Re: [Elecraft] K rig's longevity?

[David Woolley]

Fred (FL) wrote:

I'm sure there are computer savvy wizs in the
Elecraft community - with the ability to


This is illegal in the USA and severely restricted in Europe.  The 
copyright outlasts the company; it is just more difficult to work out 
who owns it.


Also, one of the selling points of the PIC series is that you can 
prevent the program memory being read.  As well as the copyright breach, 
any attempt to get round that in the USA would fall foul of the Digital 
Millenium Copyright Act.



Heaven forbid - but should the corporate airplane
go down in a hurricane, with all hands aboard -
who's to keep the Elecraft firmware alive? Ditto,


This is why I have already suggested that it be put in escrow (which is 
not the same as backup).  Standard escrow arrangements don't protect 
against products being killed for marketing reasons, e.g. after a 
takeover, and only protect customers, not, for example, third party 
suppliers of replacement parts, so a standards escrow may not cover all 
concerns.



say a unfriendly takeover, by Yaseu, etc.?  Major
companies, are supposed to worry about such
rare happenings, for the customers sake.


That normally only happens in business to business environments, where 
the customer is aware of the possibility of escrow and has the market 
power to get it into the contract.  Even then, normal arrangements don't 
protect well against takeovers done to get a competing product off the 
market.


I'm a computer programmer, not a lawyer.

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] K rig's longevity?

[David Woolley]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

It's documented, just not publicly. That could always change.


There's no guarantee of any more than poorly commented source code and 
that is true of any actively maintained software, whether it comes from 
Elecraft or someone else.  (It has been said that Microsoft wrote 
Wordpad because they lost the source code for Write, so using the binary 
is not enough.)


I didn't know they had a limited life - how many operations? What is the 
failure mode?


All electromechanical components have limited lives.  Typical specified 
electrical lives for relays are 100,000 operations, with rather longer 
mechanical ones.  This is why use of the KIO2 to scan across bands is 
discouraged.


The manufacturers don't specify what constitutes a failure, but an 
electrical one is likely to be parametric, i.e. excessive contact 
resistance, or bounce, and a mechanical one might be sluggish 
changeover, fatigue failure, or, maybe they would count contact welding.


Keeping the switched voltages and currents low, and avoiding inductive 
loads on the contacts may improve the electrical life, as will 
tolerating higher final contact resistances.


(Note these are lifetimes and represent wearout failures.  Components 
may also have random failures resulting in mean time between failure 
figures, which can actually (e.g. hard disks) exceed the wearout lifetime.)

--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Julian G4ILO]

That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
subjective.

-- 
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com


On 10/1/07, Mike Fatchett W0MU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > When will the day come when the information in QST is more than a
> > fluff review, and a free multi-page advertisement for the manufacturer?
>
> When the magazine publishing costs are not paid for by the advertisers?
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] K2 Experience with SM-8 and Heil HM-I Microphones

[Dr. Werner Furlan]

hi all, 

On 30 Sep 2007 at 22:12, Bob Boehmer wrote:

> 
> I just configured my K2 for a Heil HM-iC.
> 
> I bought the Heil Kenwood adapter cable for the mic.
> 
> On the mic configuration header:
> connect  AF to mic pin 1 and install a 5.6K resistor from AF to 5V
> connect PTT to mic pin 2 connect GND to mic pins 7 and 8
> 
> I left all other mic pins unconnected.
> 
> Works great.

for those who like to change microphones frequently: 

I have made microphone configuration plugs with the necessary connections 
on the plug. So it is easy to open the cover, change the plug and you are set.
I have installed the EA3BLQ digital PCB, to feed the Pactor modem inside 
the K2, but you can also make a computer band cable to the inside of the K2 
and mount the plug there. You can see my K2 top cover here:

http://www.qsl.net/oe9fwv/bilder/trxptc_innen_fertig.jpg

The plug can be seen in front of the band cable, PIN 1 marked with a red 
wire loop.

73! de Werner
OE9FWV



--  
Free puppies... Part German shepherd - Part stupid dog



PGP-Key: 
Fone +43 5522 75013
Fax +43 820 555 85 2621
Mobile  +43 664 6340014


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Stewart Baker]

It will be interesting to see if the K3 gets a full spec review in RadCom.
Probably not as there is no advertising money from Disti's involved.

73
Stewart G3RXQ

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:50 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
> That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
> read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
> either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
> subjective.


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Julian G4ILO]

RSGB, unlike ARRL, does not buy products for review. Review products
are loaned free of charge by dealers or manufacturers (this practise
in common with all UK magazines I am aware of - and I worked for
several years as an editor and then freelance reviewer for computer
publications.)

I think the only reviews of Elecraft products that have appeared to
date have been written by people known to the RSGB committee who
bought them for their own use. (I wrote and submitted a review of the
T1 ATU a few years ago but despite a favourable initial reaction from
the then editor it was never published.)

If Elecraft wants a RadCom review of a K3 someone needs to arrange for
Peter Hart to receive the loan of one.

-- 
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com


On 10/1/07, Stewart Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It will be interesting to see if the K3 gets a full spec review in RadCom.
> Probably not as there is no advertising money from Disti's involved.
>
> 73
> Stewart G3RXQ
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:50 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
> > That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
> > read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
> > either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
> > subjective.
>
>
>
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Stewart Baker]

When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he didn't 
seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.

73
Stewart G3RXQ
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:55:43 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
> RSGB, unlike ARRL, does not buy products for review. Review products
> are loaned free of charge by dealers or manufacturers (this practise
> in common with all UK magazines I am aware of - and I worked for
> several years as an editor and then freelance reviewer for computer
> publications.)
>
> I think the only reviews of Elecraft products that have appeared to
> date have been written by people known to the RSGB committee who
> bought them for their own use. (I wrote and submitted a review of the
> T1 ATU a few years ago but despite a favourable initial reaction from
> the then editor it was never published.)
>
> If Elecraft wants a RadCom review of a K3 someone needs to arrange for
> Peter Hart to receive the loan of one.
>
> --
> Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com
>
>
> On 10/1/07, Stewart Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It will be interesting to see if the K3 gets a full spec review in RadCom.
>> Probably not as there is no advertising money from Disti's involved.
>>
>> 73
>> Stewart G3RXQ
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:12:50 +0100, Julian G4ILO wrote:
>>> That is exactly right. And it is not a fault only of ARRL. You never
>>> read a harsh review in RSGB RadCom or Practical Wireless over here
>>> either. PW reviews are a total waste of time as they are completely
>>> subjective.
>>
>>
> ___
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

[Tom Hammond]

Bill:

I'm assuming you saw Rob Sherwood's recent posting to the FT-2000 
reflector. It was recently re-printed to the elecraft reflector but 
Bill Tippett, W4ZV.


Here's some comments on that article from Eric Swartz, WA6HHQ, of Elecraft.

73,

Tom
__

Hi Bill,

I discussed the issue of the missing IMDDR3 numbers (Third Order 
Dynamic Range) with Michael Tracy at the ARRL a couple of weeks ago. 
I expressed my strong concern that they had dropped these from the 
review data and were only posting a footnote showing how to calculate 
them from the IMD level and MDS. I pointed out that we, and many 
others, use the IMDDR3 numbers as the primary IMD Dynamic range 
comparison between rigs and that the IP3 numbers were not as useful 
for receiver comparisons, since they can artificially be inflated by 
turning on the attenuator, or making a receiver have low sensitivity (deaf).


They agreed that they could add the IMDDR3 numbers back in explicitly 
in the data table for future reviews. There is no sinister plot here. 
:-) They absolutely did NOT remove them at the request of any 
manufacturer. Quite the opposite. They were almost unintentionally 
removed in the post lab test formatting at the layout level for the 
review to save space as the review was rushed to print. After 
discussing this with Michael and Joel Hallas, the reviews manager, 
they said that they would add them back in for future reviews.


Also, the multi-level IP3 numbers were in direct response to requests 
to the ARRL from several members of the advisory group that Rob 
mentions below. The primary reason for doing so, as mentioned in the 
sidebar of the FT-2000 review, was to show how some radios depart 
from the ideal IP3 curve at different levels. Personally, as I 
mentioned above, I feel that IP3, while useful for testing stand 
alone amplifier stages, is not useful for receiver comparisons. (Rob 
also alludes to this in his comments.) The same IMD level test is run 
for IMDDR3 and IP3. The IP3 number is just calculated differently 
from the exact same IMD data. The best comparison still is the full 
IMD Dynamic range, IMDDR3, which can not be as easily manipulated by 
artificially changing a receiver's sensitivity, as it can for IP3. I 
can make the K2 have a huge IP3 by reducing its front end gain by 
another 10 dB. Would anyone want that? No.


The better test is to just take the signal generator level necessary 
to create an IMD product equal to the MDS, and compare that generator 
level to the MDS for the receiver. The net difference is the IMDDR3.


Michael Tracey and the ARRL test lab are above reproach in my 
opinion. They take great pains to try to make accurate and useful 
measurements of each rig, and they are ethical to an extreme. Michael 
spends an incredible amount of time and care making each set of test 
measurements. They do not change any data for big advertisers and 
they buy the rigs they test on the open market.  All of the recent 
changes were made as a result of input from the test advisory group 
that Rob is a member of. I'm sure there is still a lot of room for 
discussion and improvement of the tests they run, but the ARRL does a 
great service for the amateur community with their tests (as does 
Rob). Their ONLY goal with these latest changes is to make the data 
even more useful and repeatable between rigs.


73, Eric   WA6HHQ
-


Bill Tippett wrote:



Rob Sherwood gave his permission to post this on the
FT-2000 list.  Since that is public information I am posting
it here also.  BTW I agree with his comments on the "new"
methodology.

73,  Bill  W4ZV


What has gone wrong with the ARRL's new Product Reviews in QST?

For several years I participated as part of a group of hams who were 
trying to improve the testing of radios reviewed in QST.  Several 
reviews in the past had included questionable data on receiver 
performance.  A sincere effort was initiated to correct testing 
problems within the lab, and hopefully to also improve the "hands 
on" portion of the report.



What has changed in the ARRL reports?

Some of the changes are of minor interest, like measuring the noise 
figure of an HF radio.  Noise figure is generally used by VHF and 
UHF enthusiasts, but adding these data points certain hurts 
nothing.  Is noise figure, or noise floor, or sensitivity a 
significant issue in today's receivers?  The 75A-4 has an excellent 
noise floor, as reported in the January 2006 QST Annual Vintage 
Issue.  Few of us have such a quiet location that atmospheric and 
galactic noise don't overshadow the noise floor of a modern receiver.


What we did get was additional confusion in the ethereal world of 
third-order intercept (IP3), in place of real dynamic-range 
data.  The League used to measure it one way, then a second way, and 
now three ways.  Is this supposed to be helpful?  The old way 
(measured at the noise floor) was acceptable. The

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Simon Brown (HB9DRV)]

I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF 
convention, I'll ask him about this.


Shirley someone can arrange for him to get his hands on a K3.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "Stewart Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he 
didn't

seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Simon Brown (HB9DRV)]

Pah! He will be there - he has a presentation on Saturday morning.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon Brown (HB9DRV)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF 
convention, I'll ask him about this.


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] Re: Elecraft Digest, Vol 41, Issue 51

[Rick Wheeler]

This is a fascinating thread. It's nice to know Eric and Wayne have no
intention or retiring in the foreseeable future and although many of us
would like to think otherwise you guys can't go on forever! 

I am only 46, and as nearly everyone who owns an Elecraft product, have
become very brand loyal to the Elecraft line. I am too young to
remember the Heathkit era but perhaps there are some parallels of early
Heathkit and Elecraft. Many times I read from old-timers that Elecraft
was the vital spark that brought them back into Ham radio since
Heathkit. Nothing since the demise of Heathkit with regards to Ham
Radio came close.

Perhaps someone more familiar with the history of Heathkit could draw
some similarities? I would be most interested to know what many thought
was the reason for the end of Heathkit with regards to Ham Radio. 

Rick
K4LX
K2 #2006
 


> > From: "Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K rig's longevity?
> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:19:18 -0700
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> Retire at, or near 50? Are you kidding? (Wayne and I are both at the
> big 
> five-o..)
> 
> I tried it once, back in my 30's, and went crazy after a year of
> goofing 
> off. After a year I started another company. (Verisys, Inc.) I'm not 
> planning on retiring for a very long time, if ever. My father is
> still 
> happily working at 75, not because he has to, but because he loves
> his 
> work and it keeps his mind young. I plan to be doing the same.
> 
> Elecraft is not venture capital backed and is fully owned by the 
> founders, Wayne and myself. There are no external pressures to cash
> out. :-)
> 
> 73, Eric   WA6HHQ
> --
> 
> 
> 
> David Woolley wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > The other issue is that Elecraft is a small company and we have 
> > discovered, this week, that one of their founders is turning 50 and
> 
> > another key technician learned algebra in the late 1950s, it seems
> to 
> > me that a lot of the key personnel are reaching the point where
> they 
> > think about retirement.  As well as losing the product knowledge, 
> > founders of startup companies in that position often want to turn
> the 
> > value of the company into cash to fund their pensions.  To me, the
> K3 
> > could well be there in order to make the company sellable.
> 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

[Goody K3NG]

Another thing to note is that ARRL buys all the gear they review, right 
off the shelf just like any other ham would.  So no vendor, advertiser 
or otherwise, has an opportunity to submit an individually tuned or 
"souped up" unit to get a better review.  ARRL periodically auctions off 
review units,  presumably at a loss.  I think this further increases the 
validity of ARRL tests and just about dismisses any "sinister plot" 
theories.


Tom Hammond wrote:



Here's some comments on that article from Eric Swartz, WA6HHQ, of 
Elecraft.



Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

RE: [Elecraft] Re: Elecraft Digest, Vol 41, Issue 51

[Brett gazdzinski]

 
In my book, comparing elecraft to heathkit is a bad idea.

While I built a number of heathkit kits, including:
HW7,
HW101,
Big antenna tuner,
VTVM,
Power supplies,
I think Heathkit built stuff with price way to much in mind, and often used
poor or very odd designs to save money and reduce kit price.

The DX100 was full of compromises to cost, with weird power supply
setups, very small driver transformer, 1625 tubes instead of 807's,
a rickety vfo, etc.
The HW101 used a poor filter at 9 MHz? and some really odd rare tubes.
Power supplies were always very marginal.

I can understand the HW7 was a very low cost direct conversion rig, but even
then, they could have made the design better for little or no additional
cost.

Elecraft on the other hand always seems to well exceed the sum of its parts,
they take very basic circuits, computer control them, and get fantastic
performance out of them.
Looking at the diagrams, there is not THAT much difference between the
sierra,
the KX1, K1, and K2, at least in the analog part. Single conversion, xtal
filter,
the differences seem to be more in the computer control...
The sierra was actually more complex with its IF amp chip...

While heathkit stuff always worked, it was usually a poor performer and had
loads of improvements that could be done to it. 
That was part of the fun I suppose

Brett
N2DTS 
 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Wheeler
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:13 AM
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Elecraft] Re: Elecraft Digest, Vol 41, Issue 51
> 
> This is a fascinating thread. It's nice to know Eric and Wayne have no
> intention or retiring in the foreseeable future and although 
> many of us
> would like to think otherwise you guys can't go on forever! 
> 
> I am only 46, and as nearly everyone who owns an Elecraft 
> product, have
> become very brand loyal to the Elecraft line. I am too young to
> remember the Heathkit era but perhaps there are some 
> parallels of early
> Heathkit and Elecraft. Many times I read from old-timers that Elecraft
> was the vital spark that brought them back into Ham radio since
> Heathkit. Nothing since the demise of Heathkit with regards to Ham
> Radio came close.
> 
> Perhaps someone more familiar with the history of Heathkit could draw
> some similarities? I would be most interested to know what 
> many thought
> was the reason for the end of Heathkit with regards to Ham Radio. 
> 
> Rick
> K4LX
> K2 #2006
>  
>


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] Re: FS: Elecraft AF1 audio filter *SOLD*

[Andrew Moore]

The Elecraft AF1 audio filter has been sold.

On 9/30/07, Andrew Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elecraft AF1 active audio filter.
> Bought it new last month, assembled and tested, nice build quality.
> I have no need for it.
>
> Elecraft price $60 (unassembled) plus shipping
> Your price $45 assembled and shipped (within U.S.)
>
> --Andrew, NV1B
>
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] K rig's longevity?

[Fred (FL)]

As per the idea of "understanding" or determining
the firmware code of a particular product - I am
referring to legal situations.  Example a company
goes bankrupt and vanishes from the market -
how do the surviving customers determine what it
was that the company designed into the firmware?
Or how can they continue, in some other fashion,
to support and upgrade the firmware that existed.

The list was discussing the "longevity" of rigs
like the K3, etc.   As a one who worked long
hours in firmware & R&D groups - all sorts of
situations need to be planned for.  I guess
the worst - if a "Index Labs" situation befell
the Elecraft Inc. org.  What happens then?
Or a hostile takeover situation surfaced -
ala kill the product.

And, we as customers, what can we do, what can
we request?

Suddenly all the critical things surface;
was the software documented?  Can the
customers some how obtain control of the
last versions of the firmware/software?
Did the designers use structure in their
design, or was it more seat of the pants?
Is the software full of "timed" loops, and
critical timing software?  Is the software
even supported anymore in the industry?
Is there a supported development system,
for the software/firmware used?

Given Elecraft's conservative customer-based
nature - I suspect we, as customers, are in
pretty good hands.  As an engineer who
worked many of these problems and worked with
many other computer sci and firware designers
in these trenches, I have natural
technical concerns.  Very bright computer
engineers, can create some very difficult
supportable software situations.  Documentation,
often is left to the end.  We'll do all of that
when we get time .

I guess we are only talking a $2000 personal
investment - worst case!

Fred, de N3CSY
western Florida






  

Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on 
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/ 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

[Bill Tippett]

W5WVO:
>I don't know what the test configuration of the SDR-5000 was -- I 
don't think

it uses any discrete hardware roofing filters, does it? -- but Elecraft is
already claiming that the IMDDR3 at 5 kHz spacing (400 Hz CW roofing filter)
will be greater than 100 dB. (See K3 Specs page) I don't believe Eric would
have let that spec be on a public web page unless he was pretty certain it
would still be true when the final numbers come out.  :-)

The QSD design of the SDR-1000/5000 is completely different than
that used by the Orion/K3, so it does not need roofing filters.  Specs
like IMD/BDR are determined by the resolution and linearity of the ADC
in the sound card.  Although Sherwood did not publish 2 kHz
measurements, he did say the IMD/BDR performance is basically
independent of signal spacing, so 2 kHz IMD performance is
likely 96 dB also.  BDR at 100 kHz was measured at 123 dB,
which will also likely apply at 2 kHz.

Phase noise was reported as:

Phase noise (normalized) at 10 kHz spacing:123 (flat) dBc *
* Phase noise does not fall off at 6 dB per octave as expected.  Flex 
believes the present phase noise limitations are caused by A/D clock jitter.


By contrast the K3's phase noise is:

Rig 1kHz2   10   20   50   100   1M
K3  -110  -119 -136 -140 -143 -144  -150
Bottom line is that QSD-based SDRs are very different beasts, so
our assumptions based on classical designs are probably wrong.

It's also dangerous to assume Elecraft's measurements
will be identical to ARRL/Sherwood.  There are often differences
due to different test methodologies, people and equipment.  For
example Ten-Tec maintains Orion's 5 kHz IMD spec is "101 dB typical",
but nobody else has ever measured more than about 95 dB, so I
would wait for independent measurements on the K3.

73,  Bill  W4ZV

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Re: Elecraft Digest, Vol 41, Issue 51

[n2ey]

---Original Message-
From: Brett gazdzinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


In my book, comparing elecraft to heathkit is a bad idea.


