> Besides receiver specs, the '5000 runs 200 watts out, which often means
> the difference between a manageable QSO and none, compared with 100 watts.
I've mostly considered the 200-watt feature as a Madison Avenue marketing
gimmick. This appeals to folks who only live in a linear world (i.e., if
one is good, two is twice as good). We could make the same argument when
going from 50 to 100 watts, and 500 watts to 1KW.
>From my perspective, power between 100-200 watts represents "dumb power."
Generally, when I want to operate with more than 100-watts, I really like to
get to the 1KW level, because I live in both a linear and non-linear world.
My external amps all require less than 50-watts drive to get there.
Secondly, 200 watts opens up a potential problem with severe amp overdrive
for amps in a class that require only 30-50 watts of drive, and with a few
exceptions, that covers the majority of commercial amps manufactured today.
Moreover, a transmitter capable of producing 200-watts almost necessitates
the use of ALC. It's well beyond the scope of this discussion, but unless
ALC is integrated as "system," it can easily cause more problems than it
attempts to solve.
One of my rigs is a Swiss ADAT ADT-200A and it's maximum output power is
50-watts. To me, that's a more intelligent design choice than 200-watts.
DC current demand is roughly half that of a 100-watt transceiver, and
roughly a quarter of the current required at the 200 watt level. So, as
power increases, DC current increases on a linear scale, but the result at
the receiving end is minimized on a logarithmic scale.
Paul, W9AC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|