|
Change the SSB power ?
Hi,
If you have an external wattmeter connected to your transmitter, can you make a test at 100 Watts PEP and give me your true emitting power in watts ? Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. The problem mainly occurs of the Kenwood TS-570D (all the serie in fact) using a handy mic or even a desk model (the ones sold by Kenwood). The same problem occurs with the Yaesu 1000 MP (tested at 100 W). If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan Where on the Internet can we find this procedure ? Thanks in advance Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry |
Thierry wrote:
Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This is nonsense, Thierry. If you shout loud enough into the microphone, of course you'll notice a higher power reading on the wattmeter, but so what? SSB transceiver should be adjusted so that the reading on the ALC scale stays within limits. Anything else is overmodulating and causing splatter. It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. [snip] If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan There is an audio booster circuit, which is actually a dynamic compressor and it works by increasing the level of the softer portions of your speech while keeping the louder portion the same (hence dynamic compression). If properly adjusted, it may give you some signal boost. The drawback is that the other side will be able to hear a mosquito fart in your shack if the signal is good. Then there's a high audio booster, which increases the higher frequency portion of your speech, but this is generally included in modern rigs. If your mike can drive your Kenwood's ALC to the limit when speaking normally, there is nothing wrong with it. Build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Thierry wrote:
Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This is nonsense, Thierry. If you shout loud enough into the microphone, of course you'll notice a higher power reading on the wattmeter, but so what? SSB transceiver should be adjusted so that the reading on the ALC scale stays within limits. Anything else is overmodulating and causing splatter. It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. [snip] If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan There is an audio booster circuit, which is actually a dynamic compressor and it works by increasing the level of the softer portions of your speech while keeping the louder portion the same (hence dynamic compression). If properly adjusted, it may give you some signal boost. The drawback is that the other side will be able to hear a mosquito fart in your shack if the signal is good. Then there's a high audio booster, which increases the higher frequency portion of your speech, but this is generally included in modern rigs. If your mike can drive your Kenwood's ALC to the limit when speaking normally, there is nothing wrong with it. Build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Hi,
You partly right but this is well what I said in my post. The problem I speak about is completely different. As usual your comments are out of subject and from what I read you don't even know the problem trying to compare wmy request to "CB". ! It is a pity that an ham has a so bad ham spirit.... The reason I don' have 100W on SSB is due to the audio limiter so by bypassing it I can get 100 w whatever your (false) opinion in that matter. This is nothing to do with the compressor... An accessory plug can bypass audio and therefore left the mic connector unchanged so I can either use the TS570D in the standard way or connect a mic to the accessory plug and operate full power SSB. The mod is relatively simple and requires a jumber and the removal of 3 or 4 smt components. Of course this is not thanks to you that I had this information that may interest others hams. Others did hopefully. Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY "Zoran Brlecic" wrote in message ... Thierry wrote: Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This is nonsense, Thierry. If you shout loud enough into the microphone, of course you'll notice a higher power reading on the wattmeter, but so what? SSB transceiver should be adjusted so that the reading on the ALC scale stays within limits. Anything else is overmodulating and causing splatter. It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. [snip] If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan There is an audio booster circuit, which is actually a dynamic compressor and it works by increasing the level of the softer portions of your speech while keeping the louder portion the same (hence dynamic compression). If properly adjusted, it may give you some signal boost. The drawback is that the other side will be able to hear a mosquito fart in your shack if the signal is good. Then there's a high audio booster, which increases the higher frequency portion of your speech, but this is generally included in modern rigs. If your mike can drive your Kenwood's ALC to the limit when speaking normally, there is nothing wrong with it. Build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Hi,
You partly right but this is well what I said in my post. The problem I speak about is completely different. As usual your comments are out of subject and from what I read you don't even know the problem trying to compare wmy request to "CB". ! It is a pity that an ham has a so bad ham spirit.... The reason I don' have 100W on SSB is due to the audio limiter so by bypassing it I can get 100 w whatever your (false) opinion in that matter. This is nothing to do with the compressor... An accessory plug can bypass audio and therefore left the mic connector unchanged so I can either use the TS570D in the standard way or connect a mic to the accessory plug and operate full power SSB. The mod is relatively simple and requires a jumber and the removal of 3 or 4 smt components. Of course this is not thanks to you that I had this information that may interest others hams. Others did hopefully. Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY "Zoran Brlecic" wrote in message ... Thierry wrote: Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This is nonsense, Thierry. If you shout loud enough into the microphone, of course you'll notice a higher power reading on the wattmeter, but so what? SSB transceiver should be adjusted so that the reading on the ALC scale stays within limits. Anything else is overmodulating and causing splatter. It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. [snip] If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan There is an audio booster circuit, which is actually a dynamic compressor and it works by increasing the level of the softer portions of your speech while keeping the louder portion the same (hence dynamic compression). If properly adjusted, it may give you some signal boost. The drawback is that the other side will be able to hear a mosquito fart in your shack if the signal is good. Then there's a high audio booster, which increases the higher frequency portion of your speech, but this is generally included in modern rigs. If your mike can drive your Kenwood's ALC to the limit when speaking normally, there is nothing wrong with it. Build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Ed |
Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Ed |
And let us not even broach the subject of 'splatter' caused by overdriving
and the resulting distortion. Dan/W4NTI "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Ed |
And let us not even broach the subject of 'splatter' caused by overdriving
and the resulting distortion. Dan/W4NTI "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Ed |
Thierry wrote:
