (WX), I'll be disappointed, because for > adding just a little more coverage, this rig could fulfill a VHF scanner > role (and much municipal VHF stuff is between 148-162 MHz). The real value of two-meter band coverage is to provide a *all-mode* VHF capability for the KX3. Outside 144 to 148 MHz, all-mode capability is pure waste, since almost everything outside that is FM mode, including all MARS operation that I've ever been aware of. Considering the give-away pricing on very small VHF FM HTs like the Yaesu VX-3R, that's what should be carried along with a KX3 station. Such HTs are fine general-purpose wide-range FM scanners, and even provide VHF-AM and UHF-AM aviation band coverage. It would be foolish to tie up the KX3 just for monitoring of weather and public service frequencies. Such is certainly an unnecessary design goal for the two-meter transverter option which would fall very short of the out-of-band capability provided by a cheap well-designed HT. In addition, it is often very convenient and sometimes necessary to cover two-meter FM and HF bands simultaneously. The only extended two-meter coverage that *might* be worthwhile is enough to cover MARS operation above and below the two-meter band. Mike / KK5F ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ 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 |
|
|
Johnny and the rest,
It has been said by numerous people on the FT-817 Yahoo Group on this subject (extended receive), they will do without the extra item in certain instances because carrying a second (or third) transceiver is not what they want to do. Having said that, I respect the designers enough to not argue about a design decision like this; if Wayne thought it could safely be done without compromising the quality of the received signals in the 2 meter band, he would have done it. Matthew Pitts N8OHU >________________________________ > From: Johnny Siu <[hidden email]> >To: Mike Morrow <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> >Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 10:23 PM >Subject: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? > >Agree. A small low price Chinese made H/T will simply fulfill the purpose. > > >TNX & 73, > > >Johnny VR2XMC > >從︰ Mike Morrow <[hidden email]> >收件人︰ [hidden email] >傳送日期︰ 2012年01月8日 (週日) 11:13 AM >主題︰ Re: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? > >> If it's already capable of receiving VHF through 148 MHz, but doesn't make >> that extra stretch to 155 or 162 (WX), I'll be disappointed, because for >> adding just a little more coverage, this rig could fulfill a VHF scanner >> role (and much municipal VHF stuff is between 148-162 MHz). > >The real value of two-meter band coverage is to provide a *all-mode* VHF >capability for the KX3. Outside 144 to 148 MHz, all-mode capability is >pure waste, since almost everything outside that is FM mode, including all >MARS operation that I've ever been aware of. > >Considering the give-away pricing on very small VHF FM HTs like the Yaesu >VX-3R, that's what should be carried along with a KX3 station. Such HTs >are fine general-purpose wide-range FM scanners, and even provide VHF-AM >and UHF-AM aviation band coverage. It would be foolish to tie up the KX3 >just for monitoring of weather and public service frequencies. Such is >certainly an unnecessary design goal for the two-meter transverter option >which would fall very short of the out-of-band capability provided by a >cheap well-designed HT. In addition, it is often very convenient and >sometimes necessary to cover two-meter FM and HF bands simultaneously. > >The only extended two-meter coverage that *might* be worthwhile is enough >to cover MARS operation above and below the two-meter band. > >Mike / KK5F >______________________________________________________________ >______________________________________________________________ >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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
Agreed, the big win on the KX3's 2 meter coverage is *all mode* capability
(and that's coming from someone who will never utilize it for that). As far as using an HT as scanner duty in a mobile is concerned - been there / done that, fiddly at best. > It would be foolish to tie up the KX3 just for monitoring of weather and public service frequencies. Well I just have to completely disagree with that. If you're not operating HF, why wouldn't you want to monitor those public service freqs without having to install a second rig? Sounds quite convenient to me. In fact, it's exactly what I'd like. But again, I realize I know nothing about the tradeoffs involved. KX3 still sounds like a winner. > In addition, it is often very convenient and sometimes necessary to cover two-meter FM and HF bands simultaneously. 100% agreed. > The only extended two-meter coverage that *might* be worthwhile is enough to cover MARS operation above and below the two-meter band. (I won't go into the obvious examples to the contrary) --Andrew, NV1B .. ______________________________________________________________ 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 Matthew Pitts
Hello Matt,
Not disagree but all depends on at 'what costs'. I also put up similar argument in the FT817 group. Currently, I have a Chinese made PUxing PX2R H/T with size similar to VX3R. It only costs me US$30 across the border in Shenzhen, China. I will let it work with my forthcoming KX3. TNX & 73, Johnny VR2XMC 從︰ Matthew Pitts <[hidden email]> 收件人︰ "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> 傳送日期︰ 2012年01月8日 (週日) 11:30 AM 主題︰ Re: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? Johnny and the rest, It has been said by numerous people on the FT-817 Yahoo Group on this subject (extended receive), they will do without the extra item in certain instances because carrying a second (or third) transceiver is not what they want to do. Having said that, I respect the designers enough to not argue about a design decision like this; if Wayne thought it could safely be done without compromising the quality of the received signals in the 2 meter band, he would have done it. Matthew Pitts N8OHU >________________________________ > From: Johnny Siu <[hidden email]> >To: Mike Morrow <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> >Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2012 10:23 PM >Subject: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? > >Agree. A small low price Chinese made H/T will simply fulfill the purpose. > > >TNX & 73, > > >Johnny VR2XMC > >從︰ Mike Morrow <[hidden email]> >收件人︰ [hidden email] >傳送日期︰ 2012年01月8日 (週日) 11:13 AM >主題︰ Re: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? > >> If it's already capable of receiving VHF through 148 MHz, but doesn't make >> that extra stretch to 155 or 162 (WX), I'll be disappointed, because for >> adding just a little more coverage, this rig could fulfill a VHF scanner >> role (and much municipal VHF stuff is between 148-162 MHz). > >The real value of two-meter band coverage is to provide a *all-mode* VHF >capability for the KX3. Outside 144 to 148 MHz, all-mode capability is >pure waste, since almost everything outside that is FM mode, including all >MARS operation that I've ever been aware of. > >Considering the give-away pricing on very small VHF FM HTs like the Yaesu >VX-3R, that's what should be carried along with a KX3 station. Such HTs >are fine general-purpose wide-range FM scanners, and even provide VHF-AM >and UHF-AM aviation band coverage. It would be foolish to tie up the KX3 >just for monitoring of weather and public service frequencies. Such is >certainly an unnecessary design goal for the two-meter transverter option >which would fall very short of the out-of-band capability provided by a >cheap well-designed HT. In addition, it is often very convenient and >sometimes necessary to cover two-meter FM and HF bands simultaneously. > >The only extended two-meter coverage that *might* be worthwhile is enough >to cover MARS operation above and below the two-meter band. > >Mike / KK5F >______________________________________________________________ >______________________________________________________________ >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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
Though I respect your opinion, Mike, and everyone else that shares the same sentiment, I must entirely disagree with your point about using an HT to supplement the KX3 vs. the multi-mode capability on 2m.
