Re: Wha'ts Wrong With Our Radios (WAS:NewProducts, Building

[Tom Hall-5]

My K2 is connected to a computer which substantially increases its size. I
have macros made up for MixW that cover most of the commands for the K2. I
pretty much never touch the K2 except for the occasional gain adjustment.
The radio is essentially the size of my LCD monitor. There are several
radios out these days that you can hide away and never touch. Ah, you say,
it’s the knobs I miss! Well, maybe some sort of flat panel with a bunch of
actual and functional knobs and meters connected to a USB port to satisfy
our tactile and visual needs. In fact, this sort of panel could be used with
any computer controlled rig for now or the future. We could have designer
panels to suit our personalities - more, bigger knobs, flashing lights,
meters. Hmmm, I like the way I think.

Tom, AK2B

Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
What I don't understand is why we keep putting small gear in little
rectangular boxes.

We need a human sized panel for human sized knobs and buttons but that
doesn't mean we need a BIG rig! Indeed, it can be very small and friendly on
modern desks.
Look at a modern "flat panel" computer or TV display. Why not a desk-top rig
that is built like a thick version of one of those? Big and relatively thin?
Stand it on a "foot" like the displays.  Heatsink on the back, if needed,
along with necessary connectors, and lots of space for controls on the
front.

The large panel area would allow the layout of the circuits to follow a
logical path, with controls closely associated with the circuits they're
associated with. If there's a really heavy part, like a big heat sink for
the finals, put it down at the bottom at the "foot". You want the antenna
connectors down there anyway. And no multiple layers of tightly packed PC
boards to wade through when troubleshooting either!

That's nothing new. It's how radios were built in the 1920's, 30's and at
least through the 50's. Remember seeing pictures of those huge, long
1920-vintage broadcast-band receivers with a whole row of knobs across the
front? Those were tuned-radio-frequency sets with a whole row of tubes
amplifying the signal before it was detected (turned into audio). Each knob
adjusted the tuning of the amplifier behind it. Parts were big, so the
cabinet had to be pretty deep, but the first step in the design was to lay
out the controls so they were close to the associated circuits. As superhets
took over, fewer controls were needed to tune R.F. amplifiers and more
controls were needed for the I.F. and audio stages, but the same basic
layout remained, progressing from the antenna to the audio output. The form
factor was constrained by the front panel and the unit was only as deep as
needed by the bulk of the parts used.

Smaller sets were often built right on the back of the "front panel" with no
"chassis" at all, just a box to hold the front panel vertical and keep
inquisitive fingers from breaking tubes or getting into high voltages.

The logical evolution would have been for those to get thinner and thinner
until modern solid state radios were simply a thick "front panel".

Instead we kept the old rectangular form factor and reduced the size of the
front panel and the controls!

Wayne took a big step in the direction I'm suggesting with the KX1, putting
the controls on the top of the box instead of the "front". The original rig
had one main PCB behind the panel with the controls laid out near the
associated circuits.
Picture a 100 watt KX1 tilted up at a 45 degree angle with a base and having
the same thickness but a panel size of, say, 14x18 inches (35X45 cm) with
suitable knobs and meters...

Ah... Meters...but that's another story...

Ron AC7AC


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006
 

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bill W4ZV]

W3WPR:

 >It has always been interesting to me that the really 'top performance'
receivers are not only homebrew, but include very few 'bells and whistles'
and enjoy a simplistic set of front panel controls.  Of course, each builder
has a choice of his favorite controls to bring out to the front panel.

         Elegant simplicity:  http://www.5b4agn.net/

 >There are several buttons on my K2 that are rarely (if ever) used - for
instance, I never use RIT and XIT since split operation is available.

         I agree.  I've never understood what problem XIT is
intended to solve.  Both RIT/XIT are completely unnecessary
in a rig with split and I detest using that tiny knob in
lieu of the Main VFO knob.

 >Each of us does have our own operating preferences and will use that 'set of
buttons' particular to our own style - some will be happy with the set
available, others may want their faorite functions available, 'you can't
please everyone all the time'.  Such compromise decisions is what good
design is all about - I for one am quite pleased with Wayne's design
decisions for the K2, although it would have been nice to have the Gain
Controls available for change via program control so I could create my
favorite set of buttons and controls on a computer screen.