You partly right but this is well what I said in my post. The problem I speak about is completely different. As usual your comments are out of subject and from what I read you don't even know the problem trying to compare wmy request to "CB". ! It is a pity that an ham has a so bad ham spirit.... The real pity is in the fact that a ham has such a ****-poor understanding of how SSB modulation works. Furthermore, if you want to talk "out of subject", perhaps you might want to check your own messages on rec.radio.* forums. Also, if you choose to interpret replies to your messages that don't kiss your ass as "bad ham spirit", that's your prerogative. Now back to the topic: The reason I don' have 100W on SSB is due to the audio limiter so by bypassing it I can get 100 w whatever your (false) opinion in that matter. This is nothing to do with the compressor... This is a complete bull****. How do you know you don't have 100W on SSB? Have you used an accurate laboratory standard peak-reading wattmeter? Do you understand the nature of the SSB voice modulation? It is unrealistic to expect that your general purpose amateur radio wattmeter will indicate 100W during a normal SSB transmission. Just a reminder: an SSB voice transmission transmits a modulated signal that has a dynamic response of 20-30 dB, which means that the peak power of plosives will be fairly close to 100W while fricatives, nasals and vowels will produce anywhere from 0.1W to 100W, depending on your speech (which, in turn, depends on the language, sex, physiognomy and many other individual factors). You want us to believe that although Kenwood provides a technical specification for its transceivers (TS-570 included) that claims 100W output on all amateur bands and in CW, SSB, FM and FSK modes, they fail to deliver on this specification because they employ an "audio limiter", so the way to get full power out of the rig is to bypass this circuit??? An accessory plug can bypass audio and therefore left the mic connector unchanged so I can either use the TS570D in the standard way or connect a mic to the accessory plug and operate full power SSB. In other words, you can use an accessory DIN connector in the back to input audio instead of going through the mike plug. The problem is that this input goes to the same spot as the mike audio input. But, wait, here's a magic solution: The mod is relatively simple and requires a jumber and the removal of 3 or 4 smt components. Of course this is not thanks to you that I had this information that may interest others hams. Others did hopefully. And here we go, just what I was talking about when I said you were wasting time on CB-like schemes - that band is full of "experts" who "increase" their power by employing all kinds of charlatan mumbo-jumbo techniques, from audio boosters to magical 30 dB gain antennas. The results are obvious for anyone who ever bothered to listen to that **** when they illegally encroach on our 10 meter band. Now you come along and make an ass of yourself first by completely misunderstanding how SSB power is measured, then by modifying a properly functioning rig with what can only be interpreted as a mod to eliminate the ALC circuitry. The result will be your signal splattered all over the bands and an increase in TVI. Last, but not least, even if what I said was completely untrue, even if you were able to magically "increase" your SSB power from, say 70W to 100W, this increase in power would result in the astoundingly lame 1.5 dB!!! And this at the expense of splattering the bands? I told you once and I'll tell you again: build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
Thierry wrote:
You partly right but this is well what I said in my post. The problem I speak about is completely different. As usual your comments are out of subject and from what I read you don't even know the problem trying to compare wmy request to "CB". ! It is a pity that an ham has a so bad ham spirit.... The real pity is in the fact that a ham has such a ****-poor understanding of how SSB modulation works. Furthermore, if you want to talk "out of subject", perhaps you might want to check your own messages on rec.radio.* forums. Also, if you choose to interpret replies to your messages that don't kiss your ass as "bad ham spirit", that's your prerogative. Now back to the topic: The reason I don' have 100W on SSB is due to the audio limiter so by bypassing it I can get 100 w whatever your (false) opinion in that matter. This is nothing to do with the compressor... This is a complete bull****. How do you know you don't have 100W on SSB? Have you used an accurate laboratory standard peak-reading wattmeter? Do you understand the nature of the SSB voice modulation? It is unrealistic to expect that your general purpose amateur radio wattmeter will indicate 100W during a normal SSB transmission. Just a reminder: an SSB voice transmission transmits a modulated signal that has a dynamic response of 20-30 dB, which means that the peak power of plosives will be fairly close to 100W while fricatives, nasals and vowels will produce anywhere from 0.1W to 100W, depending on your speech (which, in turn, depends on the language, sex, physiognomy and many other individual factors). You want us to believe that although Kenwood provides a technical specification for its transceivers (TS-570 included) that claims 100W output on all amateur bands and in CW, SSB, FM and FSK modes, they fail to deliver on this specification because they employ an "audio limiter", so the way to get full power out of the rig is to bypass this circuit??? An accessory plug can bypass audio and therefore left the mic connector unchanged so I can either use the TS570D in the standard way or connect a mic to the accessory plug and operate full power SSB. In other words, you can use an accessory DIN connector in the back to input audio instead of going through the mike plug. The problem is that this input goes to the same spot as the mike audio input. But, wait, here's a magic solution: The mod is relatively simple and requires a jumber and the removal of 3 or 4 smt components. Of course this is not thanks to you that I had this information that may interest others hams. Others did hopefully. And here we go, just what I was talking about when I said you were wasting time on CB-like schemes - that band is full of "experts" who "increase" their power by employing all kinds of charlatan mumbo-jumbo techniques, from audio boosters to magical 30 dB gain antennas. The results are obvious for anyone who ever bothered to listen to that **** when they illegally encroach on our 10 meter band. Now you come along and make an ass of yourself first by completely misunderstanding how SSB power is measured, then by modifying a properly functioning rig with what can only be interpreted as a mod to eliminate the ALC circuitry. The result will be your signal splattered all over the bands and an increase in TVI. Last, but not least, even if what I said was completely untrue, even if you were able to magically "increase" your SSB power from, say 70W to 100W, this increase in power would result in the astoundingly lame 1.5 dB!!! And this at the expense of splattering the bands? I told you once and I'll tell you again: build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA -- Anti-spam measu look me up on qrz.com if you need to reply directly |
"Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Hi Ed, Yes for sure. But I think that it rather displays the "instantaneous" modulation not an average because when I shout at the mic or using the key the nidddle reaches immediately the maximum without delay and speaking normally I emit about 40-60 watts only, moving up and down at the rate of my words. This is not really a "problem" of power or with the microphone or even with the compression level, because Kenwood made some tests for me and confirmed that hardware speaking the emitter and the microphone were OK, whatever the mode, see my EXCEL sheet with power measurements, http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-ts570-3.htm (end first screen). But comparing to others TX (i.e. TS440S) there is a huge difference when speaking at the mic. My TS570D and Yaesu 1000MP (reduced at 100W) give about 60W instead of 100W in SSB speaking normally, conversely to TS440S and many olders that give all their full power, without having made any modification on the RTX. I have not tested many rigs, but it seems that the audio of olders models (made 20 years ago) was manufactured differently from the new one (last 5 years), may be is this justify to protect a relay or another component, I don't know. But the problem is that I bough a 100W emitter and not a 60W... I will soon get the modification to make using the accessory plug in order to not modify the mic itself. Thierry PS. And for those who wonder why I do not do "CB" (??) or buy a beam, I already use a 4 ele beam... and sorry for the ones that confuse ham and CB, I do not share at all any passion for the 11m like them. Ed |
"Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Hi Ed, Yes for sure. But I think that it rather displays the "instantaneous" modulation not an average because when I shout at the mic or using the key the nidddle reaches immediately the maximum without delay and speaking normally I emit about 40-60 watts only, moving up and down at the rate of my words. This is not really a "problem" of power or with the microphone or even with the compression level, because Kenwood made some tests for me and confirmed that hardware speaking the emitter and the microphone were OK, whatever the mode, see my EXCEL sheet with power measurements, http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-ts570-3.htm (end first screen). But comparing to others TX (i.e. TS440S) there is a huge difference when speaking at the mic. My TS570D and Yaesu 1000MP (reduced at 100W) give about 60W instead of 100W in SSB speaking normally, conversely to TS440S and many olders that give all their full power, without having made any modification on the RTX. I have not tested many rigs, but it seems that the audio of olders models (made 20 years ago) was manufactured differently from the new one (last 5 years), may be is this justify to protect a relay or another component, I don't know. But the problem is that I bough a 100W emitter and not a 60W... I will soon get the modification to make using the accessory plug in order to not modify the mic itself. Thierry PS. And for those who wonder why I do not do "CB" (??) or buy a beam, I already use a 4 ele beam... and sorry for the ones that confuse ham and CB, I do not share at all any passion for the 11m like them. Ed |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... And let us not even broach the subject of 'splatter' caused by overdriving and the resulting distortion. Hi, The few OM knowing the problem and how to solve it, have not speak yet about distorsion of any kind. They compared the TS570D with a TS440S that give well all its 100W in SSB. The second produce not QRM at all and work really fine (over 290 DXCC in about 4 years without the slightest comment about a bad modulation, QRM or whatever... In all cases if there is any risk to blow out a component or to create QRM or anything else, then indeed I don't really see the advantage of this modification. But this is too early to conclude and give an opinion. I am waiting the full explanation about this mod and about its "side-effects". If you are interested in I will post another message as soon as I get it. Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY Dan/W4NTI "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Ed |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... And let us not even broach the subject of 'splatter' caused by overdriving and the resulting distortion. Hi, The few OM knowing the problem and how to solve it, have not speak yet about distorsion of any kind. They compared the TS570D with a TS440S that give well all its 100W in SSB. The second produce not QRM at all and work really fine (over 290 DXCC in about 4 years without the slightest comment about a bad modulation, QRM or whatever... In all cases if there is any risk to blow out a component or to create QRM or anything else, then indeed I don't really see the advantage of this modification. But this is too early to conclude and give an opinion. I am waiting the full explanation about this mod and about its "side-effects". If you are interested in I will post another message as soon as I get it. Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY Dan/W4NTI "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Ed |
Hi, The few OM knowing the problem and how to solve it, have not speak yet about distorsion of any kind. They compared the TS570D with a TS440S that give well all its 100W in SSB. Sorry it was not a 440S but well a TS840S. Thierry |
Hi, The few OM knowing the problem and how to solve it, have not speak yet about distorsion of any kind. They compared the TS570D with a TS440S that give well all its 100W in SSB. Sorry it was not a 440S but well a TS840S. Thierry |
Thierry wrote: "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Hi Ed, Yes for sure. But I think that it rather displays the "instantaneous" modulation not an average because when I shout at the mic or using the key the nidddle reaches immediately the maximum without delay and speaking normally I emit about 40-60 watts only, moving up and down at the rate of my words. This is not really a "problem" of power or with the microphone or even with the compression level, because Kenwood made some tests for me and confirmed that hardware speaking the emitter and the microphone were OK, whatever the mode, see my EXCEL sheet with power measurements, http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-ts570-3.htm (end first screen). But comparing to others TX (i.e. TS440S) there is a huge difference when speaking at the mic. My TS570D and Yaesu 1000MP (reduced at 100W) give about 60W instead of 100W in SSB speaking normally, conversely to TS440S and many olders that give all their full power, without having made any modification on the RTX. I have not tested many rigs, but it seems that the audio of olders models (made 20 years ago) was manufactured differently from the new one (last 5 years), may be is this justify to protect a relay or another component, I don't know. But the problem is that I bough a 100W emitter and not a 60W... I will soon get the modification to make using the accessory plug in order to not modify the mic itself. Thierry PS. And for those who wonder why I do not do "CB" (??) or buy a beam, I already use a 4 ele beam... and sorry for the ones that confuse ham and CB, I do not share at all any passion for the 11m like them. Ed Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. Dave |
Thierry wrote: "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Hi Ed, Yes for sure. But I think that it rather displays the "instantaneous" modulation not an average because when I shout at the mic or using the key the nidddle reaches immediately the maximum without delay and speaking normally I emit about 40-60 watts only, moving up and down at the rate of my words. This is not really a "problem" of power or with the microphone or even with the compression level, because Kenwood made some tests for me and confirmed that hardware speaking the emitter and the microphone were OK, whatever the mode, see my EXCEL sheet with power measurements, http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/qsl-ts570-3.htm (end first screen). But comparing to others TX (i.e. TS440S) there is a huge difference when speaking at the mic. My TS570D and Yaesu 1000MP (reduced at 100W) give about 60W instead of 100W in SSB speaking normally, conversely to TS440S and many olders that give all their full power, without having made any modification on the RTX. I have not tested many rigs, but it seems that the audio of olders models (made 20 years ago) was manufactured differently from the new one (last 5 years), may be is this justify to protect a relay or another component, I don't know. But the problem is that I bough a 100W emitter and not a 60W... I will soon get the modification to make using the accessory plug in order to not modify the mic itself. Thierry PS. And for those who wonder why I do not do "CB" (??) or buy a beam, I already use a 4 ele beam... and sorry for the ones that confuse ham and CB, I do not share at all any passion for the 11m like them. Ed Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. Dave |
"Dave Holford" wrote in message ... ... Thierry wrote: Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? Yes of course. I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. Hi, This is the first time that we note this problem too and the problem was detected by chance... :-(( All users are exprimented OM some for decades and never observe this effect... All told me that indeed their TX cannot emit its full power in SSB but rather 50-60% in speaking normally. So we were very surprised than one of us could reach the full power... Our friend used a TS-840S and some olders and show us at the radioclub what the matter with its TX. He nearly reaches and sometimes exceed the 100W...in SSB, something we even can't get using a yaesu 1000 MP of the last generation ! So as he recently bought the new TS570D he immediately noticed the difference. Even using an electret microphone (using a battery and known to boost emissions much more than a dynamic one) he cannot get the full power of its older TX. Therefore we did some complementary measurements and have searched for some information. Hence this post and some others So at first sight I suspected an error in its reading procedure, etc. But not at all... Someone having read my TS570D review on Internet explained me that he knew the problem and how to solve it. I am waiting now more detail (how to increase the signal and what about QRM, etc). Thierry Dave |
"Dave Holford" wrote in message ... ... Thierry wrote: Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? Yes of course. I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. Hi, This is the first time that we note this problem too and the problem was detected by chance... :-(( All users are exprimented OM some for decades and never observe this effect... All told me that indeed their TX cannot emit its full power in SSB but rather 50-60% in speaking normally. So we were very surprised than one of us could reach the full power... Our friend used a TS-840S and some olders and show us at the radioclub what the matter with its TX. He nearly reaches and sometimes exceed the 100W...in SSB, something we even can't get using a yaesu 1000 MP of the last generation ! So as he recently bought the new TS570D he immediately noticed the difference. Even using an electret microphone (using a battery and known to boost emissions much more than a dynamic one) he cannot get the full power of its older TX. Therefore we did some complementary measurements and have searched for some information. Hence this post and some others So at first sight I suspected an error in its reading procedure, etc. But not at all... Someone having read my TS570D review on Internet explained me that he knew the problem and how to solve it. I am waiting now more detail (how to increase the signal and what about QRM, etc). Thierry Dave |
I am not going to address your technical issues with getting a higher reading on the wattmeter. What I would like to point out is, even if you manage to get your wattmeter to read 100 watts instead of 50 watts, the change in power is going to be practically unnoticable on the other end. There just isn't enough gain in doing this to make it worth any effort. Ed WB6SAT |
I am not going to address your technical issues with getting a higher reading on the wattmeter. What I would like to point out is, even if you manage to get your wattmeter to read 100 watts instead of 50 watts, the change in power is going to be practically unnoticable on the other end. There just isn't enough gain in doing this to make it worth any effort. Ed WB6SAT |
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 04:26:56 GMT, Zoran Brlecic
wrote: Thierry wrote: You partly right but this is well what I said in my post. The problem I speak about is completely different. As usual your comments are out of subject and from what I read you don't even know the problem trying to compare wmy request to "CB". ! It is a pity that an ham has a so bad ham spirit.... The real pity is in the fact that a ham has such a ****-poor understanding of how SSB modulation works. Furthermore, if you want to talk "out of subject", perhaps you might want to check your own messages on rec.radio.* forums. Also, if you choose to interpret replies to your messages that don't kiss your ass as "bad ham spirit", that's your prerogative. Now back to the topic: The reason I don' have 100W on SSB is due to the audio limiter so by bypassing it I can get 100 w whatever your (false) opinion in that matter. This is nothing to do with the compressor... This is a complete bull****. How do you know you don't have 100W on SSB? Z., a couple of months ago, Thierry was complaining of this same problem. I asked him whether he was measuring ssb with an averaging meter, vs. a peak-reading meter. He never really responded. I'm not sure whether he even owns a morse key to look at the difference cw will get you on an averaging meter, vs. ssb. Oh, well... Bob k5qwg Have you used an accurate laboratory standard peak-reading wattmeter? Do you understand the nature of the SSB voice modulation? It is unrealistic to expect that your general purpose amateur radio wattmeter will indicate 100W during a normal SSB transmission. Just a reminder: an SSB voice transmission transmits a modulated signal that has a dynamic response of 20-30 dB, which means that the peak power of plosives will be fairly close to 100W while fricatives, nasals and vowels will produce anywhere from 0.1W to 100W, depending on your speech (which, in turn, depends on the language, sex, physiognomy and many other individual factors). You want us to believe that although Kenwood provides a technical specification for its transceivers (TS-570 included) that claims 100W output on all amateur bands and in CW, SSB, FM and FSK modes, they fail to deliver on this specification because they employ an "audio limiter", so the way to get full power out of the rig is to bypass this circuit??? An accessory plug can bypass audio and therefore left the mic connector unchanged so I can either use the TS570D in the standard way or connect a mic to the accessory plug and operate full power SSB. In other words, you can use an accessory DIN connector in the back to input audio instead of going through the mike plug. The problem is that this input goes to the same spot as the mike audio input. But, wait, here's a magic solution: The mod is relatively simple and requires a jumber and the removal of 3 or 4 smt components. Of course this is not thanks to you that I had this information that may interest others hams. Others did hopefully. And here we go, just what I was talking about when I said you were wasting time on CB-like schemes - that band is full of "experts" who "increase" their power by employing all kinds of charlatan mumbo-jumbo techniques, from audio boosters to magical 30 dB gain antennas. The results are obvious for anyone who ever bothered to listen to that **** when they illegally encroach on our 10 meter band. Now you come along and make an ass of yourself first by completely misunderstanding how SSB power is measured, then by modifying a properly functioning rig with what can only be interpreted as a mod to eliminate the ALC circuitry. The result will be your signal splattered all over the bands and an increase in TVI. Last, but not least, even if what I said was completely untrue, even if you were able to magically "increase" your SSB power from, say 70W to 100W, this increase in power would result in the astoundingly lame 1.5 dB!!! And this at the expense of splattering the bands? I told you once and I'll tell you again: build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA |
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 04:26:56 GMT, Zoran Brlecic
wrote: Thierry wrote: You partly right but this is well what I said in my post. The problem I speak about is completely different. As usual your comments are out of subject and from what I read you don't even know the problem trying to compare wmy request to "CB". ! It is a pity that an ham has a so bad ham spirit.... The real pity is in the fact that a ham has such a ****-poor understanding of how SSB modulation works. Furthermore, if you want to talk "out of subject", perhaps you might want to check your own messages on rec.radio.* forums. Also, if you choose to interpret replies to your messages that don't kiss your ass as "bad ham spirit", that's your prerogative. Now back to the topic: The reason I don' have 100W on SSB is due to the audio limiter so by bypassing it I can get 100 w whatever your (false) opinion in that matter. This is nothing to do with the compressor... This is a complete bull****. How do you know you don't have 100W on SSB? Z., a couple of months ago, Thierry was complaining of this same problem. I asked him whether he was measuring ssb with an averaging meter, vs. a peak-reading meter. He never really responded. I'm not sure whether he even owns a morse key to look at the difference cw will get you on an averaging meter, vs. ssb. Oh, well... Bob k5qwg Have you used an accurate laboratory standard peak-reading wattmeter? Do you understand the nature of the SSB voice modulation? It is unrealistic to expect that your general purpose amateur radio wattmeter will indicate 100W during a normal SSB transmission. Just a reminder: an SSB voice transmission transmits a modulated signal that has a dynamic response of 20-30 dB, which means that the peak power of plosives will be fairly close to 100W while fricatives, nasals and vowels will produce anywhere from 0.1W to 100W, depending on your speech (which, in turn, depends on the language, sex, physiognomy and many other individual factors). You want us to believe that although Kenwood provides a technical specification for its transceivers (TS-570 included) that claims 100W output on all amateur bands and in CW, SSB, FM and FSK modes, they fail to deliver on this specification because they employ an "audio limiter", so the way to get full power out of the rig is to bypass this circuit??? An accessory plug can bypass audio and therefore left the mic connector unchanged so I can either use the TS570D in the standard way or connect a mic to the accessory plug and operate full power SSB. In other words, you can use an accessory DIN connector in the back to input audio instead of going through the mike plug. The problem is that this input goes to the same spot as the mike audio input. But, wait, here's a magic solution: The mod is relatively simple and requires a jumber and the removal of 3 or 4 smt components. Of course this is not thanks to you that I had this information that may interest others hams. Others did hopefully. And here we go, just what I was talking about when I said you were wasting time on CB-like schemes - that band is full of "experts" who "increase" their power by employing all kinds of charlatan mumbo-jumbo techniques, from audio boosters to magical 30 dB gain antennas. The results are obvious for anyone who ever bothered to listen to that **** when they illegally encroach on our 10 meter band. Now you come along and make an ass of yourself first by completely misunderstanding how SSB power is measured, then by modifying a properly functioning rig with what can only be interpreted as a mod to eliminate the ALC circuitry. The result will be your signal splattered all over the bands and an increase in TVI. Last, but not least, even if what I said was completely untrue, even if you were able to magically "increase" your SSB power from, say 70W to 100W, this increase in power would result in the astoundingly lame 1.5 dB!!! And this at the expense of splattering the bands? I told you once and I'll tell you again: build a better antenna instead of wasting time on CB-like schemes. 73 .... WA7AA |
"Thierry" wrote in message ...
Hi, If you have an external wattmeter connected to your transmitter, can you make a test at 100 Watts PEP and give me your true emitting power in watts ? Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This could be all over the map, depending on the type of wattmeter used. Very few wattmeters are good at giving an accurate reading of voice peaks. The meter movements are too slow. If someone see's the full 100w on SSB, they either have an excellent peak reading wattmeter, or they are overdriving their radio. I'd say the majority #2...:/ It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. There is no advantage either, if the mike circuit is capable of fully driving the radio. The circuit you have is surely capable. All you will end up doing is adding distortion, and lowering the setting you keep your mike gain. The problem mainly occurs of the Kenwood TS-570D (all the serie in fact) using a handy mic or even a desk model (the ones sold by Kenwood). The same problem occurs with the Yaesu 1000 MP (tested at 100 W). I've never heard of any such problem. You are just being fooled by the meter. Didn't this type thing come up a few weeks ago? You have average reading meters, and you have type of peak reading meters. With NORMAL drive, and average speach, you will usually see only 25-35 watts on an average meter when doing 100w out. This is normal!!! Don't try to pump up the gain to get more reading. You will just overdrive. Then you have passive peak reading meters. They are always sluggish, and never read the full actual output. Most will average about 80w peaks, with actual 100w peaks. All they are doing is adding a small electrolytic cap to the meters to give some "hang time". Then you have active peak reading meters. These will be the most accurate, but still can't be taken as gospel as voice patterns vary. If you can adjust your mike gain and be within the normal ALC specs for that radio, you have enough mike drive. If you can whistle hard into the mike, and get nearly 100w on the meter, you have enough mike drive. Don't worry about what you read on SSB. If you are doing 100w CW, you should be doing it on SSB. Heck, When I run 1300w out, I usually see only about 400w on average meter voice peaks. Don't think my voice peaks are really 1300w? Go out and grab the end of my antenna, and get back to me after the paramedics wake you up. :/ The bottom line. Very, very few wattmeters are worth a hoot at measuring SSB voice peaks. You are worrying about an issue that doesn't really exist. Well, unless the rare case you do have a radio problem, but I doubt it. A friend of mine runs a 570, and he's made no mention of this "problem". Misunderstanding wattmeter action is very common among newer hams. Thats why many overdrive, when they really are not intending to. They are fooled by those dang blasted meters. :( MK |
"Thierry" wrote in message ...
