(Brian Griffey) wrote
Absolutely in agreement...

Professor
www.telstar-electronics.com

hey poopfessor, how come the 10 meter amp you are selling on your web
page has no provision for CW. That part of 10m is always very active,
arent you afraid you will lose sales to 10m hams you are marketing it
to?

On 5 Oct 2004 21:13:04 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote in :


www.telstar-electronics.com


......oh brother. Since when did 10 meters cover 26-29MHz?

Your amp is rated 180 watts RMS and 350 watts PEP? Why is this issue
so confusing, Brian? If the amp is rated for 350 watts PEP it's rating
for AM will be 87.5 watts RMS dead-key. So where do you get your
figure of 180 watts RMS?

Your confusion seems even worse when comparing AM, FM and "PEP". If
the input can take 20 watts PEP it can take 20 watts FM. Even if your
power dissipation can't handle a steady 20 watt carrier, it should at
least be able to handle more than an unmodulated AM carrier or you
couldn't use AM. Haven't you learned the basics YET?

And what's "compression"? If you overdrive an amp you get CLIPPING,
not compression. It may be hard-clipping (typical of solid-state amps
such as your's) or soft-clipping (more characteristic of tube amps),
but it's still clipping and it still causes harmonic distortion.

On that note, let's look at those distortion figures: -33 dB with 100
watts CW..... aw, Brian, haven't you learned yet that you are supposed
to do those tests under modulation? Otherwise they don't mean squat
(and those are pretty crappy numbers for an unmodulated carrier!). If
you modulate the carrier you can test it at your rated 350 watts. But
I don't think you want to do that. In fact.....

Did you ever look closely at your input/output graph? Do you know what
the word "linear" means? And didn't you notice how the graph starts
curving more sharply at about 10 watts input? That's an indication
that your amp is clipping; i.e, causing distortion. Now we know why
you didn't measure distortion above 100 watts..... because it's a
noisy critter!!!


Brian, your amp is a cheap hack, it sucks, and you are so ignorant
that you even provided the proof. Your amps will always suck until you
finally decide to sit down and educate yourself about RF electronics
from the beginning; i.e, starting with the basics. Maybe then you can
build a decent amp and capitalize on the -legal- amp market instead of
trying to prey on hapless CBers that have been misinformed by
voodoo-techs like yourself.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:00:07 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On 5 Oct 2004 21:13:04 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote in :


www.telstar-electronics.com


.....oh brother. Since when did 10 meters cover 26-29MHz?

Your amp is rated 180 watts RMS and 350 watts PEP? Why is this issue
so confusing, Brian? If the amp is rated for 350 watts PEP it's rating
for AM will be 87.5 watts RMS dead-key. So where do you get your
figure of 180 watts RMS?

Your confusion seems even worse when comparing AM, FM and "PEP". If
the input can take 20 watts PEP it can take 20 watts FM. Even if your
power dissipation can't handle a steady 20 watt carrier, it should at
least be able to handle more than an unmodulated AM carrier or you
couldn't use AM. Haven't you learned the basics YET?

And what's "compression"? If you overdrive an amp you get CLIPPING,
not compression. It may be hard-clipping (typical of solid-state amps
such as your's) or soft-clipping (more characteristic of tube amps),
but it's still clipping and it still causes harmonic distortion.

On that note, let's look at those distortion figures: -33 dB with 100
watts CW..... aw, Brian, haven't you learned yet that you are supposed
to do those tests under modulation? Otherwise they don't mean squat
(and those are pretty crappy numbers for an unmodulated carrier!). If
you modulate the carrier you can test it at your rated 350 watts. But
I don't think you want to do that. In fact.....

Did you ever look closely at your input/output graph? Do you know what
the word "linear" means? And didn't you notice how the graph starts
curving more sharply at about 10 watts input? That's an indication
that your amp is clipping; i.e, causing distortion. Now we know why
you didn't measure distortion above 100 watts..... because it's a
noisy critter!!!


Brian, your amp is a cheap hack, it sucks, and you are so ignorant
that you even provided the proof. Your amps will always suck until you
finally decide to sit down and educate yourself about RF electronics
from the beginning; i.e, startingwiththebasics.Maybethenyoucan
build a decent amp and capitalize on the -legal- amp market instead of
trying to prey on hapless CBers that have been misinformed by
voodoo-techs like yourself.




