Elecraft › [KX3]

KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Classic

List

Threaded

Locked 39 messages Options

TF3KX

KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

I am watching the KX3 evolution with great interest. It appears to bear lots of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where these two will differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare against some of the other rigs around today.

Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the primary differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in terms of technical specs (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with similar RF/DSP architecture?), features, etc.?

73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
..proud maker and owner of K2 #6425

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Administrator

On Jun 5, 2011, at 8:49 PM, TF3KX wrote:

> I am watching the KX3 evolution with great interest. It appears to
> bear lots
> of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where these two
> will
> differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare against some
> of the
> other rigs around today.
>
> Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the primary
> differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in terms of
> technical specs
> (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with similar RF/DSP
> architecture?), features, etc.?

Hi Kristinn,

The KX3 uses a different transceive architecture from the K3 -- one
that is more consistent with a portable, lightweight radio that has
lower current drain and a lot fewer components. But it's not a toy. It
will have performance comparable to many full-size transceivers. We'll
have a lot more to say about this when we complete the update from
prototype to field test.

As far as features go, the KX3 is exactly midway between the KX1 and
K3. Like the KX1 it is fully self-contained, with optional internal
batteries, ATU, and attached keyer paddle. But it covers 160-6 m, like
a K3, as well as all modes. It has a user interface that's very
similar to the K3's, including the same full-sized LCD, five encoders
(optical for VFO A), and full-custom knobs and switches. It has many
of the same special features as the K3, including built-in decode/
display of CW, RTTY, and PSK31; dual VFOs; full stereo audio effects,
etc.

It has extremely low current drain for a state-of-the-art DSP-based
transceiver, at about 150 mA minimum (LCD backlight off). You should
get from 5 to 15 hours of operation from internal batteries depending
on your transmit/receive ratio.

For further details please see our home page (click on the KX3 photo).

73,
Wayne
N6KR

______________________________________________________________
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

juergen piezo

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by TF3KX

Hi Kristinn

What i dont get is why people expect so much performance from a
so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable operation generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for weight, size and battery life.

While its nice having great receiver specifications, you do have to be realistic about the real world requirements that is placed on the receiver when operating portable.

For me battery life, convenience and power output are very important requirements rather than world beating receiver specifications.
I would gladly have 30 watts output over ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks run 20 to 30 watts for good reasons.

10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic range.

If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however I can live with lesser receiver performance when operating with marginal antennas.

What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver is important when using short portable antennas.

We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a 10,000 dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your hand! After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my DC receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable with full size low dipoles.

73
John

--- On Sun, 6/5/11, TF3KX <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: TF3KX <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 8:49 PM
> I am watching the KX3 evolution with
> great interest. It appears to bear lots
> of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where
> these two will
> differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare
> against some of the
> other rigs around today.
>
> Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the
> primary
> differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in
> terms of technical specs
> (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with
> similar RF/DSP
> architecture?), features, etc.?
>
> 73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
> ..proud maker and owner of K2 #6425
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6443819.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
>

______________________________________________________________
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

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Administrator

John,

You can also think of the KX3 as a full-featured (if ultra-compact)
desktop radio, with a full 100 W if you add the external amp. Hence
the excellent receiver performance :)

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Jun 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, juergen wrote:

> Hi Kristinn
>
> What i dont get is why people expect so much performance from a
> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable operation
> generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for weight, size and
> battery life.
>
> While its nice having great receiver specifications, you do have to
> be realistic about the real world requirements that is placed on the
> receiver when operating portable.
>
> For me battery life, convenience and power output are very important
> requirements rather than world beating receiver specifications.
> I would gladly have 30 watts output over ultimate receiver
> performance. Most military manpacks run 20 to 30 watts for good
> reasons.
>
> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does not demand a
> receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic range.
>
> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver performance for a
> bargain price I wont say NO, however I can live with lesser receiver
> performance when operating with marginal antennas.
>
> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that will tune a 9 to
> 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a end fed wire on all
> bands. A low noise figure receiver is important when using short
> portable antennas.
>
> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with baited breath. Time will
> tell whether we will get a 10,000 dollar contest radio that fits
> into the palm of your hand! After all my years of operating, I have
> yet to have my DC receiver overload on 40 meters when operating
> portable with full size low dipoles.
>
> 73
> John
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 6/5/11, TF3KX <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: TF3KX <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 8:49 PM
>> I am watching the KX3 evolution with
>> great interest. It appears to bear lots
>> of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where
>> these two will
>> differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare
>> against some of the
>> other rigs around today.
>>
>> Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the
>> primary
>> differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in
>> terms of technical specs
>> (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with
>> similar RF/DSP
>> architecture?), features, etc.?
>>
>> 73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
>> ..proud maker and owner of K2 #6425
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6443819.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
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Buddy Brannan

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

More to the point, and maybe I'm missing something very obvious, wouldn't having as good a receiver as possible be nothing but good for portable, compromise antenna operation? I mean, wouldn't you want your receiver to do as much with the available radio energy as possible, especially when you have to make compromises on antennas? Also, "Can't work 'em if you can't hear 'em" eems to apply here. What good is a bigger signal if you can't hear who's hearing you?