Hi, If you have an external wattmeter connected to your transmitter, can you make a test at 100 Watts PEP and give me your true emitting power in watts ? Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This could be all over the map, depending on the type of wattmeter used. Very few wattmeters are good at giving an accurate reading of voice peaks. The meter movements are too slow. If someone see's the full 100w on SSB, they either have an excellent peak reading wattmeter, or they are overdriving their radio. I'd say the majority #2...:/ It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. There is no advantage either, if the mike circuit is capable of fully driving the radio. The circuit you have is surely capable. All you will end up doing is adding distortion, and lowering the setting you keep your mike gain. The problem mainly occurs of the Kenwood TS-570D (all the serie in fact) using a handy mic or even a desk model (the ones sold by Kenwood). The same problem occurs with the Yaesu 1000 MP (tested at 100 W). I've never heard of any such problem. You are just being fooled by the meter. Didn't this type thing come up a few weeks ago? You have average reading meters, and you have type of peak reading meters. With NORMAL drive, and average speach, you will usually see only 25-35 watts on an average meter when doing 100w out. This is normal!!! Don't try to pump up the gain to get more reading. You will just overdrive. Then you have passive peak reading meters. They are always sluggish, and never read the full actual output. Most will average about 80w peaks, with actual 100w peaks. All they are doing is adding a small electrolytic cap to the meters to give some "hang time". Then you have active peak reading meters. These will be the most accurate, but still can't be taken as gospel as voice patterns vary. If you can adjust your mike gain and be within the normal ALC specs for that radio, you have enough mike drive. If you can whistle hard into the mike, and get nearly 100w on the meter, you have enough mike drive. Don't worry about what you read on SSB. If you are doing 100w CW, you should be doing it on SSB. Heck, When I run 1300w out, I usually see only about 400w on average meter voice peaks. Don't think my voice peaks are really 1300w? Go out and grab the end of my antenna, and get back to me after the paramedics wake you up. :/ The bottom line. Very, very few wattmeters are worth a hoot at measuring SSB voice peaks. You are worrying about an issue that doesn't really exist. Well, unless the rare case you do have a radio problem, but I doubt it. A friend of mine runs a 570, and he's made no mention of this "problem". Misunderstanding wattmeter action is very common among newer hams. Thats why many overdrive, when they really are not intending to. They are fooled by those dang blasted meters. :( MK |
"Thierry" wrote in message
If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan Where on the Internet can we find this procedure ? Thanks in advance Another note...Most all radios are set up from the factory to have the mike controls match the stock mikes. So if you use the stock hand mike, or stock desk mike, the mike gain controls "should" end up being set in the middle range of the mike gain control. I know on my 706, if using the stock mike, I end up with the mike gain about on "5", which is halfway. This is the way you want your mike set up. So if you add on extra mikes, you want to adjust the gain to match what you have, and let the radio be in the middle of it's range for gain. How to adjust mike gain while talking? I have a method I use, which seems fairly accurate. Set up the radio into a dummy load, and set power output for 100w "full power". Use an average meter, or if peak reading, set to "average". Then set the mike gain at it's lowest setting. Then speak into the mike in your normal volume, and say x-ray a couple of times at the lowest mike setting. Then adjust the mike gain up a notch at a time, and say x-ray a couple of times while on each increasing setting of mike gain. When you get to the point where increasing the gain makes no change on the indicated watt meter reading, you have full mike drive. I bet if you try this on your radio, you will end up near the half way mark on your mike drive when using a stock mike. When you get to the point where you have no change, set it back to the first setting that gave max reading, and you are pretty dang close to the proper setting. Watching a scope while doing this is even better, but this method is intended for non-scope users. And yes, being this is an average meter being used, you will likely only see voice peaks of 25-35 watts or so. Depends on the voice. If you add a pre-amp to a normal mike circuit, you will overdrive the radios own circuit, and end up at "1" as far as your mike setting. Will make it real touchy, and easy to overdrive. If you did the "x-ray" test, and could go all the way to the end of the mike gain, and were still seeing increasing average power, and show no signs of clipping at all, it's then possible you would need a preamp. It will be fairly obvious power is down from normal, once you get used to what normal should look like on your particular meter. You can also do a hard whistle test...I have to use a preamp for my audio technica mike when going to the 706. I only get about half drive without it. But thats a case of an aftermarket low Z "200 ohm" mike. BTW, that same mike element drives my TS-830 with no preamp needed, so radios vary to their mike gain requirements. Many old icoms needed outboard mike preamps. "IE: 730,740, etc.. Also be aware that radios will read different due to audio freq differences also. The bottom line...If you see a point of no increase when adjusting, as when normal, there is no point in adding any preamps. And also no point in worrying what a particular meter reads on voice peaks unless it's radically off from normal. The meter movements just can't keep up. MK |
"Thierry" wrote in message
If such a modification exists for that TS570D or for any mic, can a ham do it himself or can he ask his dealer to make the modificationcan Where on the Internet can we find this procedure ? Thanks in advance Another note...Most all radios are set up from the factory to have the mike controls match the stock mikes. So if you use the stock hand mike, or stock desk mike, the mike gain controls "should" end up being set in the middle range of the mike gain control. I know on my 706, if using the stock mike, I end up with the mike gain about on "5", which is halfway. This is the way you want your mike set up. So if you add on extra mikes, you want to adjust the gain to match what you have, and let the radio be in the middle of it's range for gain. How to adjust mike gain while talking? I have a method I use, which seems fairly accurate. Set up the radio into a dummy load, and set power output for 100w "full power". Use an average meter, or if peak reading, set to "average". Then set the mike gain at it's lowest setting. Then speak into the mike in your normal volume, and say x-ray a couple of times at the lowest mike setting. Then adjust the mike gain up a notch at a time, and say x-ray a couple of times while on each increasing setting of mike gain. When you get to the point where increasing the gain makes no change on the indicated watt meter reading, you have full mike drive. I bet if you try this on your radio, you will end up near the half way mark on your mike drive when using a stock mike. When you get to the point where you have no change, set it back to the first setting that gave max reading, and