At 2:44 PM +0000 3/14/02, andrew (GI0NWG) wrote:
>
>Even a TL922 gets quite warm running an RTTY contest at 400W (the power
>supply gets warm).
Actually, running a 1.5 KW amplifier at 400 W will generate lots of
heat, unless the amplifier can be loaded very lightly, a tricky thing
on SSB, and probably impossible on 80 and 160. If you load a 1.5 KW
amplifier normally, then reduce the drive to 400 W output, the tubes
dissipate about as much power as at full output, though the power
supply does not. Running a TL922 in the low voltage position helps,
but it still won't be efficient at normal loading. To efficiently
run a 1.5 KW amplifier at 400 W with the normal loading capacitance
and drive power, the plate voltage would have to be reduced to about
half the normal value.
73,
Scott K9MA
--
Scott Ellington
Madison, Wisconsin USA
sdelling@facstaff.wisc.edu
>From Gus Samuelson" <gussam@newcomm.net Thu Mar 14 19:47:24 2002
From: Gus Samuelson" <gussam@newcomm.net (Gus Samuelson)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Re: Linears in the closet
References: <20020313153630.KHBC634.imf09bis.bellsouth.net@[192.168.0.21]>
<012501c1caf3$516b6160$963fca96@pacesetter.com>
Message-ID: <000501c1cb91$10d9f320$1906020a@gus>
For Mr.Jones' edification:
He indicated
>A few other countries have similar power limits,
> or have had similar power limits in the past, which have been ignored to
some
> degree. I have frequently seen Heathkit SB200's, Collins 30L1's, etc., in
> photos of stations in England, Canada, and Australia for instance.
Forgive me but I don't think either one of these amps in their stock form
can deliver the CANADIAN
PERMISSIBLE POWER.
>From " Ric 12 " governing Canadian Amateurs.
10.2 Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced
Qualifications
The holder of an Amateur Radio Operator Certificate with Basic and Advanced
Qualifications is
limited to a maximum transmitting power of:
(a) where expressed as direct-current input power, 1,000 W to the anode or
collector circuit of
the transmitter stage that supplies radio frequency energy to the antenna;
or
(b) where expressed as radio-frequency output power measured across an
impedance-matched
load,
(i) 2,250 W peak envelope power for transmitters that produce any type of
single sideband
emission, or
(ii) 750 W carrier power for transmitters that produce any other type of
emission.
I really don't think 2250 PEP is capably supplied from anything mentioned.
73 VO1MP
Gus Samuelson
>From Silver Ward" <hwardsil1@mindspring.com Thu Mar 14 19:52:21 2002
From: Silver Ward" <hwardsil1@mindspring.com (Silver Ward)
Subject: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics
References: <200203132227.g2DMR2Al027090@contesting.com>
<00fb01c1caf1$f332b400$03010a0a@office1>
<006501c1cb77$eb650ee0$93eebfa8@mirage>
<028401c1cb8f$4abdd040$4fe453a2@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <012001c1cb91$c1e08da0$93eebfa8@mirage>
If the incentive (whether it be wine or logbooks) is advertised publically
and is freely available to all, I see no problem. I believe that would be a
reasonable position.
73, Ward N0AX
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis McAlpine <dennis.mcalpine@verizon.net>
To: Silver Ward <hwardsil1@mindspring.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics
> So what constitutes "substantive"? Is a bottle of Maderia wine for
working
> s a station on multiple bands "substantive/" How about the CA QSO Party
> where the top out-of-state scores receive a bottle of CA wine. Do you
> disqualify the entire contest for that? I must confess I did not declare
it
> on my tax return. How about a tee-shirt for working 100 Italians (running
> only 300 watts of course) in the WAIP Contest? Maybe we should do away
with
> door prizes at Dayton. And, maybe forget the free hats at Yaesu. Say,
what
> about the freebie Kenwood log books? Once you go down this road, it ay a
> hard one to navigate without running into some potholes.
> 73,
> Dennis K2SX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Silver Ward" <hwardsil1@mindspring.com>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Difference Between Rules and Ethics
>
>
> > > So offhand, I'd say that if a station offers something of little or no
> > real
> > > value, like a "worked on 6 bands" certificate, it should not be an
> ethical
> > > violation. Let's not squeeze all the fun out of things. Something
more
> > > substansive, though, should be be prohibited -- in short, anything
that
> > > gives the appearance of "buying" contacts.
> > >
> > > 73, ron wn3vaw
> >
> > Of course! I'm not suggesting that we all have to become monastic
hermits
> > and conceal our identities with voice scramblers to submit single-op
> scores.
> >
> > Is the certificate or QSL available to all callers? Has the
solicitation
> > been widely advertised? In the case of encouraging activity, anything
> that
> > encourages others to be active and participate fairly and equally is a
> great
> > idea. K1XM and KQ1F are well-known for their beautiful photo QSLs and
> many
> > operators make a point to contact them for "this year's" models. But
they
> > certainly don't say, "work only us", and the resulting activity benefits
> all
> > competitors - good for them!
> >
> > The shoe can sometimes be on the other foot. Conversely (pun intended),
a
> > single-op with a bad reputation for QSLing can also create disincentives
> to
> > make QSOs, for example.
> >
> > Here is a personal example of my own... I was at one time considering
> > sponsoring a NW regional "SS Sprint" that would be a three-hour
> competition
> > for WA, OR, ID, BC, etc. stations on 40 and 80 between 9 PM and
midnight.
> > The idea was to increase activity on the low bands by stations that
> > otherwise would not be active and counteract some of the advantage on
> those
> > bands enjoyed by the 1-2-3-4-5 districts. After some consideration, it
> just
> > seemed too much like stocking the pond with local ops unlikely to work
> much
> > outside the region and I let the idea drop. Now maybe the idea of the
> > three-hour nighttime category for all entrants would be a good idea.
> > Anyway, you get the idea - it would facilitate the making of QSOs that
> were
> > likely to be unavailable to others.
> >
> > We will not all make the same determination of appropriateness in all
> cases.
> > However, the awareness that there IS an issue to be considered will
> improve
> > the sport and quality of competition.
> >
> > 73, Ward N0AX
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
|