I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing the KX3. Pedestrian portable is very appealing to me, especially since I can't stick my rig in the car (because I don't have one...a car, I mean).
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY

On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:

> John,
>
> You can also think of the KX3 as a full-featured (if ultra-compact)
> desktop radio, with a full 100 W if you add the external amp. Hence
> the excellent receiver performance :)
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, juergen wrote:
>
>> Hi Kristinn
>>
>> What i dont get is why people expect so much performance from a
>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable operation
>> generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for weight, size and
>> battery life.
>>
>> While its nice having great receiver specifications, you do have to
>> be realistic about the real world requirements that is placed on the
>> receiver when operating portable.
>>
>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are very important
>> requirements rather than world beating receiver specifications.
>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over ultimate receiver
>> performance. Most military manpacks run 20 to 30 watts for good
>> reasons.
>>
>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does not demand a
>> receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic range.
>>
>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver performance for a
>> bargain price I wont say NO, however I can live with lesser receiver
>> performance when operating with marginal antennas.
>>
>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that will tune a 9 to
>> 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a end fed wire on all
>> bands. A low noise figure receiver is important when using short
>> portable antennas.
>>
>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with baited breath. Time will
>> tell whether we will get a 10,000 dollar contest radio that fits
>> into the palm of your hand! After all my years of operating, I have
>> yet to have my DC receiver overload on 40 meters when operating
>> portable with full size low dipoles.
>>
>> 73
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 6/5/11, TF3KX <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: TF3KX <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 8:49 PM
>>> I am watching the KX3 evolution with
>>> great interest. It appears to bear lots
>>> of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where
>>> these two will
>>> differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare
>>> against some of the
>>> other rigs around today.
>>>
>>> Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the
>>> primary
>>> differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in
>>> terms of technical specs
>>> (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with
>>> similar RF/DSP
>>> architecture?), features, etc.?
>>>
>>> 73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
>>> ..proud maker and owner of K2 #6425
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6443819.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
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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

Jack Chomley

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

The KX3 will be just what I need, for my kayak, marine mobile ;-)
http://vk4djc.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=11608735

73,

Jack VK4JRC

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Buddy Brannan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> More to the point, and maybe I'm missing something very obvious, wouldn't
> having as good a receiver as possible be nothing but good for portable,
> compromise antenna operation? I mean, wouldn't you want your receiver to do
> as much with the available radio energy as possible, especially when you
> have to make compromises on antennas? Also, "Can't work 'em if you can't
> hear 'em" eems to apply here. What good is a bigger signal if you can't hear
> who's hearing you?
>
> I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing the KX3. Pedestrian
> portable is very appealing to me, especially since I can't stick my rig in
> the car (because I don't have one...a car, I mean).
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > You can also think of the KX3 as a full-featured (if ultra-compact)
> > desktop radio, with a full 100 W if you add the external amp. Hence
> > the excellent receiver performance :)
> >
> > 73,
> > Wayne
> > N6KR
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, juergen wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kristinn
> >>
> >> What i dont get is why people expect so much performance from a
> >> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable operation
> >> generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for weight, size and
> >> battery life.
> >>
> >> While its nice having great receiver specifications, you do have to
> >> be realistic about the real world requirements that is placed on the
> >> receiver when operating portable.
> >>
> >> For me battery life, convenience and power output are very important
> >> requirements rather than world beating receiver specifications.
> >> I would gladly have 30 watts output over ultimate receiver
> >> performance. Most military manpacks run 20 to 30 watts for good
> >> reasons.
> >>
> >> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does not demand a
> >> receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic range.
> >>
> >> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver performance for a
> >> bargain price I wont say NO, however I can live with lesser receiver
> >> performance when operating with marginal antennas.
> >>
> >> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that will tune a 9 to
> >> 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a end fed wire on all
> >> bands. A low noise figure receiver is important when using short
> >> portable antennas.
> >>
> >> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with baited breath. Time will
> >> tell whether we will get a 10,000 dollar contest radio that fits
> >> into the palm of your hand! After all my years of operating, I have
> >> yet to have my DC receiver overload on 40 meters when operating
> >> portable with full size low dipoles.
> >>
> >> 73
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- On Sun, 6/5/11, TF3KX <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: TF3KX <[hidden email]>
> >>> Subject: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
> >>> To: [hidden email]
> >>> Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 8:49 PM
> >>> I am watching the KX3 evolution with
> >>> great interest. It appears to bear lots
> >>> of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where
> >>> these two will
> >>> differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare
> >>> against some of the
> >>> other rigs around today.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the
> >>> primary
> >>> differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in
> >>> terms of technical specs
> >>> (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with
> >>> similar RF/DSP
> >>> architecture?), features, etc.?
> >>>
> >>> 73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
> >>> ..proud maker and owner of K2 #6425
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context:
> http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6443819.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
> >>>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> 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
>

Mark Bayern

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by Buddy Brannan

I think part of the problem when discussing 'good receiver
performance' is in the definition. In a trail friendly radio I expect
a receiver that is able create a readable signal with a very
inefficient antenna. To me a TFR doesn't have to worry so much about
blocking locally produced strong signals. I wouldn't expect a TFR to
do well as well as a K3 at a multi-transmitter contest site such as
Field Day.

Mark AD5SS

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Buddy Brannan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> More to the point, and maybe I'm missing something very obvious, wouldn't having as good a receiver as possible be nothing but good for portable, compromise antenna operation? I mean, wouldn't you want your receiver to do as much with the available radio energy as possible, especially when you have to make compromises on antennas? Also, "Can't work 'em if you can't hear 'em" eems to apply here. What good is a bigger signal if you can't hear who's hearing you?
>
> I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing the KX3. Pedestrian portable is very appealing to me, especially since I can't stick my rig in the car (because I don't have one...a car, I mean).
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Wayne Burdick wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> You can also think of the KX3 as a full-featured (if ultra-compact)
>> desktop radio, with a full 100 W if you add the external amp. Hence
>> the excellent receiver performance :)
>>
>> 73,
>> Wayne
>> N6KR
>>
>> On Jun 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, juergen wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kristinn
>>>
>>> What i dont get is why people expect so much performance from a
>>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable operation
>>> generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for weight, size and
>>> battery life.
>>>
>>> While its nice having great receiver specifications, you do have to
>>> be realistic about the real world requirements that is placed on the
>>> receiver when operating portable.
>>>
>>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are very important
>>> requirements rather than world beating receiver specifications.
>>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over ultimate receiver
>>> performance. Most military manpacks run 20 to 30 watts for good
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does not demand a
>>> receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic range.
>>>
>>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver performance for a
>>> bargain price I wont say NO, however I can live with lesser receiver
>>> performance when operating with marginal antennas.
>>>
>>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that will tune a 9 to
>>> 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a end fed wire on all
>>> bands. A low noise figure receiver is important when using short
>>> portable antennas.
>>>
>>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with baited breath. Time will
>>> tell whether we will get a 10,000 dollar contest radio that fits
>>> into the palm of your hand! After all my years of operating, I have
>>> yet to have my DC receiver overload on 40 meters when operating
>>> portable with full size low dipoles.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Sun, 6/5/11, TF3KX <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: TF3KX <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011, 8:49 PM
>>>> I am watching the KX3 evolution with
>>>> great interest. It appears to bear lots
>>>> of resemblance to the K3, but it is not clear to me where
>>>> these two will
>>>> differ. Or, for that matter, how the KX3 will compare
>>>> against some of the
>>>> other rigs around today.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any place that shows, or can someone list up, the
>>>> primary
>>>> differences between, say, KX3 and K3? Not only in
>>>> terms of technical specs
>>>> (IMD, etc.), but also the internal structure (both with
>>>> similar RF/DSP
>>>> architecture?), features, etc.?
>>>>
>>>> 73 - Kristinn, TF3KX
>>>> ..proud maker and owner of K2 #6425
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6443819.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
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>

Dave KQ3T

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by juergen piezo

Here are a couple of additional factors to consider.

1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would have an impact on
either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to maintain a
desired battery life) or the battery life (the existing batteries would
not last as long at the higher power level).

2. It is much easier to add an external power amplifier, if desired,
than to significantly improve receiver performance at a later date.

73,
Dave, KQ3T

On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote:

> Hi Kristinn
>
> What i dont get is why people expect so much performance from a
> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable operation generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for weight, size and battery life.
>
> While its nice having great receiver specifications, you do have to be realistic about the real world requirements that is placed on the receiver when operating portable.
>
> For me battery life, convenience and power output are very important requirements rather than world beating receiver specifications.
> I would gladly have 30 watts output over ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks run 20 to 30 watts for good reasons.
>
> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic range.
>
> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however I can live with lesser receiver performance when operating with marginal antennas.
>
> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver is important when using short portable antennas.
>
> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a 10,000 dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your hand! After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my DC receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable with full size low dipoles.
>
> 73
> John
>

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by juergen piezo

I will start by stating that the Texas DX Society has found the Kenwood TS-480
to have a receiver that is adequate for DXpedition and Field Day work. As
contest director of TDXS I am in complete agreement with this finding. I know
only what has been published on this forum about the KX3 which leads me to
believe that the KX3 will probably have a better receiver than the TS-480 and
approach that of the K3. The architecture of the KX3 promises to be a good deal
more flexible that the TS-480 with a control head and remote transceiver. The
TS-480 is not in the picture for a back pack operation. My opinion is that the
KX3 will be a great winner if it equals the TS-480 because it is more flexible.
If it is as good as the K3, that is even better. If any design team is capable
of K3 performance in a flexible package, it is Wayne, Eric, et. al. and I am
eager to see how they come out. They are very brave to give us the preliminary
peek we now have and I am eager to see the final product, but not so eager that
I want them to release it before they are ready.

Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart
______________________________________________________________
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

juergen piezo

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by Dave KQ3T

Hi Dave

The point you make about the added complexity is valid.

However from a communications effectiveness point of 20 watts is a much more realistic power level, especially for SSB QSO's. Most of the Mil Manpacks use this output power level.

I operate portable using mil HF manpacks with the power varying between 20 and 30 watts. I also have a SGC2020. 95% of the time on the first call I can get through and have the standard cookie cutter qso's and move on. If you try and do the same with 10 watts its very frustrating and much more of a struggle. These are NA Q's not local stuff. 5 to 10 watts is good power level for CW. For SSB 20 watts is far more effective, even with simple whips. Everyone will say its only 3db, however that 3db makes a huge difference when using simple antennas especially on SSB.

While the AMP might be the answer, looking at the projected images and size, it will be a huge hassle carrying another box around. If you consider the size of Yaesu FT857, which runs a full 100 watts of output and its design is very neatly integrated into a tiny package, the KX3 with an external amplifier will be awkward by comparison.

A FT857 with some AA batteries was carried to the top of Mount Kilimanjaro by HB9BXE. The operator successfully had many qso at 20 watts of output. He probably would not have packed a KX3 and amplifier if it was available then.

I dont see why a duplicate of the KX3's PA could mot be offered as a piggy back box with another set of 8 batteries. I would rather follow that option than the 100 watt linear option. It certainly would be a lot smaller and portable than the 100 watt PA. I am sure many homebrewers will explore this option.

Anyway time will tell. There is always the hombrew/modification option. The KX3 has a lot of potential and the design is 98% there.

73
John

--- On Mon, 6/6/11, Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:40 AM
> Here are a couple of additional
> factors to consider.
>
> 1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would have
> an impact on
> either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to
> maintain a
> desired battery life) or the battery life (the existing
> batteries would
> not last as long at the higher power level).
>
> 2. It is much easier to add an external power amplifier, if
> desired,
> than to significantly improve receiver performance at a
> later date.
>
> 73,
> Dave, KQ3T
>
> On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote:
> > Hi Kristinn
> >
> > What i dont get is why people expect so much
> performance from a
> > so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable
> operation generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for
> weight, size and battery life.
> >
> > While its nice having great receiver specifications,
> you do have to be realistic about the real world
> requirements that is placed on the receiver when operating
> portable.
> >
> > For me battery life, convenience and power output are
> very important requirements rather than world beating
> receiver specifications.
> > I would gladly have 30 watts output over
> ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks run 20
> to 30 watts for good reasons.
> >
> > 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does
> not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic
> range.
> >
> > If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver
> performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however I can
> live with lesser receiver performance when operating with
> marginal antennas.
> >
> > What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that
> will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a
> end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver
> is important when using short portable antennas.
> >
> > We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with
> baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a 10,000
> dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your hand!
> After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my DC
> receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable with
> full size low dipoles.
> >
> > 73
> > 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
>

Dave KK7SS

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by TF3KX

Back in the late '60's I helped develope and test the first RACAL military SSB Manpack (basically 3-8 Mhz).
It used an flexible tape whip approcimately 10ft long.
This was end loaded using a permeability tuned circuit internal to the rig.
Although it worked well, I don't believe there is enough room in the KX3 for such a circuit.

Also, the antenna was mounted directly on the face-plate to minimize losses (Hah!) I'm pretty sure the PCB mounted antenna socket on the KX3 (a guess!) would not be able to take the stress.

As for "if your can't hear them... etc.", my K2 could hear the rare DX but, with my low backyard dipole, most of the time I couldn't work them... but it was still a thrill to be able to hear them.

My best qrp SSB dx (to date) with 5W + dipole is Beijing on 20M. Just dumb luck <Grin>

73 to all. :-)

--
Dave G KK7SS
DN06ig Richland, WA

'59 Morris Minor 1000
'65 Sprite - in process
'76 Midget - shared with my #4 son.
'06 Honda Civic Hybrid
______________________________________________________________
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

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Administrator

In reply to this post by juergen piezo

We could offer a KXPA30 amplifier to deal with the need for more power
in a much smaller size. But not anytime soon....

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:10 AM, juergen wrote:

>
> Hi Dave
>
> The point you make about the added complexity is valid.
>
> However from a communications effectiveness point of 20 watts is a
> much more realistic power level, especially for SSB QSO's. Most of
> the Mil Manpacks use this output power level.
>
> I operate portable using mil HF manpacks with the power varying
> between 20 and 30 watts. I also have a SGC2020. 95% of the time on
> the first call I can get through and have the standard cookie
> cutter qso's and move on. If you try and do the same with 10 watts
> its very frustrating and much more of a struggle. These are NA Q's
> not local stuff. 5 to 10 watts is good power level for CW. For SSB
> 20 watts is far more effective, even with simple whips. Everyone
> will say its only 3db, however that 3db makes a huge difference when
> using simple antennas especially on SSB.
>
> While the AMP might be the answer, looking at the projected images
> and size, it will be a huge hassle carrying another box around. If
> you consider the size of Yaesu FT857, which runs a full 100 watts of
> output and its design is very neatly integrated into a tiny
> package, the KX3 with an external amplifier will be awkward by
> comparison.
>
> A FT857 with some AA batteries was carried to the top of Mount
> Kilimanjaro by HB9BXE. The operator successfully had many qso at 20
> watts of output. He probably would not have packed a KX3 and
> amplifier if it was available then.
>
> I dont see why a duplicate of the KX3's PA could mot be offered as
> a piggy back box with another set of 8 batteries. I would rather
> follow that option than the 100 watt linear option. It certainly
> would be a lot smaller and portable than the 100 watt PA. I am sure
> many homebrewers will explore this option.
>
> Anyway time will tell. There is always the hombrew/modification
> option. The KX3 has a lot of potential and the design is 98% there.
>
> 73
> John
>
> --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:40 AM
>> Here are a couple of additional
>> factors to consider.
>>
>> 1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would have
>> an impact on
>> either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to
>> maintain a
>> desired battery life) or the battery life (the existing
>> batteries would
>> not last as long at the higher power level).
>>
>> 2. It is much easier to add an external power amplifier, if
>> desired,
>> than to significantly improve receiver performance at a
>> later date.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave, KQ3T
>>
>> On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote:
>>> Hi Kristinn
>>>
>>> What i dont get is why people expect so much
>> performance from a
>>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable
>> operation generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for
>> weight, size and battery life.
>>>
>>> While its nice having great receiver specifications,
>> you do have to be realistic about the real world
>> requirements that is placed on the receiver when operating
>> portable.
>>>
>>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are
>> very important requirements rather than world beating
>> receiver specifications.
>>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over
>> ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks run 20
>> to 30 watts for good reasons.
>>>
>>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does
>> not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic
>> range.
>>>
>>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver
>> performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however I can
>> live with lesser receiver performance when operating with
>> marginal antennas.
>>>
>>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that
>> will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a
>> end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver
>> is important when using short portable antennas.
>>>
>>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with
>> baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a 10,000
>> dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your hand!
>> After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my DC
>> receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable with
>> full size low dipoles.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> 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
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

Stephen G4SJP

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Wayne,

Don't forget the KXPA200 for the car!

73, Stephen G4SJP

On 6 June 2011 16:26, Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We could offer a KXPA30 amplifier to deal with the need for more power
> in a much smaller size. But not anytime soon....
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:10 AM, juergen wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Dave
> >
> > The point you make about the added complexity is valid.
> >
> > However from a communications effectiveness point of 20 watts is a
> > much more realistic power level, especially for SSB QSO's. Most of
> > the Mil Manpacks use this output power level.
> >
> > I operate portable using mil HF manpacks with the power varying
> > between 20 and 30 watts. I also have a SGC2020. 95% of the time on
> > the first call I can get through and have the standard cookie
> > cutter qso's and move on. If you try and do the same with 10 watts
> > its very frustrating and much more of a struggle. These are NA Q's
> > not local stuff. 5 to 10 watts is good power level for CW. For SSB
> > 20 watts is far more effective, even with simple whips. Everyone
> > will say its only 3db, however that 3db makes a huge difference when
> > using simple antennas especially on SSB.
> >
> > While the AMP might be the answer, looking at the projected images
> > and size, it will be a huge hassle carrying another box around. If
> > you consider the size of Yaesu FT857, which runs a full 100 watts of
> > output and its design is very neatly integrated into a tiny
> > package, the KX3 with an external amplifier will be awkward by
> > comparison.
> >
> > A FT857 with some AA batteries was carried to the top of Mount
> > Kilimanjaro by HB9BXE. The operator successfully had many qso at 20
> > watts of output. He probably would not have packed a KX3 and
> > amplifier if it was available then.
> >
> > I dont see why a duplicate of the KX3's PA could mot be offered as
> > a piggy back box with another set of 8 batteries. I would rather
> > follow that option than the 100 watt linear option. It certainly
> > would be a lot smaller and portable than the 100 watt PA. I am sure
> > many homebrewers will explore this option.
> >
> > Anyway time will tell. There is always the hombrew/modification
> > option. The KX3 has a lot of potential and the design is 98% there.
> >
> > 73
> > John
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:40 AM
> >> Here are a couple of additional
> >> factors to consider.
> >>
> >> 1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would have
> >> an impact on
> >> either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to
> >> maintain a
> >> desired battery life) or the battery life (the existing
> >> batteries would
> >> not last as long at the higher power level).
> >>
> >> 2. It is much easier to add an external power amplifier, if
> >> desired,
> >> than to significantly improve receiver performance at a
> >> later date.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Dave, KQ3T
> >>
> >> On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote:
> >>> Hi Kristinn
> >>>
> >>> What i dont get is why people expect so much
> >> performance from a
> >>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable
> >> operation generally uses poor antennas and is optimized for
> >> weight, size and battery life.
> >>>
> >>> While its nice having great receiver specifications,
> >> you do have to be realistic about the real world
> >> requirements that is placed on the receiver when operating
> >> portable.
> >>>
> >>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are
> >> very important requirements rather than world beating
> >> receiver specifications.
> >>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over
> >> ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks run 20
> >> to 30 watts for good reasons.
> >>>
> >>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation does
> >> not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic
> >> range.
> >>>
> >>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver
> >> performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however I can
> >> live with lesser receiver performance when operating with
> >> marginal antennas.
> >>>
> >>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that
> >> will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or alternatively a
> >> end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver
> >> is important when using short portable antennas.
> >>>
> >>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with
> >> baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a 10,000
> >> dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your hand!
> >> After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my DC
> >> receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable with
> >> full size low dipoles.
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> 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
> >>
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > 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
>

Alan Bloom

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by Mark Bayern

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:28 -0500, Mark Bayern wrote:
> ...a trail friendly radio ... doesn't have to worry so much about
> blocking locally produced strong signals. I wouldn't expect a TFR to
> do well as well as a K3 at a multi-transmitter contest site such as
> Field Day.

But I think Field Day would be a prime application for the KX3. A
bullet-proof front end and a low-phase-noise transmitter are essential
when you have antennas spaced close together like on a FD site.

Also, I suspect a lot of people are going to use the KX3 for their fixed
station as well. It would make a great starter rig for a new ham or as
a second rig for an old timer.

Alan N1AL

______________________________________________________________
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

Alan Bloom

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by juergen piezo

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 08:10 -0700, juergen wrote:

> However from a communications effectiveness point of 20 watts is a
> much more realistic power level, especially for SSB QSO's.

The difference between 10 and 20 watts is only 3 dB, half an S-unit.
Compared to the 20-30 dB of QSB you often find on the HF bands, you
would hardly even notice such a small difference. I think it is quite
rare that 3 dB would be the difference between making a contact or not.

Alan N1AL

______________________________________________________________
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

Eugene Balinski

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by wayne burdick

All,

The improvement in communications effectiveness of 20
watts verses 10 watts is valid - much more than the 3 dB
increase in power would seem to suggest. I have seen the
same results as with my SG-2020 as was mentioned below.
Part of the effectiveness of that particular radio is the
VOGAD speech processor as well. A similar algorithm for
the KX3 speech process might be something to consider
later.

A small 30W PA with antenna tuner that would mount to
the back of the KX3 would be simply amazing. Include a
larger rechargeable battery pack and it probably couldn't
get much better - IMHO

73

Gene K1NR

K2 6Kxx

On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:26:14 -0700
Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We could offer a KXPA30 amplifier to deal with the need
> for more power
> in a much smaller size. But not anytime soon....
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:10 AM, juergen wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Dave
> >
> > The point you make about the added complexity is valid.
> >
> > However from a communications effectiveness point of
> 20 watts is a
> > much more realistic power level, especially for SSB
> QSO's. Most of
> > the Mil Manpacks use this output power level.
> >
> > I operate portable using mil HF manpacks with the power
> varying
> > between 20 and 30 watts. I also have a SGC2020. 95% of
> the time on
> > the first call I can get through and have the standard
> cookie
> > cutter qso's and move on. If you try and do the same
> with 10 watts
> > its very frustrating and much more of a struggle. These
> are NA Q's
> > not local stuff. 5 to 10 watts is good power level for
> CW. For SSB
> > 20 watts is far more effective, even with simple whips.
> Everyone
> > will say its only 3db, however that 3db makes a huge
> difference when
> > using simple antennas especially on SSB.
> >
> > While the AMP might be the answer, looking at the
> projected images
> > and size, it will be a huge hassle carrying another box
> around. If
> > you consider the size of Yaesu FT857, which runs a full
> 100 watts of
> > output and its design is very neatly integrated into a
> tiny
> > package, the KX3 with an external amplifier will be
> awkward by
> > comparison.
> >
> > A FT857 with some AA batteries was carried to the top
> of Mount
> > Kilimanjaro by HB9BXE. The operator successfully had
> many qso at 20
> > watts of output. He probably would not have packed a
> KX3 and
> > amplifier if it was available then.
> >
> > I dont see why a duplicate of the KX3's PA could mot
> be offered as
> > a piggy back box with another set of 8 batteries. I
> would rather
> > follow that option than the 100 watt linear option. It
> certainly
> > would be a lot smaller and portable than the 100 watt
> PA. I am sure
> > many homebrewers will explore this option.
> >
> > Anyway time will tell. There is always the
> hombrew/modification
> > option. The KX3 has a lot of potential and the design
> is 98% there.
> >
> > 73
> > John
> >
> > --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:40 AM
> >> Here are a couple of additional
> >> factors to consider.
> >>
> >> 1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would
> have
> >> an impact on
> >> either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to
> >> maintain a
> >> desired battery life) or the battery life (the
> existing
> >> batteries would
> >> not last as long at the higher power level).
> >>
> >> 2. It is much easier to add an external power
> amplifier, if
> >> desired,
> >> than to significantly improve receiver performance at
> a
> >> later date.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Dave, KQ3T
> >>
> >> On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote:
> >>> Hi Kristinn
> >>>
> >>> What i dont get is why people expect so much
> >> performance from a
> >>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable
> >> operation generally uses poor antennas and is
> optimized for
> >> weight, size and battery life.
> >>>
> >>> While its nice having great receiver specifications,
> >> you do have to be realistic about the real world
> >> requirements that is placed on the receiver when
> operating
> >> portable.
> >>>
> >>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are
> >> very important requirements rather than world beating
> >> receiver specifications.
> >>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over
> >> ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks
> run 20
> >> to 30 watts for good reasons.
> >>>
> >>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation
> does
> >> not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic
> >> range.
> >>>
> >>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver
> >> performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however
> I can
> >> live with lesser receiver performance when operating
> with
> >> marginal antennas.
> >>>
> >>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that
> >> will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or
> alternatively a
> >> end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver
> >> is important when using short portable antennas.
> >>>
> >>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with
> >> baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a
> 10,000
> >> dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your
> hand!
> >> After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my
> DC
> >> receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable
> with
> >> full size low dipoles.
> >>>
> >>> 73
> >>> 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
> >>
> >
>

______________________________________________________________

> > 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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
http://www.nni.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

wayne burdick

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Administrator

Effective speech processing will be a given. A 30-W PA is purely
hypothetical at this point.

Just to save a lot more postings on this subject: The KX3 will be
limited to 10 watts PEP in its basic form.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Eugene Balinski wrote:

