Okay, so how is that tested? White noise? Tones? Voice? Max power? Max
allowed ALC? No ALC?
Come on Michael, there's no way that would be anything but arbitrary, as a lot
of the ARRL's "measurements" already are.
Joe, N3JI
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Tope <W4EF@dellroy.com>
To: Joe Isabella <n3ji@yahoo.com>; g3rzp@g3rzp.wanadoo.co.uk; Tom W8JI
<w8ji@w8ji.com>; zdtech <zdtech@iprimus.com.au>; amps@contesting.com
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2006 10:45:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Amps] Maximum RF output in practical application: 4-250A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Isabella" <n3ji@yahoo.com>
> That's the last thing we "need" -- more bogus regulations that can't
> possibly be enforced without a dedicated staff that 99.99% of the
> taxpayers I'm sure don't want to pay for.
>
> Besides, if they don't care now, they won't care if the rules change,
> either.
>
> Joe, N3JI
>
The market could take of the enforcement, Joe. Add the spectral mask to
the part 97, and then overlay the mask on the ARRL product test report
IMD plots. You can bet your bottom dollar that this would light a fire
under the butts of the manufacturers to clean up their act. No manufacturer
would want to have a review showing that their product was outside a
part 97 spectral mask. Now granted this wouldn't prevent users from
turning the knobs all the way clockwise and screwing things up, but at least
with a spectral mask and the aforementioned marketing pressure, rigs
would be capable of clean operation "out-of-the-box", something that
isn't always the case right now. Heck with this approach, you might
even see manufacturers advertising their superior transmitter IMD they
way they are now touting low phase-noise and excellent receiver dynamic
range.
73, Mike W4EF....................................
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|