Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
The tuner loss also depends on how it is adjusted. For example the very popular high-pass Tee with three adjustable elements has an infinite number of possible combinations that will effect a match on the same load Z. One of them is the lowest loss solution, all of the others aren't. As I said earlier, in a letter to Dean Straw dated February 2, 1994 I offered an example where the SPC tuner, then current in the handbooks, could be used to match an impedance of 4.34 +j46 to 50 ohm. (I forget where this came from but it was a real possibility) I assumed Qc = 1000 and Ql = 300 (generous). I used Touchstone to calculate the minimum loss and maximum loss solutions The best case was 1.6 dB and the worst case was 7.8 dB. With lower Q components, Qc = 500, Ql =200, the losses were 2.4 to 9.5 dB! Wes N7WS On 8/4/2016 2:00 PM, Alan Bloom wrote: > It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are > enamored by this piece of wire. The G4RV is definitely a compromise antenna. However its advantage is that is has low-enough SWR to be easily matched by most tuners on a number of bands. > ... the horrific losses that could be incurred even > with high quality tuners, It's true that tuner losses are the manufacturers' dirty little secret. Loss is rarely specified, partly because it can be pretty bad, and partly because it is hard to measure, but also because it is not constant - it depends on the particular impedance being matched. One exception is the old Drake tuners. Their Pi-L topology makes the loss almost independent of the load impedance. If you can get it to match, you know that almost all the power is going into the feed line. For example, the MN-2700 that I designed when I was at Drake was specified at 0.5 dB maximum insertion loss and I did a lot of testing and tweaking to achieve that on all bands. Alan N1AL __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
I guess a little discussion of semantics is in order. Yes, EZNEC shows for example, that a 12 AWG wire, 102' long and say 50' above avg ground shows an impedance of ~98 +j0 at 14.32 MHz, so it is resonant in the 20-meter band, because the reactance is zero, and it could be called a "resonant dipole.". However, It also shows resonances at 4.61, 9.45, 18.74, 23.92 and 28.40 MHz. In common ham jargon as I called it, this length would not be considered a resonant dipole for those frequencies other than 4.61 MHz where it is one half wavelength long. But if someone wants to call it a 20-meter dipole, be my guest. On 8/4/2016 3:22 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: Ummm ... my HP48GX says 102' is very very close to 3 half-waves at 14 MHz which sounds sort of resonant-ish. Maybe a little known bug in my calculator? __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
I know handbook descriptions have declared this for years. They're simply wrong. The folded part is a transmission line, it doesn't radiate and it has an impedance different from the antenna. Why not just add a hundred feet or so of transmission line to a 10' dipole and call it a 160 antenna? Doesn't work, does it? Use the same logic on your example and it doesn't work either. Sorry. On 8/4/2016 5:34 PM, Nr4c wrote: Let's see, 102 + 33 = 135. Isn't that pretty close to the length of an 80 Meter Dipole? The G5RV looks like two back-to-back inverted "L" antennas. The twin lead is not feed line but part of the radiator. Sent from my iPhone ...nr4c. bill __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. 42 ft Vertical
42 feet is 5/8 wavelength on 20 meters. That is the longest vertical one can use before the radiation angle starts to rise above the horizon. Since operation on the lower bands (esp. 80 meters) wants the longest possible radiator, 42 feet is an excellent compromise for 80-20 operation (with proper matching of course). 73 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Trying wspr again with signalink and K3
I would suggest that the WSPR audio is not reliably triggering the SignaLink PTT. The SignaLink uses the incoming audio to trigger the PTT. In other words, it is a VOX function inside the SignaLink box. You will have better success using the K3 VOX than trying to use the SignaLink vox (to provide PTT). Do not connect the PTT line from the SignaLink box. Eliminate the SignaLink to K3 PTT line and set the K3 VOX on. Adjust the K3 VOX gain so the K3 goes into transmit when the K3 hears the SignaLink audio tones. Adjust the K3 ALC indiation for 4 bars solid and the 5th bar flashing. That is the "No ALC" point for the K3 - ignore the internet advice to show no ALC indication. Also ignore the internet advice to control the power output with the audio level. That does not work well with the K3 - adjust the desired power level with the Power knob. 73, Don W3FPR On 8/4/2016 9:16 PM, dw wrote: Hi All, I have a signalink with USB to the k3. And I'd like to see if I can get it working with WSPR. Currently, I'm receiving data from the K3, via the Signalink into the software nicely. But not able to get WSPR to trigger the K3 PTT. __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Bill, That is correct, but the currents on the 33 feet feedline should be balanced and of opposite polarity - so they cancel. The current at the radiator center will be less than that of a full size 80 meter radiator, so it will be less efficient than a full size 80 meter dipole with the current maximum at the feedpoint center. There are numerous ways to phrase this, but bottom line is that a 102 foot radiator on 80 meters will not be as good an antenna as a full size radiator. The current will be at a max at the parallel line to coax junction, but will be reduced when the current magnitude reaches the radiator. Low SWR does not mean radiation efficiency. Low SWR does mean the best efficiency for a match to a 50 ohm PA stage, but the overall radiation efficiency depends on the antenna and its feedline. One has to compute the losses involved as well as the current into the antenna system. Of course, I must say that if you can feed power into an antenna system, that power will all be radiated (other than feedline loss). In the example given for a 102 foot radiator, the balanced currents on the feedline will not contribute to power loss - the current on that balanced portion of the feedline will be greater than that presented to the antenna, and the balanced feedline will be operating at an SWR consistent with the impedance at that feedpoint. As I have previously stated, there is little "magic" in antennas - the principles have been around since the days of Maxwell and other greats such as L.B Cebik W4LNR (SK) and John Kraus W8JK (SK) who have substantiated those facts. Non-resonant antennas can be great performers, but one must deal with the feedpoint impedances that they present. Those two antenna gurus did not consider the matching problems to their antennas, they properly presented the antenna radiation properties. 73, Don W3FPR 73, Don W3FPR On 8/4/2016 8:34 PM, Nr4c wrote: Let's see, 102 + 33 = 135. Isn't that pretty close to the length of an 80 Meter Dipole? The G5RV looks like two back-to-back inverted "L" antennas. The twin lead is not feed line but part of the radiator. __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Trying wspr again with signalink and K3
I use VOX for all digital modes. I started with a SignaLink, moved to a Tascam unit, and now I am using the KIO3B upgrade to the K3 to give it a USB port. VOX will work fine with any digital mode that does not vary the sound volume as a modulation technique. (I think all the common ones use full modulation all the time, but there are so many digital modes, someone may be trying amplitude changes to get another bit per baud.) In any case, the VOX works reasonably well. My only complaint is I have to switch it off for voice modes. 73 Bill AE6JV On 8/4/16 at 6:16 PM, bw...@fastmail.fm (dw) wrote: Is anyone using the Signalink USB with WSPR, and perhaps could share your PTT method and CAT setting and perhaps K3 settings? --- Bill Frantz|The nice thing about standards| Periwinkle (408)356-8506 |is there are so many to choose| 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com |from. - Andrew Tanenbaum| Los Gatos, CA 95032 __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
[Elecraft] Trying wspr again with signalink and K3