My basis for my comments is backpacking. I ask those that are consider the multi-mode operability of the KX3 as being the sole reason wideband receive is not feasible and that an HT must be required to supplement that which the KX3 does not cover if you have ever gone backpacking. That doesn't mean a short day hike or walking a mile to a camp site for the weekend, I am talking about packing everything you need for 2 or more days covering 20+ miles. I still consider these trips "short" or "small" in the grand scheme of "backpacking", but the point is that every pound you add is that much more weight you have to carry with you the whole time. Therefore by packing lighter and smaller the enjoyment of your adventure goes up and the effort, wear, and tear on ones body goes down. Have you experienced that and the different challenges associated with packing for treks like that? Have you felt the affects on your body after a trip like that? An example I will give you is on past trips I have taken my FT-857D on 3 day backpacking trips covering in the 18-24 mile range through the Appalachian mountains. The set up I have for the FT-857D complete is right around 15lbs. That's a LOT of weight. The reason it weighs what it does is mostly the rig and battery. Even though now that I have a K2 I can get by with less weight (lighter rig, lighter battery) I would have to supplement that with adding an HT for VHF/UHF. The FT-857D covers everything I need in one box - its a single rig solution and that out weighs the added weight. Starting with a base weight of 40lbs (my backpacking gear, food) adding 15lbs of radio stuff brings me up to 55lbs. Thats a very typical pack weight for me. Try it some time. Find a trail in the mountains that's a mile long and throw a 55lb backpack on to hike it. That will give you an idea of what its like. Now cover ~20 miles over a 3 day period. Adding extra gear to a backpack is probably the number one rule to avoid. Making due with less and using other items for multiple purposes, even getting creative and using items for purposes they were never designed for all helps to trim the overall pack weight. Adding an HT at a couple lbs is bad enough by itself, adding that weight on top of, say, 4-5lbs (KX3, batteries, antenna, key, mic, just a rough guess) really starts to add up. That is still lbs difference than my FT-857D set up. My last trip to TN I left my 857 behind and just took my HT. I couldn't handle the added weight - I was trying to stay well under 50lbs, but I had wet/cold weather gear with me and there was no way I could take another 15lbs. I ended up right about 50lbs as it was. I am not arguing the design of the KX3, just trying to paint a picture for those that may not have the perspective I do. The performance of the radio is one thing - and I agree that it is important. Operating from a mountain side in the wilderness is a huge world of difference than your shack desk, the back yard, or even the box you pack to take with you to the beach or your sisters house for Christmas. If there is a challenging environment to operate a rig from, aside from an RF environment (contesting, field day, etc) it would have to be in the weight/portability/performance class in that the smaller/lighter packages lend themselves to going where most radios will never go. The practicality of the extra band coverage cannot be down-played in those circumstances. I personally couldn't care less about the public service and MARS frequencies above 2m, its the NOAA weather channels because that is a very good resource on adventures. If that is something that could be added in another module, even, that would be neat. Its the "one rig" solution that is important to me. As it is the rig will fill a unique niche in my radio arsenal - which is why I ordered one - a CW AND SSB rig on HF in a compact, light, and well thought-out package. Steve, KC8QVO |
|
|
In reply to this post by Andrew Moore-3
Hi, Steve. thanks for offering up your perspective on the special case of
multiday backpack excursions. Agreed that when backpack camping "every ounce counts". I could not imagine carrying something like 15lbs of radio gear on such an excursion, as you did with the FT-857. However, if all you really are looking for is NOAA coverage for those times when you need to know immediately of impending danger- Wouldn't a small handheld NOAA alert radio for that single purpose make more sense? Such as this one, for instance: http://www.weatherradiostore.com/HH54VP2-Midland-Hand-Held-Weather-Radio-wit h-S.A.M.E.data This single-use handheld could be left on for alerts while actually moving, certainly weighs less than 8 ounces. Strapped to the outside of your pack, this would provide continuous alert capability while hiking (which the KX3 could not easily do while in motion, buried in your pack). Just a thought... 73, Bruce, N1RX ______________________________________________________________ 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 Andrew Moore-3
Steve wrote:
> My basis for my comments is backpacking. I ask those that are consider the > multi-mode operability of the KX3 as being the sole reason wideband receive > is not feasible and that an HT must be required to supplement that which the > KX3 does not cover if you have ever gone backpacking. That doesn't mean a > short day hike or walking a mile to a camp site for the weekend, I am > talking about packing everything you need for 2 or more days covering 20+ > miles. Portable operation out in the boonies has been more than 95 percent of my HF ham operation since completing military service 33 years ago. (I wasn't able to do much hamming in the service, even though I held a license long before.) My backpacking lineup since 2000 has been the K1 for HF, and some small HT for VHF/UHF coverage. I've used the VX-3R since 2007. The HT is set to cover FRS, local law enforcement in the area, game warden frequencies, local park and/or forest service frequencies, aircraft unicom, plus the odd ham repeater and simplex frequency. I research and make use of all available frequency data for the region I'm in. It can be useful. Power for the K1 is a 4.5 A h SLA battery, plus a reserve 10-AA cell pack. I also always carry a small AM-FM radio. > Have you experienced that and the different challenges associated with > packing for treks like that? Have you felt the affects on your body after > a trip like that? Er...yes...many time in the last third of a century. If you want a real workout, come to the Sipsey Wilderness in north Alabama since several EF4 and 5 tornadoes tore through it on 27 April 2011! > ...every pound you add is that much more weight you have to carry with you > the whole time. True, and that's why what you say later indicates that you are making life hard on yourself, without cause, when you state: > ...on past trips I have taken my FT-857D on 3 day backpacking trips covering > in the 18-24 mile range through the Appalachian mountains. The set up I have > for the FT-857D complete is right around 15 lbs. That's a LOT of weight. You're absolutely correct. That's an *insane* amount of weight for even an overnight trip. Your equipment choice would be among the very last I would choose. Let's look at some choices, popular or otherwise: Radio Weight (lbs) Volume (in^3) Receiver Current (amps) FT-857D 4.7 113 0.8 FT-817ND 2.6 52 0.35 K1 1.5 64 0.08 KX1 0.7 19 0.04 KX3 (prelim) 1.5 43 0.15 IMHO, the FT-817 and FT-857 are totally inappropriate for serious backpacking due to unit weight, the outrageous current consumption just on receive, and most significantly, the size of the power source (unless you've got a couple of furry helpers such as WG0AT has.) BTW, the VHF coverage of the 817ND does not reach the NOAA channels, and the VHF coverage of the 857D does not cover the frequencies most often used in the national parks, forests, rivers, etc. > Therefore by packing lighter and smaller the enjoyment of your adventure > goes up and the effort, wear, and tear on ones body goes down. One might reasonably suggest, based on the particulars in the above table, that selecting a rig appropriate for backpacking might be helpful. > The FT-857D covers everything I need in one box - its a single rig solution > and that out weighs the added weight. The 857D is **monstrously** heavy for backpacking! Almost five pounds! And stunningly energy inefficient. It's a mobile rig. Then there's the battery. I can't imagine carrying such a thing plus its battery on any sort of portable trip. I really really can not. I haven't done anything close to that since I carried the AN/PRC-25 FM backpack radio in service. > That will give you an idea of what its like. Thanks. > Adding extra gear to a backpack is probably the number one rule to avoid. Number one rule is "select the appropriate equipment"! > Adding an HT at a couple lbs is bad enough by itself, Do you know how large a wide-range HT like the VX-3R is? With spare battery pack it's five ounces, and less than 6 cubic inches in volume. You're worried about that??? Leave out one granola bar. :-) > I personally couldn't care less about the public service and MARS frequencies > above 2m, its the NOAA weather channels... But there are hams who have legitimate need of operating (transmitting) outside the ham bands as part of a service function. To cover completely all US service MARS VHF-FM frequencies, the KX3 two-meter module would need to function between 142 and 150 MHz. That's an expanded capability (if any is to be realized) with far more potential public service value than providing NOAA weather channel coverage. > ...the rig will fill a unique niche...a CW AND SSB rig on HF in a compact, > light, and well thought-out package. Well, it'll be one-third the weight and volume, plus one-quarter the receive power consumption of what you're using now. You'll fell positively unloaded, even if you carry an HT and five battery packs. :-) You never described the size, weight, and maximum service time of your battery. I actually broke both bones in my lower left leg on a solitary wilderness hike in 1998...but that's another story altogether, and it didn't involve any radio (not even cell phone) technology. 73, Mike / KK5F ______________________________________________________________ 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 Andrew Moore-3
I know where Steve is coming from with his reply, though you would