you are pretty dang close to the proper setting. Watching a scope while doing this is even better, but this method is intended for non-scope users. And yes, being this is an average meter being used, you will likely only see voice peaks of 25-35 watts or so. Depends on the voice. If you add a pre-amp to a normal mike circuit, you will overdrive the radios own circuit, and end up at "1" as far as your mike setting. Will make it real touchy, and easy to overdrive. If you did the "x-ray" test, and could go all the way to the end of the mike gain, and were still seeing increasing average power, and show no signs of clipping at all, it's then possible you would need a preamp. It will be fairly obvious power is down from normal, once you get used to what normal should look like on your particular meter. You can also do a hard whistle test...I have to use a preamp for my audio technica mike when going to the 706. I only get about half drive without it. But thats a case of an aftermarket low Z "200 ohm" mike. BTW, that same mike element drives my TS-830 with no preamp needed, so radios vary to their mike gain requirements. Many old icoms needed outboard mike preamps. "IE: 730,740, etc.. Also be aware that radios will read different due to audio freq differences also. The bottom line...If you see a point of no increase when adjusting, as when normal, there is no point in adding any preamps. And also no point in worrying what a particular meter reads on voice peaks unless it's radically off from normal. The meter movements just can't keep up. MK |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:58:04 +0200, "Thierry"
wrote: "Dave Holford" wrote in message .. . ... Thierry wrote: Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? Yes of course. What meter are you using? Brand and model number? Is it measuring "average" power -- or "peak PEP" power? Bob k5qwg I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. Hi, This is the first time that we note this problem too and the problem was detected by chance... :-(( All users are exprimented OM some for decades and never observe this effect... All told me that indeed their TX cannot emit its full power in SSB but rather 50-60% in speaking normally. So we were very surprised than one of us could reach the full power... Our friend used a TS-840S and some olders and show us at the radioclub what the matter with its TX. He nearly reaches and sometimes exceed the 100W...in SSB, something we even can't get using a yaesu 1000 MP of the last generation ! So as he recently bought the new TS570D he immediately noticed the difference. Even using an electret microphone (using a battery and known to boost emissions much more than a dynamic one) he cannot get the full power of its older TX. Therefore we did some complementary measurements and have searched for some information. Hence this post and some others So at first sight I suspected an error in its reading procedure, etc. But not at all... Someone having read my TS570D review on Internet explained me that he knew the problem and how to solve it. I am waiting now more detail (how to increase the signal and what about QRM, etc). Thierry Dave |
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:58:04 +0200, "Thierry"
wrote: "Dave Holford" wrote in message .. . ... Thierry wrote: Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? Yes of course. What meter are you using? Brand and model number? Is it measuring "average" power -- or "peak PEP" power? Bob k5qwg I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. Hi, This is the first time that we note this problem too and the problem was detected by chance... :-(( All users are exprimented OM some for decades and never observe this effect... All told me that indeed their TX cannot emit its full power in SSB but rather 50-60% in speaking normally. So we were very surprised than one of us could reach the full power... Our friend used a TS-840S and some olders and show us at the radioclub what the matter with its TX. He nearly reaches and sometimes exceed the 100W...in SSB, something we even can't get using a yaesu 1000 MP of the last generation ! So as he recently bought the new TS570D he immediately noticed the difference. Even using an electret microphone (using a battery and known to boost emissions much more than a dynamic one) he cannot get the full power of its older TX. Therefore we did some complementary measurements and have searched for some information. Hence this post and some others So at first sight I suspected an error in its reading procedure, etc. But not at all... Someone having read my TS570D review on Internet explained me that he knew the problem and how to solve it. I am waiting now more detail (how to increase the signal and what about QRM, etc). Thierry Dave |
"Dave Holford" wrote in message ... Thierry wrote: Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? Two external wattmeters where used. One is an old one from Yaesu called YS 2000 max reading 2000 W and we selected both RMS then PEP with a switch. The other one is a more recent of my friend. I have not its specs for the moment. Thierry I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. I confirm, hence the "misunderstanding" we all had when our friend told us that he can get 100W in SSB... Thierry Dave |
"Dave Holford" wrote in message ... Thierry wrote: Just out of curiosity - all these measurements used the same power meter? Two external wattmeters where used. One is an old one from Yaesu called YS 2000 max reading 2000 W and we selected both RMS then PEP with a switch. The other one is a more recent of my friend. I have not its specs for the moment. Thierry I don't recall ever seeing 100W on SSB with my TS-430, TS-440 or TS-570 when speaking, a steady tone will do it of course. I confirm, hence the "misunderstanding" we all had when our friend told us that he can get 100W in SSB... Thierry Dave |
"Thierry" wrote in message ... "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Hi Ed, Yes for sure. But I think that it rather displays the "instantaneous" modulation not an average because when I shout at the mic or using the key the nidddle reaches immediately the maximum without delay and speaking normally I emit about 40-60 watts only, moving up and down at the rate of my words. That would be the correct reading. 60W is perhaps a bit high, but if you have the compressor turned on you might get 60W average. Usual peak to average for SSB is a factor of two or even three. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
"Thierry" wrote in message ... "Ed G." wrote in message . .. Question for Thierry: Can I assume you have a "Peak" reading wattmeter? Otherwise, you are aware, I hope, that most wattmeters are "average" power reading and that they can not display the peak readings of a SSB transmitted signal.... thus they will never display close to the 100watts of a 100watt rated SSB signal; unless you are modulating the transmitter with a test tone audio source. Hi Ed, Yes for sure. But I think that it rather displays the "instantaneous" modulation not an average because when I shout at the mic or using the key the nidddle reaches immediately the maximum without delay and speaking normally I emit about 40-60 watts only, moving up and down at the rate of my words. That would be the correct reading. 60W is perhaps a bit high, but if you have the compressor turned on you might get 60W average. Usual peak to average for SSB is a factor of two or even three. -- ... Hank Hank: http://horedson.home.att.net W0RLI: http://w0rli.home.att.net |
I am agree of course with your opinion.
