Sorry for the tardy reply, I have been away for a few days.

To answer your question, I have never owned a Flex product but I have followed their product lines and the chatter about them and I may pick one up in the future.  I was trying to understand your ratings given there appeared to be no empirical data behind it. 

Why did you rate 5000 with such low scores in CW and Contesting if you don't even use it for those purposes???

The Funcube Pro+ looks intriguing, but I haven't seen anything published regarding the Dynamic Range, only that it's improved over the last version.  Have you seen any issues with front end overloading?  Are you in an urban or rural environment?

Thanks and 73,
Scott

+1 QS1R

73,
Scott

To each there own I guess.  I personally always had a PC running in the shack before I had an SDR so this isn't a shortcoming to me...

73,
Scott

Well, taking a quick stab at it I would offer the following advantages of my solution:

1 )   4 Mhz of B/W display vs. 192Khz.
2 )   Ability to demodulate digital modes like DRM (perhaps this could be done with psdr?).
3 )   Ability to record 4 Mhz of spectrum.
4 )   Abilty to set up to four independent receivers.
5 )   Superior filtering.
6 )   Ability to achieve on the order of 200PPT frequency accuracy.
7 )   VHF/UHF bands.
8 )   Open architecture.  I can modify the software and hardware if I choose to do so.
9 )   Cost!  Your example is $8K.  Mine is $3K. 

You could even lower the costs by pairing an SDR with something like an FT-857...

73,
Scott

This is a bit of a loaded question and the answers have so many shades of gray!  It’s really a personal preference to the op. 

I would disagree that a panoramic display is all an SDR brings to the table, but if we limit the discussion to just a plug and play panoramic display then you really only need an XCVR with an IF out and CAT control.  You can pick the SDR receiver that fits your needs and budget like the Softrock, LP-PAN, SDR-IQ, Perseus, QS1R, etc.  Using an SDR strictly for a pan adapter is a bit of a waste in my opinion though.

Now, if you plan on actually using your SDR as the main receiver then the possibilities really open.  The only price of admission is some sort of T/R solution that will protect the SDR from the XCVR transmitter.  You can pair whatever SDR meets your needs with whatever XCVR meets your needs.

My personal choice consists of:
TS-2000X
QS1R

73,
Scott

Yes, you are correct!

73,
Scott

Yes, you are absolutely correct, not sure what I was thinking!

KA4LFP - Unless you have some attenuators at your disposal, you're unlikely going to find any meaningful data by following my suggestion above.  In my paticular case +9dBm is the max acceptable level for me and the 43dB of isolation I'm seeing brings me close but within that range at 100W.  If I was running 200W like your situation I would exceed my acceptable level and be right at the +10dBm Phil mentioned above.

So unfortunately we're back to the "maybe" answer since we really don't know the level of isolation your switch provides. 

73,
Scott

The short answer is maybe.  I have an MFJ-1700C which is similar to your 1700B.  Last night I just noticed that my switch was only providing about 43dB of isolation which is a bit less than what I was expecting.  For some reason I though 60dB was advertised, but I can't find that anywhere in the specs so I'm not sure why I thought that.  I'm only running 100W and 43dB of isolation is "safe" for my other rigs.

I would suggest you try to determine how much isolation your switch is providing by tuning your "grounded" transceiver to the same frequency that your selected transmitter is tuned to.  First verify that the rig you have not selected on the switch is indeed grounded.   Then transmit a signal from the "selected" rig at a low level like 10W - 20W and observe the S-Meter on the grounded rig.  Hopefully you won't have any defelection on the S-Meter and only hear a faint signal.  You can then slowly increase power and watch your S-Meter.  You can then decide if the level of isolation meets your needs and it can be considered "safe".  Note that S-Meters are notoriously inaccurate, so you may not be able to compute what level of isolation the switch is providing, but as long as you stay below S9 or S9 +20, etc. you should be OK.

73,
Scott

Folks, this thread is over 8 years old...

73,
Scott

What does that mean???

I don't have access to the latest and greatest Care and Feeding publication so I can't comment on that.  But I was able to find this on CPI's website: http://www.cpii.com/docs/related/23/Tube%20Maintenance.pdf

I took note of three things:

1)"The operator, by adjusting the filament voltage, can control the operating temperature.  Each tube is unique; while one tube may make full operating power at a filament voltage of 7.3 V, a replacement device may require 7.4 V to attain the same power."  This tells me that you can't make wholesale generalizations about reducing filament voltage.

2) It is very clear that as you lower filament voltage you must monitor the tube to ensure it is meeting all specifications.  You can't just say "reduce your filament voltage by 0.25V for greater tube life".

3) I consider this to be the most damning to your argument: "A power tube operated in this manner will generally yield life 50 percent greater than a tube run continuously at rated filament voltage."  So if you lower filament voltage in the way CPI dictates and sanctions you can only expect tube life to be 50% greater.  This doesn't fit your formula either...


73,
Scott

Yes, I’m fine with that.  In fact I will say I am in complete agreement with the formula (X/(X)*1.03)^23.4 = 0.5.  What I’m saying is I don’t believe you can read what Eimac wrote in total context and then say Relative Life = (V2/V1)^23.4

Let’s look at the 3-500Z spec sheet published in 1968, the year after The Care and Feeding of Power Grid Tubes was published which you are basing your claims on.  It says “The rated filament voltage for the 3-500Z is 5.0 volts.  Filament voltage, as measured at the socket, must be maintained within the range of 4.75 to 5.25 volts to obtain maximum tube life“.  So I’m guaranteed maximum tube life by running my 3-500Z at filament voltage of 5.25V even though your formula says I should expect a reduction in life of 90%.  (4.75/5.25)^23.4 = 0.096.  If your formula is valid, how can this be???

73,
Scott

Rich,

That's not what Eimac said.  You have quoted the reference several times yourself.  If Eimac felt that Emissive-life = (V2/V1)^23.4 then that's what they would have said.  They would have included your formula.  They didn't.  You are also leaving out the phrase "In theory".  Note that they didn't say "In practice".  They also said a 3% increase in filament voltage results in a 20 degree K temperature increase.  What about a 4% increase in filament voltage?  How about a 5% increase in filament voltage?  For that matter, what does a 3% decrease in filament voltage do to the filament temperature?  They didn't say...

In any case I think I will have to respectfully disagree with you that what Eimac wrote can be extrapolated to Emissive-life = (V2/V1)^23.4.

73,
Scott 

It's not an "Old Wives' Tale", but it is a tall tale, so why not... 

73,
Scott

P.S. Could you please provide the reference for the (V2/V1)^23.4 formula?