http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/KX3-vs-K3-and-other-rigs-tp6443819p6445647.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>