I disagree!

I think Heathkit built stuff with price way to much in mind, and often 

used

poor or very odd designs to save money and reduce kit price.


Having built or extensively worked on the HW-101, DX-20, DX-100, VF-1,
AR-2, QF-1, V-4, V-7, TC-1, GD-1, HP-23, HP-13, SB line, HW-2036 and 
more,

I say Heath *sometimes* used unusual designs, mostly in the early days.


The DX100 was full of compromises to cost, with weird power supply
setups, very small driver transformer, 1625 tubes instead of 807's,
a rickety vfo, etc."


There was nothing 'weird' about the power supply setup of the DX-100.
It was very conventional for the time. The driver transformer was small 
because
they were trying to limit the frequency range of the rig. 1625s are 
simply
the 12 volt version of the 807; they were all over the place back then 
at

incredibly low prices. The VFO was simply the guts of a VF-1.

The DX-100 was Heath's version of the Johnson Viking 2/122 VFO combo,
built into a single box. Compare the schematics and see how similar they
are. To compete with EFJ, Heath had to offer a significantly lower 
price,

and the only way to do that was to replace high cost parts with less
expensive ones, because the Viking 2 was available as a kit.


The HW101 used a poor filter at 9 MHz? and some really odd rare tubes.


The HW-101 IF filter is at 3.395 MHz. It was no worse than many filters
of the day.

None of the tubes in an HW-101 were rare when the rig was designed.
They were all current-production, and using the types they did improved
performance and reduced cost. All of them can still be found with a 
little

looking.

It should be remembered that the HW-101 originally sold for $250, which
was an incredibly low price for the time. Consider just the cost of the 
tubes,
(more than a dozen, including two 6146s), the xtal filter (a prefab 
unit custom

made for Heath) and the 12 heterodyne, carrier and calibrator crystals
(also custom made)  and it's a wonder they could keep the price so low.


Power supplies were always very marginal.


Not in my experience! The only marginal power supplies in Heath ham gear
I know of were in the DX-35/DX-40. There was a cure for that, too.

I can understand the HW7 was a very low cost direct conversion rig, 

but even
then, they could have made the design better for little or no 

additional

cost.


How?

When looking at old rigs, the realities of their times must be 
remembered. Adding
a few dollars in parts to a kit meant adding several dollars to the 
price, which
cut hard into sales. When you look at prices from the old days, run 
them through

an inflation-adjuster to see what they translate to in 2007 money.

The amateur market then was much smaller than today, because there were 
far
 fewer hams, more homebrewing and surplus, and the cost was so much 
higher.


Sure, Heath made some clunkers. Any company that put out so many 
products
and lines so fast and with so much attention to cost could have the 
same problem.
But before labeling a rig as a clunker, consider its times, not today's 
standards.


No mention of Heath ham gear would be complete without tribute to the
HW-16, a work of genius if there ever was one.

Try actually building a rig to compete with the old Heathkit designs, 
using
only parts and techniques available then, and using prices from those 
days.


Elecraft on the other hand always seems to well exceed the sum of its 

parts,

they take very basic circuits, computer control them, and get fantastic
performance out of them.



Looking at the diagrams, there is not THAT much difference between
the sierra,
the KX1, K1, and K2, at least in the analog part. Single conversion, 

xtal

filter,
the differences seem to be more in the computer control...
The sierra was actually more complex with its IF amp chip...


The true radio performance (dynamic range, sensitivity) comes mostly 
from
"the analog part". The features come from the controllers, except for 
things
like the truly elegant VCO system. Schematics alone do not tell the 
whole

story of any rig.

While heathkit stuff always worked, it was usually a poor performer 

and had

loads of improvements that could be done to it.
That was part of the fun I suppose


In my experience, Heath gear performed well, compared to the 
competition.
Of course an SB-line was not as good as an S-line, but when a complete 
SB-line

setup cost less than an S-line receiver, that shouldn't be a surprise.


-Original Message-
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Wheeler



Perhaps someone more familiar with the history of Heathkit could draw
some similarities?


One big similarity is the "hands on" approach. With kits, a ham had at 
least

some idea what was inside the box, and a sporting chance of fixing it if
something went wrong. There's also the experience of using something
you

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Stewart Baker]

Good idea, I tried  2 years ago with the K2.

Stewart G3RXQ

Carefully steering clear of "Airplane" trap.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:59:01 +0200, Simon Brown (HB9DRV) wrote:
> I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF
> convention, I'll ask him about this.
>
> Shirley someone can arrange for him to get his hands on a K3.
>
> Simon Brown, HB9DRV
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stewart Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he
> didn't
> seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.
>
> ___
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Darwin, Keith]

Interesting thoughts, comparing the two companies across time & space.
 
I see many similarities, but one major difference.  Elecraft has managed
to thrive against the market forces that caused Heath to sink. The
Japanese rigs dominate the field and offer lots of features for a low
price.  Well, wait, now, TenTec seems to be doing well tool.  Maybe it
isn't the same market.
 
There are indeed more hams today and we as a group have more disposable
income than 30 yrs ago.  Sheesh, many of us were in our teens back then
and are just now getting to where we can spend some serious money on ham
gear. 
 
Also, I believe the ham population has become far wiser regarding gear
performance.  Back in the day, sensitivity seemed to be the driving
metric.  These days we're looking at all kinds of performance metrics.
When we examine yesterday's well-respected rigs based on today's
knowledge, we find they often come up very short.
 
A smarter customer base with more money to spend means you can build a
superior product and have luck selling it.  I believe Ikensu has missed
the boat to some extent.  By focusing of features first, performance
second, they've pushed the top performing rigs into the top category.
Average folks are left with sub-standard rigs to buy.  This has created
a hole in the market which Elecraft is doing a great job filling.
 
- Keith N1AS -
- K2 5411.ssb.100 -
- K3 wave 3 -
 
 
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

[Don Wilhelm]

As measurements become more precise, it becomes more and more important 
to recognize what Bill is pointing out.  A slight difference in test 
setup can result in a different result.  These measurements are done at 
the sub-microvolt level and it does not take much to create a difference.


Test equipment must be calibrated, and the calibration tolerance should 
be known.  Traceable calibration is one thing, but the tolerance limits 
of that calibration are also important - not all calibration labs are equal.


Even with calibrated equipment and the same test setup, two different 
equipment operators may yield two different results.  As an example, 
consider an instrument having a display for readout (like an 
oscilloscope), the trace has a finite width, and one operator may place 
the cursor on the midpoint of a trace width while another may place it 
at one edge yielding two different values - how much they differ depends 
on the resolution used, brightness of the trace, scale illumination, how 
well the display was focused, etc.


One good step in the right direction would be to report the region of 
uncertainty for all measurements. For me, that is a piece of information 
that becomes more critical as the measured values become smaller.  The 
ARRL lab may do that calculation in-house (I haven't asked), but they do 
not state it in their published reports.


So for now, when I see comparison data between two receiver that vary 
only by a dB or so, I usually figure that is close enough to ignore the 
difference (I usually do consider 3 dB or more difference to be 
significant).


73,
Don W3FPR

Bill Tippett wrote:

snip...
It's also dangerous to assume Elecraft's measurements
will be identical to ARRL/Sherwood.  There are often differences
due to different test methodologies, people and equipment. 
 

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Julian G4ILO]

I think that the Japanese manufacturers are influenced most by the
Japanese market which, from what I've read, is a lot different to the
rest of the world. Many JA hams live in apartments, and have limited
antenna options. A lot are restricted to low power. In Japan, you can
(or certainly used to be able to) buy 10W versions of radios that are
only available in 100W versions here. If you're so restricted, you may
well be more interested in knobs, buttons and appearance than in
performance specs that you can't actually get any advantage from.

-- 
Julian, G4ILO K2 s/n: 392  K3 s/n: ???
G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
Ham-Directory: www.ham-directory.com


On 10/1/07, Darwin, Keith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I believe Ikensu has missed
> the boat to some extent.  By focusing of features first, performance
> second, they've pushed the top performing rigs into the top category.
> Average folks are left with sub-standard rigs to buy.  This has created
> a hole in the market which Elecraft is doing a great job filling.
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

[d.cutter]

At these incredibly low signal levels a very good screened room is required.  
Even in the 70's I was using a copper enclosure to measure sensitivity levels 
within a double screened room.  Extraneous radiation from the test equipment 
itself disturbed our measurements.  We had to fit blanking plugs to unused 
outlets on various bits of gear.  This is not for the home lab.

David
G3UNA
> 
> From: Don Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/01 Mon PM 03:53:59 BST
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology
> 
> As measurements become more precise, it becomes more and more important 
> to recognize what Bill is pointing out.  A slight difference in test 
> setup can result in a different result.  These measurements are done at 
> the sub-microvolt level and it does not take much to create a difference.
> 
> Test equipment must be calibrated, and the calibration tolerance should 
> be known.  Traceable calibration is one thing, but the tolerance limits 
> of that calibration are also important - not all calibration labs are equal.
> 
> Even with calibrated equipment and the same test setup, two different 
> equipment operators may yield two different results.  As an example, 
> consider an instrument having a display for readout (like an 
> oscilloscope), the trace has a finite width, and one operator may place 
> the cursor on the midpoint of a trace width while another may place it 
> at one edge yielding two different values - how much they differ depends 
> on the resolution used, brightness of the trace, scale illumination, how 
> well the display was focused, etc.
> 
> One good step in the right direction would be to report the region of 
> uncertainty for all measurements. For me, that is a piece of information 
> that becomes more critical as the measured values become smaller.  The 
> ARRL lab may do that calculation in-house (I haven't asked), but they do 
> not state it in their published reports.
> 
> So for now, when I see comparison data between two receiver that vary 
> only by a dB or so, I usually figure that is close enough to ignore the 
> difference (I usually do consider 3 dB or more difference to be 
> significant).
> 
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>  
> Bill Tippett wrote:
> > snip...
> > It's also dangerous to assume Elecraft's measurements
> > will be identical to ARRL/Sherwood.  There are often differences
> > due to different test methodologies, people and equipment. 
> >  
> ___
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 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
> 

-
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Vic K2VCO]

Darwin, Keith wrote:


I see many similarities, but one major difference.  Elecraft has managed
to thrive against the market forces that caused Heath to sink. The
Japanese rigs dominate the field and offer lots of features for a low
price.  Well, wait, now, TenTec seems to be doing well tool.  Maybe it
isn't the same market.


The Japanese moved in by producing an as-good or better product at a low 
price. They stayed in by taking advantage of automated manufacturing to 
add features and a level of polish that the US manufacturers couldn't 
come close to at the price.


Elecraft slid in alongside the Japanese by way of the QRP kit niche, 
which the Japanese didn't serve. The original K2 was revolutionary: a 
QRP rig that didn't compromise performance and features too much just 
because it was QRP. There used to be (maybe still are) QRP-ers who get 
their fun out of making contacts with minimal -- in every sense, not 
just power -- equipment, and there was a lot of it around. Elecraft 
realized that there were also hams who wanted relatively 
high-performance QRP equipment.


But along the way people noticed that a single-conversion radio whose 
major goal was something other than low parts count could provide 
performance as good or better in some ways than the big boys. So the K2, 
with the KPA100, became competition for them, although still pretty 
unimportant competition in terms of numbers.


Elecraft made another innovation, which is the ability of the developers 
to talk directly to their customers. The two-way dialog that they have 
created is unique in the industry, and the Japanese manufacturers cannot 
duplicate it. Possibly Tentec could, but so far they haven't.


This is not just a side issue. Think about the amount of time that Eric 
and Wayne spend reading and writing on this reflector -- they wouldn't 
do it if it were not essential for both development, marketing, and support.


To get back to the comparison, the K2 -- although a good performer -- is 
still a "QRP rig on steroids". Because of the requirements of small size 
and kit buildability (i.e., no SMT), it cannot provide the level of 
features (and in some areas, performance) of the top-of-the-line radios. 
The K2's basic design has been expanded, with the addition of the 
KPA100, the DSP, etc. as far as it can be practically taken. Maybe a 
little too far!


Now with the K3 Elecraft has leveraged its two-way communication and the 
exceptional ability of its developers to take direct aim at the big 
boys. I suspect that they have been more or less taken by surprise. They 
will be hurt.


The Japanese manufacturers are big players in the handheld market and in 
non-amateur areas. They may react by scaling down in the HF ham market, 
as Kenwood did. It's unfortunate that Tentec, which as far as I know 
does not have a big non-ham business, will take a hit. But that's biz biz.

--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[JT Croteau]

On 10/1/07, Vic K2VCO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as Kenwood did. It's unfortunate that Tentec, which as far as I know
> does not have a big non-ham business, will take a hit. But that's biz biz.

Well, TenTec does have some commercial and government radio contracts
and, I believe, they have a pretty succesful enclosure and tool and
die business that can stand alone.  How lucritive?  I'm not sure.

-- 
JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx)
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

RE: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Darwin, Keith]

Vic,

You've hit on a major factor in my recent decision to order a K3.  I
believe we are on the eve of a shift in the market.  I believe at $2000,
the K3 is really going to win a lot of hearts.  I wanted to get my order
on the books as late as possible before that flood hits.  I suspect
demand for the rig will be high.  I'm hoping there will be a bit of a
lag.  So far K3 sales have (I'm guessing here) largely been within the
family, to current Elecraft customers who are upgrading / supplementing.
But, once these rigs hit the air and people start winning contests with
them, and once ARRL tests them and gives them their "blessing", we'll
see demand go up.

