[Elecraft] KX3 vs FT817 - how do the "inside dimensions" compare?

[Fred Jensen]

On 10/23/2011 12:12 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
> I had the impression that the rise of the Ham-band-only transceiver in the
> 1950's and 60's was based on simple economics.

I have the GC BPF for my K3, and it works very well.  There is still 
some press to be found on RTTY [usually 850 Hz shift], and sometimes I 
find the BBC.  They have a lot of exposure here in the US via NPR and 
others, but it's fun to "hear it from the Mother Country occasionally." 
  Sometimes I start copying the "numbers stations" just wondering whose 
spies I'm hearing :-))

I think the rise of the transceiver [vs separate tx and rx which had 
ruled ham shacks since the beginning of time] was the result of the 
KWM-2.  Tuning SSB was hard on the receivers of that day, zero-beating 
your TX was even harder.  When a box appeared that absolutely guaranteed 
you were transmitting on the same frequency as you were listening, hams 
embraced the concept [and SSB] almost fully [there were some AM 
holdouts, still are I guess].

Art's masterful scheme of a RX/TX covering 200 KHz around 3 MHz preceded 
by a crystal controlled converter for any 200 KHz range in the HF 
spectrum seems to have gotten everyone used to the idea of 
ham-band-only, although the KWM-2A with it's switchable crystal decks 
was by far and away the HF workhorse for the US Military in the 60's on 
other than ham band frequencies.  The S-line was just a KWM-2 split into 
a RX and TX.

A data point I'd sure like to see is how my K3 stacks up against the S-3 
line I wish I had held onto.  I had the 2.1 KHz and 500 Hz mech filters, 
I know there was a 250 Hz available, but I wonder how it would do with 
the blocking tests we now spend so much time scrutinizing.  Not that I'm 
about to give up my K3 :-)

73,

Fred K6DGW
- Northern California Contest Club
- CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012
- www.cqp.org