Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
On 12/20/2010 5:28 PM, Phil & Debbie Salas wrote: > "It's very unlikely any solid-state amplifier uses an input attenuator: > Transistors and FET's just don't have that much gain." > > The Ameritron ALS-600 has about a 15 ohm input impedance. Then they put a > series 35 ohm resistor for matching and reducing gain. Actually, input attenuators are fairly common in power amps. It is one of two good ways to reduce power amp gain to meet the FCC requirement. Another good method is to use a bit more negative feedback, which has the added benefit of improving linearity (that is, reducing distortion/splatter/harmonics) and reducing noise. As others have noted, most output stages are cleaner if run a bit below their maximum possible output. While one could safely pick up several dB of gain by removing the input attenuator, I'd still be careful not to overdo that, I wouldn't try to reduce the feedback, and I'd run the amp pretty close to it's published rating. 73, Jim Brown K9YC __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Guy, OK, I missed by a factor of 10. I am using 2 elevated radials per band, and the physical direction is such the pairs are horizontally opposed - that should reduce the radiation from the radials to zero (or nearly so). I first cut the radials 15% longer than the "formula" would indicate, and used my MFJ259B to determine the actual (X=0.00) resonance point. By changing the lentgth of the radial (one at a time), I was able to comee with a working antenna for 160, 80, and 40. While my antenna works well fot me, it is not a universal solution. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 10:15 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > 15 ohms miscellaneous in series with 32 ohm radiation resistance, only > 3%? Don't you mean 30%? > > What were the lengths of the elevated radials and how many? > > 73, Guy. > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: >> Dave, >> >> If you read the radial tuning procedure in Low-Band DXing, you will find >> that it "all comes out in the wash". Yes, your statements are correct, >> and in fact that is how I did mine. Although I did not resonate my >> vertical monopole against any ground plane - I simply cut the lengths to >> what was stated in the article, and then cut each radial to resonate >> with that particular length of the "monopole". If the result was >> slightly "off-center fed", so be it, the impedance and the resonance >> point obtained were a good match for 50 ohm coax, and I left it at that. >> >> OK, so the ideal impedance of a vertical antenna is 32 ohms - I got >> closer to 50 ohms which indicates a 15 ohm loss in signal efficiency. >> It matches my feedline nicely, and I an willing to accept the the 3% >> loss in efficiency that represents. >> >> The ground conductivity in my area is not the greatest, so I have >> accepted the logical consequences of that fact. >> >> 73, >> Don W3FPR >> >> >> On 12/20/2010 8:06 PM, David Gilbert wrote: >>> "I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant" >>> >>> >>> I guess I'm having a difficult time with that comment. You can have a >>> resonant system without the elevated radials themselves being >>> "resonant" ... i.e, any two of them acting like a resonant dipole. If >>> the elevated radials are shorter than a 1/4 wavelength, all that is >>> required is that the vertical section be a little longer than a 1/4 >>> wavelength to compensate. If the radials are longer than a 1/4 >>> wavelength, the vertical section needs to be shorter than a 1/4 >>> wavelength for resonance. >>> >>> Elevated radials are kind of like the lower half of a vertical 1/2 >>> wavelength dipole except that it is "fanned out" for symmetry, and if >>> the radials are longer or shorter than half of a 1/2 wavelength dipole >>> the feedpoint simply behaves similarly to an off-center fed dipole. You >>> can prove this to yourself with EZNEC ... start with a vertical section >>> longer than 1/4 wavelength and see what length radials you need to have >>> a resonant feedpoint. Then do the same thing with different lengths of >>> vertical sections and see the effect on radiation pattern. I can tell >>> you that it isn't a direct function of radial resonance. >>> >>> I could be wrong, but I don't see any need at all for the radials to be >>> "resonant" on their own. You want system resonance and generally >>> speaking, for radiation effectiveness you want as long a vertical >>> section as you can manage. You might want to choose a vertical section >>> somewhat longer than a 1/4 wavelength and radials correspondingly >>> shorter than a 1/4 wavelength in order to take advantage of that >>> "off-center feed" aspect I mentioned in order to get a 50 ohm match. >>> >>> The only situation where resonant radials might be required is if you're >>> trying to decouple whatever is on the other side of the radials. In >>> that case, the radials act like a choke to keep current on the feedpoint >>> side of the resonant radials. You can see that effect with EZNEC as well. >>> >>> 73, >>> Dave AB7E >>> >> __ >> 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 >> __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
On 12/20/2010 5:08 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: > The Elecraft example is that the K2 > key-clicks were not a problem until the KPA100 was introduced. The > added gain of the KPA100 caused that problem to be amplified (along with > the signal). Elecraft responded with the Keying Waveshape Mod kit which > corrected the situation. Yes, and the TX phase noise from the K2/100 was not a problem until you used it to feed a power amp, at which time your ham neighbors started descending upon you. That happened to me when I moved in down the road from K6XX -- it took him about two days to let me know about it. And Elecraft's response was more great engineering in the form of the K3. 73, Jim Brown K9YC __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Guy, OK, I missed by a factor of 10. I am using 2 elevated radials per band, and the physical direction is such the pairs are horizontally opposed - that should reduce the radiation from the radials to zero (or nearly so). I first cut the radials 15% longer than the "formula" would indicate, and used my MFJ259B to determine the actual (X=0.00) resonance point. By changing the lentgth of the radial (one at a time), I was able to comee with a working antenna for 160, 80, and 40. While my antenna works well fot me, it is not a universal solution. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 10:15 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > 15 ohms miscellaneous in series with 32 ohm radiation resistance, only > 3%? Don't you mean 30%? > > What were the lengths of the elevated radials and how many? > > 73, Guy. > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: >> Dave, >> >> If you read the radial tuning procedure in Low-Band DXing, you will find >> that it "all comes out in the wash". Yes, your statements are correct, >> and in fact that is how I did mine. Although I did not resonate my >> vertical monopole against any ground plane - I simply cut the lengths to >> what was stated in the article, and then cut each radial to resonate >> with that particular length of the "monopole". If the result was >> slightly "off-center fed", so be it, the impedance and the resonance >> point obtained were a good match for 50 ohm coax, and I left it at that. >> >> OK, so the ideal impedance of a vertical antenna is 32 ohms - I got >> closer to 50 ohms which indicates a 15 ohm loss in signal efficiency. >> It matches my feedline nicely, and I an willing to accept the the 3% >> loss in efficiency that represents. >> >> The ground conductivity in my area is not the greatest, so I have >> accepted the logical consequences of that fact. >> >> 73, >> Don W3FPR >> >> >> On 12/20/2010 8:06 PM, David Gilbert wrote: >>> "I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant" >>> >>> >>> I guess I'm having a difficult time with that comment. You can have a >>> resonant system without the elevated radials themselves being >>> "resonant" ... i.e, any two of them acting like a resonant dipole. If >>> the elevated radials are shorter than a 1/4 wavelength, all that is >>> required is that the vertical section be a little longer than a 1/4 >>> wavelength to compensate. If the radials are longer than a 1/4 >>> wavelength, the vertical section needs to be shorter than a 1/4 >>> wavelength for resonance. >>> >>> Elevated radials are kind of like the lower half of a vertical 1/2 >>> wavelength dipole except that it is "fanned out" for symmetry, and if >>> the radials are longer or shorter than half of a 1/2 wavelength dipole >>> the feedpoint simply behaves similarly to an off-center fed dipole. You >>> can prove this to yourself with EZNEC ... start with a vertical section >>> longer than 1/4 wavelength and see what length radials you need to have >>> a resonant feedpoint. Then do the same thing with different lengths of >>> vertical sections and see the effect on radiation pattern. I can tell >>> you that it isn't a direct function of radial resonance. >>> >>> I could be wrong, but I don't see any need at all for the radials to be >>> "resonant" on their own. You want system resonance and generally >>> speaking, for radiation effectiveness you want as long a vertical >>> section as you can manage. You might want to choose a vertical section >>> somewhat longer than a 1/4 wavelength and radials correspondingly >>> shorter than a 1/4 wavelength in order to take advantage of that >>> "off-center feed" aspect I mentioned in order to get a 50 ohm match. >>> >>> The only situation where resonant radials might be required is if you're >>> trying to decouple whatever is on the other side of the radials. In >>> that case, the radials act like a choke to keep current on the feedpoint >>> side of the resonant radials. You can see that effect with EZNEC as well. >>> >>> 73, >>> Dave AB7E >>> >> __ >> 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 >> __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
It's that ugly green stringy stuff some people use to hide their beautiful brown dirt so that nobody tries to steal it. Dave, AB7E QTH not far from N7WS On 12/20/2010 10:37 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: > I just have one question: What is grass? > > --- On Mon, 12/20/10, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > >> Many people are adopting a construction technique as >> primary over >> performance considerations, e.g. lay out wire and hold them >> down with >> lawn staples and let the grass grow up around them, holding >> them in >> suspension OVER the dirt, rather than notching them DOWN >> INTO the >> dirt. Grass supported bare wire radials will exhibit tuned >> characteristics and a higher velocity factor than buried >> bare radials. __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
I suspect that Don was referring to the fact that poor ground conductivity affected his low angle performance, and that is absolutely true. There isn't a thing he or anyone else can do to change the far field effects of poor ground. He can add lots of radials, buried or otherwise, to improve feedpoint losses, but none of that has any effect whatsoever on the far field pattern. 73, Dave Ab7E On 12/20/2010 9:54 PM, Jan Erik Holm wrote: > I hope people doesn´t learn from this statement. > IMO this is as far from logic one can get. > /Jim > -- > On 2010-12-21 02:27, Don Wilhelm wrote: >> The ground conductivity in my area is not the greatest, so I have >> accepted the logical consequences of that fact. >> >> 73, >> Don W3FPR >> > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
I just have one question: What is grass? --- On Mon, 12/20/10, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > > Many people are adopting a construction technique as > primary over > performance considerations, e.g. lay out wire and hold them > down with > lawn staples and let the grass grow up around them, holding > them in > suspension OVER the dirt, rather than notching them DOWN > INTO the > dirt. Grass supported bare wire radials will exhibit tuned > characteristics and a higher velocity factor than buried > bare radials. __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
I hope people doesn´t learn from this statement. IMO this is as far from logic one can get. /Jim -- On 2010-12-21 02:27, Don Wilhelm wrote: > > The ground conductivity in my area is not the greatest, so I have > accepted the logical consequences of that fact. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
Yes and they work VERY well for their purpose. Shoot even the much admired Rhombics using acres of space threw away half of the RF if they were terminated for unidirectional operation. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Phil Kane Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 7:16 PM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement On 12/20/2010 4:57 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: > The [in]famous B&W "all band folded dipole" capitalized on this -- big > 50 ohm load resistor = 50 ohms everywhere. I still see them around > National Guard Armories. You can see one in my back yard as well, 30 ft AGL. It's the best that I can do for 80m NVIS at this time. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
Sure, but it's very easy to design a low-loss broadband matching network to provide the required impedance transformation. One HB amp of mine used a 16:1 transformer at the input for just that purpose. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- Phil, Your statement amplifies the difference between "ham assumptions" and reality. The data-sheet indications of gain do not consider the input impedance (and loading of the driver), that parameter is quite important in actual use -- if the amplifier does not provide a good load to the driving transmitter, then "all bets are off". 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 8:28 PM, Phil & Debbie Salas wrote: > "It's very unlikely any solid-state amplifier uses an input attenuator: > Transistors and FET's just don't have that much gain." > > The Ameritron ALS-600 has about a 15 ohm input impedance. Then they put a > series 35 ohm resistor for matching and reducing gain. > Phil - AD5X __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
On 12/20/2010 4:57 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: > The [in]famous B&W "all band folded dipole" capitalized on this -- big > 50 ohm load resistor = 50 ohms everywhere. I still see them around > National Guard Armories. You can see one in my back yard as well, 30 ft AGL. It's the best that I can do for 80m NVIS at this time. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
15 ohms miscellaneous in series with 32 ohm radiation resistance, only 3%? Don't you mean 30%? What were the lengths of the elevated radials and how many? 73, Guy. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: > Dave, > > If you read the radial tuning procedure in Low-Band DXing, you will find > that it "all comes out in the wash". Yes, your statements are correct, > and in fact that is how I did mine. Although I did not resonate my > vertical monopole against any ground plane - I simply cut the lengths to > what was stated in the article, and then cut each radial to resonate > with that particular length of the "monopole". If the result was > slightly "off-center fed", so be it, the impedance and the resonance > point obtained were a good match for 50 ohm coax, and I left it at that. > > OK, so the ideal impedance of a vertical antenna is 32 ohms - I got > closer to 50 ohms which indicates a 15 ohm loss in signal efficiency. > It matches my feedline nicely, and I an willing to accept the the 3% > loss in efficiency that represents. > > The ground conductivity in my area is not the greatest, so I have > accepted the logical consequences of that fact. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > > On 12/20/2010 8:06 PM, David Gilbert wrote: >> "I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant" >> >> >> I guess I'm having a difficult time with that comment. You can have a >> resonant system without the elevated radials themselves being >> "resonant" ... i.e, any two of them acting like a resonant dipole. If >> the elevated radials are shorter than a 1/4 wavelength, all that is >> required is that the vertical section be a little longer than a 1/4 >> wavelength to compensate. If the radials are longer than a 1/4 >> wavelength, the vertical section needs to be shorter than a 1/4 >> wavelength for resonance. >> >> Elevated radials are kind of like the lower half of a vertical 1/2 >> wavelength dipole except that it is "fanned out" for symmetry, and if >> the radials are longer or shorter than half of a 1/2 wavelength dipole >> the feedpoint simply behaves similarly to an off-center fed dipole. You >> can prove this to yourself with EZNEC ... start with a vertical section >> longer than 1/4 wavelength and see what length radials you need to have >> a resonant feedpoint. Then do the same thing with different lengths of >> vertical sections and see the effect on radiation pattern. I can tell >> you that it isn't a direct function of radial resonance. >> >> I could be wrong, but I don't see any need at all for the radials to be >> "resonant" on their own. You want system resonance and generally >> speaking, for radiation effectiveness you want as long a vertical >> section as you can manage. You might want to choose a vertical section >> somewhat longer than a 1/4 wavelength and radials correspondingly >> shorter than a 1/4 wavelength in order to take advantage of that >> "off-center feed" aspect I mentioned in order to get a 50 ohm match. >> >> The only situation where resonant radials might be required is if you're >> trying to decouple whatever is on the other side of the radials. In >> that case, the radials act like a choke to keep current on the feedpoint >> side of the resonant radials. You can see that effect with EZNEC as well. >> >> 73, >> Dave AB7E >> > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
For those who wish to pursue the radials question further, here's one of the many publications on the subject. This one is replete with numerous tables and graphical representations of the incremental value of more and longer radials in various types of soil: http://www.ncjweb.com/k3lcmaxgainradials.pdf Tony KT0NY __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Buried BARE radials of sufficient number will show far less "tuned" behavior and self-terminate more rapidly. BURIED bare wire radials and ON THE GROUND bare radials measure quite differently. This too is something you can verify by experimenting with a bare wire DOG on top of the ground vs an entirely buried bare wire DOG. It is important to keep all the permutations cataloged and separate in the discussion. Many people are adopting a construction technique as primary over performance considerations, e.g. lay out wire and hold them down with lawn staples and let the grass grow up around them, holding them in suspension OVER the dirt, rather than notching them DOWN INTO the dirt. Grass supported bare wire radials will exhibit tuned characteristics and a higher velocity factor than buried bare radials. As this is almost exclusively done for a single band antenna, it is completely satisfactory for its intentions. It's the MULTI-BANDING that throws a monkey wrench into the works. My original posting is specifies BURIED BARE WIRE radials, placed by notching them into the dirt below the grass, (no laying them on top of the grass). These buried bare radials will be essentially self terminating at frequencies where they electrically exceed a quarter wavelength. and will exhibit a much lower velocity factor than those supported in the grass weave. On frequencies where the buried bare radials electrically are shorter than a quarter wavelength (lower bands), depending on the dirt, even buried bare radials can show some of the tuned behavior of on-top or insulated radials because the radials have not reached a self terminating length. Insulated radials will always show significant tuned behavior. With the 151' insulated wire DOG, I can always find resonance, whether buried or lightly strewn across the leaves touching nary even a single blade of grass. The controversy that I am aware of concerns purported RF current in the ground itself and concentric zones of conduction set up by interaction between the vertical element and the radial-induced spreading ground current, similar to Fresnel zones. 73, Guy. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Steve Ellington wrote: > Guy: > Very interesting > > Some of your comments were verified in a recent QST article. > > Mar 2010 - QST (Pg. 30) > > An Experimental Look at Ground Systems for HF Verticals > The author experimented with resonant vs nonresonant radials on the ground > and found performance improved when the radials were cut to electrical > resonance vs just measuring them with a tape. > > Given this, it stands to reason that if the same radial field is used by a > multiband vertical on a higher frequency, the high current point would be at > some distance from the antenna's base thus reducing efficiency. > > Now here's the question > Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So > what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with ground radials? > Well if we follow this idea, we would need multiple 1/4 wavelength radials > for each HF band for best performance. > > My inverted L is 50' up and 150' out. I use a separate elevated counterpoise > for each band. I've found that a ground rod and some buried radials have > virtually no effect. I just use them for lightning protection. > > Steve > N4LQ > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
Phil, Your statement amplifies the difference between "ham assumptions" and reality. The data-sheet indications of gain do not consider the input impedance (and loading of the driver), that parameter is quite important in actual use -- if the amplifier does not provide a good load to the driving transmitter, then "all bets are off". 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 8:28 PM, Phil & Debbie Salas wrote: > "It's very unlikely any solid-state amplifier uses an input attenuator: > Transistors and FET's just don't have that much gain." > > The Ameritron ALS-600 has about a 15 ohm input impedance. Then they put a > series 35 ohm resistor for matching and reducing gain. > Phil - AD5X > > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing
We always ship the latest version. I'll update the picture :-) e On 12/20/2010 3:50 PM, Kok Chen wrote: > On Dec 20, 2010, at 12/203:36 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft > wrote: > >> http://www.elecraft.com/books/books.htm > Is Elecraft still shipping the Second Edition of the ARRL HF Digital > Handbook whose cover is on that page? The 4th Edition has been out > since 2007! > > 73 > Chen, W7AY > > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
"It's very unlikely any solid-state amplifier uses an input attenuator: Transistors and FET's just don't have that much gain." The Ameritron ALS-600 has about a 15 ohm input impedance. Then they put a series 35 ohm resistor for matching and reducing gain. Phil - AD5X __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Dave, If you read the radial tuning procedure in Low-Band DXing, you will find that it "all comes out in the wash". Yes, your statements are correct, and in fact that is how I did mine. Although I did not resonate my vertical monopole against any ground plane - I simply cut the lengths to what was stated in the article, and then cut each radial to resonate with that particular length of the "monopole". If the result was slightly "off-center fed", so be it, the impedance and the resonance point obtained were a good match for 50 ohm coax, and I left it at that. OK, so the ideal impedance of a vertical antenna is 32 ohms - I got closer to 50 ohms which indicates a 15 ohm loss in signal efficiency. It matches my feedline nicely, and I an willing to accept the the 3% loss in efficiency that represents. The ground conductivity in my area is not the greatest, so I have accepted the logical consequences of that fact. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 8:06 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > "I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant" > > > I guess I'm having a difficult time with that comment. You can have a > resonant system without the elevated radials themselves being > "resonant" ... i.e, any two of them acting like a resonant dipole. If > the elevated radials are shorter than a 1/4 wavelength, all that is > required is that the vertical section be a little longer than a 1/4 > wavelength to compensate. If the radials are longer than a 1/4 > wavelength, the vertical section needs to be shorter than a 1/4 > wavelength for resonance. > > Elevated radials are kind of like the lower half of a vertical 1/2 > wavelength dipole except that it is "fanned out" for symmetry, and if > the radials are longer or shorter than half of a 1/2 wavelength dipole > the feedpoint simply behaves similarly to an off-center fed dipole. You > can prove this to yourself with EZNEC ... start with a vertical section > longer than 1/4 wavelength and see what length radials you need to have > a resonant feedpoint. Then do the same thing with different lengths of > vertical sections and see the effect on radiation pattern. I can tell > you that it isn't a direct function of radial resonance. > > I could be wrong, but I don't see any need at all for the radials to be > "resonant" on their own. You want system resonance and generally > speaking, for radiation effectiveness you want as long a vertical > section as you can manage. You might want to choose a vertical section > somewhat longer than a 1/4 wavelength and radials correspondingly > shorter than a 1/4 wavelength in order to take advantage of that > "off-center feed" aspect I mentioned in order to get a 50 ohm match. > > The only situation where resonant radials might be required is if you're > trying to decouple whatever is on the other side of the radials. In > that case, the radials act like a choke to keep current on the feedpoint > side of the resonant radials. You can see that effect with EZNEC as well. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
Fred and all, That is something to be heeded. The Elecraft example is that the K2 key-clicks were not a problem until the KPA100 was introduced. The added gain of the KPA100 caused that problem to be amplified (along with the signal). Elecraft responded with the Keying Waveshape Mod kit which corrected the situation. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 7:57 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: > > See above if they are to be legally marketed. And, that sounds pretty > scary. Many QRP radios have adequate spur suppression and phase noise > ... at their normal low power outputs. However, their spurs and phase > noise get amplified along with the desired signal. Raise the phase > noise by 15 dB [or more if the amp is illegal], and you're probably > putting a lot of trash into your neighbor ham's receiver. > > 73, > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
"I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant" I guess I'm having a difficult time with that comment. You can have a resonant system without the elevated radials themselves being "resonant" ... i.e, any two of them acting like a resonant dipole. If the elevated radials are shorter than a 1/4 wavelength, all that is required is that the vertical section be a little longer than a 1/4 wavelength to compensate. If the radials are longer than a 1/4 wavelength, the vertical section needs to be shorter than a 1/4 wavelength for resonance. Elevated radials are kind of like the lower half of a vertical 1/2 wavelength dipole except that it is "fanned out" for symmetry, and if the radials are longer or shorter than half of a 1/2 wavelength dipole the feedpoint simply behaves similarly to an off-center fed dipole. You can prove this to yourself with EZNEC ... start with a vertical section longer than 1/4 wavelength and see what length radials you need to have a resonant feedpoint. Then do the same thing with different lengths of vertical sections and see the effect on radiation pattern. I can tell you that it isn't a direct function of radial resonance. I could be wrong, but I don't see any need at all for the radials to be "resonant" on their own. You want system resonance and generally speaking, for radiation effectiveness you want as long a vertical section as you can manage. You might want to choose a vertical section somewhat longer than a 1/4 wavelength and radials correspondingly shorter than a 1/4 wavelength in order to take advantage of that "off-center feed" aspect I mentioned in order to get a 50 ohm match. The only situation where resonant radials might be required is if you're trying to decouple whatever is on the other side of the radials. In that case, the radials act like a choke to keep current on the feedpoint side of the resonant radials. You can see that effect with EZNEC as well. 73, Dave AB7E On 12/20/2010 5:25 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: >Mel, > > I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant - > but then all of my antennas are resonant. > > I could consider something "balanced", like a 43 foot vertical having 43 > foot elevated radials and being fed with parallel feedline to the > location of the tuner. I would equate that to a dipole having 43 foot > elements on each side of the feedline, but oriented in a different > fashion to take advantage of things like the low angle radiation of a > vertical antenna. > > I am not on the edge of salt water, so the great low angle "advantage" > of a vertical is not available to me. I recently bought a (used) GAP > Titan DX antenna, and installed it - it pales in comparison to my modest > height resonant dipoles, and I have made comparisons with DX stations as > well as distant domestic stations - the horizontal dipoles always are > better. I was expecting better results for the vertical on DX, but > failed to find it. (anyone want to buy a GAP Titan DX for about half > the price of a new one?). > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > > > On 12/20/2010 6:56 PM, Mel Farrer wrote: >> It is a matter of loss or lack of it. If you look at the takeoff patterns >> of a >> vertical antenna on a perfect ground and then with increasing loss, the >> pattern >> is modified to have increasing less energy on the horizon. However, this is >> the >> loss factor, not necessarily due to lack of resonance. As one removes the >> antenna network from direct ground, and substitutes radials, several things >> happen. IF, and that is a big IF, the amount of coupling to ground is >> maintained with non resonant radials or resonant radials are used, eff and >> match >> will remain . Example, a mag mount antenna or a ground plane vertical with >> three or four resonant radials works fine and any elevation. Just a point of >> thought. >> >> Mel, K6KBE >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Steve Ellington >> To: Guy Olinger K2AV; Vic K2VCO >> Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net >> Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 3:44:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna) >> >> Guy: >> Very interesting >> >> Some of your comments were verified in a recent QST article. >> >> Mar 2010 - QST (Pg. 30) >> >> An Experimental Look at Ground Systems for HF Verticals >> The author experimented with resonant vs nonresonant radials on the ground >> and found performance improved when the radials were cut to electrical >> resonance vs just measuring them with a tape. >> >> Given this, it stands to reason that if the same radial field is used by a >> multiband vertical on a higher frequency, the high current point would be at >> some distance from the antenna's base thus reducing efficiency. >> >> Now here's the question >> Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So >> what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with gro
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
On 12/20/2010 2:09 PM, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > Almost 30 years ago now, before I was 99.% a QRPer, I had an Alpha > 76CA (3 tubes). It had a giant swamping pad on the input (I still > have it - the swamping pad, that is). Just take it out and like > magic, you could drive the amp with QRP. Grid-driven vacuum tube amplifiers can exhibit much more gain than the grounded-grid triodes we are all very familiar with. The problem is that, while grounded-grid amplifiers are "sort of" inherently stable [except for parasitics], grounded-cathode amplifiers are not. Their input impedance is also variable and can be nowhere near 50 ohms. The input pad corrected that and help stabilize the amplifier. The [in]famous B&W "all band folded dipole" capitalized on this -- big 50 ohm load resistor = 50 ohms everywhere. I still see them around National Guard Armories. At an AFB club station, we had a tribander that was 50 ohms everywhere. Coax was full of water. Needless to say, it was a lousy antenna. > > I have no clue what they have on the inside of the KPA500, but if > there is a swamping pad, you can probably take it out. What is > Elecraft's motto? Hands-on radio? :-) I'd be stunned if that was the case. > > When I used to use a Ten Tec Titan Amp, it required 36 watts of drive > for 1500 watts out on 20m. That was probably 25 years ago. The current FCC gain limit in the US for commercially manufactured and marketed linear amplifiers is 15 dB. We can all do the math. > > Finally, if you want to fly under the radar, there are certain high > quality amplifier manufacturers overseas (closer to W6 than W2...hint > hint) who will custom make you an amp for low power drive. Check the > FT817 Yahoo group archives. See above if they are to be legally marketed. And, that sounds pretty scary. Many QRP radios have adequate spur suppression and phase noise ... at their normal low power outputs. However, their spurs and phase noise get amplified along with the desired signal. Raise the phase noise by 15 dB [or more if the amp is illegal], and you're probably putting a lot of trash into your neighbor ham's receiver. 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2011 Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2011 - www.cqp.org __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Mel, I personally would not consider elevated radials that are non-resonant - but then all of my antennas are resonant. I could consider something "balanced", like a 43 foot vertical having 43 foot elevated radials and being fed with parallel feedline to the location of the tuner. I would equate that to a dipole having 43 foot elements on each side of the feedline, but oriented in a different fashion to take advantage of things like the low angle radiation of a vertical antenna. I am not on the edge of salt water, so the great low angle "advantage" of a vertical is not available to me. I recently bought a (used) GAP Titan DX antenna, and installed it - it pales in comparison to my modest height resonant dipoles, and I have made comparisons with DX stations as well as distant domestic stations - the horizontal dipoles always are better. I was expecting better results for the vertical on DX, but failed to find it. (anyone want to buy a GAP Titan DX for about half the price of a new one?). 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 6:56 PM, Mel Farrer wrote: > It is a matter of loss or lack of it. If you look at the takeoff patterns of > a > vertical antenna on a perfect ground and then with increasing loss, the > pattern > is modified to have increasing less energy on the horizon. However, this is > the > loss factor, not necessarily due to lack of resonance. As one removes the > antenna network from direct ground, and substitutes radials, several things > happen. IF, and that is a big IF, the amount of coupling to ground is > maintained with non resonant radials or resonant radials are used, eff and > match > will remain . Example, a mag mount antenna or a ground plane vertical with > three or four resonant radials works fine and any elevation. Just a point of > thought. > > Mel, K6KBE > > > > > > > > From: Steve Ellington > To: Guy Olinger K2AV; Vic K2VCO > Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 3:44:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna) > > Guy: > Very interesting > > Some of your comments were verified in a recent QST article. > > Mar 2010 - QST (Pg. 30) > > An Experimental Look at Ground Systems for HF Verticals > The author experimented with resonant vs nonresonant radials on the ground > and found performance improved when the radials were cut to electrical > resonance vs just measuring them with a tape. > > Given this, it stands to reason that if the same radial field is used by a > multiband vertical on a higher frequency, the high current point would be at > some distance from the antenna's base thus reducing efficiency. > > Now here's the question > Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So > what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with ground radials? > Well if we follow this idea, we would need multiple 1/4 wavelength radials > for each HF band for best performance. > > My inverted L is 50' up and 150' out. I use a separate elevated counterpoise > for each band. I've found that a ground rod and some buried radials have > virtually no effect. I just use them for lightning protection. > > Steve > N4LQ > > __ > 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 > > > > > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
That's my experience too. Your Inverted L has a much, much higher impedance than any Marconi antenna on any band where it's 1/2 wave or longer. That makes the efficiency far less dependent upon the ground and the effect of the ground much less. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- Now here's the question Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with ground radials? Well if we follow this idea, we would need multiple 1/4 wavelength radials for each HF band for best performance. My inverted L is 50' up and 150' out. I use a separate elevated counterpoise for each band. I've found that a ground rod and some buried radials have virtually no effect. I just use them for lightning protection. Steve N4LQ __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
That's my experience too. Your Inverted L has a much, much higher impedance than any Marconi antenna on any band where it's 1/2 wave or longer. That makes the efficiency far less dependent upon the ground and the effect of the ground much less. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- Now here's the question Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with ground radials? Well if we follow this idea, we would need multiple 1/4 wavelength radials for each HF band for best performance. My inverted L is 50' up and 150' out. I use a separate elevated counterpoise for each band. I've found that a ground rod and some buried radials have virtually no effect. I just use them for lightning protection. Steve N4LQ __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Eyes
Outgassing is a good reason to wear eye protection when soldering larger diameter holes on a PCB, where there can be more solder & the space for a bigger bubble to form that expands when heated & can discharge the solder like a molten round. Happened to me at work once, assembling terminals that I would later find in use at banks over here in VR. The crater the solder ball's impact created thankfully was in the white of my eye. 73, ex-VR2BG/p. __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
On Dec 20, 2010, at 12/203:44 PM, Steve Ellington wrote: > Some of your comments were verified in a recent QST article. > > Mar 2010 - QST (Pg. 30) A more complete version of Rudy's study are in 6 parts in the 2009 issues of QEX. "Experimental Determination of Ground System Performance for HF Verticals," R. Severns, N6LF. Part III (Mar/Apr issue) compared elevated radials with ground surface radials. The 6 parts are in a single ARRL annual periodical CD-ROM for 2009 as PDF files. http://www.arrl.org/shop/ARRL-Periodicals-on-CD-ROM/ 73 Chen, W7AY __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
It is a matter of loss or lack of it. If you look at the takeoff patterns of a vertical antenna on a perfect ground and then with increasing loss, the pattern is modified to have increasing less energy on the horizon. However, this is the loss factor, not necessarily due to lack of resonance. As one removes the antenna network from direct ground, and substitutes radials, several things happen. IF, and that is a big IF, the amount of coupling to ground is maintained with non resonant radials or resonant radials are used, eff and match will remain . Example, a mag mount antenna or a ground plane vertical with three or four resonant radials works fine and any elevation. Just a point of thought. Mel, K6KBE From: Steve Ellington To: Guy Olinger K2AV ; Vic K2VCO Cc: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 3:44:28 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna) Guy: Very interesting Some of your comments were verified in a recent QST article. Mar 2010 - QST (Pg. 30) An Experimental Look at Ground Systems for HF Verticals The author experimented with resonant vs nonresonant radials on the ground and found performance improved when the radials were cut to electrical resonance vs just measuring them with a tape. Given this, it stands to reason that if the same radial field is used by a multiband vertical on a higher frequency, the high current point would be at some distance from the antenna's base thus reducing efficiency. Now here's the question Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with ground radials? Well if we follow this idea, we would need multiple 1/4 wavelength radials for each HF band for best performance. My inverted L is 50' up and 150' out. I use a separate elevated counterpoise for each band. I've found that a ground rod and some buried radials have virtually no effect. I just use them for lightning protection. Steve N4LQ __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing
On Dec 20, 2010, at 12/203:36 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote: > http://www.elecraft.com/books/books.htm Is Elecraft still shipping the Second Edition of the ARRL HF Digital Handbook whose cover is on that page? The 4th Edition has been out since 2007! 73 Chen, W7AY __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
On 12/20/2010 1:48 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: > There are good reports of elevated radials, although some measurements > by Tom Rauch W8JI indicated some disagreement, but for my situation it > is the best solution despite any controversy. Elevated radials are great until the metal thieves get around to stealing them for scrap, as many broadcasters have found out even with buried radials. Protection of ground systems against theft is a very hot topic in the broadcast engineering community. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Elecraft K2/100 s/n 5402 SBE Chapter 124 Vice-Chair __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Guy: Very interesting Some of your comments were verified in a recent QST article. Mar 2010 - QST (Pg. 30) An Experimental Look at Ground Systems for HF Verticals The author experimented with resonant vs nonresonant radials on the ground and found performance improved when the radials were cut to electrical resonance vs just measuring them with a tape. Given this, it stands to reason that if the same radial field is used by a multiband vertical on a higher frequency, the high current point would be at some distance from the antenna's base thus reducing efficiency. Now here's the question Folks assume ground radials to be (non resonant) but that isn't the case. So what would be the best solution for a multiband antenna with ground radials? Well if we follow this idea, we would need multiple 1/4 wavelength radials for each HF band for best performance. My inverted L is 50' up and 150' out. I use a separate elevated counterpoise for each band. I've found that a ground rod and some buried radials have virtually no effect. I just use them for lightning protection. Steve N4LQ __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing
http://www.elecraft.com/books/books.htm :-) 73, Eric www.elecraft.com On 12/20/2010 3:01 PM, Randy Moore wrote: > Anybody have a serviceable copy of said book they'd like to sell? Please > contact off list. > > 73, > Randy, KS4L __ 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
[Elecraft] [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing
Any body have a serviceable copy of said book they'd like to sell? Please contact off list. 73, Randy, KS4L __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Don's comments reminded me of an article I read a while back about elevated radials used by commercial AM broadcast stations that may be of interest: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34884702/New-AM-Broadcast-Antenna-Designs-Having-F ield-Validated-Performance-by-Clarence-M-Beverage Yes, the author's name should catch the attention of anyone interested in antenna design. He's the nephew of the famous Harold Beverage. Ron AC7AC __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 10 Meter FM "Channels" Set Up
Put on some shorts and navigate to http://www.elecraft.com/k2_remote.htm for the K3 memory editor. :-P 73, Mike NF4L On 12/20/2010 3:02 PM, aa...@aol.com wrote: > Naked or clothed what is the easiest procedure to follow when programming > these channels in the K3 "0-99" memory. I am having difficulty keeping the > split in memory. Thanks and Happy Holidays! Bob... > > > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
Well... keep in mind that an input attenuator also reduces the SWR seen by the exciter. Even a relatively small 3 dB pad means that the SWR can't go above 3:1 even if the input impedance of the amplifier was zero or infinite! On 12/20/2010 2:09 PM, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > Almost 30 years ago now, before I was 99.% a QRPer, I had an Alpha > 76CA (3 tubes). It had a giant swamping pad on the input (I still > have it - the swamping pad, that is). Just take it out and like > magic, you could drive the amp with QRP. My intention was never to > exceed legal limit, just to be able to use the amp when driven with a > QRP rig. I don't remember how much out I could get with QRP in, but it > was nowhere near 1500 watts. > > I have no clue what they have on the inside of the KPA500, but if > there is a swamping pad, you can probably take it out. What is > Elecraft's motto? Hands-on radio? :-) > > When I used to use a Ten Tec Titan Amp, it required 36 watts of drive > for 1500 watts out on 20m. That was probably 25 years ago. > > Finally, if you want to fly under the radar, there are certain high > quality amplifier manufacturers overseas (closer to W6 than W2...hint > hint) who will custom make you an amp for low power drive. Check the > FT817 Yahoo group archives. > > de Doug KR2Q > had my fill of QRO ages ago > __ > 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 -- Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/ __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
It's very unlikely any solid-state amplifier uses an input attenuator: Transistors and FET's just don't have that much gain. Grid-driven tube amplifiers may indeed have enough gain (without the input pad), but there are a couple potential problems. Without the input pad, the amplifier may not be stable and/or its input impedance may not be anywhere near 50 Ohms. If that isn't a problem, spurious outputs may be. Spurious outputs from a QRP transmitter that cause no trouble barefoot might be way above the FCC limits when amplified by 25 dB. 73, Scott K9MA On Dec 20, 2010, at 4:09 PM, DOUGLAS ZWIEBEL wrote: > Almost 30 years ago now, before I was 99.% a QRPer, I had an Alpha > 76CA (3 tubes). It had a giant swamping pad on the input (I still > have it - the swamping pad, that is). Just take it out and like > magic, you could drive the amp with QRP. My intention was never to > exceed legal limit, just to be able to use the amp when driven with a > QRP rig. I don't remember how much out I could get with QRP in, but it > was nowhere near 1500 watts. > > I have no clue what they have on the inside of the KPA500, but if > there is a swamping pad, you can probably take it out. What is > Elecraft's motto? Hands-on radio? :-) > > When I used to use a Ten Tec Titan Amp, it required 36 watts of drive > for 1500 watts out on 20m. That was probably 25 years ago. > > Finally, if you want to fly under the radar, there are certain high > quality amplifier manufacturers overseas (closer to W6 than W2...hint > hint) who will custom make you an amp for low power drive. Check the > FT817 Yahoo group archives. > > de Doug KR2Q > had my fill of QRO ages ago > __ > Scott Ellington Madison, Wisconsin USA __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] BEEP
Yes, your battery voltage is at the warning threshold. You can change the threshold in the CONFIG:BAT MIN menu entry, but I recommend keeping at 11.0 V. The K3 is still usable down to as low as about 9.5 or 10 V, although max power output will be scaled back. 73, Wayne N6KR On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:15 PM, Richard Thorpe wrote: > I was sitting at the operating position earlier today and kept > hearing a "beep" about every 4 to 5 mins coming from the K3. I run > the K3 off a car battery charged by solar cells, lately there has > been no sun. I checked that the battery and the voltage is at 10.4 > volts. Is the beep a "low voltage" warning from the K3? I couldn't > find any reference in the manual. > Thank you. > > K6CG > __ > 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 __ 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
[Elecraft] BEEP
I was sitting at the operating position earlier today and kept hearing a "beep" about every 4 to 5 mins coming from the K3. I run the K3 off a car battery charged by solar cells, lately there has been no sun. I checked that the battery and the voltage is at 10.4 volts. Is the beep a "low voltage" warning from the K3? I couldn't find any reference in the manual. Thank you. K6CG __ 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
[Elecraft] OT: modifying your amp for lower drive requirement
Almost 30 years ago now, before I was 99.% a QRPer, I had an Alpha 76CA (3 tubes). It had a giant swamping pad on the input (I still have it - the swamping pad, that is). Just take it out and like magic, you could drive the amp with QRP. My intention was never to exceed legal limit, just to be able to use the amp when driven with a QRP rig. I don't remember how much out I could get with QRP in, but it was nowhere near 1500 watts. I have no clue what they have on the inside of the KPA500, but if there is a swamping pad, you can probably take it out. What is Elecraft's motto? Hands-on radio? :-) When I used to use a Ten Tec Titan Amp, it required 36 watts of drive for 1500 watts out on 20m. That was probably 25 years ago. Finally, if you want to fly under the radar, there are certain high quality amplifier manufacturers overseas (closer to W6 than W2...hint hint) who will custom make you an amp for low power drive. Check the FT817 Yahoo group archives. de Doug KR2Q had my fill of QRO ages ago __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Guy, I know it is not equal to your statements, but in my mind you are making a good case for the use of elevated (and tuned) radials. L B Cebik recommended them to me at FDIM several years ago over in-ground radials and I have never done the work of burying the radials, so I have no comparison. Mine are supported on electric fence insulators in the trees 10 feet up, and the monopole and radials are tuned together using the techniques outlined in UN4ON's Low-Band DXing (page 9-23). The radiator is the 40/80 vertical/160 inverted L BC-Trapper also described in the same book. (yes, I have radials for 40 and for 80 and for 160). It works well for me, and no way did I want to dig through the tree roots in the forest nor trip over wires on the ground when I wanted to take a walk. There are good reports of elevated radials, although some measurements by Tom Rauch W8JI indicated some disagreement, but for my situation it is the best solution despite any controversy. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 12:28 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > (For the record, I am also addressing some off-reflector extensions of > this thread with a single post.) > > We are still talking about an end-fed antenna for 80-10 which presents > unique problems. Trimming the horizontal length of up 30, out 30 for > a good match will help a lot. But that will not address avoiding an > up to 10 dB loss problem in the radial system that can make it perform > like a wet noodle dipole. > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
>From my copy of the ARRL FCC Rules and Regulations for the Amateur Radio Service, parts 97 and 47 of the Cod of Federal Regulations, 2007: 97.317 Standards for certification of external RF power amplifiers (a) To receive a grant of certification, the amplifier must: (2) Not be capable of amplifying the input RF power (driving signal) by more than 15 dB gain. Gain is defined as the ratio of the input RF power to the output RF power of the amplifier where both power measurements are expressed in peak envelope power or mean power. 73, Byron N6NUL On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote: > My understanding is only that the FCC says 15 > dB is the maximum, and I expect Elecraft will comply with that. -- - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2011 Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2011 - www.cqp.org __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KPA-500
Mark, Individual hams can modify their *own* equipment, and we can build our own equipment too. It still must meet the signal purity and maximum power output requirements of the FCC, but as far as I know that is about all - oh yes, I believe it should be of good (or is it sound) engineering design, so we are no longer able to legally put spark transmitters on the air nor those powered with raw or unfiltered AC on the output. :-) 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 4:08 PM, Mark Kachel wrote: > I read somewhere that the devices in the amp were good for 20+ db of gain. I > think there will be an attenuator pad in the amp that can be bypassed for > more than 15 db gain. > > Mark, NØOKS K3 / 10 kit > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Dale, I am not going to question the legality of the 18 dB gain you are getting on that SPE nor what the SPE documents filed with the FCC say about the maximum gain - Mu understanding is only that the FCC says 15 dB is the maximum, and I expect Elecraft will comply with that. What other companies do is not a concern of mine - I am not in any enforcement role. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 3:49 PM, Dale Parfitt wrote: > Hi Don, > I use my SPE Expert 1K-FA with my barefoot K3. I get around 900Wout on HF > and about 500W on 6M. It's a great combination as the K3 talks to the SPE > and everything is transparent including the SPE's built in autotuner. > The SPE display reports over 18dB gain. It has been type accepted and sold > by SteppIR. > __ 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
[Elecraft] KPA-500
I read somewhere that the devices in the amp were good for 20+ db of gain. I think there will be an attenuator pad in the amp that can be bypassed for more than 15 db gain. Mark, NØOKS K3 / 10 kit __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Hi Don, I use my SPE Expert 1K-FA with my barefoot K3. I get around 900Wout on HF and about 500W on 6M. It's a great combination as the K3 talks to the SPE and everything is transparent including the SPE's built in autotuner. The SPE display reports over 18dB gain. It has been type accepted and sold by SteppIR. Dale W4OP > Bill, > > It is not an Elecraft choice. > While you could do that as an individual, commercial products (sold in > the US) must meet the FCC requirement of a 15 dB maximum gain That > limits the maximum power gain to a factor of 31.62 - 10 watts in gives > 316.2 watts (at the most) output. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > On 12/20/2010 3:23 PM, able2...@aol.com wrote: >> Why wouldn't Elecraft design the KPA500 to be driven to its rated output >> by a K3/10 ? >> >> Bill K3UJ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Don Wilhelm >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts >> >> >>Frank, >> If you think you want 500 watts out, you will have to install the KPA3 >> 100 watts) anyway. The K3/10 will not be able to drive the KPA500 to >> ull output - you may be able to get somewhere betwen 200 and 300 watts >> ut of it. >> 73, >> on W3FPR >> >> __ >> 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 >> > __ > 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3327 - Release Date: 12/20/10 02:34:00 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects
K2QI wrote: " but now try to work with the window open and > have small desktop fan which attempts to blow most of the fumes and > smoke out of that window." VERY interesting. Is there a chance this approach might finally quiet my neighbor's DOG? Terry, W0FM -Original Message- From: Samuel Strongin [mailto:kf4...@embarqmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 9:52 AM To: Milt, N5IA; k2qi@gmail.com; Ron D'Eau Claire; elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net; Elecraft Reflector Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects Dam I should be dead by now from lead poisoning .!! Sam Strongin kf4yox -Original Message- From: Milt, N5IA Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:12 AM To: k2qi@gmail.com ; Ron D'Eau Claire ; elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net ; Elecraft Reflector Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects James, I am sure you are in violation of one or more state and federal laws. Obviously you are polluting the neighborhood at large and the world as a whole:-) :-) Now you have incriminated yourself. Oh well. 73, and Merry Christmas to all. Milt, N5IA > Toxins are a good point raised, and I on more than one occasion have felt > the effects of lead poisoning as you've described. I do not have > ventilator hood either, but now try to work with the window open and have > small desktop fan which attempts to blow most of the fumes and smoke out > of that window. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. > > 73, > James K2QI __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Hi, Not so sure. That would require the 12W (pre)amp in the K3 to run full tilt. I seem to remember from the QST review of the K3/10 that it wasn't super clean at full power either. It's well known that both these amps get significantly cleaner when run at 50% or less which is what they would do driving the KPA500 to full power. AB2TC - Knut Rick Dettinger-3 wrote: > > But going directly from the K3/10 to the KPA500 might be a good way > for those unhappy with the SSB transmit quality of the KPA3 to get a > very clean signal since the KPA500 uses 70 volt devices for the final > amplifiers. Plus a 3 db. gain over the KPA3. At a cost, of course. > > 73, > Rick Dettinger K7MW > > > -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/100-Watts-or-500-Watts-tp5853336p5853704.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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Not legal in the United States. 15 db gain is the max allowed. The hams get punished for the illegal activity of others. 73, Rick Dettinger K7MW > > Why wouldn't Elecraft design the KPA500 to be driven to its rated > output by a K3/10 ? > > Bill K3UJ > > > > > > 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
But going directly from the K3/10 to the KPA500 might be a good way for those unhappy with the SSB transmit quality of the KPA3 to get a very clean signal since the KPA500 uses 70 volt devices for the final amplifiers. Plus a 3 db. gain over the KPA3. At a cost, of course. 73, Rick Dettinger K7MW > Frank, > > If you think you want 500 watts out, you will have to install the KPA3 > (100 watts) anyway. The K3/10 will not be able to drive the KPA500 to > full output - you may be able to get somewhere betwen 200 and 300 > watts > out of it. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Bill, It is not an Elecraft choice. While you could do that as an individual, commercial products (sold in the US) must meet the FCC requirement of a 15 dB maximum gain That limits the maximum power gain to a factor of 31.62 - 10 watts in gives 316.2 watts (at the most) output. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 3:23 PM, able2...@aol.com wrote: > Why wouldn't Elecraft design the KPA500 to be driven to its rated output by a > K3/10 ? > > Bill K3UJ > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Don Wilhelm > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts > > >Frank, > If you think you want 500 watts out, you will have to install the KPA3 > 100 watts) anyway. The K3/10 will not be able to drive the KPA500 to > ull output - you may be able to get somewhere betwen 200 and 300 watts > ut of it. > 73, > on W3FPR > > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Why wouldn't Elecraft design the KPA500 to be driven to its rated output by a K3/10 ? Bill K3UJ -Original Message- From: Don Wilhelm Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts Frank, If you think you want 500 watts out, you will have to install the KPA3 100 watts) anyway. The K3/10 will not be able to drive the KPA500 to ull output - you may be able to get somewhere betwen 200 and 300 watts ut of it. 73, on W3FPR __ 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
[Elecraft] 10 Meter FM "Channels" Set Up
Naked or clothed what is the easiest procedure to follow when programming these channels in the K3 "0-99" memory. I am having difficulty keeping the split in memory. Thanks and Happy Holidays! Bob... __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] stealth antt.
Yes, to what James said and I might add that use of the perimeter eves or balcony is a good choice as is one of the Budipole antennas on a tripod that you can take in and out of the house. Put in a good ground rod and away you go. It is amazing how well and inventive the manpack and QRP group does with low power and simple antennas. Mel, K6KBE From: JAMES ROGERS To: tony rowland Cc: Elecraft Reflector Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 8:16:46 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] stealth antt. Tony, The Elecraft antenna tuners do a really fine job for stealth antennas. I live in a garden home and have an antenna farm that is completely in my attic. I use a simple long wire on 80/40 that works well. It is 54' in total length, the ends are bent down 11' to the attic floor with 44' out over the garage. Force 12 makes a five band vertical that is only 9 feet tall that work well on 20 thru 10 meters. Just evaluate what kind of room you can grab. You can get an idea of what I did from my website. There is a link at the bottom of this page. 73s Jim. On Dec 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, tony rowland wrote: > live in an apt on ground floor. looking for a stealth ant. see that > elecraft has a small ant. package for sale. Just getting started. > no 100 foot towers. 90 foot wires ect. he said with tongue firmly > planted to cheek > 73s > tony Rowland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > 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 JIM ROGERS w4...@bellsouth.net http://web.me.com/jimrogers_w4atk __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
Frank, If you think you want 500 watts out, you will have to install the KPA3 (100 watts) anyway. The K3/10 will not be able to drive the KPA500 to full output - you may be able to get somewhere betwen 200 and 300 watts out of it. 73, Don W3FPR On 12/20/2010 1:39 PM, Frank MacDonell wrote: > I own a K3/10 with ATU and would like to upgrade power. The question > is do I go with the 100w PA option or wait for the KPA500. Any and all > comments are most welcome. Thanks in advance and Merry Christmas to > all. > __ 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
[Elecraft] test
Blankthis is a test only. NF8J Paul VanOveren 5911 Snow Ave. Alto, Mi 616-868-7149 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Here's a quick example from EZNEC: A 33 ft vertical wire on 3.5 MHz will show an impedance of about 7-j384 ohms. That's a typical "Marconi" antenna. Add one 33 foot horizontal wire at the top to make an Inverted L and the impedance jumps to 18-j23 ohms. Note that while the resistive component as increased 2-1/2 times the reactance has also dropped; both positives in improving efficiency. The pattern is now a skewed mix of horizontal and vertical radiation. Now add a second 33 foot horizontal wire at the top running 180 degrees away from the first (that is, there is now a 66 foot horizontal wire connected at its center to the 33 foot vertical wire). The impedance raises further to about 22+J79 ohms. The top wire radiation cancels nicely (being out of phase) and the radiation pattern looks very typically vertical again. Top wire angles of other than 180 degrees (straight line) will produce odd mixed results of horizontal components. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of WILLIS COOKE Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:36 AM To: Edward Dickinson, III; elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna) Dick, my research would say probably not. The exception would be if your lot is such that you could run more than one shorter wire and can't run a single one. Also you might be able to make a capacity hat with the top guys broken by insulators and not need another support. The antenna would then be known as a T top or Capacity Hat type vertical. In any case the horizontal wires do not contribute much to the radiation pattern but do help raise the radiation resistance, increase the band width and bring the short vertical wire to resonance. The choice seems to me to be primarily for installation convenience which varies from QTH to QTH. Willis 'Cookie' Cooke K5EWJ From: "Edward Dickinson, III" To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 12:16:53 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna) On the Inverted-L off topic, is there anything to be gained, or lost for that matter, by having more than one of the horizontal portion of the antenna? 73, Dick - KA5KKT __ 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 __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Elliptical? I suppose so. But simply stating the facts seems to have little effect and just gets bashed, where wading through the issues, however elliptical, seems to give the nay-sayers some pause, and have some effect. Radials, even in 2010, 80 years after the last definitive research, are still the undiscovered country, aside from the FCC mandated treatment for commercial BC band antenna systems. To answer your question, practically speaking, yes. Go make yourself an insulated 151' DOG and note how you can find a resonance. Repeat with a notched into the ground bare wire version. The primary resonance is QUITE clear and pronounced on the insulated DOG. The "third harmonic" dip on the insulated DOG is less pronounced than the primary resonance and oddly skewed from a times three frequency. But the resonance effects at even harmonics can move the field cancellation effect (or current return as some term it), one of the benefits of radials, off optimum by moving the primary current max in the radial wire away from the center. This last effect of "too long" radials is documented by ON4UN in one of his older books, but not related to it's possible consequences in a multiband use of a given radial field. Though this is a very fuzzy figure, I don't see insulated wires terminating in less than 500+. Use of bare wire notched into the ground minimizes the self-termination length for the even harmonics of the effective. It is a VERY elliptical connection, but needing to specify a length for the intentionally insulated BOG receiving antenna to get good front to back, and varying the termination resistance from typical beverage, is a reverse proof of the same issue, e.g. that with insulated wire on the ground, you have to pay attention to reflection and resonance effects. A 235' BOG is not long enough for self-termination to take control of measurements. 73, Guy. On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Vic K2VCO wrote: > Your post is a little elliptical, but am I to understand that you are saying > that there > are resonant effects noted with in-ground radials when the wire is insulated, > but not when > it's bare? > > If that's true it's interesting and I hadn't heard it before. Most writers on > the subject > simply say that if the wires are in or on the ground to ignore the question > of resonance > and just make them as long as possible -- and they don't mention the use of > insulated or > bare wire. > > I have always thought that the connection to ground from an in- or on- ground > radial > system was primarily capacitive and that insulation or lack thereof was > irrelevant. > > I'm not challenging what you say, just interested in the idea. I've always > used insulated > wire just to improve resistance to corrosion. > > On 12/20/2010 9:28 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: >> (For the record, I am also addressing some off-reflector extensions of >> this thread with a single post.) >> >> We are still talking about an end-fed antenna for 80-10 which presents >> unique problems. Trimming the horizontal length of up 30, out 30 for >> a good match will help a lot. But that will not address avoiding an >> up to 10 dB loss problem in the radial system that can make it perform >> like a wet noodle dipole. >> >> Although there really is not that much published on this, LOCAL >> research, I repeat, RESEARCH, does indicate a lossy booby trap in what >> is done at the base with radials. Adding the high bands to the radial >> calculations takes away from using any insulated radials because the >> radials (MEASURED, not modeled) can have velocity factors as low as 45 >> percent and as high as 80 percent laid on or notched into the ground. >> A range of 54 to 76 was measured in a single back yard, just moving >> the site and orientation of the measurement. Picking and keeping an >> anti-resonant length for insulated radials, as in the vertical length, >> is an impossibility. >> >> If any of you want to prove this yourself, put down a 151 foot (46 >> meter) dipole on the ground (DOG). Insulate the ends so they don't >> short to ground and measure the resonance point and feed resistance. >> Use the handbook formulas to compute velocity factor. Scan across 160 >> through 40 meters and make a graph of the varying readings. Let it >> lay on top of the grass, measure it, notch it in and re-measure. >> Measure in wet weather, and measure after things have dried out. >> Measure it in different places in your yard, note how it changes. Post >> your measurements as you go. Put down a 151' BARE WIRE dipole and lay >> it on top of the grass. Measure. Water it with a garden hose and >> remeasure. Now notch it into the ground (needs to be in contact with >> the dirt all the way) and remeasure. In particular note how the feed >> Z measurement levels out over frequency, how the Z remains more or >> less constant across the frequency range. This exercise will help you >> in thinking about getting on 160 meters. It should also
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
If the horizontal wires run parallel to each other, it will start to look like the old LF antennas Hams used before we moved into the "short waves". They typically had a number of horizontal wires running parallel held apart by spacers and erected as high as possible. Those were really top-loaded verticals. The vertical 'feeder' wire did the radiating and all the wires up top provided capacitance to ground to help bring the antenna to resonance. Sometimes the 'feeder' was connected at one end of the top wires, and sometimes it was connected somewhere near the middle. (Resonance wasn't much understood in the very early days but the resonant frequency of the antenna is what determined the operating frequency of the spark transmitter. Somewhere in those dim distant days was probably when the idea of "bigger is better" for antennas first became a rule of thumb since bigger meant a lower operating frequency, and lower frequencies were thought to offer the best range.) If the horizontal wires go in various directions, their fields will interact to produce lobes of stronger signal or cancel to provide nulls, depending upon their lengths and angles. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- On the Inverted-L off topic, is there anything to be gained, or lost for that matter, by having more than one of the horizontal portion of the antenna? 73, Dick - KA5KKT __ 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
[Elecraft] 100 Watts or 500 Watts
I own a K3/10 with ATU and would like to upgrade power. The question is do I go with the 100w PA option or wait for the KPA500. Any and all comments are most welcome. Thanks in advance and Merry Christmas to all. -- Frank KD8FIP __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Dick, my research would say probably not. The exception would be if your lot is such that you could run more than one shorter wire and can't run a single one. Also you might be able to make a capacity hat with the top guys broken by insulators and not need another support. The antenna would then be known as a T top or Capacity Hat type vertical. In any case the horizontal wires do not contribute much to the radiation pattern but do help raise the radiation resistance, increase the band width and bring the short vertical wire to resonance. The choice seems to me to be primarily for installation convenience which varies from QTH to QTH. Willis 'Cookie' Cooke K5EWJ From: "Edward Dickinson, III" To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 12:16:53 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna) On the Inverted-L off topic, is there anything to be gained, or lost for that matter, by having more than one of the horizontal portion of the antenna? 73, Dick - KA5KKT __ 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 __ 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
[Elecraft] Soldering Naked
Sorry!! sent the wrong info in last message. The "fume Extractor was not in Instructables.com but the article appeared in a video on Youtubes.com just go to youtubes.com and in search type mini fume extractor. which appeared in Make Magazine article and is in this video. Sorry, really thought I had the right place. MikeSr Mecsr AB7OC __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KPA-500
Ron misspoke. He meant the KPA3, not the KPA 500 Dick On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:35, "Roy Morris" wrote: > This is interesting. From this statement it appears the KPA-500 will not be > in the circuit until the K3 power level is at 12 or greater watts. Is this > correct? Thanks, Roy Morris W4WFB > > Presumably 12 watts is fine with the K3 since that's where the KPA500 > switches in! > > Ron AC7AC > > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
On the Inverted-L off topic, is there anything to be gained, or lost for that matter, by having more than one of the horizontal portion of the antenna? 73, Dick - KA5KKT __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Another antenna for top band that's worth considering is a Double L (Don Toman, K2KQ) www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm . It is essentially a vertical dipole with the ends bent parallel to the ground and in the same vertical plane. So, if you have, say, a 70 foot or higher tower, you can raise the bottom horizontal wire up 10 feet off the ground and the top one at 70 feet. The pattern is primarily influenced by the 60 foot (center fed) vertical section (omni directional with decent low-angle lobes). I find it works well both long-haul and close in. Because it is a vertical dipole, the ground return is via the lower vertical/horizontal (non-non-inverted L). So, no need for radials, just the one 105 foot horizonal wire at 10 feet. I have mine hanging off the tower with bungee cords at 72 and 10 feet. The vertical portion is parallel to the tower and about 24 inches from it. Both horizontal portions go to the same tree (the tree is not high enough, so the my antenna looks more like a pennant than a true Double L). But, it does work. Compared with inverted Ls, half slopers, and other antennas I've tried, this one has been the most reliable. Rob K6RB __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] k-3 kit info
It's a screw together kit.. you don't have to even heat the soldering iron. If you have a small philips screw driver, a pair of needle nose pliers, 2 hands (that don't shake too much) and eyes that can see relatively small things, I would say you're ready to go. > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:11:33 -0800 > From: biggsbigb...@yahoo.com > To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Subject: [Elecraft] k-3 kit info > > am new to ham and to kit building. is the k-3 kit a deep end of the pool kit > or can us wading pool types get our feet wet with it? > s/ tony rowland > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Use of DB9 Switch with K3?
> Does this mean that I can use K3-EX CONCURRENTLY with N1MM via Router > on a separate com port, Joe? I haven't tried it with N1MM Logger but it certainly works with DXLab Suite with Commander actively polling. > But it STILL means I must retain my other com port for software > updates, as it is still not recommended to do this through router, > correct? *ABSOLUTELY* Never do a software update through Router with any of the microHAM "Keyer" interfaces, MK2R/MK2R+ or Station Master. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/18/2010 8:20 PM, Luis V. Romero wrote: > GOOD suggestion! While I don't swap cables, I just flip one switch on the > serial selector switch, but this is a good thing to know... Does this mean > that I can use K3-EX CONCURRENTLY with N1MM via Router on a separate com > port, Joe? > > That would be really great! A GUI for the radio! > > I will give this a try! > > But it STILL means I must retain my other com port for software updates, as > it is still not recommended to do this through router, correct? > > -lu-W4LT > K3 #3192 > >> -Original Message- >> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:li...@subich.com] >> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:17 PM >> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net; lrom...@ij.net >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Use of DB9 Switch with K3? >> >> >>> When I need to load software or do any adjustments with >> K3-EZ or the >>> Utilities, I switch to the "real" comp port. When I >> operate, I switch >>> to the MicroHam. >> >> There is no need to switch cables to use K3-EZ. Configure >> K3-EZ to use the "2nd CAT" port in microHAM Router. >> >> 73, >> >> ... Joe, W4TV >> >> On 12/18/2010 1:31 PM, Luis V. Romero wrote: >>> Hi George: >>> >>> Just heard you on 10 meters a couple of minutes ago calling >> CQ on CW. >>> >>> Although I don't use a P3 (My new roof just finished being >> installed a >>> couple of hours ago, so the P3 will wait for later in >> 2011), my setup >>> is the >>> following: >>> >>> "Real" com port 1 from my computer goes to side B of the >> switch. The >>> MicroHam MK2 serial output goes to port A. There is a >> standard RS232 >>> cable going from the common output of the switch feeding the serial >>> input of the K3. >>> >>> When I need to load software or do any adjustments with >> K3-EZ or the >>> Utilities, I switch to the "real" comp port. When I >> operate, I switch >>> to the MicroHam. You can do this while the MicroHam is >> online, and it >>> does not bother it. The frequency display on its front panel shows >>> dashes until I switch back to the MicroHam output on the switch. >>> >>> Its transparent and I have never run into any issues with >> this setup at all. >>> >>> -lu-W4LT- >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Message: 23 >>> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:45:10 EST >>> From: georgek...@aol.com >>> Subject: [Elecraft] Use of DB9 Switch with K3? >>> To: supp...@microham.com, elecraft@mailman.qth.net >>> Message-ID:<2b4b3.72d9996.3a3d8...@aol.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" >>> >>> At times, my microHam CW Keyer is connected to my K3 via >> the P3. However, >>> when I want to download new firmware for the K3, I have to >> disconnect >>> the CW Keyer from the RS232 port, and connect the DB9 from the >>> computer's serial >>> >>>port to the K3 via the P3. >>> >>> Can I use a DB9 A/B switch to switch between the the two >> DB9 cables without >>>creating any problems? >>> >>> 73, George >>> >>> George Wagner, K5KG >>> Sarasota, FL >>> 941-400-1960 cell >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools >> AntiVirus >>> (6.1.0.25 - 6.14880). >>> http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ >>> __ >>> 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 >>> > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.1.0.25 - 6.14880). > http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Use of DB9 Switch with K3?
> When I need to load software or do any adjustments with K3-EZ or the > Utilities, I switch to the "real" comp port. When I operate, I switch > to the MicroHam. There is no need to switch cables to use K3-EZ. Configure K3-EZ to use the "2nd CAT" port in microHAM Router. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/18/2010 1:31 PM, Luis V. Romero wrote: > Hi George: > > Just heard you on 10 meters a couple of minutes ago calling CQ on CW. > > Although I don't use a P3 (My new roof just finished being installed a > couple of hours ago, so the P3 will wait for later in 2011), my setup is the > following: > > "Real" com port 1 from my computer goes to side B of the switch. The > MicroHam MK2 serial output goes to port A. There is a standard RS232 cable > going from the common output of the switch feeding the serial input of the > K3. > > When I need to load software or do any adjustments with K3-EZ or the > Utilities, I switch to the "real" comp port. When I operate, I switch to > the MicroHam. You can do this while the MicroHam is online, and it does not > bother it. The frequency display on its front panel shows dashes until I > switch back to the MicroHam output on the switch. > > Its transparent and I have never run into any issues with this setup at all. > > -lu-W4LT- > > --- > > Message: 23 > Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:45:10 EST > From: georgek...@aol.com > Subject: [Elecraft] Use of DB9 Switch with K3? > To: supp...@microham.com, elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Message-ID:<2b4b3.72d9996.3a3d8...@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > At times, my microHam CW Keyer is connected to my K3 via the P3. However, > when I want to download new firmware for the K3, I have to disconnect the > CW Keyer from the RS232 port, and connect the DB9 from the computer's serial > > port to the K3 via the P3. > > Can I use a DB9 A/B switch to switch between the the two DB9 cables without > creating any problems? > > 73, George > > George Wagner, K5KG > Sarasota, FL > 941-400-1960 cell > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.1.0.25 - 6.14880). > http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Use of DB9 Switch with K3?
I unplug the microHAM RS-232 cable and connect a standard cable from COM1 (the serial port on the motherboard) of my test system when I need to upload firmware. However, I know of several others who are using a serial A/B switch without problems. For safety reasons make sure the switch is a break before make (non-shorting) type. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/17/2010 10:45 PM, georgek...@aol.com wrote: > At times, my microHam CW Keyer is connected to my K3 via the P3. However, > when I want to download new firmware for the K3, I have to disconnect the > CW Keyer from the RS232 port, and connect the DB9 from the computer's serial > port to the K3 via the P3. > > Can I use a DB9 A/B switch to switch between the the two DB9 cables without > creating any problems? > > 73, George > > George Wagner, K5KG > Sarasota, FL > 941-400-1960 cell > __ > 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 > __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Data A filter questions
Wes, > Here is a clue for the guys I hope start looking into this. I cannot > toggle filter modes in CW either *if PB CTRL is set to .01, but can > toggle if PB CTRL is set to .05.* That is correct operation. If PB CTRL = .01, HI/LO is disabled. You will find that information in the firmware release notes when the 10 Hz step was first released (MCU 3.25/DSP 2.21). "Applies to CW and DATA only; LOCUT/HICUT cannot be used when 10 HZ shift steps are in effect; Width steps remain 50 Hz in all cases" As to your 400 Hz filter, that is the default in all data modes. The width can be changed easily by using the "Width" knob or pressing XFIL to select the 2800 Hz roofing filter ... I program the PSK start-up macro in DXLab Suite/WinWarbler to set the bandwidth to 2800 Hz when ever the mode is set to PSK (or the K3 is set to DATA A). 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 12/16/2010 10:58 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: > Don, > > Yes, in SSB I can toggle between Shift/Width to Lo/Hi. > > In data modes I cannot. I never paid attention to AFSK A before since I use > 915 Hz for Mark and I never found it necessary to change the default shift of > 1 KHz or to toggle to Lo/Hi. > > Here is a clue for the guys I hope start looking into this. I cannot toggle > filter modes in CW either *if PB CTRL is set to .01, but can toggle if PB > CTRL is set to .05.* > > Unfortunately, this isn't a fix for the data modes. > > Wes N7WS > > --- On Thu, 12/16/10, Don Wilhelm wrote: > >>Wes, >> >> Can you toggle between HI/LO and SHIFT/WIDTH when in SSB >> mode? >> I can shift between the two in all data modes except FSK D >> where they >> stay in SHIFT/WIDTH. >> >> Just wondering if your K3 is broken. >> >> 73, >> Don W3FPR >> >> On 12/16/2010 3:29 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: >>> Don, and I'll reply to Monty here too, >>> >>> There is no question that I'm in Data A and my HI and >> LO controls do not function. I seldom use PSK, I >> prefer RTTY, but I'm sure that this didn't happen in the >> past. Just for giggles I rolled back my firmware to >> 4.0 sumptin' and I had the same issue. >>> >>> I generally leave the VFO set for example to 14.070 >> and click tune on the waterfall, but use HI and LO cut to >> select the signal of interest. As it stands the SHIFT >> range is so limited that I can't isolate lower tones. >>> >>> Wes > > > > __ > 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 > __ 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
[Elecraft] Soldering Naked
For those who might be interested. I found a small little project to build in "Instructables.com" called a "Fume Extractor" which fits in an Altoids Tin,(what else), It involves a small computer fan,a piece of carbon fiber filter from a fish tank filter, a switch, 2, 9v batteries,connectors for them,and some wires.and some incidental parts like screening for the holes you cut in altoids tin to let air pass through the fan. The jist is that you set it behind the soldering you are doing and the fumes are sucked into the unit,scrubbed by the filtering materials and blown out the back of unit. Sucking them away from you and cleaning bad stuff out of the air in the room from the soldering. Batteries are wired in series so they produce 18v for the fan. And still power it when they start to run down Do search in Intructables.com for "Fume Extractor" If you can't find it email me offsite at me...@wtechlink.us and I will try and send my copy,if I can find it. Mecsr MikeSr AB7OC __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] MCU Load Failure
The current K3 Utility has a big Troubleshooting MCU Load page in K3 Utility Help Let me know if that doesn't get you going, Ken... 73 de Dick, K6KR On Dec 19, 2010, at 17:17, "Ken Widelitz" wrote: > I made a mistake and tried to upload the newest MCU prior to uploading the > uploader update. I now have an MCU LD and can't get the updated updater to > recognize the K3. Help. > > > > 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT > > > > > > __ > 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
That's why I prefer an end-fed dipole to a Marconi antenna, even if I have to get creative to get wire up and in the clear. The advantage is that the high impedance feed point at the end means very little current flows, so very little current need flow into the "ground" connection. Very little current means very little loss, since it's the ground resistance that bedevils efficiency in a Marconi (i.e. 1/4 wavelength or less) antenna. But that high impedance at the feed point is also the end fed dipole's downside. If near a half wave the impedance is usually beyond the matching range of most ATUs. However a small compromise in length will usually yield a "matchable" but high impedance. As one moves up in frequency that impedance will vary widely but will always be fairly high compared to a 1/4 wave radiator, and so offer much better efficiency for any given ground system. With the end fed dipole, an RF ground becomes more important to "keep RF out of the shack" by keeping RF voltages at the rig ground low rather than for efficiency. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- (For the record, I am also addressing some off-reflector extensions of this thread with a single post.) We are still talking about an end-fed antenna for 80-10 which presents unique problems. Trimming the horizontal length of up 30, out 30 for a good match will help a lot. But that will not address avoiding an up to 10 dB loss problem in the radial system that can make it perform like a wet noodle dipole... 73, Guy. __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KPA-500
No. As I sent in my correction: "Whups, I meant that's where the KPA3 switches in. Ron AC7AC" Just had KPA500 on the mind ;-) Ron -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Roy Morris Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:35 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] KPA-500 This is interesting. From this statement it appears the KPA-500 will not be in the circuit until the K3 power level is at 12 or greater watts. Is this correct? Thanks, Roy Morris W4WFB Presumably 12 watts is fine with the K3 since that's where the KPA500 switches in! Ron AC7AC __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Your post is a little elliptical, but am I to understand that you are saying that there are resonant effects noted with in-ground radials when the wire is insulated, but not when it's bare? If that's true it's interesting and I hadn't heard it before. Most writers on the subject simply say that if the wires are in or on the ground to ignore the question of resonance and just make them as long as possible -- and they don't mention the use of insulated or bare wire. I have always thought that the connection to ground from an in- or on- ground radial system was primarily capacitive and that insulation or lack thereof was irrelevant. I'm not challenging what you say, just interested in the idea. I've always used insulated wire just to improve resistance to corrosion. On 12/20/2010 9:28 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > (For the record, I am also addressing some off-reflector extensions of > this thread with a single post.) > > We are still talking about an end-fed antenna for 80-10 which presents > unique problems. Trimming the horizontal length of up 30, out 30 for > a good match will help a lot. But that will not address avoiding an > up to 10 dB loss problem in the radial system that can make it perform > like a wet noodle dipole. > > Although there really is not that much published on this, LOCAL > research, I repeat, RESEARCH, does indicate a lossy booby trap in what > is done at the base with radials. Adding the high bands to the radial > calculations takes away from using any insulated radials because the > radials (MEASURED, not modeled) can have velocity factors as low as 45 > percent and as high as 80 percent laid on or notched into the ground. > A range of 54 to 76 was measured in a single back yard, just moving > the site and orientation of the measurement. Picking and keeping an > anti-resonant length for insulated radials, as in the vertical length, > is an impossibility. > > If any of you want to prove this yourself, put down a 151 foot (46 > meter) dipole on the ground (DOG). Insulate the ends so they don't > short to ground and measure the resonance point and feed resistance. > Use the handbook formulas to compute velocity factor. Scan across 160 > through 40 meters and make a graph of the varying readings. Let it > lay on top of the grass, measure it, notch it in and re-measure. > Measure in wet weather, and measure after things have dried out. > Measure it in different places in your yard, note how it changes. Post > your measurements as you go. Put down a 151' BARE WIRE dipole and lay > it on top of the grass. Measure. Water it with a garden hose and > remeasure. Now notch it into the ground (needs to be in contact with > the dirt all the way) and remeasure. In particular note how the feed > Z measurement levels out over frequency, how the Z remains more or > less constant across the frequency range. This exercise will help you > in thinking about getting on 160 meters. It should also make you > really suspicious of insulated radial claims for multiband > applications. > > I have a list of call signs who are dismissive of these radial > concerns AND ALSO argue that 0.3 dB is significant on RX. This > particular schizophrenia is really hard to understand. I understand > the reverse, someone who considers 0.3 dB significant being a really > snotty radial purist. He's sweating the little dB parts any place he > can dig them up. > > Don't wonder if this is truthful or not, or worry that it's not the > common wisdom (whatever that is). Just go out and measure it > yourself, and spend a contemplative cup of coffee at a quiet time > about how YOUR measured results will effect use of radial wires on/in > the ground. In analyzing this, remember that this scales to 30 feet on > 10 meters quite nicely, that the competition is multi-element yagis, > and if anything, ground losses on 10 meters are MORE significant than > low bands where the enemy has more of the same constraints. > > Now contemplate how the ENDS of insulated wires are going to corrode > and arc through (that's a voltage point at the wire ends) over time > and change the radial system behavior over time. > > You could prove in this bad behavior on 160 (where radials are common > and an everyday issue) if you want by putting down 120 insulated 250' > radials and do a time study. You don't hear about this, proving it's a > disaster, because people want to spend their precious constructing > time and even scarcer construction dollars on something that will > work, not disproving an idea that won't work. That's NOT a dig at > anyone, radial construction time and money when you're raising a > family and/or building a career IS precious. > > Insulated radials are subject to resonance effects which depend on > today's ground moisture to set today's velocity factor over/in your > particular dirt and complicate the performance of the radials in the > same way that the length of the vertical complicates selecting lengt
Re: [Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
(For the record, I am also addressing some off-reflector extensions of this thread with a single post.) We are still talking about an end-fed antenna for 80-10 which presents unique problems. Trimming the horizontal length of up 30, out 30 for a good match will help a lot. But that will not address avoiding an up to 10 dB loss problem in the radial system that can make it perform like a wet noodle dipole. Although there really is not that much published on this, LOCAL research, I repeat, RESEARCH, does indicate a lossy booby trap in what is done at the base with radials. Adding the high bands to the radial calculations takes away from using any insulated radials because the radials (MEASURED, not modeled) can have velocity factors as low as 45 percent and as high as 80 percent laid on or notched into the ground. A range of 54 to 76 was measured in a single back yard, just moving the site and orientation of the measurement. Picking and keeping an anti-resonant length for insulated radials, as in the vertical length, is an impossibility. If any of you want to prove this yourself, put down a 151 foot (46 meter) dipole on the ground (DOG). Insulate the ends so they don't short to ground and measure the resonance point and feed resistance. Use the handbook formulas to compute velocity factor. Scan across 160 through 40 meters and make a graph of the varying readings. Let it lay on top of the grass, measure it, notch it in and re-measure. Measure in wet weather, and measure after things have dried out. Measure it in different places in your yard, note how it changes. Post your measurements as you go. Put down a 151' BARE WIRE dipole and lay it on top of the grass. Measure. Water it with a garden hose and remeasure. Now notch it into the ground (needs to be in contact with the dirt all the way) and remeasure. In particular note how the feed Z measurement levels out over frequency, how the Z remains more or less constant across the frequency range. This exercise will help you in thinking about getting on 160 meters. It should also make you really suspicious of insulated radial claims for multiband applications. I have a list of call signs who are dismissive of these radial concerns AND ALSO argue that 0.3 dB is significant on RX. This particular schizophrenia is really hard to understand. I understand the reverse, someone who considers 0.3 dB significant being a really snotty radial purist. He's sweating the little dB parts any place he can dig them up. Don't wonder if this is truthful or not, or worry that it's not the common wisdom (whatever that is). Just go out and measure it yourself, and spend a contemplative cup of coffee at a quiet time about how YOUR measured results will effect use of radial wires on/in the ground. In analyzing this, remember that this scales to 30 feet on 10 meters quite nicely, that the competition is multi-element yagis, and if anything, ground losses on 10 meters are MORE significant than low bands where the enemy has more of the same constraints. Now contemplate how the ENDS of insulated wires are going to corrode and arc through (that's a voltage point at the wire ends) over time and change the radial system behavior over time. You could prove in this bad behavior on 160 (where radials are common and an everyday issue) if you want by putting down 120 insulated 250' radials and do a time study. You don't hear about this, proving it's a disaster, because people want to spend their precious constructing time and even scarcer construction dollars on something that will work, not disproving an idea that won't work. That's NOT a dig at anyone, radial construction time and money when you're raising a family and/or building a career IS precious. Insulated radials are subject to resonance effects which depend on today's ground moisture to set today's velocity factor over/in your particular dirt and complicate the performance of the radials in the same way that the length of the vertical complicates selecting lengths there. The difference is that you get it set for the vertical wire and you are done. This becomes a ridiculous moving target for choosing a decent multi-band length with an insulated wire on the ground. If you're looking for some validation in the commercial world, the simple commercial reality is that most people simply do not want to deal with radials, will short-cut the procedure and then blame the awful results on the antenna itself. Radials are a total commercial nightmare for the ham market. All the commercial manufacturers avoid this conundrum by using some counterpoise technique on the high bands. If the radials are not dense, the vertical wire will get the blame. It will get the blame regardless of whether it is straight up or an L. But the 1000 pound gorilla in the room was always the radials. I do not know why hamdom seems so oddly dismissive of this. Putting radials down IS a real PITA. But 60 bare wire radials buried just under the so
Re: [Elecraft] KPA-500
Me too. I got some cheap Yankee dollars that are getting nervous... And they are either gonna buy some more gold or a KPA 500. (I would vote for a KPA) Sent from my iPad On Dec 20, 2010, at 10:20 AM, "Robert M. Klein" wrote: > All of this talk about the KPA-500 has gotten me fired up about it again. > Well, we have waited patiently, but no news on when it will be available for > sale or when pre-orders will be accepted. > > An update, please? The natives are getting restless. > > Robert KY1RK > __ > 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 __ 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
[Elecraft] KPA-500
All of this talk about the KPA-500 has gotten me fired up about it again. Well, we have waited patiently, but no news on when it will be available for sale or when pre-orders will be accepted. An update, please? The natives are getting restless. Robert KY1RK __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] stealth ant
- Original Message - live in an apt on ground floor. looking for a stealth ant. see that elecraft has a small ant. package for sale. Just getting started. no 100 foot towers. 90 foot wires etc. he said with tongue firmly planted to cheek REPLY: QST had some neat write-ups in their recent issues regarding stealth antennas. One of them being the favorite flagpole design. I cannot recall which issue, sorry. 72 Ron, wb1hga __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] KPA-500
Typo. He meant 'KPA3'.. :-) 73, Eric === On 12/20/2010 8:35 AM, Roy Morris wrote: > This is interesting. From this statement it appears the KPA-500 will not be > in the circuit until the K3 power level is at 12 or greater watts. Is this > correct? Thanks, Roy Morris W4WFB > > Presumably 12 watts is fine with the K3 since that's where the KPA500 > switches in! > > Ron AC7AC __ 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
[Elecraft] KPA-500
This is interesting. From this statement it appears the KPA-500 will not be in the circuit until the K3 power level is at 12 or greater watts. Is this correct? Thanks, Roy Morris W4WFB Presumably 12 watts is fine with the K3 since that's where the KPA500 switches in! Ron AC7AC __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects [End of Thread]
Fun thread, but time to put it to bed. :-) 73, Eric WA6HHQ Elecraft List Moderator On 12/20/2010 7:12 AM, Milt, N5IA wrote: > James, > > I am sure you are in violation of one or more state and federal laws. > Obviously you are polluting the neighborhood at large and the world as a > whole:-) :-) > > Now you have incriminated yourself. Oh well. > > 73, and Merry Christmas to all. > > Milt, N5IA __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] stealth antt.
Tony, The Elecraft antenna tuners do a really fine job for stealth antennas. I live in a garden home and have an antenna farm that is completely in my attic. I use a simple long wire on 80/40 that works well. It is 54' in total length, the ends are bent down 11' to the attic floor with 44' out over the garage. Force 12 makes a five band vertical that is only 9 feet tall that work well on 20 thru 10 meters. Just evaluate what kind of room you can grab. You can get an idea of what I did from my website. There is a link at the bottom of this page. 73s Jim. On Dec 20, 2010, at 9:55 AM, tony rowland wrote: > live in an apt on ground floor. looking for a stealth ant. see that > elecraft has a small ant. package for sale. Just getting started. > no 100 foot towers. 90 foot wires ect. he said with tongue firmly > planted to cheek > 73s > tony Rowland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __ > 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 JIM ROGERS w4...@bellsouth.net http://web.me.com/jimrogers_w4atk __ 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
[Elecraft] stealth antt.
live in an apt on ground floor. looking for a stealth ant. see that elecraft has a small ant. package for sale. Just getting started. no 100 foot towers. 90 foot wires ect. he said with tongue firmly planted to cheek 73s tony Rowland __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects
Dam I should be dead by now from lead poisoning .!! Sam Strongin kf4yox -Original Message- From: Milt, N5IA Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:12 AM To: k2qi@gmail.com ; Ron D'Eau Claire ; elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net ; Elecraft Reflector Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects James, I am sure you are in violation of one or more state and federal laws. Obviously you are polluting the neighborhood at large and the world as a whole:-) :-) Now you have incriminated yourself. Oh well. 73, and Merry Christmas to all. Milt, N5IA > Toxins are a good point raised, and I on more than one occasion have felt > the effects of lead poisoning as you've described. I do not have > ventilator hood either, but now try to work with the window open and have > small desktop fan which attempts to blow most of the fumes and smoke out > of that window. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. > > 73, > James K2QI __ 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 __ 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
[Elecraft] Inverted-L (was OT: Vertical antenna)
Going from loop to vertical involves two very different lob patterns. It was never mentioned if the antenna performance was to favor local or DX. Here is one which it does not matter as it adapts for both. A nice compromise antenna which takes into account: ---high and low angle lobe patterns ---good match (resonant on 80m) ---small footprint ==DESCRIPTION=== INVERTED-L: 33 ft vertical, 33 ft top wire, feed at base against 12 16ft radials. I use Radio Shack low loss 300 ohm tv wire for feed According to calculations EZNEC had a 40ft top wire. In the field I trimmed it until we got an acceptable match on several bands For supports I have used the DK9SQ mast as the main and used the Black Widow 20ft for the end support with great success I use RCA connectors for many of my antennas. I install male RCAs on wires and interconnect with using DOUBLE FEMALES. For 300 ohm TV wire I will solder short piece of speaker wire to each of the conductors and then securely tape the soldered area to the ribbon insulator body . To the end of each speaker wire I afix a MALE RCA. Generally I will make one speaker wire on each end a little shorter (3/4 inch) so I can tell easily identify which wire is which. The RCAs work great and it they break off in the field I carry wire nuts for emergencies I have EZNEC pattern (PDF) for several bands and also a sketch for the 300 ohm connection if you want more details Note at the QTH I have used this for 80 and 160m with good success including contacts with Japan on 160m. I am sure the key is the other fellows has HUGE arrays but it worked. Hope this helps Alan KB7MBI __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas
If you have the kind of dirt I have here in the Sonoran Desert, I contend that the worst horizontal wire you can put up will be better than the best 43' vertical you can use. As long as we're using anecdotal evidence, check my call in the ZL8X log. I missed them on 10-meter RTTY. Except for 20-meters where I have a homebrew 3-el Yagi at 45 feet, all of the other QSOs were using an inverted-vee doublet with 40-meter and 80-meter wires in parallel fed with 175 feet of RG-8. The ends are about 25 feet off the ground. I worked them on 160 CW using my barefoot TS-870S because it has a tuner (my K3 does not) and my L-4B doesn't cover 160. For the SSB QSO I added some wire to the ends to resonate it. One end was four feet off the ground. I worked them with the barefoot K3. If you're not into anecdotal evidence, (I'm not), modeling will show this to you. Yes, verticals have a lower "angle of radiation," but much less of it, even at the favored angle, than a "high-angle" horizontal. Wes N7WS --- On Mon, 12/20/10, Bob Naumann wrote: > I can heartily recommend the AD5X 43' > remote-switched matching system. I use > one with my Zero Five 43' vertical and it works remarkably > well on 160 > through 10m. Look for my callsign in the ZL8X online lookup > - I worked them > on CW on all bands 160 through 10m and a few on SSB and > RTTY too with only > this antenna. __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects
James, I am sure you are in violation of one or more state and federal laws. Obviously you are polluting the neighborhood at large and the world as a whole:-) :-) Now you have incriminated yourself. Oh well. 73, and Merry Christmas to all. Milt, N5IA > Toxins are a good point raised, and I on more than one occasion have felt > the effects of lead poisoning as you've described. I do not have > ventilator hood either, but now try to work with the window open and have > small desktop fan which attempts to blow most of the fumes and smoke out > of that window. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. > > 73, > James K2QI __ 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
[Elecraft] XG 2 Sold Pending payment
See above. __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] P3 # 817 gets a new front panel
Rich, Your the first person to comment. I'm guessing it was a small batch that was off the mark...800-850...funny there are not others commenting. 73, Bill On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:18 PM, K3RWN wrote: > I concur with all. #836 was mated with its new panel last night. > > Rich > > > Bill Hammond-AK5X wham...@aol.com a...@mac.com a...@sbcglobal.net K3 #69 K2/100 #4637 K1 #2033 KX1 #1023 T1 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas
I can heartily recommend the AD5X 43' remote-switched matching system. I use one with my Zero Five 43' vertical and it works remarkably well on 160 through 10m. Look for my callsign in the ZL8X online lookup - I worked them on CW on all bands 160 through 10m and a few on SSB and RTTY too with only this antenna. This weekend in the Stew Perry Distance Challenge (160CW) I also logged the following (just a few examples out of over 100 qsos made in about three hours of operation): QSO: 1818 CW 2010-12-19 0355 W5OV 599 EM12 4B2S 599 DL49 QSO: 1813 CW 2010-12-19 0359 W5OV 599 EM12 W1BB 599 FN42 QSO: 1826 CW 2010-12-19 0412 W5OV 599 EM12 KV4FZ 599 FK77 QSO: 1826 CW 2010-12-19 1151 W5OV 599 EM12 KL7RA 599 BP40 QSO: 1825 CW 2010-12-19 1324 W5OV 599 EM12 JA3YBK599 PM84 It may not be the best antenna, but it works and pretty well. I think that was my first ever JA on 160. 73, Bob W5OV -Original Message- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Phil & Debbie Salas Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:41 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas Lots of good advice has been given here. The SWR-related coax losses on 60-10 meters will be negligable with decent coax (I use 1/2" Heliax, but LMR-400 is almost as good), especially with your short run. I use my K3 internal tuner for these bands. For 160- and 80-meters, I have a remote-switched base matching system that works great. Info on this is in the "Articles" section of my website at www.ad5x.com. Phil - AD5X __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Solved: CM500 mic keeps cutting out midsentence
Use your EQ more, no need for external audio gear here. To make your voice sound more 'round'...peak your low freq settings. Again, keep playing with the EQ settings and you should get the desired audio. 73's Gary On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Jeff Hall (W6UX) wrote: > Thanks to everyone who offered their suggestions! > > I am not sure what happened, but the problem cleared up simply by accessing > my uRouter software for the MKII and toggling from Front mic to Rear, then > back to Front. Once I did this I immediately noticed the CMP and ALC bars > back to their desired peaks (5-7 for ALC, 10 for CMP). > > I worked with a local audiophile over the air and we settled on the > following settings: > > Mic Sel: rPL.bias > Mic: 30 > Cmp: 20 > VOX Delay: 1.2 (for rag chews; use something shorter for contesting) > VOX Gn: 50 > AntiVox: 25 > > The tone of my voice was still a bit nasal to him, so we adjusted the TX EQ > as follows: > > 50 Hz @ +0 dB > 100 Hz @ +0 dB > 200 Hz @ +8 dB > 400 Hz @ +2 dB > 800 Hz @ -16 dB > 1600 Hz @ -2 dB > 2400 Hz @ +0 dB > 3200 Hz @ +0 dB > > He suggested I consider adding a Behringer Shark DSP110 to soften up my > tone > and give it a warmer, fuller sound. They can be had cheap on eBay so I may > pick one up to experiment with. > > 73, > Jeff W6UX > __ > 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 > -- Gary VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile http://www.qsl.net/vk4fd/ K3 #679, P3 #546 For everything else there's Mastercard!!! __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects
Toxins are a good point raised, and I on more than one occasion have felt the effects of lead poisoning as you've described. I do not have ventilator hood either, but now try to work with the window open and have small desktop fan which attempts to blow most of the fumes and smoke out of that window. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. 73, James K2QI Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" Sender: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 20:09:02 To: Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects The rules get tighter as the years wear on. Nowadays the fumes from soldering are considered dangerous because there are lead oxide vapors in them, and inhaling too much can lead to lead poisoning. Symptoms include loss of appetite, indigestion, nausea, vomiting, constipation, headache, abdominal cramps, nervousness, and insomnia. Lead is absorbed through the mucous membranes of the lung, stomach, or intestines and then enters the bloodstream. Sheesh, and all these years I thought it was work causing those symptoms! Seriously, it is worth paying close attention to the toxins in our environment. Every year there seem to be more and more of them and the cumulative effect is not well understood. I don't use a ventilator hood for my route soldering, but I do position the work so I'm alongside it, not above it, and the fumes rise up and away from both the work and me. I readily handle wire solder but wash my hands as soon as I'm done. Ron AC7AC -Original Message- It seems to me that some may remember that glasses were recommended to keep the smokin rosin from coating our eyes too? Or, that when looking close at a soldering connection, the smoke would burn a bit? Flyin' solder was the least of our worries, making a good solid physical connection properly soldered, was of prime concideration, and one would be proud, when the connection held up under stresseven if the stress was the result of a pair of electrolitics wired .. in reverse. But.. that is a story for another time. But.. the solder held. --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy __ 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 __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Soldering Naked - Toxic Effects
A couple years ago I was having some physical problems and had mentioned I did a lot of soldering. I was immediately sent for lead poisoning test. Turned out I was being poisoned by one of my medications, not solder. Geo/W2BPI __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas
Lots of good advice has been given here. The SWR-related coax losses on 60-10 meters will be negligable with decent coax (I use 1/2" Heliax, but LMR-400 is almost as good), especially with your short run. I use my K3 internal tuner for these bands. For 160- and 80-meters, I have a remote-switched base matching system that works great. Info on this is in the "Articles" section of my website at www.ad5x.com. Phil - AD5X __ 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
Re: [Elecraft] K3 Memory Editor on 64 bit Dell
Thanks Dick - I have it all working now. I had not unzipped the program correctly. - Brian, K1NW -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-Memory-Editor-on-64-bit-Dell-tp5840273p5850715.html Sent from the [K3] 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:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
[Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas
Lew, I use a 43 foot high inverted-L on 500-KHz. The top hat is 130-foot long. I have three parallel vertical wires and two horizontal wires (tied together at base top and end). I get a working bandwidth of about 495-502 KHz with this extremely short antenna (4.6% of a quarter wavelength). the wires are insulated #12 solid copper-clad. http://www.kl7uw.com/600m.htm But a single wire will work as well since you are using a tuner at the base. My vertical wires stand off from a 50-foot Rohn-25 tower by about 3-4 feet and does not seem to affect the radiation. I would not run the wire on the surface of the tree as wet wood will detune it. A few feet should be fine. I use a HB base coil to ground and feed the coil 2-1/2 turns up from the ground end with coax. I have four ferrite beads on the coax to decouple common mode radiation. The coax runs across the ground to the shack. I use a novel kind of ground plane: Four runs of 2-foot wide chicken wire laying on the surface of the ground - two are 50-foot long and one is 70-foot, the fourth radial is the shield of my 120-foot 1-5/8 inch Heliax VHF transmission line which is tied to ground posts at each end. I do have to roll up the chicken wire for mowing in the summer, but that only takes a few minutes. I hold the wire down using some concrete blocks as ballast. I have read Rudy's QEX article and if you read it he found that 8 radials did pretty good so you might start there and add more if you can later to see if that has a noticeable improvement. BTW Rudy is a member of our ARRL 600m Experimental Group, callsign WD2XSH/20. So your plan using a wire vertical+ tuner at the base (ground with a rod and radials) should work pretty well. If you try the chicken wire radial idea they should work at 30-feet as their width shortens their electrical length. My approach to antennas is try it, make notes, and change it if you think it needs it. I am in the process of that with my 16-foot eme dish (re-engineering for making it more robust to withstand 65-mph winds). 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 -- Message: 25 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:21:27 -0800 From: Lew Phelps K6LMP Subject: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas To: Elecraft Reflector Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII I'm currently running my K3-10 into a 40 meter horizontal loop antenna, mounted on my roof about 35 feet above ground. It's impractical to use on 80, and has a very high angle of radiation on 40 and 20 meters. So, I'm thinking of replacing it with a 43' wire vertical. Yes, I know it needs a wide-range tuner, because it's non-resonant on any ham bands. I already have that. And I know that it needs a 4:1 balun. I can make that. I have three questions for the group. 1. Is there any reason to expect that a wire vertical will perform significantly differently than one made from aluminum tube (e.g. 2" OD at base)? EZNEC modeling shows a slightly lower gain for a wire antenna, but not significant. Is this borne out in real life? 2. The available grassy yard space where the antenna would be installed would permit a maximum straight-line radial run of approximately 30 feet, well under the desired length of 58 feet for operation on 80 meters. Would it affect antenna performance if the radials were laid out in a series of Z jogs rather than in straight lines? 3. The antenna would be suspended from a large sycamore tree. Will it make any difference in performance if I run the vertical right up the side of the trunk, as contrasted with suspending it from a limb at some distance (e.g. 5 - 10 feet) from the trunk? Thanks, Lew K6LMP 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 == BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 144-1.4kw*, 432-100w*, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubus...@hotmail.com == *temp not in service __ 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