Hi All, I have a signalink with USB to the k3. And I'd like to see if I can get it working with WSPR. Currently, I'm receiving data from the K3, via the Signalink into the software nicely. But not able to get WSPR to trigger the K3 PTT. Is anyone using the Signalink USB with WSPR, and perhaps could share your PTT method and CAT setting and perhaps K3 settings? Thanks N1BBR -- bw...@fastmail.net __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Fred, Dirt was young when I was first licensed too. I do remember those days of link coils that you slowly advanced into the PA inductor and re-dipped the plate until the current draw was correct for the power level that you wanted to operate. Those were the days of plug-in coils for each band. Yes, I do have some of those plug-in coils and swinging link coils in my stash of "old stuff" in the attic. Then came the Johnson Matchbox with its band switching capability (I have one of those too), and multi-band PA stages with a Pi-Network. Those days are past. Many new hams do not know how to 'dip the plate' and then increase the "loading " and re-dip the plate until the plate current was as desired. I now do not recommend a transceiver to a new ham if it has 'tuning' and 'loading' knobs - the information about how to do that properly is just not abundant today as it was in years past. Add to that fact that the re-tuning had to be repeated for each band change or significant QSY in the band. We have come a long way with the advent of solid state PA stages and broadband tuning with only a Low Pass Filter at the PA output - but the penalty of that is we now have to operate the PA stage into a 50 ohm load. That is where the ATU comes into play. The variability in the antenna feedpoint impedance has been moved from the PA output stage to the "tuning unit" to allow us to feed antennas that present an impedance of other than 50 ohms to the PA stage. 73, Don W3FPR On 8/4/2016 8:41 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: All this "matching bafflegab" was unheard of when I was a young ham. You fed your dipole with 75 ohm twin-lead, coupled it to the PA with a 2 or 3 turn link coil, and as the reactance of the link changed the resonance, you compensated by "re-dipping the plate." Of course, when I was a young ham, dirt was pretty young too. :-) __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Jim and all: Interesting comments on the G5RV (I've never built one but have a local friend that uses one). For years I used wire dipoles on HF bands: I made a 80/40m trap dipole, 80/40m dipole with removable clip at 40m length which we call the "Iditarod Special" as it was simple to use at remote checkpoints on the trail for changing prop day/night over 150-900 mi range in winter. Sometimes the antenna was only 8-foot off the ground (high as one could reach without ladder), but worked surprisingly well for extreme NVIS. I had a 80/40/20m fan inverted-V at home before putting up my tri-band yagi. Now the inverted-V is 80/40m fan style. It works better on 3800-4000 than on 40m where bandwidth seems narrow. The center is fed with commercial 1:1 balun at 40-feet and ends are 20-feet high which works well for NVIS. I can tune it higher than 7100 using my tuner which is a Drake VN-2000 "oldie but goodie". The tri-band yagi also needs help resonating which the Drake handles fine. Accidentally my 600m inverted-L is 43 feet high. I have a 122-foot long top leg of two parallel wires and the vertical is three parallel wires. Base coil is 11x10 inch diameter fed near ground end with coax. Ground radials are also very short for 472-KHz and consist of 2-foot wide by 50 to 70 foot long chicken wire lain on the ground. Efficiency is 0.8 % but it works for both Tx and Rx, having my signal been heard over 4,000 miles away in Buffalo, NY. Normal ground-wave distance is about 250 mi running 100w output from amplifier (converted NDB transmitter driven by my K3 at 0.1mw). 73, Ed - KL7UW 73, Ed - KL7UW http://www.kl7uw.com "Kits made by KL7UW" Dubus Mag business: dubus...@gmail.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
The CS40 is the smaller padded soft-case for the KX2 that is just a bit larger than the radio. http://store.lowepro.com/viewpoint-cs-40 The CS60 soft-case is about twice the internal volume as the CS40. http://store.lowepro.com/viewpoint-cs-60 73, Eric /elecraft.com/ On 8/4/2016 5:06 PM, Gerry leary wrote: What is a CS 40 travel bag? Sent from my iPhone this time On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Tom Francis wrote: Will do - thank you. Tom, W1TEF On 8/4/2016 5:27 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote: Hi Tom - Before shipping the paddle, please make sure first to contact our support team via supp...@elecraft.com or on the phone to get a return Service Authorization (RSA) tracking number, return instructions and our correct return shipping address information. That will speed its repair and avoid any chance of losing it here. 73, Eric /elecraft.com/ === On 8/4/2016 2:20 PM, Tom Francis wrote: Wayne, I am constantly amazed at the quality Customer Service Elecraft provides it's customer base. How many people can say they got a reply from one of the guys who owns the company? Thank you very much - the paddles will be on their way tomorrow. Thanks for the information - I appreciate it. I really like both my KX3 and KX2 - I have a hard time choosing between the two if I'm going somewhere. :-) Thanks again - much appreciated. Very best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 3:37 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: Hi Tom, Your KXPD2 should not have any issue with contact screws loosening over time. Please return them for rework. Sorry about that. We needed a new paddle was for the KX2 because it's a much smaller radio. Some operators using a KXPD3 with the KX2 find that they have to hold the radio in place, because the KXPD3 has much longer paddle arms. This is much less likely with the KXPD2. The KXPD2 is also smaller, so it takes less room inside a small travel bag like our CS40. Finally, some customers have asked if we could attach the adjustment wrench to the paddle for storage. We had a opportunity to implement this feature in the new design. The KXPD2 has a 3D-printed housing with clips built in for this purpose. 73, Wayne N6KR On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Tom Francis wrote: I have both, am primarily a CW operator and this is my impression. The KXPD2 has "issues" - at least for me. The contact posts keep loosening up - it doesn't matter how hard I tighten them (I'm afraid of over torquing the screws but they are snug), they loosen up. I tried non-hardening Loc-Tite on the screws to no avail. It only seems to happen in a long QSO - not sure if its the vibration or the fact that the contact points are at the top of the long contact post which, even with a light touch, gives some pressure to the posts. Or the countersink for the screws in the plastic is too big which could cause it. Or the screws are aluminum and the posts stainless - two different expansion rates in variable temps. Having said that, my good friend N3EWW doesn't have any issues with his KXPD2 and hasn't had. I had his radio for an entire week using the paddles and never once loosened up. So it might be a quality control problem. The KXPD3 is a whole different construction. The contact posts are shorter and I have not had any issues with them loosening up even under heavy use. I like their overall look of them also. As far as cosmetic things, they look good, feel good when properly adjusted and seem to work just fine (other than the contact post issue). I will say neither one is for the heavy handed CW op unless you have a way to secure the radio. Then again, if you are heavy handed, that could be an issue with respect to the contact posts. Now if I had known at the time I ordered the KX2, I would have opted for the KXPD3 with the shorter screws for the KX2. Why they designed a separate set of paddles for the KX2 I don't know, but it might have been a smarter idea to just stick with what worked rather than design a new set to help keep the costs down on the KX2 options. However, when I called Elecraft, my complaint was heard and they are looking into the issue. Hopefully they can come up with an answer. Best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 1:22 PM, Sid Frissell wrote: Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. Thanks to all who commented on and off list. Sid, NZ7M Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad __ 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 Message delivered to w1...@swsports.org __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinf
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
My EFHW [granted, it is technically only one half-wave on 80 m] got a pretty good write up in QST not long ago, after I had it installed, and he elevated the far end into a tree. While his review was pretty qualitative [:-(] which has become more common in QST these days, he still got the same impedance sweep 3-30 MHz as I do. So, I'm not sure the electrical characteristics are all that dependent on dielectric loss in my fence. The fence is very dry wood, our relative humidity runs in single digits most of the time, it was 6% last evening. At any rate, it looks like I'm going to sell my KPA500/KAT500, just have to get up the nerve to part with them. The antenna is rated at 500W ICAS [whatever that means quantitatively these days], but I'm loathe to nuke Toady, the neighbor's Lab whose run is directly on the other side of the fence. I do occasionally turn on a couple of lamps in the bedroom on capacitative switches on 80 with 100W, that's enough. My only connection with MyAntennas was to write them a $140 check, but I really am surprised how well it performs in a highly non-optimal configuration. All this "matching bafflegab" was unheard of when I was a young ham. You fed your dipole with 75 ohm twin-lead, coupled it to the PA with a 2 or 3 turn link coil, and as the reactance of the link changed the resonance, you compensated by "re-dipping the plate." Of course, when I was a young ham, dirt was pretty young too. :-) 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the Cal QSO Party 1-2 Oct 2016 - www.cqp.org On 8/4/2016 4:48 PM, Lynn W. Taylor, WB6UUT wrote: What happens if the antenna is well above ground, away from any fences? On 8/4/2016 3:55 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: If we are just dodging the HOA, vs creating a remote site, or not operating at all, what you describe seems quite reasonable. One half wave on 80, two on 40, three on 30m, four on 20m, etc. allow a rather simple feed mechanism, and any sloppiness will be mitigated to some degree in the unavoidable dielectric loss of the fence and ground. __ 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 Message delivered to k6...@foothill.net - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7690 / Virus Database: 4627/12747 - Release Date: 08/04/16 __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Let's see, 102 + 33 = 135. Isn't that pretty close to the length of an 80 Meter Dipole? The G5RV looks like two back-to-back inverted "L" antennas. The twin lead is not feed line but part of the radiator. Sent from my iPhone ...nr4c. bill > On Aug 4, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: > > In my 1999 paper, /"Balanced Transmission Line in Current Amateur Practice"/ > (http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/Ladder_Line.pdf), published in the /ARRL Antenna > Compendium, Volume 6, /pp 174-178, I have this statement: "A popular > multiband wire antenna is the so-called G5RV. This antenna is rarely used as > was intended by Varney, but for some reason, the 102-foot length has taken on > mystical properties," > > It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are enamored > by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so > in common jargon, it's *not* a 20-meter antenna, any more than any other > random length would be. Second, I understand that the conventional wisdom is > that it has "gain" on 20-meters. Maybe so, but the usual application has the > wire strung up between available supports that may, or may not, direct the > "gain" in a useful direction. A coax-fed, rotatable, resonant dipole would > run rings around a G5RV. > > (While it's off-topic on this off-topic subject, the fascination with the > "magical" 43-foot vertical is equally bewildering to me.) > > In my published paper, space limited any discussion of tuner loss, however, > in 1994 (type)written correspondence with editor Dean Straw I gave him > examples of the horrific losses that could be incurred even with high quality > tuners, when used as proposed the the article* that got me going on this > subject. It's interesting to note that to my knowledge, loss in tuners had > never been mentioned in any ARRL publications before this correspondence. > Shortly thereafter, "/How to Evaluate Your Antenna Tuner" /was published in > 1995. Coincidence I'm sure. > > BTW, any ARRL publication before 1994 with charts of transmission line loss > that include open-wire line is incorrect. It's easily seen by inspection, > but apparenty I was to first to inspect it. Dean and I hashed out a correct > attenuation chart. > > Wes N7WS > > * "/The Lure of the Ladder Line", QST, /December 1993, pp. 70-71 > > > > > : On 8/4/2016 11:08 AM, Ken G Kopp wrote: >> As usual, Jim is correct ... >> >> I have Lou Varney's original article. The G5RV was designed as a 20M >> --ONLY-- antenna. It's now achieved some kind of cult ... read voodoo ... >> status. (;-) >> >> If one has an antenna that is partially fed with balanced line that's then >> directly (!) spliced to a specific length of coax and then still requires a >> tuner, why not run the balanced line directly to the tuner ... assuming it >> has a balun ... or provide one at the tuner? >> >> This same argument would apply to Varney's design for a 20M only dipole. >> >> Maybe he didn't have a tuner of any kind, and wanted to use coax feed line >> because there was a coax connector on his rig. (;-) >> >> 73 >> >> K0PP > > __ > 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 > Message delivered to n...@widomaker.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
On Thu,8/4/2016 4:31 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: There is one efficient way to broaden an antenna’s frequency range—lower the Q. That is usually done with large-diameter elements. You can cover all of the 80 meter band with reasonable SWR using a “cage dipole”. That is what they do at W1AW. At VHF/UHF, you may see bowtie antennas, which are also low-Q. Exactly right. I've used that technique on my 160M Tee vertical. On Thu,8/4/2016 4:37 PM, Elecraft K3 wrote: Recently I have gotten into building no compromise rotatable dipoles. By no compromise I mean full sized monoband rotatable dipoles - no traps, coils or cap hats 1/2 wave off the ground in free space. These are relatively easy to build without a huge tower if you keep the weight down. That’s not too hard to do without a boom to support the parisitic elements. Great bang for the buck. Exactly right -- height matters, and 1/2 wave is an excellent height for any dipole. I have two half wave fan dipoles for 80 and40 at right angles, up about 140 ft. Same idea, but organic supports (redwoods). :) Nothing's free though -- tree climbers cost money, and so does 130 ft of tower, safely installed. :) 73, Jim 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
What happens if the antenna is well above ground, away from any fences? On 8/4/2016 3:55 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: If we are just dodging the HOA, vs creating a remote site, or not operating at all, what you describe seems quite reasonable. One half wave on 80, two on 40, three on 30m, four on 20m, etc. allow a rather simple feed mechanism, and any sloppiness will be mitigated to some degree in the unavoidable dielectric loss of the fence and ground. __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Wes and all, Yes, the G5RV, the Off-Center-Fed antennas (Carolina Windom for one example) and the 43 foot vertical have become "magical" antennas, and I am not certain why. My best guess is that they are "salvation" for hams who want to operate on multiple bands with one antenna, and they can be made to "work" in one fashion or another. All need a tuner of some sort, and the 43 foot vertical needs a remote tuner at the base for efficient operation, or at least a matching section for each band at the base for efficient operation. One could feed that vertical with low loss open wire line and put the matching tuner in the shack, but most choose to feed with coax along with the attendant losses incurred if no matching is done at the vertical base. IMHO, resonant fan dipoles are a much better solution - whether those be constructed as inverted Vee's or whether as parallel dipoles separated by 1 foot or more to reduce interaction. I use resonant parallel dipoles here. The 80 and 40 inverted vee's are supported on a 50 foot tower and the 80 meter legs are perpendicular to the 40 meter legs, so there is no interaction. I have another 3 band band fan dipole for 20, 15, and 10 hung as a horizontal dipole with the radiators separated 1 foot from each other (other than at the center point) and a similar 3 band fan dipole for 30, 17, and 12 meters. That means 3 coax lines into the shack, or a remote antenna switch - which I use because I have other antennas to deal with, a 60 meter inverted vee, and a Gap Titan vertical. As far as I am concerned, resonant dipoles are the preferred solution. Other antennas may work, but are a compromise, and some (particularly the OCF antennas) produce RF-in-the-Shack that can be difficult to suppress. There is no "magic" with antennas. Some antenna designs were created when we had PA output circuits that could handle a wide range of antenna impedances and used low loss open wire feedlines. That is no longer the case with the transceiver (or amplifier) that needs to operate into a 50 ohm load, and ATUs with limited matching range. So take your pick and know the hazards and consequences of that choice. Any antenna that you can feed power to will radiate, but some do it better than others. My choice is to use center fed dipoles which at any length can be easily tamed, and I shy away from the OCF antennas which can create RF-in-the-Shack problems. There is no "magic" with antennas, the knowledge base for radiation from a wire (or piece of aluminum) has been around for many long years, but the resulting feedpoint impedance is what we commonly deal with along with all its hazards and consequences. 73, Don W3FPR On 8/4/2016 4:41 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: In my 1999 paper, /"Balanced Transmission Line in Current Amateur Practice"/ (http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/Ladder_Line.pdf), published in the /ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 6, /pp 174-178, I have this statement: "A popular multiband wire antenna is the so-called G5RV. This antenna is rarely used as was intended by Varney, but for some reason, the 102-foot length has taken on mystical properties," It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are enamored by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so in common jargon, it's *not* a 20-meter antenna, any more than any other random length would be. Second, I understand that the conventional wisdom is that it has "gain" on 20-meters. Maybe so, but the usual application has the wire strung up between available supports that may, or may not, direct the "gain" in a useful direction. A coax-fed, rotatable, resonant dipole would run rings around a G5RV. (While it's off-topic on this off-topic subject, the fascination with the "magical" 43-foot vertical is equally bewildering to me.) __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
John, I think this is a reasonable conclusion. Early on I used a G5RV and it was invaluable reference for my later antenna building experience. I went to build doublets in the same space and I still keep an 80m doublet in the air. Recently I have gotten into building no compromise rotatable dipoles. By no compromise I mean full sized monoband rotatable dipoles - no traps, coils or cap hats 1/2 wave off the ground in free space. These are relatively easy to build without a huge tower if you keep the weight down. That’s not too hard to do without a boom to support the parisitic elements. Great bang for the buck. Another country heard from, 73 de Eric, KG6MZS > On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:14 PM, John Frazier wrote: > > Over the years, immediately after a change in QTH, I have used the G5RV as an > interim 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