need to "step back in time a few decades". In the 1970's I was an inveterate backpacker, going nearly every weekend into the Sierra's where you park your car at 9,000 feet altitude and climb from there often over 12,000 foot passes. My typical backpack included 4-season "expedition" sleeping bag and similar level 2-person tent. This required an extension rack on the backpack which typ weighed 60-lbs. My weekend treks were typically 16-20 miles and this is not level walking, but often onto snow covered passes (in July). The ultimate "hike was when I took the "Wonderland Trail" that circum-navigates a 113-mi trail circling Mt. Rainier. My hiking partner and I preshipped two re-supply caches to accomplish this. We crossed two glaciers on that trek. A good friend of mine, KL3BD, made three ascents of Mt. McKinely (near 21,000 feet) carrying a 2m-HT. I talked to him a couple times on his climb. I can envision a KX3 going on such a trip some day. The point Steve is making is every extra ounce of weight is something that you must carry on your back. You want most of it to be "fuel" (i.e. food and not ballast). Taking two radios, each with a battery, is excessive on such trips. I can't even comprehend taking a 15-lb radio! OK that being said, let me address the technical issue. The KX3 is a direct conversion SDR that tunes to 54-MHz. There may be a technical upper limit on what this SDR can cover in frequency. Note the 144-148 is added via a transverter (meaning it is hetrodyned down to 50-54). I would suspect to cover 162.55 MHz would require a separate Rx converter, so it may be easier to consider a separate radio for that. Asking for the 2m transverter to include the wx band would probably involve major redesign: two-freq LO plus RF circuitry that would be tuned to 162-163 MHz. There becomes a technical/physical limit to what can be added in functionality in one radio. Providing wideband circuits to provide decent Rx sensitivity over 144-163 MHz is problematic to obtaining good performance on the primary objective of the 2m band. An example is my K3 which tunes 28-32 MHz for receiving 144-148 but does not transmit well above 146-MHz. Elecraft solved that for its own line of transverters by providing two LO freqs. to use 28-30 MHz. The fact they decided to use the 6m band as IF for 2m on the KX3 is proof they are thinking how to improve. Seriously, I would be surprised if the wx-band can be added (though I understand the wish for that). 73, Ed - KL7UW PS: Hiking now consist of hauling luggage thru airport terminals! ------------------------------ Message: 47 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 07:32:45 -0800 (PST) From: Steve KC8QVO <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3-2M extended receive? To: [hidden email] Message-ID: <[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Though I respect your opinion, Mike, and everyone else that shares the same sentiment, I must entirely disagree with your point about using an HT to supplement the KX3 vs. the multi-mode capability on 2m. My basis for my comments is backpacking. I ask those that are consider the multi-mode operability of the KX3 as being the sole reason wideband receive is not feasible and that an HT must be required to supplement that which the KX3 does not cover if you have ever gone backpacking. That doesn't mean a short day hike or walking a mile to a camp site for the weekend, I am talking about packing everything you need for 2 or more days covering 20+ miles. ========snipped the remainder for brevity. 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 ====================================== BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 50-1.1kw?, 144-1.4kw, 432-QRT, 1296-?, 3400-? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [hidden email] Coming Soon - "Kits made by KL7UW" ====================================== ______________________________________________________________ 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 Andrew Moore-3
Greetings,
Forgive me if I sound lame. I rely on communications for my life sometimes, and like diving, REDUNDANCY is the key to survival when it comes down to it. I think the KX3 is about as broad range as a thing can get for the price. And as far as monitoring Weather and stuff, I personally use a VHF Marine portable since they are cheap and rugged; a good backup in the boonies, and great for listening to Weather, or having fun next to a fire listening to CB'er type babble. Rubber Duckie 10/4 Out! For emergency response too, VHF Marine is good because its monitored for such more often than not. In a world where like computers, they try to make them to cover every facet of thought, it makes for a confusing and complicated thing and will need updating more often than the hours of usability. Its my opinion the KX3 is well in the ballpark of playing the ballgame its built for. Why make a Hockey Field on top of a Rugby Field and play both games simultaneously? Could be entertaining if enough beers were given away. But would get goofy after a few days of it. My opinion anyway. Tschus! Georg Curnutt |
«
Return to [KX3]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |