On 7/26/2014 5:01 PM, Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
The charts on his website are totally misleadding. That's his take.
--------------------------------------------------
Gentlemen -
I may be mistaken, and greatly misunderstand all this, but to accuse me
of deception or misrepresentation is a low blow.
We are supposed to compare radios using these graphs, and I copied them
exactly from the respective product reviews. You don't say how or why
they are misleading.
I was encouraged by ARRL Lab expert Bob Allison, who reviewed the same
graphs and said,
"THEY HAVE NEARLY THE SAME COMPOSITE NOISE."
(caps added for emphasis.)
__________________
I AM SORRY AND I APOLOGIZE FOR CONSUMING EXCESS BANDWIDTH.
I offered the data in good faith, because thought I understood the issue
and could not find the data Rick referred to. Someone said Sherwood had
data, but he said no. Someone said ARRL product reviews had the data,
so I looked there. I asked ARRL's Lab Technician Bob Allison and he
agreed with my assessment, and saying they both have the same noise
profile. That seemed reasonable grounds to hold my ground. Perhaps
not. Maybe he misunderstood and was talking bout some other type of
transmitter noise.
I OFFER A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO ANOTHER LIST MEMBER
who went out of his way to explain how the graphs I found may not depict
the same type of noise you guys are talking about. He patiently
explained, in a way I can understand, how we reached impasse, and may
not be talking about the same thing, and how the data I presented may
not be on point, although I offered it in good faith because I thought
it was correct.
Terms such as "Phase Noise" and "broad band noise" and "transmitter
noise" are bandied about as if they are the same thing. The ARRL
product reviews graphically represent "transmitter noise" without
explaining exactly what type of noise they are talking about. Is that
"phase noise" or "broadband noise" or some other "transmitter noise" -
obviously, I am having a hard time sorting it all out.
I appreciate the extra guidance I received from that special List
Member, who explained how each side of the debate is pointing in
different ways at different things, yet unable to move the other side to
its position. That helped a lot.
I apologize for my misunderstanding - but sometimes it is hard to accept
what one person says when it conflicts with what others you trust might
say. Heck, I figure even engineers can be mistaken, at least sometimes,
and it is hard to know which engineer to believe when other engineers
disagree.
I learned a hard lesson from this, namely a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing, and a rookie cannot always play in the big league.
Still, it was unfair to accuse of deception or misrepresentation.
In any event, I apologize for fighting hard for what I thought was
correct, and I yield the floor to the experts.
------------------ James - K8JHR ----------------
Just for the record, this is Mr. Allison's complete post to show I am
not taking matters out of context and demonstrate I acted on his advice
in good faith. I thought he said I was correct.
________________________________________
From: Allison, Bob, WB1GCM
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 7:52 PM
To: Allison, Bob, WB1GCM
Subject: RE: Transmitter Noise Issue Puleeeze help !
Looking at the composite noise on our web site (Product Reviews by
Manufacturer), the Eagle is a little bit better in the composite noise
area than the TS-590S, but both are considered reasonable. The only time
when this issue would come up would be Field Day, when two transceivers
are trying to use the same ham band; one on phone, one on CW. In such a
case, the stations would likely be at least 100 kHz apart from each
other. Thus, at 100 kHz from the carrier, both have nearly the same
composite noise. This not an issue.
Bob
________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|