There is one efficient way to broaden an antenna’s frequency range—lower the Q. That is usually done with large-diameter elements. You can cover all of the 80 meter band with reasonable SWR using a “cage dipole”. That is what they do at W1AW. At VHF/UHF, you may see bowtie antennas, which are also low-Q. wunder K6WRU Walter Underwood CM87wj http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > > Hi Fred, > > Loss *anywhere* would broaden the antenna. Famously the B&W folded dipole, > fed at the center of one wire, and terminated with an RF resistor at the > center of the other, has for decades been serving commercial installations > with widely separated operating frequencies not connected by any fortunate > harmonic relationship. That antenna has roughly an intentional 3 dB loss at > a designed position in the antenna. See > https://www.bwantennas.com/images/fdipole.gif for a drawing. > > In the case of your EFHW, the broadening loss is the dielectric loss in the > fence itself, and in the ground very close underneath. > > The B&W folded dipole as a solution sticks in the craw of a lot of hams, > because we always think there is some way to navigate the problems and keep > the 3 dB for ourselves. The thought of heating up the air with half the > power out from out two kilo-buck brick-on-key PileUpBuster brand amp just > bothers us no end. > > And where the power to the antenna cannot be increased by 3 dB to > compensate, if we regularly work the barely open paths on the low bands for > new DX and contest multipliers, that 3 dB can make a huge difference. > > BUT... > > If we are just dodging the HOA, vs creating a remote site, or not operating > at all, what you describe seems quite reasonable. One half wave on 80, two > on 40, three on 30m, four on 20m, etc. allow a rather simple feed > mechanism, and any sloppiness will be mitigated to some degree in the > unavoidable dielectric loss of the fence and ground. > > In the past, particularly with tetrode final tube(s), a pi network would > absorb ugly antenna impedances just by load and tune, easily servicing > impedances that would croak transistor amps. Back in 1959 I regularly > worked the traffic nets end-feeding 120 feet of wandering wire up about 20 > feet against a ground pipe, fed with about 30 feet of coax directly from an > 807 tetrode and a pi network. I was not loud, but I won a BPL medallion. A > later addition of a home brew 250TH amp improved things quite a bit for the > folks on the other end, but the antenna was as much as I could ever do from > that location. > > 73, Guy K2AV > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: > >> Ummm ... my HP48GX says 102' is very very close to 3 half-waves at 14 MHz >> which sounds sort of resonant-ish. Maybe a little known bug in my >> calculator? >> >> On a similar path, I decided to try out the 80-10 EFHW from MyAntennas as >> an HOA Stealth antenna strung along the top of a 6' fence. It's 130' long, >> has a 6 turn series inductor wound on a Sch 40 PVC fitting a short distance >> out from a heavy-ish box with an SO-239. I figured there might be a 50 ohm >> resistor in the box a la the famous B&W folded dipole that graces many >> National Guard Armories. >> >> The impedance sweep when I got it yielded close enough to 50+j0 ohms on >> all bands ... except 60 m that my K3/100 is happy without the KAT3. It >> also revealed nearly infinite impedance between the bands, sort of ruling >> out the resistor [I've come to believe it's a transformer, maybe of the >> "auto" variety]. >> >> It works surprisingly well. On 80 and 40 it's pretty NVIS, which happens >> to be what I'm looking for. Above 40, the pattern starts to become more >> complex and much less vertical if I can believe EZNEC. 6' AGL is obviously >> not optimal ... except for our HOA and the CC&R's ... but I'm very >> surprised at how well it does, especially at the bottom of the cycle. >> >> This list seems to have a number of antenna experts aboard [and maybe a >> few who play antenna experts on TV] ... would anyone like to 'splain to me >> how it achieves low SWR on all bands? I could probably ferret that out >> with enough time, but if someone already knows ... >> >> 73, >> >> Fred K6DGW >> Sparks NV >> Washoe County DM09dn >> >> On 8/4/2016 1:41 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: >> >> It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are >>> enamored by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on >>> 20-meters, so in common jargon, it's *n >>> >> __ >> 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 >> Message delivered to k2av@gmail.com >> > __
Re: [Elecraft] K3S with Internal ATU(KAT3A) and Remote ATU?
Good learning here all, thanks. And Jim, very nice review of 43ft Verticals - thanks! Bret/KC1CJN -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-with-Internal-ATU-KAT3A-and-Remote-ATU-tp7621137p7621193.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Hi Fred, Loss *anywhere* would broaden the antenna. Famously the B&W folded dipole, fed at the center of one wire, and terminated with an RF resistor at the center of the other, has for decades been serving commercial installations with widely separated operating frequencies not connected by any fortunate harmonic relationship. That antenna has roughly an intentional 3 dB loss at a designed position in the antenna. See https://www.bwantennas.com/images/fdipole.gif for a drawing. In the case of your EFHW, the broadening loss is the dielectric loss in the fence itself, and in the ground very close underneath. The B&W folded dipole as a solution sticks in the craw of a lot of hams, because we always think there is some way to navigate the problems and keep the 3 dB for ourselves. The thought of heating up the air with half the power out from out two kilo-buck brick-on-key PileUpBuster brand amp just bothers us no end. And where the power to the antenna cannot be increased by 3 dB to compensate, if we regularly work the barely open paths on the low bands for new DX and contest multipliers, that 3 dB can make a huge difference. BUT... If we are just dodging the HOA, vs creating a remote site, or not operating at all, what you describe seems quite reasonable. One half wave on 80, two on 40, three on 30m, four on 20m, etc. allow a rather simple feed mechanism, and any sloppiness will be mitigated to some degree in the unavoidable dielectric loss of the fence and ground. In the past, particularly with tetrode final tube(s), a pi network would absorb ugly antenna impedances just by load and tune, easily servicing impedances that would croak transistor amps. Back in 1959 I regularly worked the traffic nets end-feeding 120 feet of wandering wire up about 20 feet against a ground pipe, fed with about 30 feet of coax directly from an 807 tetrode and a pi network. I was not loud, but I won a BPL medallion. A later addition of a home brew 250TH amp improved things quite a bit for the folks on the other end, but the antenna was as much as I could ever do from that location. 73, Guy K2AV On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Fred Jensen wrote: > Ummm ... my HP48GX says 102' is very very close to 3 half-waves at 14 MHz > which sounds sort of resonant-ish. Maybe a little known bug in my > calculator? > > On a similar path, I decided to try out the 80-10 EFHW from MyAntennas as > an HOA Stealth antenna strung along the top of a 6' fence. It's 130' long, > has a 6 turn series inductor wound on a Sch 40 PVC fitting a short distance > out from a heavy-ish box with an SO-239. I figured there might be a 50 ohm > resistor in the box a la the famous B&W folded dipole that graces many > National Guard Armories. > > The impedance sweep when I got it yielded close enough to 50+j0 ohms on > all bands ... except 60 m that my K3/100 is happy without the KAT3. It > also revealed nearly infinite impedance between the bands, sort of ruling > out the resistor [I've come to believe it's a transformer, maybe of the > "auto" variety]. > > It works surprisingly well. On 80 and 40 it's pretty NVIS, which happens > to be what I'm looking for. Above 40, the pattern starts to become more > complex and much less vertical if I can believe EZNEC. 6' AGL is obviously > not optimal ... except for our HOA and the CC&R's ... but I'm very > surprised at how well it does, especially at the bottom of the cycle. > > This list seems to have a number of antenna experts aboard [and maybe a > few who play antenna experts on TV] ... would anyone like to 'splain to me > how it achieves low SWR on all bands? I could probably ferret that out > with enough time, but if someone already knows ... > > 73, > > Fred K6DGW > Sparks NV > Washoe County DM09dn > > On 8/4/2016 1:41 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: > > It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are >> enamored by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on >> 20-meters, so in common jargon, it's *n >> > __ > 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 > Message delivered to k2av@gmail.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
When Varney created his G5RV in 1946 a great many Hams still operated on but one Ham band and parallel (open wire) transmission lines were still common. The 102-foot G5RV is a 1-1/2 wave center fed doublet at 14.15 MHz. According to one of my favorite wire antenna writers, (John Heys, G3BDQ "Practical Wire Antennas"), the original G5RV was fed with a matching section of 34 feet (10.36 meters) followed by any length of 75-ohm "transmitting" twin lead (yes, 75 ohm twin lead was readily available in the late 40's and 50's). In the years following WWII there was proliferation of kits and commercial Ham transmitters (compared to almost none pre war) and most of those were "multi-band" types, typically covering 80,40,20 and 10 meters (no 30 or 15 meter bands in those days). Hams started trying to use their G5RV on other bands. Also the masses of very cheap "war surplus" coax and the need for TVI suppression started driving Hams away from open wire line. Varney updated the design to try to accommodate multiband operation and coax feed in the July, 1984 issue of "Radio Communication" (the RSGB magazine). In the yearss since the G5RV has acquired a "mystical patina" as a wave-launching wire, along with other oddities such as the W3EDP. 73, 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Ummm ... my HP48GX says 102' is very very close to 3 half-waves at 14 MHz which sounds sort of resonant-ish. Maybe a little known bug in my calculator? On a similar path, I decided to try out the 80-10 EFHW from MyAntennas as an HOA Stealth antenna strung along the top of a 6' fence. It's 130' long, has a 6 turn series inductor wound on a Sch 40 PVC fitting a short distance out from a heavy-ish box with an SO-239. I figured there might be a 50 ohm resistor in the box a la the famous B&W folded dipole that graces many National Guard Armories. The impedance sweep when I got it yielded close enough to 50+j0 ohms on all bands ... except 60 m that my K3/100 is happy without the KAT3. It also revealed nearly infinite impedance between the bands, sort of ruling out the resistor [I've come to believe it's a transformer, maybe of the "auto" variety]. It works surprisingly well. On 80 and 40 it's pretty NVIS, which happens to be what I'm looking for. Above 40, the pattern starts to become more complex and much less vertical if I can believe EZNEC. 6' AGL is obviously not optimal ... except for our HOA and the CC&R's ... but I'm very surprised at how well it does, especially at the bottom of the cycle. This list seems to have a number of antenna experts aboard [and maybe a few who play antenna experts on TV] ... would anyone like to 'splain to me how it achieves low SWR on all bands? I could probably ferret that out with enough time, but if someone already knows ... 73, Fred K6DGW Sparks NV Washoe County DM09dn On 8/4/2016 1:41 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are enamored by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so in common jargon, it's *n __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
Wes.. Over the years, immediately after a change in QTH, I have used the G5RV as an interim antenna. My personal experience is that it is a reasonable performer, as compared to a single band, resonant half-wave dipole, at the same height, fed by the same coax/length. While I certainly don't accept as Gospel everything that Tom W8JI publishes, I generally find his work to be sound and educational. How do you reconcile your position versus Tom's on this antenna? I'll attempt to list the link here, but if it doesn't "take", just search "W8JI G5RV". His hands-on A/B testing is interesting, along with his modeling showing well less than 1db difference between the G5RV and resonant half-wave dipole on 80 40 20, and within 1.5 db on 15. He suggests a length ratio of roughly 80/20% versus the apparent standard of 67/33%. Like all antennas, construction, proximity to interfering objects, and height make a huge difference in performance. 73 John W4II http://www.w8ji.com/g5rv_facts.htm __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
Will do - thank you. Tom, W1TEF On 8/4/2016 5:27 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft wrote: Hi Tom - Before shipping the paddle, please make sure first to contact our support team via supp...@elecraft.com or on the phone to get a return Service Authorization (RSA) tracking number, return instructions and our correct return shipping address information. That will speed its repair and avoid any chance of losing it here. 73, Eric /elecraft.com/ === On 8/4/2016 2:20 PM, Tom Francis wrote: Wayne, I am constantly amazed at the quality Customer Service Elecraft provides it's customer base. How many people can say they got a reply from one of the guys who owns the company? Thank you very much - the paddles will be on their way tomorrow. Thanks for the information - I appreciate it. I really like both my KX3 and KX2 - I have a hard time choosing between the two if I'm going somewhere. :-) Thanks again - much appreciated. Very best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 3:37 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: Hi Tom, Your KXPD2 should not have any issue with contact screws loosening over time. Please return them for rework. Sorry about that. We needed a new paddle was for the KX2 because it's a much smaller radio. Some operators using a KXPD3 with the KX2 find that they have to hold the radio in place, because the KXPD3 has much longer paddle arms. This is much less likely with the KXPD2. The KXPD2 is also smaller, so it takes less room inside a small travel bag like our CS40. Finally, some customers have asked if we could attach the adjustment wrench to the paddle for storage. We had a opportunity to implement this feature in the new design. The KXPD2 has a 3D-printed housing with clips built in for this purpose. 73, Wayne N6KR On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Tom Francis wrote: I have both, am primarily a CW operator and this is my impression. The KXPD2 has "issues" - at least for me. The contact posts keep loosening up - it doesn't matter how hard I tighten them (I'm afraid of over torquing the screws but they are snug), they loosen up. I tried non-hardening Loc-Tite on the screws to no avail. It only seems to happen in a long QSO - not sure if its the vibration or the fact that the contact points are at the top of the long contact post which, even with a light touch, gives some pressure to the posts. Or the countersink for the screws in the plastic is too big which could cause it. Or the screws are aluminum and the posts stainless - two different expansion rates in variable temps. Having said that, my good friend N3EWW doesn't have any issues with his KXPD2 and hasn't had. I had his radio for an entire week using the paddles and never once loosened up. So it might be a quality control problem. The KXPD3 is a whole different construction. The contact posts are shorter and I have not had any issues with them loosening up even under heavy use. I like their overall look of them also. As far as cosmetic things, they look good, feel good when properly adjusted and seem to work just fine (other than the contact post issue). I will say neither one is for the heavy handed CW op unless you have a way to secure the radio. Then again, if you are heavy handed, that could be an issue with respect to the contact posts. Now if I had known at the time I ordered the KX2, I would have opted for the KXPD3 with the shorter screws for the KX2. Why they designed a separate set of paddles for the KX2 I don't know, but it might have been a smarter idea to just stick with what worked rather than design a new set to help keep the costs down on the KX2 options. However, when I called Elecraft, my complaint was heard and they are looking into the issue. Hopefully they can come up with an answer. Best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 1:22 PM, Sid Frissell wrote: Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. Thanks to all who commented on and off list. Sid, NZ7M Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad __ 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 Message delivered to w1...@swsports.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 Message delivered to n...@elecraft.com __ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mail
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
Hi Tom - Before shipping the paddle, please make sure first to contact our support team via supp...@elecraft.com or on the phone to get a return Service Authorization (RSA) tracking number, return instructions and our correct return shipping address information. That will speed its repair and avoid any chance of losing it here. 73, Eric /elecraft.com/ === On 8/4/2016 2:20 PM, Tom Francis wrote: Wayne, I am constantly amazed at the quality Customer Service Elecraft provides it's customer base. How many people can say they got a reply from one of the guys who owns the company? Thank you very much - the paddles will be on their way tomorrow. Thanks for the information - I appreciate it. I really like both my KX3 and KX2 - I have a hard time choosing between the two if I'm going somewhere. :-) Thanks again - much appreciated. Very best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 3:37 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: Hi Tom, Your KXPD2 should not have any issue with contact screws loosening over time. Please return them for rework. Sorry about that. We needed a new paddle was for the KX2 because it's a much smaller radio. Some operators using a KXPD3 with the KX2 find that they have to hold the radio in place, because the KXPD3 has much longer paddle arms. This is much less likely with the KXPD2. The KXPD2 is also smaller, so it takes less room inside a small travel bag like our CS40. Finally, some customers have asked if we could attach the adjustment wrench to the paddle for storage. We had a opportunity to implement this feature in the new design. The KXPD2 has a 3D-printed housing with clips built in for this purpose. 73, Wayne N6KR On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Tom Francis wrote: I have both, am primarily a CW operator and this is my impression. The KXPD2 has "issues" - at least for me. The contact posts keep loosening up - it doesn't matter how hard I tighten them (I'm afraid of over torquing the screws but they are snug), they loosen up. I tried non-hardening Loc-Tite on the screws to no avail. It only seems to happen in a long QSO - not sure if its the vibration or the fact that the contact points are at the top of the long contact post which, even with a light touch, gives some pressure to the posts. Or the countersink for the screws in the plastic is too big which could cause it. Or the screws are aluminum and the posts stainless - two different expansion rates in variable temps. Having said that, my good friend N3EWW doesn't have any issues with his KXPD2 and hasn't had. I had his radio for an entire week using the paddles and never once loosened up. So it might be a quality control problem. The KXPD3 is a whole different construction. The contact posts are shorter and I have not had any issues with them loosening up even under heavy use. I like their overall look of them also. As far as cosmetic things, they look good, feel good when properly adjusted and seem to work just fine (other than the contact post issue). I will say neither one is for the heavy handed CW op unless you have a way to secure the radio. Then again, if you are heavy handed, that could be an issue with respect to the contact posts. Now if I had known at the time I ordered the KX2, I would have opted for the KXPD3 with the shorter screws for the KX2. Why they designed a separate set of paddles for the KX2 I don't know, but it might have been a smarter idea to just stick with what worked rather than design a new set to help keep the costs down on the KX2 options. However, when I called Elecraft, my complaint was heard and they are looking into the issue. Hopefully they can come up with an answer. Best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 1:22 PM, Sid Frissell wrote: Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. Thanks to all who commented on and off list. Sid, NZ7M Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad __ 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 Message delivered to w1...@swsports.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 Message delivered to n...@elecraft.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 Ple
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
On 8/4/2016 4:41 PM, Wes Stewart wrote: > First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so in common > jargon, it's *not* a 20-meter antenna, any more than any other random > length would be. *Not* true ... 102' is three half-waves on 20 meters: 984/2 * (3 -.05) / 14.15 = 102.6' Check the ARRL antenna book for the formula of a "harmonic wire" - in this case three half waves. 73, ... Joe, W4TV __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
Wayne, I am constantly amazed at the quality Customer Service Elecraft provides it's customer base. How many people can say they got a reply from one of the guys who owns the company? Thank you very much - the paddles will be on their way tomorrow. Thanks for the information - I appreciate it. I really like both my KX3 and KX2 - I have a hard time choosing between the two if I'm going somewhere. :-) Thanks again - much appreciated. Very best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 3:37 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: Hi Tom, Your KXPD2 should not have any issue with contact screws loosening over time. Please return them for rework. Sorry about that. We needed a new paddle was for the KX2 because it's a much smaller radio. Some operators using a KXPD3 with the KX2 find that they have to hold the radio in place, because the KXPD3 has much longer paddle arms. This is much less likely with the KXPD2. The KXPD2 is also smaller, so it takes less room inside a small travel bag like our CS40. Finally, some customers have asked if we could attach the adjustment wrench to the paddle for storage. We had a opportunity to implement this feature in the new design. The KXPD2 has a 3D-printed housing with clips built in for this purpose. 73, Wayne N6KR On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Tom Francis wrote: I have both, am primarily a CW operator and this is my impression. The KXPD2 has "issues" - at least for me. The contact posts keep loosening up - it doesn't matter how hard I tighten them (I'm afraid of over torquing the screws but they are snug), they loosen up. I tried non-hardening Loc-Tite on the screws to no avail. It only seems to happen in a long QSO - not sure if its the vibration or the fact that the contact points are at the top of the long contact post which, even with a light touch, gives some pressure to the posts. Or the countersink for the screws in the plastic is too big which could cause it. Or the screws are aluminum and the posts stainless - two different expansion rates in variable temps. Having said that, my good friend N3EWW doesn't have any issues with his KXPD2 and hasn't had. I had his radio for an entire week using the paddles and never once loosened up. So it might be a quality control problem. The KXPD3 is a whole different construction. The contact posts are shorter and I have not had any issues with them loosening up even under heavy use. I like their overall look of them also. As far as cosmetic things, they look good, feel good when properly adjusted and seem to work just fine (other than the contact post issue). I will say neither one is for the heavy handed CW op unless you have a way to secure the radio. Then again, if you are heavy handed, that could be an issue with respect to the contact posts. Now if I had known at the time I ordered the KX2, I would have opted for the KXPD3 with the shorter screws for the KX2. Why they designed a separate set of paddles for the KX2 I don't know, but it might have been a smarter idea to just stick with what worked rather than design a new set to help keep the costs down on the KX2 options. However, when I called Elecraft, my complaint was heard and they are looking into the issue. Hopefully they can come up with an answer. Best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 1:22 PM, Sid Frissell wrote: Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. Thanks to all who commented on and off list. Sid, NZ7M Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad __ 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 Message delivered to w1...@swsports.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 Message delivered to n...@elecraft.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
> On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:37 PM, Wayne Burdick wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > Your KXPD2 should not have any issue with contact screws loosening over time. > Please return them for rework. Sorry about that. Mine arrived yesterday and I had to have Chris at Elecraft explain to me that, "Yes, it will fit the pins on the KX3. You just have to tilt it upward slightly and then shove it between the pins and the circuit board that blocks entry." and "No, I don't know why they turned the jack 90 degrees compared to the KXPD3." But when I finally installed it on the KX3, I was surprised to hear dit dah dit dah no matter which paddle I touched. Those posts Tom mentioned (not contact screws) were wobbling severely between contacts whenever either paddle was pressed. Nothing found in the brief instruction sheet, but I pulled the paddle back out of the hole and began inspecting. The Phillips screws in the countersinks behind the paddles, the ones attached to the contact posts, were loose. A #1 Phillips bit turned each one several revolutions before tightening. Smaller fingers would have helped hold the contact posts steady during that process. I've only used the paddle for about 10 minutes of sending so far. I don't think the posts have loosened but it's easy enough to check with a pointed pencil. Just stab the tapped hole in the top of each post and press sideways. Or watch the post while keying normally. Which is better, KXPD3 or KXPD2? The xx2 doesn't match aesthetics of the KX3 but it is superior in use. I make fewer errors at 40 wpm with it. As to the earlier comment about the $135 cost of a new KXPD3: frankly the KXPD3 is an exceptionally good paddle. I own about 30 or 40 paddles, mostly high end, and these Elecraft creations compete well. I find them superior to the Palm and Begali models made to fit the front panel screw holes on the KX3. (Both are for sale if interested.) Elecraft did repair (or replace, I'm not sure) one of my KXPD3s that had the intermittent contact problem. There's been no further problem at all, and I do use both frequently on my other 2 KX3s. If it weren't for the angle of use issue with these paddles, they'd be ranked at the top of popularity lists, along with Profi, Diregent, 9A5N, N3ZN, Mercury, and Hex. The KXPD3 is that good. And if the posts stay stable, KXPD2 is even better. -- Marc W8SDG __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
> It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are > enamored by this piece of wire. The G4RV is definitely a compromise antenna. However its advantage is that is has low-enough SWR to be easily matched by most tuners on a number of bands. > ... the horrific losses that could be incurred even > with high quality tuners, It's true that tuner losses are the manufacturers' dirty little secret. Loss is rarely specified, partly because it can be pretty bad, and partly because it is hard to measure, but also because it is not constant - it depends on the particular impedance being matched. One exception is the old Drake tuners. Their Pi-L topology makes the loss almost independent of the load impedance. If you can get it to match, you know that almost all the power is going into the feed line. For example, the MN-2700 that I designed when I was at Drake was specified at 0.5 dB maximum insertion loss and I did a lot of testing and tweaking to achieve that on all bands. Alan N1AL __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
In my 1999 paper, /"Balanced Transmission Line in Current Amateur Practice"/ (http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/Ladder_Line.pdf), published in the /ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 6, /pp 174-178, I have this statement: "A popular multiband wire antenna is the so-called G5RV. This antenna is rarely used as was intended by Varney, but for some reason, the 102-foot length has taken on mystical properties," It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are enamored by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so in common jargon, it's *not* a 20-meter antenna, any more than any other random length would be. Second, I understand that the conventional wisdom is that it has "gain" on 20-meters. Maybe so, but the usual application has the wire strung up between available supports that may, or may not, direct the "gain" in a useful direction. A coax-fed, rotatable, resonant dipole would run rings around a G5RV. (While it's off-topic on this off-topic subject, the fascination with the "magical" 43-foot vertical is equally bewildering to me.) In my published paper, space limited any discussion of tuner loss, however, in 1994 (type)written correspondence with editor Dean Straw I gave him examples of the horrific losses that could be incurred even with high quality tuners, when used as proposed the the article* that got me going on this subject. It's interesting to note that to my knowledge, loss in tuners had never been mentioned in any ARRL publications before this correspondence. Shortly thereafter, "/How to Evaluate Your Antenna Tuner" /was published in 1995. Coincidence I'm sure. BTW, any ARRL publication before 1994 with charts of transmission line loss that include open-wire line is incorrect. It's easily seen by inspection, but apparenty I was to first to inspect it. Dean and I hashed out a correct attenuation chart. Wes N7WS * "/The Lure of the Ladder Line", QST, /December 1993, pp. 70-71 : On 8/4/2016 11:08 AM, Ken G Kopp wrote: As usual, Jim is correct ... I have Lou Varney's original article. The G5RV was designed as a 20M --ONLY-- antenna. It's now achieved some kind of cult ... read voodoo ... status. (;-) If one has an antenna that is partially fed with balanced line that's then directly (!) spliced to a specific length of coax and then still requires a tuner, why not run the balanced line directly to the tuner ... assuming it has a balun ... or provide one at the tuner? This same argument would apply to Varney's design for a 20M only dipole. Maybe he didn't have a tuner of any kind, and wanted to use coax feed line because there was a coax connector on his rig. (;-) 73 K0PP __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
Hi Tom, Your KXPD2 should not have any issue with contact screws loosening over time. Please return them for rework. Sorry about that. We needed a new paddle was for the KX2 because it's a much smaller radio. Some operators using a KXPD3 with the KX2 find that they have to hold the radio in place, because the KXPD3 has much longer paddle arms. This is much less likely with the KXPD2. The KXPD2 is also smaller, so it takes less room inside a small travel bag like our CS40. Finally, some customers have asked if we could attach the adjustment wrench to the paddle for storage. We had a opportunity to implement this feature in the new design. The KXPD2 has a 3D-printed housing with clips built in for this purpose. 73, Wayne N6KR On Aug 4, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Tom Francis wrote: > I have both, am primarily a CW operator and this is my impression. > > The KXPD2 has "issues" - at least for me. The contact posts keep loosening > up - > it doesn't matter how hard I tighten them (I'm afraid of over torquing the > screws > but they are snug), they loosen up. I tried non-hardening Loc-Tite on the > screws > to no avail. It only seems to happen in a long QSO - not sure if its the > vibration > or the fact that the contact points are at the top of the long contact post > which, > even with a light touch, gives some pressure to the posts. Or the countersink > for the screws in the plastic is too big which could cause it. Or the screws > are > aluminum and the posts stainless - two different expansion rates in variable > temps. > > Having said that, my good friend N3EWW doesn't have any issues with his > KXPD2 and hasn't had. I had his radio for an entire week using the paddles > and never once loosened up. So it might be a quality control problem. > > The KXPD3 is a whole different construction. The contact posts are shorter > and > I have not had any issues with them loosening up even under heavy use. I like > their overall look of them also. > > As far as cosmetic things, they look good, feel good when properly adjusted > and > seem to work just fine (other than the contact post issue). I will say > neither one > is for the heavy handed CW op unless you have a way to secure the radio. Then > again, if you are heavy handed, that could be an issue with respect to the > contact > posts. > > Now if I had known at the time I ordered the KX2, I would have opted for the > KXPD3 > with the shorter screws for the KX2. Why they designed a separate set of > paddles > for the KX2 I don't know, but it might have been a smarter idea to just stick > with what > worked rather than design a new set to help keep the costs down on the KX2 > options. > > However, when I called Elecraft, my complaint was heard and they are looking > into > the issue. Hopefully they can come up with an answer. > > Best regards, > > Tom, W1TEF > Lexington County, SC > > > On 8/4/2016 1:22 PM, Sid Frissell wrote: >> Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. >> Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. >> Thanks to all who commented on and off list. >> >> Sid, NZ7M >> >> Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad >> __ >> 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 >> Message delivered to w1...@swsports.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 > Message delivered to n...@elecraft.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
I have both, am primarily a CW operator and this is my impression. The KXPD2 has "issues" - at least for me. The contact posts keep loosening up - it doesn't matter how hard I tighten them (I'm afraid of over torquing the screws but they are snug), they loosen up. I tried non-hardening Loc-Tite on the screws to no avail. It only seems to happen in a long QSO - not sure if its the vibration or the fact that the contact points are at the top of the long contact post which, even with a light touch, gives some pressure to the posts. Or the countersink for the screws in the plastic is too big which could cause it. Or the screws are aluminum and the posts stainless - two different expansion rates in variable temps. Having said that, my good friend N3EWW doesn't have any issues with his KXPD2 and hasn't had. I had his radio for an entire week using the paddles and never once loosened up. So it might be a quality control problem. The KXPD3 is a whole different construction. The contact posts are shorter and I have not had any issues with them loosening up even under heavy use. I like their overall look of them also. As far as cosmetic things, they look good, feel good when properly adjusted and seem to work just fine (other than the contact post issue). I will say neither one is for the heavy handed CW op unless you have a way to secure the radio. Then again, if you are heavy handed, that could be an issue with respect to the contact posts. Now if I had known at the time I ordered the KX2, I would have opted for the KXPD3 with the shorter screws for the KX2. Why they designed a separate set of paddles for the KX2 I don't know, but it might have been a smarter idea to just stick with what worked rather than design a new set to help keep the costs down on the KX2 options. However, when I called Elecraft, my complaint was heard and they are looking into the issue. Hopefully they can come up with an answer. Best regards, Tom, W1TEF Lexington County, SC On 8/4/2016 1:22 PM, Sid Frissell wrote: Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. Thanks to all who commented on and off list. Sid, NZ7M Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad __ 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 Message delivered to w1...@swsports.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX Paddles
Anyone have a KXPD3 for sale? $135 just seems too much. Kurt, W7QHD > On Aug 4, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Sid Frissell wrote: > > Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. > Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. > Thanks to all who commented on and off list. > > Sid, NZ7M > > Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad > __ > 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 > Message delivered to vwrace...@gmail.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
[Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's
As usual, Jim is correct ... I have Lou Varney's original article. The G5RV was designed as a 20M --ONLY-- antenna. It's now achieved some kind of cult ... read voodoo ... status. (;-) If one has an antenna that is partially fed with balanced line that's then directly (!) spliced to a specific length of coax and then still requires a tuner, why not run the balanced line directly to the tuner ... assuming it has a balun ... or provide one at the tuner? This same argument would apply to Varney's design for a 20M only dipole. Maybe he didn't have a tuner of any kind, and wanted to use coax feed line because there was a coax connector on his rig. (;-) 73 K0PP __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] Power has disappeared
Received the UPS shipping label today, 4 Aug. Package shipped. -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Power-has-disappeared-tp7620735p7621178.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] K3S with Internal ATU(KAT3A) and Remote ATU?