Geeze! Why don't you tell him what you REALLY think. ;-)

Actually the term "compression" refers to the condition where a
normally linear device, starts to lose that linearity. If the gain of
your amp is 10 db, then 5 watts in should give 50 watts out. 10 watts
in should give 100 watts out. If 15 watts in only results in 120 watts
out, you are now "in compression". You call that clipping, but
compression is also a valid term for this condition. We use this term
all the time where I work. Granted the amps I work with are not as
powerful, they are still governed by the same characteristics.
Usually once "compression" is reached the incidents of second order
harmonic generation increases disproportionately with the output,
usually at a 2:1 ratio.

But you are right about one thing. a -33dbc harmonic rating from a
single carrier signal is pretty poor. Perhaps a chebychev lowpass
filter on the output will fix it up.....

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:04:33 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:34:23 GMT, sideband wrote:
Twistedhed wrote:
You would be best served putting your voodoo radio bull**** to rest.
Assuming a peak and tune job is somehow related to increased "S" units
is imbecilic.
_
(Twist:
Actually, there is a correlation.)


He knows that. He just likes to insult me.


Nothing insultive was said to you in the above post.


Really? It's when someone even remotely

suggests you're off the mark of "getting

personal you don't seem to apply the

same consideration when you refer to advice

as "voodoo bull****".

I invoke your defense,,,,"If the shoe fits...."

But

he's way out of his element and way too far

into mine if he wants to talk about radio

theory.

Hehe,,,,that's the davie we're all used to, the one that needs to blow
his own horn.

If the shoe fits.

But it doesn't. You were asked to provide for your unsolicited bolster
that you "made the Davemade spectrally pure". Still waiting for you to
tell the masses how you did it, but you won't because you never did it,
you lied about it, just as you lie about everything in your world

In all likelihood, I've probably forgotten more

about the technical aspects of radio than

know know.
=A0
And still manage each and every day to illustrate you know less about
proper communication(s) skills and radio law than most cbers in this
forum. Hell, than most cbers I know.
_
=A0It ilustrates your blown self-esteem. I guess if I was as ignorant as
your remarks about FCC law that hold roger beeps illegal and dxing as a
felony,

Deny all you want.

You were the only one here denying roger beeps were legal and that dx
wasn't a felonious act, Davie, not I, not anyone else,,,,,only *you*.

DXing IS illegal,

Never was contested. What was contested and shot full of holes, was your
ignorant claim that those who talked dx were by virtue, a felon.
You were taught the merits on what you were attempting to discuss (dx
and laws pertaining to) was a civil matter, not criminal. You were
further instructed to email Phil Kane and ask him, since you were loathe
to believe me for personal reasons affecting your emotion that prevent
objectivity on your behalf. You obviously ****ed yourself off by placing
yourself in position to being forced to be educated once again by a
lowly cber. This is reflected upon your subtle cries of deflection
"well, it USED to be illegal" concerning the roger beeps, which you
still have yet to show or (yawn) provide for.



=A0=A0and roger beeps were at one time

considered in the same vein as other

noisemakers as

devices to amuse or entertain.


An still doesn't excuse your ignorance..ignorance of the law is no
excuse. You said they *were* illegal, not that they *used* to be
illegal. Twice you were wrong, twice you can't even bring yourself to
admit it, which is why I had to reiterate it and make you repeat
yourself and clarify in your own underhanded manner, that you now
comprehend dxing is not a felony and roger beeps are not illegal. You're
welcome.

I would hurry up and start tooting my own horn
about another area of which I have slightly

more knowledge than that of the law which

governs "your" element.

I guess you would, but then again you were so blatantly wrong twice in a
row, no one blames you for not starting to "toot your own horn about
another area" in which you claim knowledge.

I understand the law well enough.

Making claims that cbers talking dx makes them felons is about as far as
one can get from understanding the law, but you go on and continue to
espouse your ignorance and continue to believe you were successful in
passing it off as intelligence.

At least I'm

not blatantly disregarding it.


You can't even understand, comprehend, or define the law, so there is no
way at all you can claim you aren't disregarding it. Since you are
blatantly ignorant of the law, you can not comprehend when you blatantly
violate it.
More for your education today.....regardless of your repeated failed
attempts to portray myself as such, I don't blatantly disrespect the dx
law, Dither-Davie, I selectively disregard it. But since you are unable
to differentiate between civil and criminal, what constitutes each,
maintain
you are a psychiatrist and doctor of jurisprudence, claim that dxing is
a felony, and that one is a criminal without being convicted by a court
of law, one could not expect you to comprehend something as simple as
the difference between the two adverbs "blatantly" and "selectively"
_
Nevertheless, tuning a 4 watt radio will not affect any "S" unit on the
receiving end. You go on and believe it will and continue to sling your
voodoo bull**** that is found in your posts from your claim of making a
Davemade "spectrally pure" (something which you are unable to define,
but claim you did) to your bull**** about increased S units from a 4
watt radio.


