Great summary Kim, and yes that data
on the Orion II is disappointing too.
I wonder if there is anything that can
be done to resolve it only via firmware
changes? I simply don't know.
Jim, Thank You for preparing both of the
graphics for review.
Excellent example of why we should, for the
right reasons, compare actual performance of
TT gear verses other makes/models ...
73 de Billy, AA4NU
-----Original Message-----
>From: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
>Sent: Jul 27, 2014 9:32 PM
>To: tentec@contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TenTec] ARRL Phase Noise Data Plotted to 1 MHz
>
>Nicely done, Jim.
>
>Since I have an O II, I looked at that one first. I see the O II shows
>the lowest phase noise out to about 2.5 kHz, where it matched the K3,
>then heads the wrong way. It's #2 to about 7.5 kHz and then is among the
>worst (THE worst) at 50 kHz. At 300 kHz, it's still worse that the IC7600.
>
>The TS-590 and Eagle comparisons are interesting, too: close in, the
>Eagle is 10 dB better than the '590, but the phase noise difference
>vanishes and they two are in a dead heat by 5 kHz from the carrier. The
>Eagle is better by ~10 dB at 10 kHz, but the two become essentially
>identical by 11 kHz.
>
>The K3 monotonically decreases with separation from the carrier and does
>it at a steep rate -- well done!
>
>I know that there's more to the overall "stuff" generated by
>transmitters, but the phase noise characteristics of the K3 with
>frequency are quite impressive.
>
>How might we look at a total noise figure? Phase noise is in dBC/Hz, so
>we can't simply sum it with things like IMD. Should we integrate the
>phase noise power as a function of bandwidth, so that we can look at the
>phase noise power for CW and SSB (pick a defining bandwidths)? How,
>then, do we handle the other noise sources that don't integrate as
>nicely across the pass band?
>
>Perhaps there's no single number that we can generate -- each represents
>a different "dimension" of the total problem.
>
>Kim N5OP
>
>On 7/27/2014 3:45 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> The title says it all -- Rick asked for it, and I did it this morning,
>> changing the frequency axis to log and moving labels around. I also
>> added data for the new IC7100, a do everything cheapie with a remote
>> head, just reviewed in July QST.
>>
>> k9yc.com/TXPhaseNoise-1MHz.png
>>
>> For the Field Day problem, look at the data around 200-300 kHz --
>> that's what we run into when we run CW and SSB on the same band.
>> There's 15 dB difference between the IC7100 and the IC7600/TS590, and
>> the K3 is another 17 dB better than the best of those!
>>
>> And, as I noted in an earlier post, this is only one part of the
>> problem -- there's also IMD on both TX and RX, clicks, audio
>> distortion, and RX phase noise. This stuff CANNOT be filtered -- it's
>> all "in band."
>>
>> Now I'm going to tackle the key click data.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>
>--
>
>Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
>SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
>
>/"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
>practice, there is." //-- Attributed to many people; it's so true that
>it doesn't matter who said it./
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|