Well, now... Both sides of the argument have erroneously responded to
the list with what they intended as private. I say we chuck all of this
nonsense and get on the air! Last night before sunset I heard a distant
AM station on top of a local station, so the geomagnetic field must be
pretty quiet.
As an aside (if anyone cares) I fixed the little switching PS in my
Anciente TS-930S microprocessor board. The primary of the little
transformer is center-tapped and one side was open -- that side had the
cold switching transistor. Had to look under magnification, but it
looked to be a bad solder joint. Touched them all up and Presto! All
problems solved.
I then proceeded to investigate the transmitted phase noise of both my
Orion II and my TS-930S using by guess and by gosh techniques. I simply
transmitted 100 W carrier into a dummy load and listened via the
deselcted port of my antenna switch. I could see the TS-930S raise the
noise floor a bit on the S-meter of my O II when I was a couple of
hundred kHz away from the carrier. When I inverted the test, I could not
see the O II in the '930S receiver (I've installed an optional 6 kHz
wide INRAD roofing filter in the rx). While the '930S isn't nearly as
bad as some rigs I've seen (the older Yeasu rigs, like the 757 and its
derivatives were nothing short of horrific) it's worse than my O II,
which is no surprise at all and, in fact, a little reassuring. OTOH, the
28 V PA has a much better transmitted IMD (according to ARRL lab tests)
than does any 12 v transmitter.
Which brings me to a final point: According to what I've read here,
upping the supply voltage from even 12 V to 13.8 V makes a significant
difference in transmitted IMD. So, I looked in my manuals and found that
every piece of 12 V gear I own is rated to be good for at least 15 V
supply voltage (most say 16 V, but the O II says 15 V). So, I upped the
12 V supply to regulate at 14.9 V and take the regulation from the
distribution rail instead of at the power supply output. Max power
output of the O II is unchanged, but I'm hoping the IMD is a bit better.
Kim N5OP
On 7/26/2014 4:05 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
Well crap! OH well it's out. I said it and in error let it go public.
I'll take my whipping. Sorry folks my poor judgment.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX"
<RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 4:01 PM
Subject: [TenTec] James
I see not only is he pestering you, he's pestering me. I'm about
ready to "jump his shit, big time". If he wants to "try me on" he
needs to do it privately and not on the reflector.
The charts on his website are totally misleadding. That's his take.
He's the lawyer, he's twisted the facts and he's wrong and is not man
enough to admit to such. I'm very dissapointed.
I did BCC you on one of his e-mails and my response. I see that
Sinista also pointed out his errors. It is incorrect stuff like this
that gives any product a bad rap.
Oh well, I've gotten the grass cut, some house cleaning done and a
few beers down the pipes, of course after they were properly
processed through my kidneys.
Not a bad day after all.
73
Bob, K4TAX
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
--
Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
/"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is." //-- Attributed to many people; it's so true that
it doesn't matter who said it./
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|