On Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:07:07 +0000 w8jitom@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
writes:
>> From: km1h@juno.com (km1h @ juno.com)
>> Subject: Re: [AMPS] SB-220 Rating
To: <amps@contesting.com>
>> Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 23:31:53 +0000
>
>> The SB-220 owes its owners nothing. A few bucks into upgrades just
>might
>> make it last ANOTHER 25-30 years! Not bad for a "poorly designed,
>600W
>> amp"....according to one "expert" .
>> 73...Carl KM1H
>
>Hi Carl,
>
>You'll NEVER find a post where I said the 220 was poorly designed,
I dont know, I usually delete most of your posts immediately after
reading. Maybe Rich has a better archive or memory.
>just like you'll probably never have the technical ability to
>understand you multiply efficiency times RATED input power to
>find the rated power output.
Maybe I dont rate up there at your self appointed level but I havent been
frying my brain on Nitro Methane fumes (or is it Nitrous Oxide these
days) at the drag strip either.
I'll stick by my statement that the SB-220 is a 2000W PEP input amp. It
is so rated in the manual by Heathkit, not Mr Rauch who was still in high
school when it was designed. ( And possibly had problems with selective
reading even then). It will also read 1200W PEP output on a peak
reading wattmeter.
It will also run fine at 1200W out on CW in the SSB position in a non
contest style duty cycle. Before you go running off at the mouth any more
you may wish to go over to the contest and DX reflectors and find out
how many stupid people ( in your eyes) are doing just that. Are there PS
failures? Of course there are but it is more likely due to old
electrolytics and underated HV diodes than some 1200W CW.
While you are off looking for stupid people consider all the L4-L7's,
early Henry and TL-922 owners who also run 1200W out on CW. Also include
the LK-500 series from Amp Supply which is pretty much a rehashed
SB-220...of course anything built by Denny Had is beneath your contempt
anyway. But for some purely stupid reason my LK-500ZC still runs 1200W
out on the original tubes. All of those above amps amazingly made it into
the marketplace without your input. Just think....thousands of still
functional amps run by all us stupid people and without the blessings of
Rauch.
Yes, in order to meet FCC rules of the time certain meter readings
applied. Some owners followed them, others didnt. The horsepower race was
already on in the amp market and I feel pretty confident that the real
Heathkit engineers designed accordingly even while putting in the CW/SSB
switch to placate the FCC.
It is very similar to AL-1500 owners who do not reduce exciter power to
50-65W in order to be legal at 1500W. Some do....most probably dont. Is
the AL-1500 rated at 2500W output in a CW contest enviroment?
>
>The FCC rules clearly dictated a maximum plate INPUT power
>of 1000 watts on ALL modes (that power included exciter input power
>in grounded grid amps) at the time of the 220 design.
DICTATED is the operative word.
That rule
>included SSB, with the power measurement based on plate current and
>voltage meters with specific damping rates. The power input was
>further reduced if both voltage and current could not be monitored at
>the same time, or if the PA could be shown to have excessive drive
>feedthrough.
The rules were allowed room for interpetation by the local FCC office
that did the certifying. In the case of the NCL-2000 power output was
also measured and could not exceed 1200W PEP. You were a ripe 13 years
old when this took place.
Similar interpetation exists in the 1500W world. How else would you
explain the simple "Cut the green wire" to activate 10M in Ameritron amps
versus the contortions and frustrations involved in the TL-922?
>Despite your personal fantasy the SB-220 was only designed for the
>FCC rated power, and that was 1000 watts dc indicated power on all
>modes.
Yep your right again Oh Wise One. 1000W indicated on the meter equals
2000W in the real world.
Live your own fantasy and stay out of mine.
Cheers yourself....Carl KM1H
>
>Cheers,
>Tom
>
>--
>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
>
--
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
|