If I follow strictly my idea my 570 will stay like it is, and until know I have not made the modification (For the ones who are interested in this mod I can send you the 2 JPG as attachment. This fix is easy you only need a special cable to plug your mic in the accessory plug if you want to preserve your default mic socket). This is mainly my friend Al who want this mod because is older TS840S is better excited and he wants to find again this power on his new rig 570 to recah pileups, he says. Personally, as I have told the mod is not really necessary for me as I can use a linear if needed (although I use it very few excepting at night of during very bad propa). But sometimes I cannot drive my amplifier due the loss of power, my linear requesting at least 80W input to produce up to 2 kW (that I never use, as usually I work at 500-800W output using the beam, never more). I retain also your comments about passive and active peak meters for the next time. My old Yaesu YS 2000 wattmeter has to be replaced by a more recent model and both reading, RMS and peak I have on my wattmeter, will be necessary on my new one too. Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY "Mark Keith" wrote in message om... "Thierry" wrote in message ... Hi, If you have an external wattmeter connected to your transmitter, can you make a test at 100 Watts PEP and give me your true emitting power in watts ? Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This could be all over the map, depending on the type of wattmeter used. Very few wattmeters are good at giving an accurate reading of voice peaks. The meter movements are too slow. If someone see's the full 100w on SSB, they either have an excellent peak reading wattmeter, or they are overdriving their radio. I'd say the majority #2...:/ It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. There is no advantage either, if the mike circuit is capable of fully driving the radio. The circuit you have is surely capable. All you will end up doing is adding distortion, and lowering the setting you keep your mike gain. The problem mainly occurs of the Kenwood TS-570D (all the serie in fact) using a handy mic or even a desk model (the ones sold by Kenwood). The same problem occurs with the Yaesu 1000 MP (tested at 100 W). I've never heard of any such problem. You are just being fooled by the meter. Didn't this type thing come up a few weeks ago? You have average reading meters, and you have type of peak reading meters. With NORMAL drive, and average speach, you will usually see only 25-35 watts on an average meter when doing 100w out. This is normal!!! Don't try to pump up the gain to get more reading. You will just overdrive. Then you have passive peak reading meters. They are always sluggish, and never read the full actual output. Most will average about 80w peaks, with actual 100w peaks. All they are doing is adding a small electrolytic cap to the meters to give some "hang time". Then you have active peak reading meters. These will be the most accurate, but still can't be taken as gospel as voice patterns vary. If you can adjust your mike gain and be within the normal ALC specs for that radio, you have enough mike drive. If you can whistle hard into the mike, and get nearly 100w on the meter, you have enough mike drive. Don't worry about what you read on SSB. If you are doing 100w CW, you should be doing it on SSB. Heck, When I run 1300w out, I usually see only about 400w on average meter voice peaks. Don't think my voice peaks are really 1300w? Go out and grab the end of my antenna, and get back to me after the paramedics wake you up. :/ The bottom line. Very, very few wattmeters are worth a hoot at measuring SSB voice peaks. You are worrying about an issue that doesn't really exist. Well, unless the rare case you do have a radio problem, but I doubt it. A friend of mine runs a 570, and he's made no mention of this "problem". Misunderstanding wattmeter action is very common among newer hams. Thats why many overdrive, when they really are not intending to. They are fooled by those dang blasted meters. :( MK |
I am agree of course with your opinion.
If I follow strictly my idea my 570 will stay like it is, and until know I have not made the modification (For the ones who are interested in this mod I can send you the 2 JPG as attachment. This fix is easy you only need a special cable to plug your mic in the accessory plug if you want to preserve your default mic socket). This is mainly my friend Al who want this mod because is older TS840S is better excited and he wants to find again this power on his new rig 570 to recah pileups, he says. Personally, as I have told the mod is not really necessary for me as I can use a linear if needed (although I use it very few excepting at night of during very bad propa). But sometimes I cannot drive my amplifier due the loss of power, my linear requesting at least 80W input to produce up to 2 kW (that I never use, as usually I work at 500-800W output using the beam, never more). I retain also your comments about passive and active peak meters for the next time. My old Yaesu YS 2000 wattmeter has to be replaced by a more recent model and both reading, RMS and peak I have on my wattmeter, will be necessary on my new one too. Thierry ON4SKY, LX3SKY "Mark Keith" wrote in message om... "Thierry" wrote in message ... Hi, If you have an external wattmeter connected to your transmitter, can you make a test at 100 Watts PEP and give me your true emitting power in watts ? Speaking normally (without shouting) in their mike with normal compression (10 over 25), some hams say that their wattmeter displays a power of about 50-60 watts (of course in CW they reach 100 W) But some arrive to move the niddle to about 100 watts in SSB using their barefoot RTX... This could be all over the map, depending on the type of wattmeter used. Very few wattmeters are good at giving an accurate reading of voice peaks. The meter movements are too slow. If someone see's the full 100w on SSB, they either have an excellent peak reading wattmeter, or they are overdriving their radio. I'd say the majority #2...:/ It seems that some RTX can reach the nominal power doing a hardware modification at the mike itself to increase the 60 w displayed in SSB to about 100W. According these hams there is no disadvantage to make this change. There is no advantage either, if the mike circuit is capable of fully driving the radio. The circuit you have is surely capable. All you will end up doing is adding distortion, and lowering the setting you keep your mike gain. The problem mainly occurs of the Kenwood TS-570D (all the serie in fact) using a handy mic or even a desk model (the ones sold by Kenwood). The same problem occurs with the Yaesu 1000 MP (tested at 100 W). I've never heard of any such problem. You are just being fooled by the meter. Didn't this type thing come up a few weeks ago? You have average reading meters, and you have type of peak reading meters. With NORMAL drive, and average speach, you will usually see only 25-35 watts on an average meter when doing 100w out. This is normal!!! Don't try to pump up the gain to get more reading. You will just overdrive. Then you have passive peak reading meters. They are always sluggish, and never read the full actual output. Most will average about 80w peaks, with actual 100w peaks. All they are doing is adding a small electrolytic cap to the meters to give some "hang time". Then you have active peak reading meters. These will be the most accurate, but still can't be taken as gospel as voice patterns vary. If you can adjust your mike gain and be within the normal ALC specs for that radio, you have enough mike drive. If you can whistle hard into the mike, and get nearly 100w on the meter, you have enough mike drive. Don't worry about what you read on SSB. If you are doing 100w CW, you should be doing it on SSB. Heck, When I run 1300w out, I usually see only about 400w on average meter voice peaks. Don't think my voice peaks are really 1300w? Go out and grab the end of my antenna, and get back to me after the paramedics wake you up. :/ The bottom line. Very, very few wattmeters are worth a hoot at measuring SSB voice peaks. You are worrying about an issue that doesn't really exist. Well, unless the rare case you do have a radio problem, but I doubt it. A friend of mine runs a 570, and he's made no mention of this "problem". Misunderstanding wattmeter action is very common among newer hams. Thats why many overdrive, when they really are not intending to. They are fooled by those dang blasted meters. :( MK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com