Too many people are preoccupied with RF power; i.e, WATTS. What they don't
realize is that the MODE of operation is far more important than power...

AM (Amplitude Modulation) is composed of three parts: The carrier, the lower
sideband and the upper sideband. The carrier stays constant while the sidebands
vary in power according to the modulation. When a 4 watt carrier is modulated to
100%, there will be 1 watt transmitted in each sideband, for a total of 6 watts
of RF power that is being transmitted. But the voice can't modulate the carrier
to 100% all the time -- speech does not have a constant amplitude. Average
modulation is usually somewhere around 30%, so the average RF power that is
transmitted is closer to 4.6 watts.

Now AM works fine if you don't mind wasting power. This is because the audio is
carried only in the sidebands, not the carrier. And because the two sidebands
are mirror images of themselves, only one sideband is needed and the other is
wasted. If we eliminate the carrier and one sideband (resulting in the mode
called Single Sideband, or SSB), we are left with a 1 watt sideband that will
work just as well as if we burned 6 watts to transmit two sidebands and a
carrier. In other words, SSB is -AT LEAST- 6 times more efficient than AM. But
remember that average modulation is more like 30%, which means that a 0.3 watt
SSB transmission has the same effect as using 4.6 watts to transmit that very
same sideband using AM. Therefore, with normal speech, SSB is closer to 15 times
more efficient!

Let's translate all this into watts. CB permits 12 watts for SSB. For speech
communication, the average power is the same as the average modulation, or about
30%. So using voice on SSB the average power will be about 4 watts. Now since we
already know that SSB modulated with normal speech is 15 times more efficient
than AM. Therefore, 4 watts of SSB is equivalent to 60 watts of AM power, or 52
watts of carrier power with 4 watts in each sideband. And under 100% modulation
the SSB power will be 12 watts, while it takes 72 watts to do the same job on AM
(48 watts of carrier with 12 watts in each sideband).

But SSB has another advantage: Because it only uses one sideband, it uses half
the bandwidth of AM (6 KHz for AM vs 3 KHz for SSB). That means it receives half
the noise of AM, thereby doubling the all-important signal-to-noise ratio, and
effectively doubling the power of the transmitted signal.

All summed up, a stock CB with SSB has the same range and talk-power as the same
CB using AM with a 100 watt linear -- and it's LEGAL!





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
All summed up, a stock CB with SSB has the same range and talk-power as
the same CB using AM with a 100 watt linear -- and it's LEGAL!

True.

--
GO# 40
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

All summed up, a stock CB with SSB has the same range and talk-power as
the same CB using AM with a 100 watt linear -- and it's LEGAL!


True.


as the brits would say, its the twig that matters.....

jim wrote:
wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

All summed up, a stock CB with SSB has the same range and talk-power as
the same CB using AM with a 100 watt linear -- and it's LEGAL!


True.


as the brits would say, its the twig that matters.....

Yea, I hear you dominate those Limey groups..hehe

--
GO# 40 & Twistedhed
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

wrote:
jim wrote:

wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:


All summed up, a stock CB with SSB has the same range and talk-power as
the same CB using AM with a 100 watt linear -- and it's LEGAL!


True.


as the brits would say, its the twig that matters.....


Yea, I hear you dominate those Limey groups..hehe


going to see manchester united play juventus of italy at giants stadium
31st july. should be a decent match. maybe see tim howard ex metrostars
play in goal. go utd....

snip
Now AM works fine if you don't mind wasting power. This is because the audio is
carried only in the sidebands, not the carrier. And because the two sidebands
are mirror images of themselves, only one sideband is needed and the other is
wasted. If we eliminate the carrier and one sideband (resulting in the mode
called Single Sideband, or SSB), we are left with a 1 watt sideband that will
work just as well as if we burned 6 watts to transmit two sidebands and a
carrier. In other words, SSB is -AT LEAST- 6 times more efficient than AM. But
remember that average modulation is more like 30%, which means that a 0.3 watt
SSB transmission has the same effect as using 4.6 watts to transmit that very
same sideband using AM. Therefore, with normal speech, SSB is closer to 15 times
more efficient!
snip

You are wrong about SSB being 15 times more efficient. Your reasoning
is flawed in that.............................................. ......