         The K2's basic operating firmware is indeed
excellent...much more intuitive than more expensive
rigs...although some less used menu functions/modes
require keeping a manual handy (e.g what does that
flashing symbol mean?).

                                         73,  Bill  W4ZV


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/27/06 10:25:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> I agree.  I've never understood what problem XIT is
> intended to solve.

It's meant to solve the problem where you want to intentionally not transmit
on the listening frequency, and want the minimum of control operations to get
there.

Yes, that's a rare situation.


 Both RIT/XIT are completely unnecessary
>
> in a rig with split and I detest using that tiny knob in
> lieu of the Main VFO knob.
>

I disagree! Here's why:

Suppose I call CQ and someone answers me slightly off frequency. I simply tap
RIT and tune them in, without moving my transmit frequency. In a contest, not
everyone zeroes perfectly.

Or suppose I answer a CQ and the station I call moves slightly, for whatever
reason. I can follow the other station for a kHz or two without moving my
transmit frequency.

Now of course all those functions can be done with SPLIT. The problem is that
it takes more operations to do so, and I have to be aware of what VFO is
doing what.

On top of that, in a contest I use the two VFOs for a different purpose:

With QRP and simple antennas, I usually get best results by hunt and pounce,
not calling CQ and trying to hold a frequency. The problem in a contest like
SS is that the exchange is long and it may take a while to work a rare section.

So what I do is to sweep through the band on VFO A, calling and working
stations as I come across them. If I don't work someone on the first or second
call, particularly if it's a needed section, I tap A=B and keep tuning through the
band on VFO A. Every so often, I switch to VFO B (one tap) and see what the
rare one is doing. If the time is right, I give the rare one a call and maybe
work him/her. One more tap and I'm back on VFO A, right back where I was
sweeping the band.

SPLIT ties up both VFO A and VFO B, so the above technique cannot be used. Of
course the memories could be used to store the rare one's frequencies, but
that takes more button pushes on a K2. There are only 10 memories in the K2, and
I tend to use those to speed up bandswitching (RCL 8 and the rig is on 80
meters at the bottom of the band, RCL 4 and it's on 40, etc.)

Those who use computer control for contesting will, of course, find the above
rather primitive. To each his/her own.

73 de Jim, N2EY



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

Jim, N2EY wrote:
In a message dated 5/27/06 10:25:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> I agree.  I've never understood what problem XIT is
> intended to solve.

It's meant to solve the problem where you want to intentionally not transmit

on the listening frequency, and want the minimum of control operations to
get
there.

Yes, that's a rare situation.

-------------------

I would hope so. It implies transmitting without listening first on the xmit
frequency to be sure it is clear, an absolute *must do* for proper Ham
operation.

When I need to xmit off frequency I tune to the intended xmit freq and,
hearing it's clear, hit A/B to put myself back listening on the original
frequency, all set to xmit off frequency as needed when I hit the key with
SPLIT enabled. If it's been a while since I checked, all I need do is
press/hold A/B to 'peek' at the other frequency to be sure it's still clear.

I run split 100% of the time. I tune around and if I hear someone I want to
call (or find a clear frequency on which I want to make a call) I just tap
A=B and that brings the transmit frequency onto the frequency where I'm
receiving. Then if someone answers my call a bit off frequency, it's a
no-brainer. I just tune - using the nice big tuning knob - as needed without
altering my xmit frequency.

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Scott Richardson-4]

On the rarity of XIT necessity...

The need for XIT is much greater in a rig without the split option. On the
K1, switching between XIT and RIT helps me track other callers when DX is
listening up (even though the range isn't that great).

For me, split operation is one of the chief lures of the K2.

Scott N1AIA


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/27/06 9:05:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> It implies transmitting without listening first on the xmit
> frequency to be sure it is clear, an absolute *must do* for proper Ham
> operation.

I don't see where it implies that any more than split operation or RIT
operation does.


>
> When I need to xmit off frequency I tune to the intended xmit freq and,
> hearing it's clear, hit A/B to put myself back listening on the original
> frequency, all set to xmit off frequency as needed when I hit the key with
> SPLIT enabled. If it's been a while since I checked, all I need do is
> press/hold A/B to 'peek' at the other frequency to be sure it's still clear.
>

Of course!

But with XIT, all someone has to do is turn on RIT and they're listening on
the transmit frequency.  


> I run split 100% of the time. I tune around and if I hear someone I want to
> call (or find a clear frequency on which I want to make a call) I just tap
> A=B and that brings the transmit frequency onto the frequency where I'm
> receiving. Then if someone answers my call a bit off frequency, it's a
> no-brainer. I just tune - using the nice big tuning knob - as needed without
> altering my xmit frequency.

Nothing wrong with that if it works for you.

I've never used XIT because a situation where it was needed hasn't arisen in
my operating.

I use RIT frequently because it's more convenient for me. Perhaps this is a
result of contest operating experience. Most of my contesting has been
hunt-and-pounce operating, and if I had to hit A=B for every station I called that's a
lot of pushes!

--

Someone asked where all this RIT and XIT stuff came from in the first place.
Here's my theory/history:

Until the late 1950s, most HF ham operation was with separate transmitters
and receivers, requiring a lot of zero beating in typical operation. Those
"separates" had a lot of features and a lot of controls.

Then came SSB transceivers like the KWM-2, plus matched-pair receivers and
transmitters like the S-line.

The new SSB transceivers turned things upside down in many ways. One of the
major disadvantages of SSB operation with separate tx/rx was the need for very
accurate zerobeating, particularly in roundtable operation. Transceivers
eliminated that task.

Because a filter-type SSB transceiver used many components for both tx and
rx, (particularly expensive components like oscillators and filters), its cost,
size and complexity were less than separate tx/rx. By the early 1960s, a 100
watt class SSB transceiver could be sold for less than a 100 watt AM station.

And because those first-generation transceivers were one-box stations
optimized for one mode, they had relatively few controls and features. Look at the
front panel of a KWM-2 - fewer controls than most *receivers* of that era.

But those first-generation SSB transceivers had their limitations. One
problem with some of them was less than perfect stability. Another was lack of
provision to deal with differences in how some folks would tune in another's
signal. If one station in a QSO moved frequency, or wasn't exactly zeroed for any
reason, and the other retuned to maintain intelligibility, and then the first
retuned to keep up with the second, they'd wind up waltzing across the band.

One solution was a second VFO. But that was an expensive option and brought
back the zeroing problem. Plus with analog VFOs, the only way to implement
"A=B" was to spin the knob.

So 'RIT' or 'clarifier' controls were added to the main VFO, at much less
cost and complexity. All this took a while - it wasn't until the mid-late 1970s
that RIT and provision for an external 2nd VFO were pretty much standard on HF
transceivers.

Once you had RIT, XIT was really just a matter of switching.

Then came the change from analog to digital VFOs, about 20 years ago.
Frequency control became a matter of telling the synthesizer the QRG. Multiple VFOs,
RIT, XIT, memories and other features became a matter of programming the
controller and figuring out the hardware interface. With such flexibility, rig
makers weren't going to leave features like RIT and XIT out even though they'd
started out as ways to avoid the expense and complexity of a second VFO.

IIRC, Ten Tec produced the Omni V without a separate RIT/XIT knob. When you
turned on RIT, the main tuning knob became the RIT/XIT knob. But the complaints
were such that the Omni VI had a separate RIT/XIT knob.

So we've come full circle. Most current HF transceivers have lots of features
and lots of controls - many of which most hams rarely or never use.

Ironically, the Cosmophone 35, arguably the first true amateur HF SSB
transceiver, didn't have RIT. But it did have "dual VFOs" - actually two tuned
circuits, switched by a relay inside the VFO. And it had a lot of controls and a
big, human-sized front panel. Perhaps that circle will finally come around.

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2]

My vote is that XIT is not a useful feature in a rig that has two VFOs A &
B, with the SPLIT option. I have never used XIT with the K2 and it does not
exist in my homebrew rigs. Maybe I am missing something?

What I do find very useful, especially in a pileup situation, is a
panadapter / spectrum display that is NOT fuzzy and which shows where my
transmitter is placed (vertical line).

