On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:34:04, Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
>At 12:11 AM 3/14/98 GMT, Bill Turner, W7TI wrote:
>>On Fri, 13 Mar 98 16:12:29 -0600, Jon Ogden <jono@webspun.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>>Don't get me wrong, when my amp is finished, I want it running with as
>>>much Pout as legally possible. You just have to realize that the benefit
>>>for the extra 500 watts is really not that much.
>>>
>>_______________________________________________________________
>>As any serious DXer will tell you, that extra 500 watts is sometimes
>>the difference between QSO and no QSO. If you're not serious about
>>DXing then right, you don't need it. Your call.
>>
>>73, Bill W7TI
>
>This is silly. The only rational test is to ask yourself, "What's the most
>cost-effective way to get the *next* dB?" Maybe it's the bigger amp.
>Maybe it's something else. We need to know a whole lot more about the
>whole picture before anyone can make a credible recommendation.
>
>73, Pete Smith N4ZR
_______________________________________________________________
Silly? I don't think so. "Serious" DXers (I'm on the margin) don't
just want the "next" dB, they want "all" the dBs - amplifier, antenna,
feedline, tower, location. It's more a matter of attitude than
technology.
73, Bill W7TI
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|