If speech modulates a AM signal to a average of 30% then the same
speech will modulate a SSB to a similar reduced potential.
**********************************
On A.M. , with a 4 watt carrier at 100% modulation , we have 2 watts
of audio power used for the sidebands. One watt on each sideband.
This duplication of sidebands is not necessary to convey intelligence.

If we use the same transmitter and convert it to DSB ( double
sideband ) by removing the carrier , we can now have 2 watts per
sideband.

If we now remove the other sideband , and concentrate all of
the power into one sideband , we have a 4 watt sideband. With
this method of removing the carrier and one sideband we can
put 4 watts of intelligence out on SSB as compared to 1 watt on
A.M.. This makes a SSB transmission 4 times as powerful as its
A.M. counterpart.

In addition to the above transmitting advantage , the SSB
signal has a receive advantage also. Since only one sideband is
transmitted , only 1/2 the bandwidth is needed. This means that twice
the number of stations could operate in the same bandspace as A.M.. In
addition to this , because the bandwidth needed is only 1/2 of A.M. ,
only 1/2 of the atmospheric noise is picked up with the signal. This
gives you a 3db advantage over an A.M. receiver.

So when you add it all up you have 6db gain on transmit , and
3db gain on receive. That's effectively 9db of total gain.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:08:34 -0400, wrote:


snip
Now AM works fine if you don't mind wasting power. This is because the audio is
carried only in the sidebands, not the carrier. And because the two sidebands
are mirror images of themselves, only one sideband is needed and the other is
wasted. If we eliminate the carrier and one sideband (resulting in the mode
called Single Sideband, or SSB), we are left with a 1 watt sideband that will
work just as well as if we burned 6 watts to transmit two sidebands and a
carrier. In other words, SSB is -AT LEAST- 6 times more efficient than AM. But
remember that average modulation is more like 30%, which means that a 0.3 watt
SSB transmission has the same effect as using 4.6 watts to transmit that very
same sideband using AM. Therefore, with normal speech, SSB is closer to 15 times
more efficient!
snip

You are wrong about SSB being 15 times more efficient. Your reasoning
is flawed in that.............................................. ......

If speech modulates a AM signal to a average of 30% then the same
speech will modulate a SSB to a similar reduced potential.
**********************************
On A.M. , with a 4 watt carrier at 100% modulation , we have 2 watts
of audio power used for the sidebands. One watt on each sideband.
This duplication of sidebands is not necessary to convey intelligence.

If we use the same transmitter and convert it to DSB ( double
sideband ) by removing the carrier , we can now have 2 watts per
sideband.

If we now remove the other sideband , and concentrate all of
the power into one sideband , we have a 4 watt sideband. With
this method of removing the carrier and one sideband we can
put 4 watts of intelligence out on SSB as compared to 1 watt on
A.M.. This makes a SSB transmission 4 times as powerful as its
A.M. counterpart.

In addition to the above transmitting advantage , the SSB
signal has a receive advantage also. Since only one sideband is
transmitted , only 1/2 the bandwidth is needed. This means that twice
the number of stations could operate in the same bandspace as A.M.. In
addition to this , because the bandwidth needed is only 1/2 of A.M. ,
only 1/2 of the atmospheric noise is picked up with the signal. This
gives you a 3db advantage over an A.M. receiver.

So when you add it all up you have 6db gain on transmit , and
3db gain on receive. That's effectively 9db of total gain.

P.S. I forgot to mention the above 6db transmitting advantage is
based on using the same transmitter with the SAME limiting power
level used in each mode.

wrote in message ...

snip
Now AM works fine if you don't mind wasting power. This is because the audio is
carried only in the sidebands, not the carrier. And because the two sidebands
are mirror images of themselves, only one sideband is needed and the other is
wasted. If we eliminate the carrier and one sideband (resulting in the mode
called Single Sideband, or SSB), we are left with a 1 watt sideband that will
work just as well as if we burned 6 watts to transmit two sidebands and a
carrier. In other words, SSB is -AT LEAST- 6 times more efficient than AM. But
remember that average modulation is more like 30%, which means that a 0.3 watt
SSB transmission has the same effect as using 4.6 watts to transmit that very
same sideband using AM. Therefore, with normal speech, SSB is closer to 15 times
more efficient!
snip

You are wrong about SSB being 15 times more efficient. Your reasoning
is flawed in that.............................................. ......