Digressing somewhat, a very useful addition to a receiver is a rear panel
connector from which a sample of the signal that appears at the output of
the first signal mixer can be obtained, at 50 ohms impedance. This provides
a source for all those external devices not yet thought about. Obviously
this has to be done in such a way that the proper gain distribution of the
receiver is not disturbed.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD




_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N8LP]

Hi Geoff. K8ZOA has designed a nice panadapter that I showed at my booth
at Dayton, connected to my K2. It looks very nice, and connects to a
computer for a nice display. There is also an optional GLCD display for
standalone use.

It uses a DDS chip to determine IF center frequency, so it works with
any IF up to 50 MHz. He is writing it up for QEX, and you can find out
more about it at http://www.cliftonlaboratories.com/

73,
Larry N8LP



Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy wrote:

> My vote is that XIT is not a useful feature in a rig that has two VFOs
> A & B, with the SPLIT option. I have never used XIT with the K2 and it
> does not exist in my homebrew rigs. Maybe I am missing something?
>
> What I do find very useful, especially in a pileup situation, is a
> panadapter / spectrum display that is NOT fuzzy and which shows where
> my transmitter is placed (vertical line).
>
> Digressing somewhat, a very useful addition to a receiver is a rear
> panel connector from which a sample of the signal that appears at the
> output of the first signal mixer can be obtained, at 50 ohms
> impedance. This provides a source for all those external devices not
> yet thought about. Obviously this has to be done in such a way that
> the proper gain distribution of the receiver is not disturbed.
>
> 73,
> Geoff
> GM4ESD
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[G0KAD]

As I'm new to the Elecraft discussion list, I run the danger of
repeating that which has gone before.  However from reading the
suggestions for new products, I could not help feeling there is a
yawning gap.

As the happy owner of an XV144 transverter, I have long been considering
the K2 as my next purchase.

Reading RADCOM recently, I was introduced to the Softrock SDR receiver
kits being sold by Tony Parks (KB9YIG) for the incredible price of $15
including postage to the UK (well done Tony).  I am now convinced that
the SDR is the future of radio and am torn between buying the SDR1000 by
Flex Radio and truly having a BLACK BOX or going the K2 route.  
Naturally an Elecraft SDR would solve my dilemma.   A  modular system
allowing the builder to start simple and build to a fully featured HF
radio would be fabulous.

If you haven't got one already buy a Softrock receiver you'll love it.

Mike
G0KAD

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Dan Romanchik KB6NU]

This looks like a cool little kit.

Unfortunately, the SoftRock 4.0 from AmQRP is sold out, as is  
SoftRock 5.0 from hamsdr.com. Anyone have any other ideas on how I  
can get my hands on one or the other?

73!

Dan KB6NU
----------------------------------------------------------
CW Geek: Fists #9342, FP #1171
Affiliated Club Coordinator, MI Section
LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO!




On May 28, 2006, at 4:15 PM, Mike Davies G0KAD wrote:

> Reading RADCOM recently, I was introduced to the Softrock SDR  
> receiver kits being sold by Tony Parks (KB9YIG) for the incredible  
> price of $15 including postage to the UK (well done Tony).  I am  
> now convinced that the SDR is the future of radio and am torn  
> between buying the SDR1000 by Flex Radio and truly having a BLACK  
> BOX or going the K2 route.  Naturally an Elecraft SDR would solve  
> my dilemma.   A  modular system allowing the builder to start  
> simple and build to a fully featured HF radio would be fabulous.
>
> If you haven't got one already buy a Softrock receiver you'll love it.
>
> Mike
> G0KAD

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2]

Mike Davies G0KAD wrote:

> A  modular system allowing the builder to start simple and build to a
> fully featured HF radio would be fabulous.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This approach also makes it much easier to keep the radio's circuitry up to
date for top performance, more difficult to do if everything is on one
board. Other benefits include proper shielding and further down the list,
some freedom in choosing the physical shape of the radio. Rightly or wrongly
I interface RF and IF modules at 50 ohms, which makes it easy to work with
an individual module in or out of the radio, or design a new module to
replace one that exists or to add.  I believe that many homebrewers do the
same thing.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD





_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com