RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   CB (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/)
-   -   Newbie CB User has ?'s Please someone advise (https://www.radiobanter.com/cb/32713-newbie-cb-user-has-s-please-someone-advise.html)

Twistedhed October 7th 04 03:05 PM

From: (Jim=A0Hampton)
Hello, Twist



Yo' Jim.

Dave was referring to 'S' units at the other end
of the circuit.



When I took exception to his words, he was speaking of S units received
by another radio, arrived via the peaking of the 4 watt radio that was
of topic..


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




Thank you for the input. For the record, do you disagree or agree with
the statement "Peaking and tuning a four watt cb will not raise its S
unit"?


Twistedhed October 7th 04 03:09 PM

From: (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
Steveo wrote in news:20041006190307.240
:
(Hi Jim. Any interest in attending the rrcb bonanza next year?
=A0=A0=A0=A0-YOU- gotta be there we're, counting on ya! g )

Will you have men in draG there


You have been instructed in the past that your struggling with
homosexuality will not be held against you, but you continue to make it
an issue and foster it upon heterosexuals. Perhaps you would be better
served not participating, as the rest of us prefer radio related things
as topics. You prefer same-sex topics as your choice of conversation,
leaving you isolated and nothing in common with the rest of us rec.radio
denizens.


Twistedhed October 7th 04 03:43 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:03:41 -0400,
(Twistedhed)
wrote:
I invoke your defense,,,,"If the shoe fits...."

You can't even be original.



Originality doesn't equate validity, but then again, in your world, one
sees how you are unable to comprehend such simple concepts. You claim
civil infractions equals federal, felonious crimes, and that one is a
criminal for the mere act of speaking about something you know nothing
of (dx and law pertaining thereof) in the first place.

_
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

I provided the information.


Translation: I am unable.


I'm sorry if the information was too general for


you.




You're only sorry you were caught in so many lies.


Technical details would 've gone over


your head.



Once again, what you post is dictated by and originates with myself.


And for the record, I never said that the amp


was "spectrally pure".


I stated that the amp was now within FCC


emissions specs for use in the H.F. Ham radio
bands.



Hehehe,,your record is chock full of lies.


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.

They are criminal.



You said felon, in addition to criminal,

As soon as you get it through you thick head


that someone who engages in breaking a law,


whether you want to call it criminal or civil,


especially one which provides jail time, is


considered a criminal.




You speak in absolutes that invalidate everything you ever said. Talking
dx does NOT provide jail time. Of course, you always have the option of
providing for a single case that supports your bull****.


Whether they are caught or ultimately


convicted is only a smoke screen for those


who try to justify their behavior.




Sort of like you are struggling with by attempting but failing to
distant yourself from the incompetent "felon" remarks you have
incorrectly made.



I forgot more than you will ever know


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.

I have seen no revised documentation which


clarifies that a roger beep is now an


acceptable device.




Only because you're an incompetent who wrongly believes they were
illegal in the first place. Try this,,,present anything (other than your
charming but uneducated claims) that the FCC held or holds a roger beep
as illegal,,,at any time. Of course, this is the end of the road for
you concerning this thread, as you provide for nothing,,,,,ever.



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.

Do you always answer yourself?



You posted it, not I.

You do realize that you're commenting on your
own statement.



Apparently that statement was so effective the first time in
illustrating your incompetence, you borrowed it for originalities sake.
Nevertheless, you presented it and directed to myself.

Please try to pay attention.....


Please try and get your communicative skills together. Regardless who
coined the words you present, other than homage to myself, you failing
to comprehend the simplest mannerisms of proper communication.
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.

You are completely off the rails.



And you're bleeding from the gums and on the ropes,


Why else would you tune a radio's transmitter,
other than to either increase or decrease the


power?



Dither dither dither, davie. Try and stay focused, one of your
incompetencies at a time.
I said your peak and tune won't affect your S units on the 4 watt radio
of which you were portraying your ignorance.


If you do, then you will affect your signal on


the receive end.



Not by an S unit you won't.

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.

No, the topic was whether or not a peak job


was worth the money.




A peak job on what? A 4 watt radio, of course.


Are you disputing my


claim because you're hung up on the absolute


definition of a "4 watt radio"?


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.

Ok, let's run with that. Are you saying that


lowering the power to 3 watts will not have any
difference on your signal?



Only you seem to be having problems with what I said. In the first
manner, you had to be taught (once again) the answer as to why one would
"otherwise do it" (peak and tune) because your one track mind can only
process one idea at a time. The fact that you had to ASK what else could
be done, in realization, shows you were unable to grasp the "lowering
the deadkey" reason. Now that you were educated better, you are taking
it and "running" with it.
Once again,,,,
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.

It certainly will.


Again, this is your incompetence and voodoo bull****. Educate yourself,
oh self-annointed radio cop, psychiatrist, doctor of jurisprudence, and
self-elevated-and-referred-radio-tech.


People are duped into


believing that a peak job will make them "put


out better".


How else do you put out a better signal


without increasing the power?




Please explain to the world, absent of personal insult (if you can
manage such competencies) how peaking a 4 watt cb will increase the S
unit as you claim.


My point, of course, is




Obfuscation of your bull****, of course.

that the amount of power increase available


from a peak job, is not significant enough to


make it worth what "screwdriver technicians"


charge.


Peaking and tuning are not synonymous, yet you have voodoo'd them into a
merger on many occasion.

Why else would you "tune" a radio if not to


alter the power output? Please stop grasping


at straws and enjoy the shoe leather you're


munching on.




The phenomenon you are experiencing is akin to psychosis-induced
stigmata. You worship something so intensely, you believe you are
experiencing what you mistakenly believe your object of desire and
admiration feels.


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."

Why else would you peak a radio?



After watching you post regarding such peaks, I'm certain the world
would like to know exactly what you did to all those cb radios to
increase those S units. In fact, "spectrally pure" WERE your words
regarding the Davemade. I suggest you review your incompetencies prior
to denying them.

Dave


"Sandbagger"


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

Once again, intently satiated am I.

Sedated more likely.....


If it soothes your ego.


Twistedhed October 7th 04 03:52 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On 6 Oct 2004 14:37:46 -0700,
(Jim Hampton)
wrote:
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.


(You know that, I know that,)


Jim has yet to answer, but here you are answering for him, Davie. What
confidence you display. Again, for the record, Jim, are you in agreement
that a "peak and tune" will increase S units on a 4 watt stock radio?

most knowledgable people know that,



Agreed, as you are the ONLY one arguing that you can change the net
increase on a stck 4 watt radio in regards to S units. That alone should
tell you what you lack and need to know, but your comprehension skills
have been
abused.

and I suspect Twisty knows that as well. He


just likes to argue for the sake of arguing.




I exchanged ideas on this subject and in this thread with sideband and
now Jim, and as usual, you are alone in your claims. *Only* you are
referring to your exchanges as arguing, no one else. Get over yourself
and educate yourself on how to conduct proper communication and public
debate without allowing your temper to exhibit control. In other words,
stop taking everyhting so personal. It's not my fault your ego makes you
feel this way when you attempt to debate issues, but I don't mind being
your sounding board for blame.

It's true that most CB "S" meters are far from


linear, and consistent. On the lower part of the
scale, 1 "S" unit might be only 2 or 3 db. At the
upper end, 1 "S" unit might be closer to 10db.


But the theory is sound.


Dave


"Sandbagger"



And has nothing to do with your ignorant and wrong claim that a peak and
tune increases the S units on a 4 watt stock radio.


Dave Hall October 7th 04 05:35 PM

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:52:18 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:


And has nothing to do with your ignorant and wrong claim that a peak and
tune increases the S units on a 4 watt stock radio.



You are a basket case. Your ability to comprehend even the simplest
concepts is severely impeded.

This is seconded only by your penchant to spin and twist words in
order to avoid admitting that you misunderstood the concept.

I'll let Jim or anyone else set you straight. But suffice to say,
you're in over your head.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave Hall October 7th 04 05:39 PM

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:05:13 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

From:
(Jim*Hampton)
Hello, Twist



Yo' Jim.

Dave was referring to 'S' units at the other end
of the circuit.



When I took exception to his words, he was speaking of S units received
by another radio, arrived via the peaking of the 4 watt radio that was
of topic..


No, that's WRONG. Another shining example of your inability to
comprehend. I stated that peaking a 4 watt radio will improve that
radio's signal to another's receive station. But that improvement will
be very minimal, as it takes 6db (4x increase) more in power to gain 1
"S" unit on the received end.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Frank Gilliland October 7th 04 09:58 PM

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:06:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:47:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


snip
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".


That is but one type of compression. For a more detailed discussion of
RF amplifier compression, please refer to the following related link:

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/lit...5965-7710E.pdf

Generally speaking, amplifier compression occurs when the input:output
power ratio no longer increases db for db.



You should know me by now -- I just -have- to disagree. The use of the
term 'compression region' is really a misnomer. It's properly
described as a nonlinear region. The reason is that different devices
behave differently, and while a few devices (some transistors, a few
tubes, incandescent lightbulbs) have nonlinear characteristics similar
to compression, the fact is that nothing is being 'compressed', and
the vast majority of other devices have nonlinear regions that do not
resemble compression. And whether that nonlinear region is gradual or
sharp, it's still clipping because it's a limitation of the device. It
also causes distortion that is characteristic of clipping. And yes,
saturation is within the nonlinear region.

I'll give him this one. This may be a matter of semantics, like noting
the difference between 'weight' and 'mass'. I had these things drilled
into my brain by my profs for the simple reason that using the wrong
term can cause a misunderstanding. And that's what I believe is
happening when people substitute the term 'compression' for when the
transistor has exceeded the limits of linearity and subsequently
clips, be it hard or soft.

But no matter what you call it, the result is distortion.


But the problem here is that the term 'compression' has been 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.


After reading the link, you might want to revise your definition.
There are a bunch of very talented engineers here who would be a bit
insulted to find out that you refer to them as "voodoo techs".



I'll stick with my definition. And while I may take issue with some of
the more liberal definitions used by engineers these days, I should
point out that I worked for HP (Agilent) several years ago and I'm not
a big fan of their engineering department.


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.


Usually, if it is a push-pull design, device matching plays an
important part. Bias is also important, as is impedance matching. But
even a "good" design should have a follow-up low pass filter to
minimize any harmonic content.



Absolutely. But even filters have limitations. Assuming Brian's amp
has 350 watt noise figures in the neighborhood of -18 to -24 dB (not
unrealistic), it would take a mighty stout filter to clean it up!






Dave Hall October 8th 04 12:08 PM

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:58:13 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:06:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:47:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


snip
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".


That is but one type of compression. For a more detailed discussion of
RF amplifier compression, please refer to the following related link:

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/lit...5965-7710E.pdf

Generally speaking, amplifier compression occurs when the input:output
power ratio no longer increases db for db.



You should know me by now -- I just -have- to disagree.


That's what makes discussion interesting. Unless, of course the other
party is nameless sociopath..... ;-)

The use of the
term 'compression region' is really a misnomer. It's properly
described as a nonlinear region.


A device can be non-linear without going into compression. The way I
learned it, compression is a specific term that applies when a
normally linear device loses linearity as it approaches it's maximum
drive level.


The reason is that different devices
behave differently, and while a few devices (some transistors, a few
tubes, incandescent lightbulbs) have nonlinear characteristics similar
to compression, the fact is that nothing is being 'compressed', and
the vast majority of other devices have nonlinear regions that do not
resemble compression.


Exactly! That's why compression refers to a specific condition, so as
to differentiate it from other forms of non-linerarity. Certain class
"C" "Modulator" type amplifiers, for example, deliberately run in the
non-linear region just above device cutoff, to take advantage of the
"swing" effect of the device. It's non-linear, but it's not
compressed.

And whether that nonlinear region is gradual or
sharp, it's still clipping because it's a limitation of the device. It
also causes distortion that is characteristic of clipping. And yes,
saturation is within the nonlinear region.


I differentiate the term "clipping" from "compression" by the
application in which the terms are used. In an application such as a
broadband amplifier with a broad spectrum of carriers (Such as a CATV
amp), is applied to the input, the term compression applies as you
reach the point of non-linear gain and the incidents of composite
second order beats rises disproportionately.

I look at "clipping" as a momentary chopping off of an otherwise
linear signal reproduction, such as what you would encounter with AM
modulation peaks which run out of headroom in an amplifier, which
would otherwise be still in the linear range when unmodulated. You can
still "clip" while not being fully into compression.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing these terms, but that's me.....



I'll give him this one. This may be a matter of semantics, like noting
the difference between 'weight' and 'mass'. I had these things drilled
into my brain by my profs for the simple reason that using the wrong
term can cause a misunderstanding. And that's what I believe is
happening when people substitute the term 'compression' for when the
transistor has exceeded the limits of linearity and subsequently
clips, be it hard or soft.

But no matter what you call it, the result is distortion.


No argument there.


But the problem here is that the term 'compression' has been 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.


After reading the link, you might want to revise your definition.
There are a bunch of very talented engineers here who would be a bit
insulted to find out that you refer to them as "voodoo techs".



I'll stick with my definition. And while I may take issue with some of
the more liberal definitions used by engineers these days, I should
point out that I worked for HP (Agilent) several years ago and I'm not
a big fan of their engineering department.


While the link I provided, was put out by Agilent, it was one of many
examples. I don't work for them either, but I do work with some
talented RF engineers, and we use the term compression frequently to
describe the point where linear gain ceases, and distortion products
increase disproportionately.




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.


Usually, if it is a push-pull design, device matching plays an
important part. Bias is also important, as is impedance matching. But
even a "good" design should have a follow-up low pass filter to
minimize any harmonic content.



Absolutely. But even filters have limitations. Assuming Brian's amp
has 350 watt noise figures in the neighborhood of -18 to -24 dB (not
unrealistic), it would take a mighty stout filter to clean it up!


A 5 pole filter should bring it into line. All he would need is an
additional 30db of attenuation

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

Frank Gilliland October 8th 04 01:57 PM

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 07:08:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:58:13 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:06:26 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:47:29 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


snip
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".

That is but one type of compression. For a more detailed discussion of
RF amplifier compression, please refer to the following related link:

http://cp.literature.agilent.com/lit...5965-7710E.pdf

Generally speaking, amplifier compression occurs when the input:output
power ratio no longer increases db for db.



You should know me by now -- I just -have- to disagree.


That's what makes discussion interesting. Unless, of course the other
party is nameless sociopath..... ;-)



Which one? There are so many.....


The use of the
term 'compression region' is really a misnomer. It's properly
described as a nonlinear region.


A device can be non-linear without going into compression. The way I
learned it, compression is a specific term that applies when a
normally linear device loses linearity as it approaches it's maximum
drive level.



The problem is the application; i.e, the operational limits of the
device. More below.


The reason is that different devices
behave differently, and while a few devices (some transistors, a few
tubes, incandescent lightbulbs) have nonlinear characteristics similar
to compression, the fact is that nothing is being 'compressed', and
the vast majority of other devices have nonlinear regions that do not
resemble compression.


Exactly! That's why compression refers to a specific condition, so as
to differentiate it from other forms of non-linerarity. Certain class
"C" "Modulator" type amplifiers, for example, deliberately run in the
non-linear region just above device cutoff, to take advantage of the
"swing" effect of the device.



......huh? That statement looks like a train-wreck. Assuming we're
talking Class C for both types, a device is usually pushed towards
-saturation-, and the result is clipping which forms a psuedo-square
wave that packs more energy than a sine wave, and making the stage
more efficient (a design that evolved into the Class E amplifier).
Also, Class C devices are -biased- above cutoff by definition. But
what is this "swing effect" you describe? I have never heard of a
-device- having such an effect unless it was a self-resonant device.
Last time I checked, most transistors don't tend to be self-resonant
below 30 MHz.....


It's non-linear, but it's not
compressed.



That's the point. It's -not- compressed. I see no reason to place that
label on a portion of a curve only because it loosly resembles one of
the characteristics of compression yet doesn't fall within its
definition. To me it's like using the word 'pill' to describe an RF
transistor, or 'swing' to describe modulation.


And whether that nonlinear region is gradual or
sharp, it's still clipping because it's a limitation of the device. It
also causes distortion that is characteristic of clipping. And yes,
saturation is within the nonlinear region.


