[Elecraft] A repeat of my suggestion.

[N2EY@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/23/02 4:55:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rakefet@rakefet.com writes:

> John McClain wrote:
>  > 
>  > On the K2 I am constantly
>  > stepping through the tuning rates just see what frequency I am really
>  > on.  If we can't set these digits to zero when they are not displayed,
>  > maybe we could continue  displaying them even though they won't
>  > change.  In my opinion either way would be better than what we have
>  > now.
>  
>  The problem seems to be that the 10 Hz tuning rate is too slow for 
comfort, 
> but
>  increasing it by increasing the step size decreases the resolution -- both 
> the
>  number of digits displayed and the number of possible settings.
>  
>  There may be a way to have your cake and eat it.  A K2 owner I know (I 
don't
>  want to mention his call w/o permission) has installed an encoder with a 
> greater
>  number of counts per revolution.  The K2's encoder appears to have 25 
counts 
> per
>  rev, which produces a tuning rate of about 1 KHz per rev with the 10 Hz 
step
>  size.  Similar encoders are available with 50, 100, 128, and 200 cpr.
>  
>  So at the 10 Hz step size you would (theoretically) get
>  
>  standard encoder  1 KHz/rev
>  50 cpr encoder    2 KHz/rev
>  100 "    "        4 KHz/rev
>  128 "    "        5.12 KHz/rev
>  200 "    "        8 KHz/rev
>  
>  I normally use the 20 Hz step size.  Any larger is too coarse for my 
taste.  
> If
>  I replaced my encoder with the 50 cpr version, I could have the same 
tuning 
> rate
>  with a 10 Hz step size and two digits on the display.  
>  
>  I probably would go for the 100 -- that would give me a 4 KHz/rev tuning 
> rate at
>  the 10 Hz step size.  I think this would be comfortable for fine tuning 
> while
>  allowing reasonably quick QSY.  The fellow I mentioned who has done it 
went 
> all
>  the way to 200 cpr!
>  
>  Anybody see a downside (other than the fact that these encoders are NOT 
> cheap)?
>  
I'll stick my .02 on this one...

Changing encoders is an expensive way to fix this problem, and the faster 
rates will 
be made REALLY fast by such a change.

How about this:

It is my understanding that the reason the less-significant digits
are blanked is to make it clear what tuning rate is being used. 
How about making them blink instead of blanking them? "No blink" 
would equal the slowest rate, and as the faster rates are selected 
the digits that don't change would blink instead of being blanked.
This could probably be made a software option so that the
original method of display could still be used.

Waddya think, sirs? Is this practical without hardware changes to the K2?

73 de Jim, N2EY