On Thu,8/4/2016 9:16 AM, Ignacy wrote: With 43 ft vertical a tuner at the base is critical to performance It is FAR more complicated than that. Antenna tuners provide a match between a transmitter and a feedline, or between an antenna and a feedline. Like antennas like the G5RV, a 43 ft vertical is WILDLY mismatched to 50 ohms on most bands, which makes serious matching at the base important. HOWEVER -- it has been shown that if the feedline is of high quality, like 1-2-in hard line; and 2) if it is fairly short (less than about 50 ft); and 3) some matching is done at the feedpoint, a tuner in the shack can match the antenna to the transmitter and feedline loss will be sufficiently low that it's not an issue. I've studied the 43-ft vertical, and reported on what I've learned in this set of Power Point slides for a talk I did several years ago at Pacificon. http://k9yc.com/43FtVertical.pdf and KAT3 may in some cases be detrimental. I cannot imagine the logic behind this statement. Check the signal reports with both antennas. At my QTH verticals nearly always are 10db down from dipoles even for DX, except when dipoles have nulls. The relative performance of horizontal and vertical antennas is STRONGLY dependent on 1) soil conditions; 2) their height; and 3) for verticals, their counterpoise/radial system if they need one. An HF vertical mounted at roof level will outperform the same antenna mounted at ground level, and the degree of outperformance will depend on soil conditions. Some verticals are fundamentally dipoles, and do not need radial systems, so they are easy to put on a roof. The R8 and AV640 are examples. Other verticals that are designed as quarter wave antennas with loading coils DO require radials, so if you put them on a roof, you need at least one for each band where plan to transmit, and two per band is better. In this case your better option is adding an extra G5RV perpendicular to the first G5RV, also fed by flat line. I'm not at all a fan of antennas like the G5RV, primarily because they cannot be choked to kill RX noise. Adding another one would be a bad move. Far better are antennas like resonant fan dipoles fed with coax, and yes, if you can, place two at right angles. Resonant, coax-fed antennas CAN be effectively choked, so RX noise can be lower. You can't work what you can't hear! 73, Jim 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
[Elecraft] KX Paddles
Well, I guess I've wrung all the opinions out of you re. KXPD 2 vs KXPD3. Seems like the KXPD2 is preferred. Thanks to all who commented on and off list. Sid, NZ7M Sent From Sid Frissell's iPad __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] 73CNC Knobs
I have both. Neither has ever been installed. Contact me direct please. Terry, W0FM My call at arrl dot net -Original Message- From: EricJ [mailto:eric.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 2:03 PM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 73CNC Knobs Wondering the same thing. I want one for my second K2, but no response whatsoever to several emails over a couple of months. Love the knob. Expensive, but makes the rig feel like it was made to tune instead of sit on a calling frequency. Eric KE6US On 8/3/2016 10:39 AM, Bob wrote: > Hi, > > Looking for a 73CNC Deluxe Knob for the K3. Not available on > the web site and emails via their "contact us" link have gone > unanswered. Not sure even if this is still an active business. > > So anyone out there have a single main knob or a set that > they might be willing to sell? > > TNX! > > 73, > > Bob > > K2TK ex KN2TKR (1956) & K2TKR > > > __ > 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 Message delivered to > eric_c...@hotmail.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX3-> KXPA100=> KPA500 ... Can it be done?
It's covered in the KXPA100 owner's manual, page 18. 73, Ron AC7AC -Original Message- From: Elecraft [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David F. Reed Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 10:14 PM To: k...@yahoogroups.com; elecraft Reflector Subject: [Elecraft] KX3-> KXPA100=> KPA500 ... Can it be done? Looking for a little QRO in my alternate station... I would like to be able to run my KX3 into my KXPA100 amplifier, and that into my KPA500 amp. How do I do that? Thanks __ 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 Message delivered to r...@elecraft.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] K3S with Internal ATU(KAT3A) and Remote ATU?
With G5RV you can extend the flat line to the shack and use KAT3 directly via 1:1 or 4:1 balun. Probably as good as the current choice. With 43 ft vertical a tuner at the base is critical to performance and KAT3 may in some cases be detrimental. Check the signal reports with both antennas. At my QTH verticals nearly always are 10db down from dipoles even for DX, except when dipoles have nulls. In this case your better option is adding an extra G5RV perpendicular to the first G5RV, also fed by flat line. I found diversity important for 160 and 80m but not much at higher frequency. The tuner and G5RV are close to $400. For 10-20m, a $500 hexbeam will blow either G5RV or a vertical away although a mast and space are needed. Ignacy, NO9E -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3S-with-Internal-ATU-KAT3A-and-Remote-ATU-tp7621137p7621174.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] [KX3] KX3-> KXPA100=> KPA500 ... Can it be done?
KX3 to KXPA100 connections are covered well in the KXPA100 manual. Download from Elecraft if you do not yet have that manual. Connecting the KPA500 to the KXPA100 requires a cable from the KXPA100 PA KEY to the KPA500 PA KEY connector. Of course, you would also connect the coax, but that should be obvious. The KPA500 would sense the RF and switch to the correct band - or you could select the band on the front panel. 73, Don W3FPR On 8/4/2016 1:13 AM, 'David F. Reed' w5sv.d...@gmail.com [KX3] wrote: Looking for a little QRO in my alternate station... I would like to be able to run my KX3 into my KXPA100 amplifier, and that into my KPA500 amp. How do I do that? __ 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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
Re: [Elecraft] KX3-> KXPA100=> KPA500 ... Can it be done?
Yes. Check the manual(s) on KXPA100 and ATU. Sent from my iPhone ...nr4c. bill > On Aug 4, 2016, at 1:13 AM, David F. Reed wrote: > > Looking for a little QRO in my alternate station... > > I would like to be able to run my KX3 into my KXPA100 amplifier, and that > into my KPA500 amp. > > How do I do that? > > Thanks > __ > 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 > Message delivered to n...@widomaker.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 Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
