Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

[AMPS] Transceivers

To: <amps@contesting.com>
Subject: [AMPS] Transceivers
From: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:49:06 -0400
> effect of 'could be better'. Peter saw it as crap because he understands
> the numbers - to those who don't the review would not have given the
> impression that the performance was unacceptably poor. I'm saddened by

That's true. Neither the RSGB or the ARRL pointed out how 
unacceptable transmitter (and receiver) performance is in that radio.

But we are making progress, the ARRL is now including close-
spaced blocking and IMD dynamic range specs, which are a far 
bigger problem that phase noise. Another thing they need to do is 
measure CW bandwidth on transmitters, not waveshape of the 
envelope. Waveshape of the envelope is almost useless for judging 
bandwidth.

Transmitters are the biggest worry, however. They are almost 
always worse than the receiver for close-spaced performance, and 
they bother other people...not the owner. If I'm uneducated enough 
to buy a poor receiver, only I suffer from my choice. If I do that will 
a transmitter, it bothers those not responsible for my unwise 
purchase.
73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com 

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/amps
Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>