I was going to wait for a while and order next spring or a year from now
after the initial flood subsides, but I'm not sure it will subside that
quickly.

One thing is for sure, it is exciting to be watching from *almost*
behind the scenes, as a new rig comes into being.  I can't WAIT to see
the QST review and to see how the K3 is received by the ham market.

Maybe in a couple of years we'll see a hostile takeover as Elecraft buys
Kenwood :-)

- Keith N1AS -
- K2 5411.ssb.100 -
- K3 Wave 3 -
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vic K2VCO

Now with the K3 Elecraft has leveraged its two-way communication and the
exceptional ability of its developers to take direct aim at the big
boys. I suspect that they have been more or less taken by surprise. They
will be hurt.

The Japanese manufacturers are big players in the handheld market and in
non-amateur areas. They may react by scaling down in the HF ham market,
as Kenwood did. It's unfortunate that Tentec, which as far as I know
does not have a big non-ham business, will take a hit. But that's biz
biz.
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

RE: [Elecraft] K2 Reception Improvement - DSP or AF filter?

[Darwin, Keith]

Hey Kevin,

I've had both the DSP and AF in my K2 at one time or another.  Currently
I have neither.

I thought the AF was pretty good.  It worked great for removing a lot of
the IF hiss that I would hear in the headphones.  At the narrowest
setting, it rang a bit more than I wanted though.

I tried the DSP for a bit as well.  It did a better job of creating
narrow AF filters than the AF filter did but it too would ring at the
narrowest settings.  I found the NR and other features on the DSP to be
uninspiring.  In the end, I figured it was an awful lot of money to
spend to get narrow audio filtering so I sold it.  In retrospect, I
think I let go of the DSP too soon.  I suspect there are times when the
NR would be of great benefit but I didn't live with it long enough to
really find out.

I'm currently running an external QF-1A and it works nicely.  I get all
the AF filtering I want, two notch filters and there's the added benefit
that it greatly improves the sound of my sidetone.

You asked about atmospheric and man-made noise.  I'm not sure either of
these will do much to take care of that stuff.  Static crashes still
come booming through, although with less audio bandwidth.  I think the
electrical noise is something you'd need an NB to deal with.

- Keith N1AS -
- K2 5411.ssb.100 -
- K3 Wave 3 - 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of KBG Luxford
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:59 PM
To: Elecraft
Subject: [Elecraft] K2 Reception Improvement - DSP or AF filter?

Now that my K2 is on the air (CW only until I assemble the SSB adapter)
I am thinking about some fruit salad.  The bands are pretty noisy at the
moment - atmospheric, touch lamps, fluorescents, electrical storms et
al.  Has anyone experience of both the K2 DSP and AF filter that could
offer a comparison?

Many thanks and 73
Kevin
VK3DAP / ZL2DAP
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Stephen W. Kercel]

I used to live in Seymour TN, the next town over from Sevierville, 
and I knew quite a few of the management and engineering people at 
Ten Tec. I cannot say what their present situation is, but back when 
I knew them, Tec Tec made its money from its Government radio 
contracts and from custom machining in its tool room. They 
consistently lost money on their ham gear. They stayed in the ham 
business because 1) the top management were active hams and supported 
ham radio, and 2) they made enough profit from their other operations 
that they could afford to subsidize their ham manufacturing.

73

Steve Kercel
AA4AK


At 12:17 PM 10/1/2007, JT Croteau wrote:

On 10/1/07, Vic K2VCO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> as Kenwood did. It's unfortunate that Tentec, which as far as I know
> does not have a big non-ham business, will take a hit. But that's biz biz.

Well, TenTec does have some commercial and government radio contracts
and, I believe, they have a pretty succesful enclosure and tool and
die business that can stand alone.  How lucritive?  I'm not sure.

--
JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx)
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Roelof Bakker]

Hello Vic,




But along the way people noticed that a single-conversion radio whose
major goal was something other than low parts count could provide
performance as good or better in some ways than the big boys.
<

This is a fine example that more is not always better.
One should assume that a double, triple or quadruple superhet receiver is 
superior to a single conversion design. Regarding strong signal handling 
capabilities this is not the case. The reason one went away from single 
conversion is that an economical general coverage receiver needs a high IF. 
Quality narrow filters at e.g. 45 MHz can be made, but are far more 
expensive than filters at a lower frequency. Hence the choice for a single 
wide and cheap filter at the first IF.


However nothing dramatic is on order with a double conversion design with a 
high first IF, when proper gain distribution is maintained. Non of the major 
players have been able to address this issue right, but for one: AOR with 
the AR7030. This receiver ranks number four in the Sherwood Engineering 
Receiver Test Data List.
This is achieved by an excellent active second mixer, the now obsolete 
Plessy SL6440.
The low noise local oscillator completes an at the time innovative design. I 
own one and will not part from it.


The receiver of the K2 is a simple and straight forward design. That the K2 
performs better than the competition has much to say about the (lack of) 
performance of the major brands. In Dutch we have a saying that goes like 
"among the blind one-eye is King".(I know someone who is in contesting and 
DX-peditioning. He told me that on an un-sponsored DX-pedition the group 
prefers to use K2's).


In my view the strength of the K2 is, besides a sound RF-design, contained 
in the software. I have built quite a few receivers here, but I seem to come 
back to the K2 again and again. It simply is a joy to use. Some of you seem 
to call this mo-jo.


Roelof Bakker, pa0rdt
Middelburg, Netherlands
JO11tm






--
Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter.
403 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
Download de gratis SPAMfighter via deze link: http://www.spamfighter.com/lnl


___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:30AM -0700 I heard the voice of
Vic K2VCO, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> Elecraft made another innovation, which is the ability of the
> developers to talk directly to their customers. The two-way dialog
> that they have created is unique in the industry, and the Japanese
> manufacturers cannot duplicate it. Possibly Tentec could, but so far
> they haven't.
> 
> This is not just a side issue. Think about the amount of time that
> Eric and Wayne spend reading and writing on this reflector -- they
> wouldn't do it if it were not essential for both development,
> marketing, and support.