If speech modulates a AM signal to a average of 30% then the same
speech will modulate a SSB to a similar reduced potential.
**********************************
On A.M. , with a 4 watt carrier at 100% modulation , we have 2 watts
of audio power used for the sidebands. One watt on each sideband.
This duplication of sidebands is not necessary to convey intelligence.

If we use the same transmitter and convert it to DSB ( double
sideband ) by removing the carrier , we can now have 2 watts per
sideband.

If we now remove the other sideband , and concentrate all of
the power into one sideband , we have a 4 watt sideband. With
this method of removing the carrier and one sideband we can
put 4 watts of intelligence out on SSB as compared to 1 watt on
A.M.. This makes a SSB transmission 4 times as powerful as its
A.M. counterpart.

In addition to the above transmitting advantage , the SSB
signal has a receive advantage also. Since only one sideband is
transmitted , only 1/2 the bandwidth is needed. This means that twice
the number of stations could operate in the same bandspace as A.M.. In
addition to this , because the bandwidth needed is only 1/2 of A.M. ,
only 1/2 of the atmospheric noise is picked up with the signal. This
gives you a 3db advantage over an A.M. receiver.

So when you add it all up you have 6db gain on transmit , and
3db gain on receive. That's effectively 9db of total gain.

While I can disagree with Frank when he's being
a troll, even though is exact figures are a little off, basically
he's correct.

Landshark


--
The happy people are those who are producing something;
the bored people are those who are consuming much and
producing nothing.

"Landshark" . wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

snip
Now AM works fine if you don't mind wasting power. This is because the
audio is
carried only in the sidebands, not the carrier. And because the two
sidebands
are mirror images of themselves, only one sideband is needed and the
other is
wasted. If we eliminate the carrier and one sideband (resulting in the
mode
called Single Sideband, or SSB), we are left with a 1 watt sideband
that will
work just as well as if we burned 6 watts to transmit two sidebands and
a
carrier. In other words, SSB is -AT LEAST- 6 times more efficient than
AM. But
remember that average modulation is more like 30%, which means that a
0.3 watt
SSB transmission has the same effect as using 4.6 watts to transmit
that very
same sideband using AM. Therefore, with normal speech, SSB is closer to
15 times
more efficient!
snip

You are wrong about SSB being 15 times more efficient. Your reasoning
is flawed in that.............................................. ......

If speech modulates a AM signal to a average of 30% then the same
speech will modulate a SSB to a similar reduced potential.
**********************************
On A.M. , with a 4 watt carrier at 100% modulation , we have 2 watts
of audio power used for the sidebands. One watt on each sideband.
This duplication of sidebands is not necessary to convey intelligence.

If we use the same transmitter and convert it to DSB ( double
sideband ) by removing the carrier , we can now have 2 watts per
sideband.

If we now remove the other sideband , and concentrate all of
the power into one sideband , we have a 4 watt sideband. With
this method of removing the carrier and one sideband we can
put 4 watts of intelligence out on SSB as compared to 1 watt on
A.M.. This makes a SSB transmission 4 times as powerful as its
A.M. counterpart.

In addition to the above transmitting advantage , the SSB
signal has a receive advantage also. Since only one sideband is
transmitted , only 1/2 the bandwidth is needed. This means that twice
the number of stations could operate in the same bandspace as A.M.. In
addition to this , because the bandwidth needed is only 1/2 of A.M. ,
only 1/2 of the atmospheric noise is picked up with the signal. This
gives you a 3db advantage over an A.M. receiver.

So when you add it all up you have 6db gain on transmit , and
3db gain on receive. That's effectively 9db of total gain.

While I can disagree with Frank when he's being
a troll, even though is exact figures are a little off, basically
he's correct.

Landshark


How the hell wouldyou know if he was off a little or not? you say this
because tnom says he is off. You know **** about radios.

From:

(sheik=A0yerbooti)


While I can disagree with Frank when he's being a troll, even though is
exact figures are a little off, basically he's correct.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0Landshark


How the hell wouldyou know if he was off a

little or not?



LOL,,,what difference does it make?
HE isn't the subject,,,,Egad, but you angry trolling, lids share the
need for personal attack of another.


you say this because tnom says he is off. You

know **** about radios.



Neither do you,,,how could you,,,you're never on...at least most of us
can say we have talked to others in this group on the air..you can't, as
you're never there, you're here worrying about what someone may post
next..LOL!