I differentiate the term "clipping" from "compression" by the
application in which the terms are used. In an application such as a
broadband amplifier with a broad spectrum of carriers (Such as a CATV
amp), is applied to the input, the term compression applies as you
reach the point of non-linear gain and the incidents of composite
second order beats rises disproportionately.

I look at "clipping" as a momentary chopping off of an otherwise
linear signal reproduction, such as what you would encounter with AM
modulation peaks which run out of headroom in an amplifier, which
would otherwise be still in the linear range when unmodulated. You can
still "clip" while not being fully into compression.

Maybe I'm over-analyzing these terms, but that's me.....



I see the image in your brain -- "clipping" suggests a straight-line
cut from the top of the wave. And I understand your definition of
'compression' as the transitional zone between linearity and clipping.
But clipping, by definition, is caused when the signal exceeds the
limits of the device. And that's exactly what happens when the output
is pushed into the nonlinear region because it's operation is intended
to be limited to the linear region (otherwise it's not a linear amp).


I'll give him this one. This may be a matter of semantics, like noting
the difference between 'weight' and 'mass'. I had these things drilled
into my brain by my profs for the simple reason that using the wrong
term can cause a misunderstanding. And that's what I believe is
happening when people substitute the term 'compression' for when the
transistor has exceeded the limits of linearity and subsequently
clips, be it hard or soft.

But no matter what you call it, the result is distortion.


No argument there.


But the problem here is that the term 'compression' has been 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.

After reading the link, you might want to revise your definition.
There are a bunch of very talented engineers here who would be a bit
insulted to find out that you refer to them as "voodoo techs".



I'll stick with my definition. And while I may take issue with some of
the more liberal definitions used by engineers these days, I should
point out that I worked for HP (Agilent) several years ago and I'm not
a big fan of their engineering department.


While the link I provided, was put out by Agilent, it was one of many
examples. I don't work for them either, but I do work with some
talented RF engineers, and we use the term compression frequently to
describe the point where linear gain ceases, and distortion products
increase disproportionately.



I've known many talented engineers who learned switch terminology
backwards: for example, they would describe a 6-position rotory switch
as a 6-pole single-throw. I've known some talented engineers who
didn't know the difference between 'active' and 'passive'. I've even
known a couple talented engineers who thought electrons flowed from
positive to negative. I guess I'm just anal (like THAT'S a suprise!).


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.

Usually, if it is a push-pull design, device matching plays an
important part. Bias is also important, as is impedance matching. But
even a "good" design should have a follow-up low pass filter to
minimize any harmonic content.



Absolutely. But even filters have limitations. Assuming Brian's amp
has 350 watt noise figures in the neighborhood of -18 to -24 dB (not
unrealistic), it would take a mighty stout filter to clean it up!


A 5 pole filter should bring it into line. All he would need is an
additional 30db of attenuation



Don't forget that as you increase the power you need to increase the
attenuation. This is because of the changes in the equipment rules
regarding harmonic emissions. The limit is now absolute whereas before
it was relative to signal strength. Regardless, a LP filter won't
filter the splatter.




Twistedhed October 8th 04 02:21 PM

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:52:18 -0400,
(Twistedhed)
wrote:
And has nothing to do with your ignorant and wrong claim that a peak and
tune increases the S units on a 4 watt stock radio.

You are a basket case.



And your insultive demeanor and erratic behavior is beyond your
self-control whenever you are reminded we are speaking of a topic that
was being discussed, not a hypothetical radio invoked by yourself to
change the topic.


Your ability to comprehend even the simplest


concepts is severely impeded.



Complaining about me and blaming me for your radio incompetence isn't
going to change your inability to remain on topic or take away your
ignorance concerning S units.

This is seconded only by your penchant to


spin and twist words in order to avoid


admitting that you misunderstood the concept.


A concept only you appear to be familiar with.


I'll let Jim or anyone else set you straight.



Jim isn't bailing you out, In fact, no one has agreed with you, so stop
looking to others for help.


But suffice to say, you're in over your head.


Dave


"Sandbagger"



I'm not the one that claimed S units can be increased on a 4 watt radio
with a peak and tune,,,you did. Learn to accept your failures and those
things you are unable to change without the need to blame others.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com