On this, see some of Clay Shirky's writings about Audience vs.
Community, e.g:

Though both are held together in some way by communication, an
audience is typified by a one-way relationship between sender and
receiver, and by the disconnection of its members from one another
-- a one-to-many pattern. In a community, by contrast, people
typically send and receive messages, and the members of a
community are connected to one another, not just to some central
outlet -- a many-to-many pattern.   [1]


Both the channel between the developers and users, and the channel
among the users, are vital bits of the Elecraft Community.  The big
manufacturers probably couldn't duplicate it if they tried, but they
wouldn't want to try:

As a result of these differences, communities have strong upper
limits on size, while audiences can grow arbitrarily large. Put
another way, the larger a group held together by communication
grows, the more it must become like an audience -- largely
disconnected and held together by communication traveling from
center to edge -- because increasing the number of people in a
group weakens communal connection.[1]


Audience vs. Community isn't Good vs. Bad, they're just two
alternatives.  Audience gives you scale, which is what a company like
Icom wants.

Elecraft [this is all speculative on my part, btw, but I think it's
reasonably accurate] is perfectly willing to give up the scale of
being a Big Company and Selling Lots Of Units.  Sure, they're in
business to make money (otherwise, you're not in business), and all
else being equal more is better, but all else isn't equal.  Due to
either a particular choice of market niche, or pre-existing biases of
the developers (and probably both), the dialogue between developers
and users is desired.  Due to the nature of the products (and thus the
people using them), the dialogue among users fruitfully occurs.  And
it's due to the combination, the overlapping, the mutually-reinforcing
of the two components, that Elecraft has a Community, rather than an
Audience.

In a sense, to really "go after the big boys" on volume (as opposed to
just on technology), Elecraft would have to end up with a much larger
Audience than they currently have.  That wouldn't necessarily spell
the end of the Community (the two can exist somewhat independently;
the large Audience buying and using the products, and the smaller
Community interacting), but it would certainly change the dynamics of
the situation.  Currently, the Community is a significant portion
(maybe not a majority, but certainly a large hunk) of the customer
base; after such a change, it would no longer be.  An interesting
sociological study.




[1] 
Some other essays on the site touch on similar topics, but this is
the most topical.  He talks about communities in a somewhat
different setting than this relatively specific and technical one,
but it's still good general musings.




-- 
Matthew Fuller, N3TZJ
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Bill W5WVO]

Julian G4ILO wrote:


I think that the Japanese manufacturers are influenced most by the
Japanese market which, from what I've read, is a lot different to the
rest of the world. Many JA hams live in apartments, and have limited
antenna options. A lot are restricted to low power. In Japan, you can
(or certainly used to be able to) buy 10W versions of radios that are
only available in 100W versions here. If you're so restricted, you may
well be more interested in knobs, buttons and appearance than in
performance specs that you can't actually get any advantage from.


I think Julian has nailed it here, in that the Ikensu strategy has always been 
essentially marketing-driven, and their experience base derives primarily from 
their domestic market. But I don't think the mass appeal of radios with a sexy 
appearance and sub-optimal performance is limited to Japan. We have plenty of 
"substantially underinformed" (trying to be charitable here) amateur operators 
right here in the USA, and I think the Ikensu features-first strategy will 
continue to work in this market. Will the K3 impact sales of their top-end 
super-premium transceivers? Probably. But how many of those radios do they 
actually sell? Not many in comparison to the number of low-end and mid-range 
transceivers they sell.


And of course the VHF/UHF FM marketplace is huge in comparison to the 
high-performance HF marketplace as well, especially in this country where the 
majority of new hams settle into a niche on a local 2M repeater and never go 
beyond it.


So I wouldn't worry about Ikensu being badly damaged.  :-)  Not that we would 
anyway!


Bill / W5WVO

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] WTB

[Kevin Cozens]

K8TB wrote:

   Now, what does a K2-10 go for?

   Absolutely silly people out there.


And the answer is to look at Ebay auction item #220155224745. It is going for 
about a third less than that Heathkit went for. Seems someone *really* wanted 
to add the Heathkit radio to their collection.


--
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.ve3syb.ca/   |"What are we going to do today, Borg?"
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172  |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
|  Try to assimilate the world!"
#include  |  -Pinkutus & the Borg
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Elecraft vs. Heath.

[Goody K3NG]

Case in point, how many Icom/Yaesu/Kenwood rigs do you see dedicated to 
220 Mhz or even multi-band VHF/UHF rigs with 220 capability?


Julian G4ILO wrote:

I think that the Japanese manufacturers are influenced most by the
Japanese market which, from what I've read, is a lot different to the
rest of the world.

  

--
Blog: http://thek3ngreport.blogspot.com/

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] FS: *AGAIN* Elecraft AF1 audio filter - assembled - unused

[Andrew Moore]

Previous deal fell through.  This is up for sale again:

---

> Elecraft AF1 active audio filter.
> Bought it new last month, assembled and tested, nice build quality.
> I have no need for it.
>
> Elecraft price $60 (unassembled) plus shipping
> Your price $45 assembled and shipped (within U.S.)
>
> --Andrew, NV1B
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology

[n2ey]

-Original Message-
From: Goody K3NG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Another thing to note is that ARRL buys all the gear they review, 

right off the shelf just like any other ham would.

And it's bought in such a way that the seller doesn't know it's going 
to be an ARRL test unit.


--

As for "fluff" in ARRL Product Reviews, I attribute that to the wide 
'dynamic range' of the readership's technical

knowledge.

On the one end are hams who can recite testing methodologies for all 
sorts of performance metrics, including
pitfalls and claimed-vs-observed numbers. At the other end are hams who 
don't understand why you'd want
passband tuning, narrow filters, or what the attenuator/preamp switch 
does. And everything in between.


On top of that are complaints that QST is "too technical" and/or "aimed 
only at the contest/DX/big station hams",

etc., etc.

So we get Product Reviews that are part lab test, part feelings, and 
part an attempt to Elmer. All jammed into a

limited space, and on a limited time, to be done by a limited staff.

The K2 got an expanded report that only appeared online. Went into more 
detail than the mag report. K3 should

get the same.

One ham's fluff is another ham's main interest.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - 
http://mail.aol.com

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] FS: *SOLD AGAIN* Elecraft AF1 audio filter - assembled -unused

[Andrew Moore]

> Andrew and Gang:
>
> I want to apologise again for having to back away from buying your AF1
> filtre.

No worries Doc and certainly no hard feelings.  Filter has been
resold.  Best to you and your health Doc -- take care of yourself.

72,
--Andrew
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

[Fwd: [Elecraft] K2/100 Usable for Winlink 2000?]

[Jim Campbell]

A little less than a month ago I posted a query to the Elecraft list 
with the same Subject line.  I received a very useful reply form Bert, 
PA0LPE, telling me that a German ham had modified a K2 to allow the 
low-level audio to be taken from and sent to the K2.  He even sent me a 
link to a website (written in German) that told how to do it.  After 
another kind ham told me of a website that did machine translation, I 
was able to modify my own K2.  I also ordered an SCS PTC-2usb modem.  It 
took me about two weeks to do all the modifications and to get things 
working, but the answer to my question is "Yes, the K2/100 is usable for 
Winlink 2000".  The Airmail software is able to control the K2, changing 
bands and setting the correct frequency for the desired station.  I was 
able to connect to a PMBO and send a test message late this afternoon.


