Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] 1500 Watts of Disipation - Is that fair?

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] 1500 Watts of Disipation - Is that fair?
From: rfp@rfparts.com (Merit W6NQ)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:26:14 -0700
To: <amps@contesting.com>
>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:03:02 -0700
>To: RobertW@ewol.com (Robert W. Stankus)
>From: Merit  W6NQ <rfp@rfparts.com>
>Subject: Re: [AMPS] 1500 Watts of Disipation - Is that fair?
>Cc: [AMPS].contesting.com
>
>
>Dear Robert:
>Your proposal makes a lot of sense, I guess.  There may be a bit more dreaming 
>of the ideal rig than are actually built.  Although is is most unlikely that 
>these large tubes would end up in anything but a broadcast transmitter, we 
>probably should all guard against such a serious possibility.  
>
>After reading your suggestion for a NPRM against conservatively built 
>equipment, I have come up with a few quite good ideas of my own.  I would like 
>you to consider what I feel are excellent proposals for the benifit of mankind:
>
>In reality, it isn't really necessary to engineer in quality and reliability 
>when a few new rules could force a "cheaper" design into the market.  Designs 
>should guarantee a predetermined wearout cycle of tubes, transistors, 
>transformers, etc.  Should one mistune the amp, one would be abruptly reminded 
>that tubes, switches, relays, etc. in the "marginal" designs will have to be 
>replaced.  Such a requirement would also have the hidden benifit of 
>periodically stopping the long winded ham, the CW operator that lays too long 
>on the dash, RTTY users, etc.  The same thought should be applied to our 
>transceivers, too.  Radios made in China would all of a sudden meet the new 
>ham requirements toward lower design standards and thus go a long way to 
>reducing the escalating cost of new equipment.  
>
>Also, in going one step further, since most of us have already degraded to the 
>status of knob twisters and may not know which end of the soldering iron to 
>grab, it might make sense to eliminate all home built equipment and require 
>"type accepted" gear (as in CB).  We would not need U.S. production as 
>Asia-built gear is much cheaper.  You could buy them at the local Tru-Value 
>and save a trip to AES or HRO!
>
>(I think we forget how great it was to have the vintage tube TV sets which 
>spent most of their life in the repair shop. Many of us made a good living 
>fixing them.)  
>
>Your proposal also reminds me of the problem we have with the new cars-- their 
>reliability seems to be a bit higher than necessary.  Perhaps the 
>manufacturers could reduce cost by limiting all automobiles to four cylinder 
>engines, and use the V6 in trucks when over 12,000 lbs GVW.  Take all the 
>Chevy Suburbans and cut their reserve torque-- Take out the 454 and put in a 
>239 cu. in. straight 6 (i.e 1950 Chev).  It may seem technology is going 
>backwards, but such a step would benifit the small auto repair shops around 
>the country.  There would be increased employment for engine and service work.
>
>I realize there are highway speed limits restricting the use of horsepower, so 
>maybe a manditory RPM governer would be appropriate.  We could take our cars 
>in for a governer calibration when they do the smog check.  (I'll call the DMV 
>and see what they think!!  As a governmental agency, they are always looking 
>for more ways to generate useless rules.)  
>
>Actually, I am in favor of your proposal, as I make a good living selling 
>electronic parts.  Reducing equipment standards of ruggedness would definitely 
>guarantee job security to service techs and us parts peddlers!! 
> Keep up the good work.
>
>Regards,   Merit  W6NQ/W6NLO
>
>
>
>At 04:56 PM 4/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>To my distinguished ham radio friends.
>>
>>Yes, 1500 watts is more than enough!
>>Our cars today are cut back in effeciency to make our atmosphere cleaner
>>and
>>healthier. We deliberately retard the spark on internal combustion engines
>>to abide
>>by the regulations in turn making them less of a threat to our environment.
>>Why not,
>>RF amplifiers.
>>It is time to get our sharp pencils out, our thinking caps on and start
>>pursuing new
>>amplifier designs. Have you seen the latest article in QST regarding this
>>new Class E amplifier? True, it won't work on SSB but it will later on as
>>more people get
>>involved with experimenting.
>>This amp is 90% effecient using a very small footprint. We have a lot
>>of bright guys out there...ready to tackle this engineering problem.
>>As for the guys worrying about the P5.....you will make it without a doubt.
>>If you are
>>on the Honor Roll or close to it, you have the skills necessary. You don't
>>have to
>>"turn up the wick" to do it.
>>I have given this NPRM much thought...over 5 years of study and contacts
>>with
>>many,many distinguished amateurs. It has met with much controversy, I
>>assure
>>you.
>
>>I think the NPRM has merit!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<PLEASE DON'T USE MY NAME IN VAIN
>>Good topic for disussion at Dayton next month.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bob - K4NV
>>RobertW@ewol.com
>>
>>--
>>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
>>Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
>>Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>>Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
>>
>>
>

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>