TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] OT: Question to the group

To: wb5jnc@centurytel.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OT: Question to the group
From: cegtv1 via TenTec <tentec@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:05:40 -0400
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Well said !


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Al Gulseth <wb5jnc@centurytel.net> 
Date: 7/15/16  8:58 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: tentec@contesting.com Cc: Vic Klein 
<vhklein@ptd.net> Subject: Re: [TenTec] OT: Question to the group 
What gets me is seeing folks obsessing over getting "only 90W" out of their 
100W rated rig on some particular band but then ignoring the inefficiencies 
of their generic autotuner/balun setup and/or antenna. Give me 50W (or even 
5W) and a low-loss matching and feed system into an efficient antenna and 
I'll outdo your 100W into a lossy matching system/feedline and poor antenna. 
The commercial VHF/UHF (and ham 60M etc.) system of ERP (Effective Radiated 
Power) consisting of TX power out - feedline losses X antenna gain is also 
applicable at HF and a more realistic picture than just TX output.

/rant off HI HI!!

73, Al

On Fri July 15 2016 5:21:25 am Vic Klein wrote:
> Actually, that sounds pretty good to me. My Omni VII spends more time at
> 50w than at 100 as that is where it sits to drive my amp and where I
> usually operate for digital modes. However, I imagine the 50w rig would
> need to run at 25w for the latter? Still, the price is very good for those
> specs. For years my main rig was a Triton I with only 50w and I worked the
> world with that. After all, it is only a half an S-unit down if all things
> are equal.
>
> That said, I imagine it would not be popular with new hams, even at the
> price. Without operating experience the 50w difference seems huge. I've
> seen some go for a 70w 2m rig instead of a 50w just for the extra power
> when that is all but imperceptible on 2m FM. They buy from basic features
> with weight given to what they understand...like more power is better, but
> they may not understand noise floors and such. If I was considering to
> build this, I think I would find a way to get it to 100w to appear more
> competitive with, for example, and IC-7300.
>
> =Vic=
> WA4THR
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Subject:[TenTec] OT: Question to the group
> From: "rick@dj0ip.de" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
> Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 23:43:26 +0200
> List-post:<tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
>
> What would you guys think of a new radio that had the following
> characteristics:
>
> Ø   SDR radio with knobs, similar size and form factor to the IC-7300
>
> Ø  Superior receiver to the IC-7300; roughly on par with the Flex 6300
>
> Ø  50w of output power
>
> Ø  Cost: $1000
>
>  I guess the big question is, is 50w a show stopper.
>
> Had someone ask me that question recently (obviously with the intent to
> build this) and I had to pass.
>
> I dunno.
>
> For me I find it OK.
>
> I usually run my Eagle at 60w and when driving my amp, it runs at 60w.
>
>
> But my gut tells me most people won?t accept a 50w transmitter.
>
> They are programmed to expect 100w.
>
>
>
> What do you guys think?
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Rick, DJ0IP
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>