Now, having done that, I would be happy to share with anyone interested 
just how I got everything to work.


72,

Jim - W4BQP
ARES EC, Spartanburg Co., SC

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

RE: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

[Dohn]

Don't call me Shirley

Dohn N8EWY

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Brown (HB9DRV)
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 7:59 AM
To: elecraft
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Sherwood on ARRL Testing Methodology (LONG!)

I expect he will be interested - with any luck he'll be at the RSGB HF 
convention, I'll ask him about this.

Shirley someone can arrange for him to get his hands on a K3.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "Stewart Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

When I spoke with Peter a year or so back about a possible K2 review he 
didn't
seem very interested. Who knows, the K3 may evoke a different response.

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Fw: [Fwd: [Elecraft] K2/100 Usable for Winlink 2000?]

[Bradford F Bartlett]

Now, having done that, I would be happy to share with anyone interested 
just how I got everything to work.

This sound like a great topic for an Elecraft Tech Notes article.  You
may also want to contact the Waterway Net about placing the information
in their Scuttlebutt.  http://www.waterwayradio.net
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] K3 Rcv Ant question

[hank.k8dd]

I was talking to a friend on the phone tonight and he came up with a
K3 question .
How many dB of isolation are there between the main antenna ports and
the RX antenna ports?  I ask because on my current radio (an Omni VI),
the noise floor when listening on my 'aux' antenna is raised when my
transmit antenna is connected to the main antenna port.
Of course, there are outboard devices and other mods to help this
problem, but I wondered how well the K3 handles this without 'help'?

And, with the RX IN and RX OUT on the XVTR board - can you plug in a
W3NQN band pass receive filter?

73HankK8DD


-- 
'Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their
level then beat you with experience.'-anon
-
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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

Re: [Elecraft] K3 Rcv Ant question

[Lyle Johnson]

Hello Hank!


And, with the RX IN and RX OUT on the XVTR board - can you plug in a
W3NQN band pass receive filter?


It is designed to allow insertion of such "Field Day" filters :-)

73,

Lyle KK7P

___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
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] Heath vs Elecraft

[Fred Jensen]

Rick Wheeler wrote:

I am only 46, and as nearly everyone who owns an Elecraft product, have
become very brand loyal to the Elecraft line. I am too young to
remember the Heathkit era but perhaps there are some parallels of early
Heathkit and Elecraft. Many times I read from old-timers that Elecraft
was the vital spark that brought them back into Ham radio since
Heathkit. Nothing since the demise of Heathkit with regards to Ham
Radio came close.


Well, I AM old enough to remember the Heath era, here's my take.  [{n} 
refers to notes at the bottom].  In at least two respects, Heath and 
Elecraft are very similar ... they both sell radio gear as kits, and 
their offerings are inexpensive vs the other non-kit stuff out there. 
In my view however, that's about where the similarity ends.


Inexpensive was a big deal for Heath.  The Novice class in the US was 
invented in the very early 50's, it attracted a huge following of young 
new hams, many of whom were teens and few of whom had very much 
disposable income.  One of them was me, 13 at the time, and my income 
came from cutting the neighbors' grass for 25 cents a lawn [Dad insisted 
his grass be cut for free ... after all, it was his push mower.  To his 
credit, he bought me a sturdy table for my rig after I pushed it off the 
back of the card table in the excitement of my first QSO with my Elmer.]


Heath did not go for "high end performance."  They went for SOLID{1}, 
usable radios that the then ham market could afford.  And, except in 
lofty radio engineer circles, IMD, Blocking Dynamic Range, Phase Noise, 
and all the numbers we find in reviews today hadn't been invented yet. 
RX sensitivity, the number of bands covered, crystal filters [the old 
kind :-) ], stability, and the like ruled.  You wanted high performance? 
 You shelled out the cash{2} for Collins, Hallicrafters, Hammerlund, 
and those guys


There was close to an uncountable infinity of ham radio manufacturers. 
I do not remember that Heath generated "brand loyalty."  There were just 
a lot of Heathkits out there because they were more economically 
accessible than the host of other rigs that more or less did the same 
thing for more money.


The Internet and email hadn't been invented yet.  Hence, no email 
reflector like this one for support.  Actually, the computer was just 
being invented and it filled rooms with equipment.  There is a quote 
from an IBM top-guy, probably not true, that "there might be a market 
for a dozen automatic computing machines in the world."


Elecraft is quite different, and the world is quite different too.  The 
ham population has aged [quite a bit, I think], many have more economic 
means but still, for lots this remains a hobby, and not a lot of us can 
put $10K on "the card{2}" for an IC-7800.


Contrary to Heath, the Big E DOES go for performance in multiple 
dimensions.  In fact, performance means almost everything today.


Manufacturers of ham radios are now countable and nowhere near infinity. 
 It takes only the fingers of two hands, even if you're missing a thumb 
and maybe a finger.  We have Y-I-K, of course, then TT and ... hummm 
...Oh the SDR guys ... I've undoubtedly missed one or two here, but not 
many and hopefully you get the idea here.


"Radios From Aptos" come with an amazing amount of customer support and 
hand-holding, something fairly absent from the rest of the market today, 
and the Heath market many years ago.  The Internet and email DO exist 
today, and it turns out, the market for computers was a bit larger than 
predicted :-)  You have a problem with your E-radio?  Post a message and 
you get instant response, and they can and do actually talk to the those 
in Aptos.  I kept a few numbers from the reflector for a couple of days, 
and it appears that 1)  Don Wilhelm doesn't sleep;  2)  He never leaves 
his computer.  Maybe he's the Betty Crocker of Elecraft, there's more 
than one of him.  And, he's not the only one out there with help.


I have two E-radios [K2/100 + KX1] and my third is on order [wanna 
guess? :-) ].  They are my favorite radios.  I'm old enough to recognize 
and not join cults, and Elecraft users, although passionate, are not a 
cult.  We're somewhat passionate for a reason.  I had my K2 set up this 
weekend for the CQ WW RTTY, and started the TQP with my TS-850 on the 
premise, "Never make changes to your rifle in the middle of combat".  I 
did the second section of the TQP with my K2 because it heard stations I 
couldn't hear on the 850.  So much for never make changes.


So no, Elecraft is not Heath reincarnated.  Different time, different 
world, different technology, different engineering tools, different 
engineering, different market.  On a 5 hr trip down to visit my college 
roommate last spring, I began wondering what The Aptos Wonders would 
have engineered with Heath era technology.  Don't know the answer.


Just one view, I remain

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 200