Amps
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Amps] 4CX250 IMD

To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] 4CX250 IMD
From: Steve Thompson <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:02:02 +0100
List-post: <mailto:amps@contesting.com>

jeremy-ca wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Thompson" <g8gsq@eltac.co.uk>
> To: <amps@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [Amps] 4CX250 IMD
> 
> 
>>
>>> This thread has me wondering how accurate IMD or even PEP was measured
>>> in the late 50's, early 60's. Would the readings that National provided
>>> for their 4CX1000A military amp hold up to todays techniques and
>>> instrumentation?
>>
>> My guess:
>>
>> Comparison against fixed attenuators using either spectrum
>> analyser or receiver should give fairly good accuracy of relative
>> values.
>>
>> Calibrating a diode detector against cw should give reasonably
>> accurate pep readins.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Thats exactly what I was getting at.
> 
> Fairly good, reasonably accurate, dont exactly give me a warm feeling.
> Having worked in a RF lab with 50's era test equipment in the early 60's 
> I always had the feeling that accuracy wasnt that great in our SA, 
> calibration and readings. EVERYTHING drifted back then which some here 
> dont realize. We were barely out of the dark ages. The SA alone was a 
> rack mounted monster with a "zillion" tubes that seemed to be getting 
> repaired as much as it was used.

I know the sort of stuff you mean - and the variations and drift. Better 
accuracy takes time more than anything because you're probably not using 
a swept analyser, and having to make numerous comparisons. I'd expect to 
be able to get to about a dB on relative IMD levels and 5% on pep ref a 
cw measurement. I can imagine someone making that much effort for a data 
sheet, maybe not for production test.

Steve
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps

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