[TenTec] Re Orion on Elecraft's Receiver Summary Page

[Bill Fuqua]

One problem with most of today's HF transceivers is that they can't be run 
off portable battery supplies for more than an hour or so.  This does not 
make much since to some of us that see small, compact, light weight HF 
transceivers that would be perfect for camping, carrying on trips etc. 
except that they draw an AMP or more current on receive!
The ARGO V, FT100D, even the FT817 draw way too much receive current.

If you look at their schematic diagrams you will see lots and lots of IC's, 
and transistors that are active during receive. This is why the Elecraft 
and transceivers like it are popular.  Not for contesting necessarily. To 
tell you the truth the most significant factor in contesting is really the 
operator.

One solution to this would be to have an optional auxiliary low power 
(lower performance) receiver that could be plugged in or attached to the 
outside (if small enough) that could be controlled by the same front panel 
controls as the main receiver while shutting down the rest of the transceiver.

On transmit the power consumption of all of these radios is about the same 
AMPS/Watt at full output.So that is not much of  an issue.

The main reason I did not buy a ARGO V was the high power consumption 
during the receive and the lack of true noise blanking ( often have power 
line noise in my neighborhood).  I looked at the specs and even bought the 
manual so I could study the design and  decided that they perhaps took the 
typical Japanese approach of having people design specific bits of the 
radio and then having them all put together to make the final product with 
out concern for the parts count or power consumption.  Why make a small 
compact radio that consumes so much power? You don't  have filaments to 
light up nor does everyone need a battery operated hand warmer.

Basically I am all for Ten Tec but I do have a problem with this particular 
product and hope they come up with the answer in the future.  They are the 
last real American Ham Radio manufacturer and have come up with amazing 
products given their size and number of engineers employed.  They make kits 
too.

73
Bill wa4lav






At 08:34 AM 12/3/2003 -1000, you wrote:
>It was written:
>
> > At 150-200ma receive current, and a transceiver that
> > runs off batteries and fits in a backpack, the specs
> > of that little K2 are only marginally second to that
> > massive fire breathing Orion contest machine. If I was
> > Elecraft, it would stay at the top of my list - hi.
> >
> > http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm
> >
> > Maybe they should move Orion to the top of their list.
>
>Looking at the Elecraft comparisons,  occurs to me that
>the IMPORTANT numbers are superior with the Orion, in
>particular look at the dramatically better phase noise number
>for the Orion.
>
>Also,  note that if the ARRL "forced" the 500 Hz roofing filter
>into the chain,  rather than using just the DSP 500 Hz filter,
>this would increase the gain of the "system" which lowers both
>IP3 and IMD3.
>
>It is not clear whether the ARRL did this or not during the actual
>tests;  however,  they do note that the noise level was increased,
>probably because of this added gain when they did use the
>500 Hz roofing filter.
>
> >From what I am hearing,  both DX operators
>and Contest users of the Orion prefer to leave the 1kHz
>roofing filter in line when using the DSP filter for selectivity
>in their pursuits.  If true,  then some of the added gain TT has put
>in the chain when the 500 Hz roofing filter is used,  to
>make up for the insertion loss could be added directly to both
>numbers.  I understand that about 15 dB of gain is added when
>either the 250 or 500 Hz roofers are selected,  and that the
>insertion loss of each is different:  I believe the 250 Hz filter
>is some 12 dB of loss and the 500 Hz about 10 dB;  some one
>will know the exact numbers.  Anyway,  if the 500 Hz filter does
>have only 10 dB of loss,  and TT adds 15 dB of gain,  the net
>system gain is up'd by 5 dB -- this lowers both the IP3 and IMD3
>ranges by the same number of dB,  5.
>
>If all of the above is near "fact", then when using the 1kHz or wider
>roofing filters,  you can consider the IP3 and IMD3 numbers to be
>5 dB better than the ARRL measured.  However,  again we do not
>KNOW what the ARRL test techs did..... they just don't say in the
>applicable text discussion,  nor as a footnote to the test data
>table.
>
>Anyone used the K2 in the CQWW CW test and scored big as
>Scott did with an Orion?  Anyone want to use a K2 in such a
>real competitive effort with the tiny buttons and dials?
>
>73,  Jim  KH7M
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec