[Elecraft] Latest Sherwood table

[Adriano]

Nice !!! Ditto.

py2adr
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Naumann" <W5OV at W5OV.COM>
To: "'Bil Tippett'" <btippett at alum.mit.edu>; <elecraft at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Latest Sherwood table


> Is there a non-engineer's guide to the Sherwood table for those of us who
> are not engineers?
>
> In particular, the table is sorted by Narrow Spaced Dynamic Range, and I 
> see
> that the FT5000 is listed first, but the K3 also gets a 101 in that 
> column,
> albeit with a "pf" footnote instead of just an "f".
>
> I decode these footnotes to be "f" = "Measurement was Phase-Noise Limited"
> And "pf" = "Measurement was Phase-Noise Limited" and was "with 200 Hz 
> 5-pole
> filter"
>
> OK - so why is the FT5000 at the top of the list? Why no indication of 
> what
> filter was used in the FT5000?
>
> What is the second sort column for the table?  What puts the FT5000 on 
> top?
>
> What does this table really tell us? It seems that both of these receivers
> are pretty close as many of the numbers are similarly different from those
> listed below them.
>
> When a parameter is higher or lower - which is better? I presume that the
> higher the narrow-spaced dynamic range, the better, but what about 100kHz
> blocking (for example). Is higher or lower there better? The K3 is a 140 
> on
> that one, and the FT5000 is a "lowly" 127.  The Down-conversion Kenwood 
> 590
> gets a 144 in this column - is that better or worse than the K3? But, the
> 590 only gets an 88 in the narrow-spaced dynamic range, so I guess that
> means it's much worse?
>
> How does one interpret this data?
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bil Tippett
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 6:18 AM
> To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Latest Sherwood table
>
> > I wonder how such a high performance filter would work in the K3?
> Not that its
> needed in the K3. However in the interest of science,  it might be a 
> worthy
> pursuit. It also might push the K3 well ahead of the FT5000 in ultimate
> performance.
>
> Not very well since it's at 70 MHz.  ;-)  The Inrad filters are
> already better than whatever is in the FT5000 since Sherwood measured
> ultimate rejection in the K3 at 105 dB vs 90 dB for the 5000.
>
> 73,  Bill  W4ZV
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html