Hello,

 

I posted the work below to an eHam forum and one reply suggested posting to
this site.

Thru another reply I have already verified that my interpreting of the
K3-block-diagram is ok.

So, left unanswered is the reason for the 2-pole crystal-ladder-filter.

 

Hello,

I'm to give a talk to our club next month about "roofing-filters".
So, during my talk, I intend to show schematics for Yaesu's FT-5000 and
Elecraft's K3; I choose these two because of their pristine locations on
Sherwood's table.

I'd have no problem explaining the 5000's block-diagrams; seems to follow
the "expected script".

But, with the K3's schematic:

a) on its block-diagram (pg. 64), the five roofing-filters seem to not be in
the expected location of immediately after the 1st-mixer.
As I see it, the received signal-flow is...from the rec'r antenna, thru
LC-bandpass-filters, attenuators, +12dB amp, then the 1st-mixer, a +17dB
amp, the Noise-Blanker, finally the roofing-filters, and now an IF-amp, etc,
etc. Am I interpreting the block-diagram correctly?

b) on both dwg K3-RF-board and dwg KRX3-sub-rec'r, between the 1st-IF and
the 2nd-mixer, a 2-pole crystal-ladder-filter is labelled as having a BW=14
KHz. I'm mystified why this part is there, especially since any of the
preceding crystal-filters would have a significantly narrower bandwidth.
Hopefully, someone could explain this conundrum. Also, I was not able to
locate it on the block-diagram.

That's about as far as I got trying to piece together an understanding of
the K3-circuitry for now.
Thanks in advance for any replies.

73 Jerry KM3K

 

Thanks in advance for any replies.

BTW, I'm only just a few hundred dollars short of buying the KX3.

73 Jerry-KM3K

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Reply via email to