Are you THAT literal?



Not at all, you're THAT off-topic and reaching for anything but the
topic which was being discussed in the thread to which I replied,,,,, .a
4 watt radio.


Are you disputing my

claim because you're hung up on the absolute

definition of a "4 watt radio"?

That was what was being discussed. Go on and reach for something else,
now,

The term "4 watt

radio" in this context, refers to a stock (legal)

CB.

As was being discussed.

If you peak the radio, of course it will no longer
put out 4 watts, otherwise why do it?

Lowering the deadkey to 3 watts.
I said a peak and tune on this radio will not result in a net change
(increase of S units) and you began menstruating....again.
Peaking and tuning are not synonymous, yet
you have voodoo'd them into a merger on many occasion.

The truth is (a truth that you're either too

anally specific about or unable to

comprehend) that if you double your transmit

power, you increase your signal by 3db.

You are unable to follow the thread, as usual, Davie. The radio in
question was a stock radio. I don't care how much peaking you do, you
aren't going to raise an S unit on a 4 watt radio,and THAT was the claim
I made, regarding the radio being discussed.

A typical "S" meter is "calibrated" in 6db

increments. Therefore, assuming a linear (no

not the amplifier) scale, an increase of 6 db (1

"S" unit) is the equivalent of taking a 4 watt

carrier, and increasing it to 16 watts.

Something that is not possible from a simple

"peak job".

And you danced around it until just now. Let's see my comment that has
you running all amok....."You would be best served putting your voodoo
radio bull**** to rest. Assuming a peak and tune job is somehow related
to increased "S" units is imbecilic."
Appears you are the one all "anally specific" (to use your term). I
guess I SHOULD have been specific when speaking to you, but I wasn't.
Here it is again, and this time, it's "anally-specific" and tailored to
YOUR anal specifications. See if you can tell the difference, then tell
me again how I was too specific the first time I posted it...

"You would be best seved putting your voodoo radio bull**** to rest.
Assuming a peak and tune job is somehow related to increased "S" units
ON THIS 4 WATT RADIO WE ARE SPEAKING OF is imbecilic."

There's nothing "voodoo" about it. But don't

take my word for it. Check out some books on

radio propagation, and read it for yourself.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

Once again, intently satiated am I.

From: (I=A0Am=A0Not=A0George)
(Brian Griffey) wrote
Absolutely in agreement...
Professor
www.telstar-electronics.com

hey poopfessor, how come the 10 meter amp

you are selling on your web page has no

provision for CW. That part of 10m is always

very active, arent you afraid you will lose sales
to 10m hams you are marketing it to?



Buy one and perhaps he will take pity upon your nose problems.

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 07:23:40 -0400, Alex
wrote in :

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:13:05 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


The most important part of any radio system is NOT the radio -- it's
the antenna. It's the antenna that converts signals to and from the
ether. If your antenna sucks, so will your communication REGARDLESS of
what kind of radio you have. That being said.....

The best mobile CB antenna you can buy is the 102" whip (it's also one
of the cheapest antennas). Shorter antennas are a compromise between
length vs. performance. The longer the better.

Do you have a link to a trusted website that sells this 102" whip.


I think Radio Shaft still sells them. Just about any truck stop will
have them.


And if you want your antenna to do the job it's capable of doing you
have to mount it properly. Generally, the higher you mount it on your
vehicle the better, but it's much more important that your mount is
well grounded. Mag-mounts are mediocre at best. No-Ground-Plane (NGP)
antennas are worse, and thru-glass antennas are junk.

I would also like to know where to purchase a Ground Plane.


You should have read a post I wrote a week ago.... The ground plane
for a mobile antenna is the vehicle and the ground below the vehicle.
Regardless of what antenna you use, you already have a ground plane.
What you -need- is an "RF ground" for your antenna mount. The center
conductor of the coax goes to the antenna, and the sheild goes to that
RF ground. It can be the car body, chassis, bumper, roll-bar, or even
a bracket bolted onto any of those parts. But it must be a GOOD
connection -- a magnet does -not- make a good ground connection.


likely that you have something wrong with your antenna and/or coax.
The antenna could be poorly mounted, the coax could be old (don't use
foam coax!), the connectors could be bad, etc, etc. My first guess is
that mag-mount antenna you are using is junk.

Probably so, I purchased it for 20 bucks at a pilot truckstop. the guy
said it was a good antenna. It's 36" base loaded coil antenna I'm not
having much trouble at all receiving. I receive all kinds of stuff,
but not always able to talk back to the people I hear. Its the
transmitting, maybe I am just want more than any cb antenna can offer.
How far ( guesstimate ) if everything was just right would this 102"
be able to transmit. Please don't tell me the Wilson 1000 isn't good.
I've heard to many good things about it from about 30 different
people, owners of the antenna.


Good is relative. The Wilson will work to a given extent. You could do
worse, but you could also do better. A cheap 5' fiberglass whip from
RS will work just as well as a Wilson 1000, as well as some of the
other brand-name, premium-priced antennas on the market. There is
nothing magic about antennas, and just because it bears a popular
brand name doesn't make it perform any better. On the contrary, I have
built a few antennas from scratch and all of them work BETTER than
their manufactured equivalents.

Like I said before, hit the library and read up on the basics. It will
answer most of your questions both now and in the future.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:19:53 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Geeze! Why don't you tell him what you REALLY think. ;-)

Actually the term "compression" refers to the condition where a
normally linear device, starts to lose that linearity. If the gain of
your amp is 10 db, then 5 watts in should give 50 watts out. 10 watts
in should give 100 watts out. If 15 watts in only results in 120 watts
out, you are now "in compression". You call that clipping, but
compression is also a valid term for this condition. We use this term
all the time where I work. Granted the amps I work with are not as
powerful, they are still governed by the same characteristics.
Usually once "compression" is reached the incidents of second order
harmonic generation increases disproportionately with the output,
usually at a 2:1 ratio.


Let's try and clarify a few terms here.....

Clipping -- distortion that occurs on the top of a waveform due to the
signal exceeding the limitations of the circuit.

Limiting -- the result of intentionally preventing a signal from
exceeding a given level. This can be done by clipping, automatic gain
control, or both.

Compression -- a term usually applied to audio conditioning where the
amplification of a signal is varied inversely to it's input level. One
of the most common types of audio compressor is called "constant
volume amplifier".

But the problem here is that the term 'compression' has beed adopted
by voodoo techs as a euphamism for 'clipping', making it sound as if
the distortion-causing effect is not only benign, but sometimes
preferred. It is neither.


But you are right about one thing. a -33dbc harmonic rating from a
single carrier signal is pretty poor. Perhaps a chebychev lowpass
filter on the output will fix it up.....


That would be nothing more than a kludge. The fault is in the design.
The response isn't even close to linear. That may be due to the bias
class, the bias regulator, the choice of active device, or just crappy
engineering overall. I suspect it's a little of everything.

YOU GUESS ARE SO SMART, WHAT THE **** YOU DOING ON CB ?

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:19:53 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Geeze! Why don't you tell him what you REALLY think. ;-)

Actually the term "compression" refers to the condition where a
normally linear device, starts to lose that linearity. If the gain of
your amp is 10 db, then 5 watts in should give 50 watts out. 10 watts
in should give 100 watts out. If 15 watts in only results in 120 watts
out, you are now "in compression". You call that clipping, but
compression is also a valid term for this condition. We use this term
all the time where I work. Granted the amps I work with are not as
powerful, they are still governed by the same characteristics.
Usually once "compression" is reached the incidents of second order
harmonic generation increases disproportionately with the output,
usually at a 2:1 ratio.


Let's try and clarify a few terms here.....

Clipping -- distortion that occurs on the top of a waveform due to the
signal exceeding the limitations of the circuit.

Limiting -- the result of intentionally preventing a signal from
exceeding a given level. This can be done by clipping, automatic gain
control, or both.

Compression -- a term usually applied to audio conditioning where the
amplification of a signal is varied inversely to it's input level. One
of the most common types of audio compressor is called "constant
volume amplifier".

But the problem here is that the term 'compression' has beed adopted
by voodoo techs as a euphamism for 'clipping', making it sound as if
the distortion-causing effect is not only benign, but sometimes
preferred. It is neither.


But you are right about one thing. a -33dbc harmonic rating from a
single carrier signal is pretty poor. Perhaps a chebychev lowpass
filter on the output will fix it up.....


That would be nothing more than a kludge. The fault is in the design.
The response isn't even close to linear. That may be due to the bias
class, the bias regulator, the choice of active device, or just crappy
engineering overall. I suspect it's a little of everything.

Hello, Twist

Dave was referring to 'S' units at the other end of the circuit. One
'S' unit is *supposidly* equal to 6 dB. 6 dB is an increase in power
of four times.

As to peak and tune, I've seen both CBers and hams make the same
mistake if they had a meter that could be switched between rf output
and plate current (admittedly, I am going back a couple of years here
.... make that 3 decades LOL). In both cases, the poor guys simply had
the switch in the wrong position and tried to "peak" the unit. They
peaked the plate current. In the case of the CB, it was easy to
retune and the rig performed just fine; in the case of the ham, the
poor final looked like superman grabbed it with a red-hot hand and
squeezed. It really looked like fingerprints and a thumb mark on the
glass where it got so hot that the atmospheric pressure forced the
*very* hot glass inwards )


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim - top posting so as not to get more confused than I already am LOL


(Twistedhed) wrote in message ...
N3CVJ wrote:
Run, don't walk away from peak jobs.



A most certainly biased opinion. Just because YOU hacked up radios as an
"independant (sic) contractor" and couldn't peak them properly doesn't
mean the rest of the world should discount all the other techs.


They do

nothing more than remove your hard earned

money and put it into someone else's hands.


No wonder you couldn't make it as a tech. There are many reasons to
"peak" radios. In fact, what *you* term "peak" encompasses virtually any
mods or work to a radio, such as removing the cover and aligning or
tuning.




All that is usually involved is peaking the

power output for maximum, and removing or

reducing the affects of the modulation limiter.



Ahhh,,,well, there you have it, mistakenly believing that all techs
"usually" look at peaking a radio in the same incompetent manner as
yourself.


I won't go into the math here but in order to

see even 1 "S" (signal) unit increase on

another guy's meter, your radio would have to

put out 4 times as much power as it did stock.


You would be best served putting your voodoo radio bull**** to rest.
Assuming a peak and tune job is somehow related to increased "S" units
is imbecilic.


It is VERY difficult to get 16 watts of dead key
power from a 4 watt CB.



If one was getting a 16 watt dead key from a cb, it would be just
that,,a 16 watt cb and no longer a 4 watt cb.


It cannot be done by

alignment alone. By the time someone

"redesigns" the transmitter and replaces the

parts necessary to get up to 16 watts, you are

left with a radio that may very well be less

reliable, or may have a dirty or unstable

transmitter.



And you may be left with a radio that works quite well and exhibits none
of the unfavorable qualities (read: glass half empty) of which you
choose to focus.


If you truly want to get a boost in output

power,

you are better off with an amplifier. Yes, an

amplifier is illegal as heck, but so is a peak

job.



A tune isn't necessarily illegal, yet you have maintained "peak" and
"tune" are synonyms by your past posts regarding the opening of radios.

"Marty B." wrote:
YOU GUESS ARE SO SMART, WHAT THE **** YOU DOING ON CB ?

How can you argue with that?

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:19:53 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Geeze! Why don't you tell him what you REALLY think. ;-)

Actually the term "compression" refers to the condition where a
normally linear device, starts to lose that linearity. If the gain of
your amp is 10 db, then 5 watts in should give 50 watts out. 10 watts
in should give 100 watts out. If 15 watts in only results in 120 watts
out, you are now "in compression". You call that clipping, but
compression is also a valid term for this condition. We use this term
all the time where I work. Granted the amps I work with are not as
powerful, they are still governed by the same characteristics.
Usually once "compression" is reached the incidents of second order
harmonic generation increases disproportionately with the output,
usually at a 2:1 ratio.


Let's try and clarify a few terms here.....

Clipping -- distortion that occurs on the top of a waveform due to the
signal exceeding the limitations of the circuit.

Limiting -- the result of intentionally preventing a signal from
exceeding a given level. This can be done by clipping, automatic gain
control, or both.

Compression -- a term usually applied to audio conditioning where the
amplification of a signal is varied inversely to it's input level. One
of the most common types of audio compressor is called "constant
volume amplifier".

But the problem here is that the term 'compression' has beed adopted
by voodoo techs as a euphamism for 'clipping', making it sound as if
the distortion-causing effect is not only benign, but sometimes
preferred. It is neither.


But you are right about one thing. a -33dbc harmonic rating from a
single carrier signal is pretty poor. Perhaps a chebychev lowpass
filter on the output will fix it up.....


That would be nothing more than a kludge. The fault is in the design.
The response isn't even close to linear. That may be due to the bias
class, the bias regulator, the choice of active device, or just crappy
engineering overall. I suspect it's a little of everything.