Re: Why is KX3 phase noise so much less than the K3 ?

Posted by Dave-7 on Apr 02, 2014; 5:09pm
URL: http://elecraft.85.s1.nabble.com/Why-is-KX3-phase-noise-so-much-less-than-the-K3-tp7586369p7586391.html


Why does the ARRL lab test show the KX3 TX phase noise as about -124
dBc/Hz (Fig 5 of their report) and Sherwood show this as -144 dBc/Hz,
both at 10 kHz spacing? That is a huge difference.

The ARRL report shows that the KX3 never goes below about -135 dBc/Hz,
even 1 MHz away.

Is there an update to the ARRL lab test? Did the ARRL miss this one?

FWIW, ARRL shows the K3 at about -142 and the FTdx5000 at -135, at 10
kHz spacing.

73 de dave
ab9ca/4



On 4/2/14 7:40 AM, Larry Lopez wrote:

> http://www.sherweng.com/table.html
>
> The LO Noise (dBc/Hz):
>
> 144 KX3
> 138 K3
> 130 R390A
> 121 FT-1000D
> 117 ICOM 720A
>
>
> I'm wondering why the KX3 Lo noise is so much better than the K3.
> The R390A value strange since the first local oscillator is a quartz
> crystal.
>
> I've owned a Icom 720A and own a FT-1000D.
> Ive never owned a K3, KX3 or a R390A.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Why-is-KX3-phase-noise-so-much-less-than-the-K3-tp7586369.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
> Message delivered to [hidden email]
> .
>

______________________________________________________________
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
Message delivered to [hidden email]