Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Time\s+for\s+New\s+Power\s+Meter\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Time\s+for\s+New\s+Power\s+Meter\s*$/: 87 ]

Total 87 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: Gerald Williamson via Amps <amps@contesting.com>; Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:16:58 -0400; Hi All, I also use a Bird 43 as a gold standard. Why? Because I have it already. A 5% error amounts to about .2 dB which is close enough for my amateur needs. The capability of easily changing connec; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00003.html (8,679 bytes)
22. [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 03:44:37 -0700; Hi All, I also use a Bird 43 as a gold standard. Why? Because I have it already. A 5% error amounts to about .2 dB which is close enough for my amateur needs. The capability of easily changing connec; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00008.html (9,953 bytes)
23. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: John Simmons <jasimmons@pinewooddata.com>; Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 07:47:20 -0500; I worked 27 years at a Motorola Service Shop. We had about 8 Bird wattmeters. NONE of them agreed with each other.... and more than 5%! Measuring RF power accurately is very difficult. Have you ever; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00009.html (11,808 bytes)
24. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 08:26:35 -0500; Why are so many hams obsessed with accurate power measurements? Go figure. I wouldn't say obsessed......... curious maybe. +-10% is more than enoughfor me. I do like the ruggedness of the Bird 43. I; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00010.html (7,728 bytes)
25. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: KA4INM <ka4inm@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 10:32:07 -0400; /* snip */ Why are so many hams obsessed with accurate power measurements? Go figure. /* snip */ I don't know, but by all rights (in America) if you want to be serious, if you are charged with the re; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00011.html (8,086 bytes)
26. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.qozzy.com>; Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 11:54:02 -0400; The Bird is the Gold Standard since the FCC has accepted it for ham power measurements for far longer than most on here have been alive. It is also the standard for 2 way radio servicemen Hi All, I a; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00012.html (12,213 bytes)
27. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 09:46:38 -0700; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: There is a way, but it is a bit of work. If you are really serious about it, you can measure the heat rise in a dummy load using first RF and again using; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00014.html (8,367 bytes)
28. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: KA4INM <ka4inm@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 14:38:52 -0400; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) Measuring RF power accurately is very difficult. Have you ever seen a wattmeter that has been certified calibrated to any standard? No, because it is impossibl; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00015.html (9,812 bytes)
29. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <k8ri@rogerhalstead.com>; Date: Sat, 02 May 2015 21:39:04 -0400; Although the Bird is recognized as the standard, even the gold standard, it is a very poor standard with the stock calibration being 5% of full scale. (I have 2) That is only if the slug hasn't been; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00017.html (14,029 bytes)
30. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Carl" <km1h@jeremy.qozzy.com>; Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 22:06:02 -0400; I have Bird slugs of different power levels thru 2304 mHz plus various attenuators and directional couplers good thru at least 3 gHz. Ive never let an accuracy percentage in any of the parts concern; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00018.html (16,180 bytes)
31. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@outlook.com>; Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 21:40:44 -0700; -- ORIGINAL MESSAGE --(may be snipped) REPLY: Rarely does Roger even need correcting, but this is one of those times. The 125 watt figure is applicable only at full scale, not part scale. Assuming th; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00019.html (8,568 bytes)
32. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>; Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 08:44:10 -0400; No, Roger is correct. Bird's specification is 5% *of full scale*. That means the Bird's accuracy is +/- 125 Watts *anywhere* using a 2500 Watt element. While in practice the accuracy may be higher a; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00020.html (9,598 bytes)
33. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Jim Garland" <4cx250b@miamioh.edu>; Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 07:22:33 -0600; Joe and Roger are correct about Bird Wattmeter accuracy. It's 5% of full scale. I've not been following this thread closely, so I apologize if I'm duplicating what others have said, but I find the on; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00021.html (11,488 bytes)
34. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>; Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 09:58:22 -0400; "2465B, which translates into a 4% power error. I doubt if lab calibration methods using thermocouples, etc., can do better than that. RF power is really hard to measure accurately. 73, Jim W8ZR" Bec; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00022.html (9,075 bytes)
35. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: Steve Wright <stevewrightnz@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:23:46 +1200; Not meaning to quote anyone in particular here, but what is this insecure fixation with watt meters? Do we want to not break the rules by ten watts? No, I do not care about ten watts over the limit,; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00023.html (8,242 bytes)
36. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: KA4INM <ka4inm@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 15:59:11 -0400; Not meaning to quote anyone in particular here, but what is this insecure fixation with watt meters? Do we want to not break the rules by ten watts? No, I do not care about ten watts over the limit,; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00024.html (10,110 bytes)
37. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: donroden@hiwaay.net; Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 15:10:37 -0500; Not meaning to quote anyone in particular here, but what is this insecure fixation with watt meters? Ask MFJ ... They sell a HUGE meter. huge meters = huge signal right ??? I would just want consiste; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00025.html (8,530 bytes)
38. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: Manfred Mornhinweg <manfred@ludens.cl>; Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 20:50:57 +0000; Don't forget the good old hot wire meters! As long as you have a good, accurate dummy load, that stays good throughout the frequency range of interest, all you need to measure RF power is a hot wire; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00026.html (9,291 bytes)
39. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: amsctalx@comcast.net; Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 21:10:35 +0000 (UTC); Measuring RF power/signal strength accurately is a non-trivial undertaking. I strongly recommend the Keysight (nee Agilent nee Hewlett-Packard) tutorial: http://rfmw.em.keysight.com/videos/PMPS_Intro; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00027.html (10,999 bytes)
40. Re: [Amps] Time for New Power Meter (score: 1): Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 17:32:50 -0500; I'd love to get an LP-100A. I simply need to save my pennies for a while. I know that, in my case, the fascination with accuracy comes form my Dad (W5JHJ SK) -- he was a bit of a nut about it. Thus,; /archives//html/Amps/2015-05/msg00030.html (10,112 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]