Login  Register

Re: KX3 vs. K3 and other rigs?

Posted by wayne burdick on Jun 06, 2011; 3:26pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6445562.html

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