> All,
>
> The improvement in communications effectiveness of 20
> watts verses 10 watts is valid - much more than the 3 dB
> increase in power would seem to suggest. I have seen the
> same results as with my SG-2020 as was mentioned below.
> Part of the effectiveness of that particular radio is the
> VOGAD speech processor as well. A similar algorithm for
> the KX3 speech process might be something to consider
> later.
>
> A small 30W PA with antenna tuner that would mount to
> the back of the KX3 would be simply amazing. Include a
> larger rechargeable battery pack and it probably couldn't
> get much better - IMHO
>
> 73
>
> Gene K1NR
>
> K2 6Kxx
>
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 08:26:14 -0700
> Wayne Burdick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> We could offer a KXPA30 amplifier to deal with the need
>> for more power
>> in a much smaller size. But not anytime soon....
>>
>> 73,
>> Wayne
>> N6KR
>>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 8:10 AM, juergen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Dave
>>>
>>> The point you make about the added complexity is valid.
>>>
>>> However from a communications effectiveness point of
>> 20 watts is a
>>> much more realistic power level, especially for SSB
>> QSO's. Most of
>>> the Mil Manpacks use this output power level.
>>>
>>> I operate portable using mil HF manpacks with the power
>> varying
>>> between 20 and 30 watts. I also have a SGC2020. 95% of
>> the time on
>>> the first call I can get through and have the standard
>> cookie
>>> cutter qso's and move on. If you try and do the same
>> with 10 watts
>>> its very frustrating and much more of a struggle. These
>> are NA Q's
>>> not local stuff. 5 to 10 watts is good power level for
>> CW. For SSB
>>> 20 watts is far more effective, even with simple whips.
>> Everyone
>>> will say its only 3db, however that 3db makes a huge
>> difference when
>>> using simple antennas especially on SSB.
>>>
>>> While the AMP might be the answer, looking at the
>> projected images
>>> and size, it will be a huge hassle carrying another box
>> around. If
>>> you consider the size of Yaesu FT857, which runs a full
>> 100 watts of
>>> output and its design is very neatly integrated into a
>> tiny
>>> package, the KX3 with an external amplifier will be
>> awkward by
>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> A FT857 with some AA batteries was carried to the top
>> of Mount
>>> Kilimanjaro by HB9BXE. The operator successfully had
>> many qso at 20
>>> watts of output. He probably would not have packed a
>> KX3 and
>>> amplifier if it was available then.
>>>
>>> I dont see why a duplicate of the KX3's PA could mot
>> be offered as
>>> a piggy back box with another set of 8 batteries. I
>> would rather
>>> follow that option than the 100 watt linear option. It
>> certainly
>>> would be a lot smaller and portable than the 100 watt
>> PA. I am sure
>>> many homebrewers will explore this option.
>>>
>>> Anyway time will tell. There is always the
>> hombrew/modification
>>> option. The KX3 has a lot of potential and the design
>> is 98% there.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> John
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Dave KQ3T <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:40 AM
>>>> Here are a couple of additional
>>>> factors to consider.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Increasing the output power to 20 or 30 watts would
>> have
>>>> an impact on
>>>> either the weight of the KX3 (more batteries needed to
>>>> maintain a
>>>> desired battery life) or the battery life (the
>> existing
>>>> batteries would
>>>> not last as long at the higher power level).
>>>>
>>>> 2. It is much easier to add an external power
>> amplifier, if
>>>> desired,
>>>> than to significantly improve receiver performance at
>> a
>>>> later date.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Dave, KQ3T
>>>>
>>>> On 6/6/2011 12:25 AM, juergen wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kristinn
>>>>>
>>>>> What i dont get is why people expect so much
>>>> performance from a
>>>>> so called portable rig. A rig designed for portable
>>>> operation generally uses poor antennas and is
>> optimized for
>>>> weight, size and battery life.
>>>>>
>>>>> While its nice having great receiver specifications,
>>>> you do have to be realistic about the real world
>>>> requirements that is placed on the receiver when
>> operating
>>>> portable.
>>>>>
>>>>> For me battery life, convenience and power output are
>>>> very important requirements rather than world beating
>>>> receiver specifications.
>>>>> I would gladly have 30 watts output over
>>>> ultimate receiver performance. Most military manpacks
>> run 20
>>>> to 30 watts for good reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 watts and a wire in the tree type of operation
>> does
>>>> not demand a receiver with 100db of IMD dynamic
>>>> range.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the KX3 does deliver incredible receiver
>>>> performance for a bargain price I wont say NO, however
>> I can
>>>> live with lesser receiver performance when operating
>> with
>>>> marginal antennas.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I would prefer to see is an antenna tuner that
>>>> will tune a 9 to 13 ft whip on all bands, or
>> alternatively a
>>>> end fed wire on all bands. A low noise figure receiver
>>>> is important when using short portable antennas.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all waiting for the KX3 tech specs with
>>>> baited breath. Time will tell whether we will get a
>> 10,000
>>>> dollar contest radio that fits into the palm of your
>> hand!
>>>> After all my years of operating, I have yet to have my
>> DC
>>>> receiver overload on 40 meters when operating portable
>> with
>>>> full size low dipoles.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Web mail provided by NuNet, Inc. The Premier National provider.
> http://www.nni.com/

KV5J

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by Alan Bloom

I know many a contest station that would and have spent $1000's for an extra 3db. There must to a reason.

Keith, K5ENS

Alan Bloom

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

World-class contest stations are a different animal. If the extra 3 dB
adds an extra 0.1% to the contact total, that could easily be the
difference between winning and coming in number 2.

But for the average ham a 0.1% increase in your total contacts is such a
small difference that you would never even notice it.

Alan N1AL

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 11:14 -0700, Keith-K5ENS wrote:

> I know many a contest station that would and have spent $1000's for an extra
> 3db. There must to a reason.
>
> Keith, K5ENS
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6446308.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
>

Bruce Beford-2

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

In reply to this post by TF3KX

Agreed. And at that level of competition, operator skill makes a much bigger
difference in score than 3 dB of power. Sadly, many who try to compete at
that level just don't seem to understand this.

Bruce, N1RX

> World-class contest stations are a different animal. If the extra 3 dB
> adds an extra 0.1% to the contact total, that could easily be the
> difference between winning and coming in number 2.

> But for the average ham a 0.1% increase in your total contacts is such a
> small difference that you would never even notice it.

> Alan N1AL

On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 11:14 -0700, Keith-K5ENS wrote:
> I know many a contest station that would and have spent $1000's for an
extra
> 3db. There must to a reason.
>
> Keith, K5ENS
>

______________________________________________________________
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