TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] LEGAL LIMIT PLUS AMP ALPHA 77D

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] LEGAL LIMIT PLUS AMP ALPHA 77D
From: "Arthur Trampler" <atrampler@att.net>
Reply-to: Arthur Trampler <atrampler@att.net>, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:40:28 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
As one of the operators in the stable at K5GO I'll jump in.

Calling CQ endlessly is not 100% duty cycle; there are still breaks between 
the characters, and indeed between the elements of the characters.  So CW, 
even run that way, is not a continuous-duty mode.

As for the 50-50 breakdown, there are those stations/operators that can 
legitmately run a frequency for hours on end if conditions are sustainable. 
Those may often be sending less than 50% of the time, as stations call after 
nearly every QSO.  Sometimes though a longer period of calling CQ becomes 
necessary.

There are two instances that come to mind.

The first is when another station operator thinks, "You know, he's been 
there long enough," or, "That's a nice frequencey," and begins calling CQ 
150hz or 200hz away.  Even with good filters, this can often make copy 
pretty difficult.  In those cases one has a choice: move off to find another 
frequency, or outlast the other station's "CQ's," knowing that more than 
likely he can hear no better than you can at the moment.  It's a patience 
game, and endurance game...and "I'm not going to get emotionally caught up 
in this, but will just keep hitting F1 again and again" game.  If you've 
been able to maintain 100+ QSOs/hour on a given frequency and it's a contest 
like CQWW where it may be impossible to find an open spot less than 80kcs 
from the bottom of the band, it doesn't make much sense to move away 
quickly.  In fact it makes no sense, and others might even agree that it was 
the new station trying to run one off that is the "offending" party.  I just 
don't let it get to me, and I think the longest this situation has lasted 
was about 10 minutes.  Even then there were several QSOs made.

The second instance is what separates the winners from the almost-wons, 
often enough, and that is having operators call CQ on the dead bands, 
continuously.  It isn't always a matter of not having ops who are willing; 
it can be a case of having enough ops, period, enough ops who have had some 
sleep.  Under this scenario these few stations aren't interfering with 
anybody else and can't be accused of poor operating practices.  I recall 
NQ4I noting in a recent contest that they picked up a couple hundred QSOs on 
40 meters during the day, when it was "dead," by just such a practice. 
Again, even if this is a short CQ followed by a shorter break to listen, all 
day long, it is not 100% duty cycle.

Are there poor operating practices by some contesters?  Sure.  I think much 
of the dismay though may be that the few major contests each year will 
consume the bottom 100kcs of any of the six HF contest bands.  For my own 
part, I'm primarily a ragchewer, except for two weekends a year or so.

I just "had" to jump in from an erstwhile contester's perspective.  I would 
not be afraid to run a Titan, II or III during  CW contest at full legal 
power, but would back off for RTTY.

Maybe W4PA (a contester's contester) could add something better from his 
perspective.

Art, KØRO

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
To: <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>; "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" 
<tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] LEGAL LIMIT PLUS AMP ALPHA 77D


> First let me make it clear that I am not one that participates in nor 
> enjoys
> contests of any kind.  Now with that said, I'll proceed to admonish the
> contest bunch as a whole.  And as Ken said, their operating practice is
> "probably not a good operating practice".  Oh boy, is that ever true.
>
> In reading various responses from those that are apparently contesters, I
> find one thing that seems to be common thread.  They expect to be able to
> transmit 100% of the time.  Now that says they never or rarely listen.
> Should not ones transmit time about equal the receive time?  Seems
> reasonable to me.  Otherwise a condition producing something like 50% duty
> cycle?  Oh we've gotten into the automatic CQ systems that are far from
> productive.  Basically turning operators into a bunch of "alligators"
> otherwise known as large mouth, small brains.   This basically defines why
> the bands are full of QRM and crap during contests.  Everyone wants to 
> call
> all the time and listen a lesser amount of time.  I believe it is skill 
> and
> not power that wins contests.
>
> I've had three Titans in the shop for various reasons and repairs.  Most
> faults have been found to exist due to mis-use or operation by the owner
> which turned out to be failure to properly connect and operate for QSK. 
> One
> due to lightning damage.  I don't find them to be "light weight" in terms 
> of
> performance or duty cycle for amateur radio service.  A 50% duty cycle, 10
> min on and 10 min off, for 100% duty cycle modes such as RTTY.
>
> Of course if you believe that one needs a 100% duty cycle, legal limit 
> amp,
> then pay the price.  And too if one should add 3 dB of gain to the antenna
> then one benefits both on transmit and receive.
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ken Brown" <ken.d.brown@hawaiiantel.net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] LEGAL LIMIT PLUS AMP ALPHA 77D
>
>
>>I don't know which Titan K4TAX is referring to, since there have been at
>> least three incarnations of the Titan, with a few versions of each,
>> having minor changes as the design evolved. (At least that is the case
>> with the 425 Titan)
>>
>> I have a Titan 425. It is a real nice amplifier. QSK is great when
>> operated with Ten-Tec rigs using T-T keying loop. I would not call the
>> Titan 425 a full power contest duty amplifier. You cannot run it at 1500
>> watts output in near continuous duty, such as in RTTY mode. Even in CW
>> mode it is pushing it to operate at full legal output for extended
>> periods of CQing. (probably not good operating practice anyway)
>>
>> My Titan 425 is the biggest amplifier I have, and I would like to have a
>> bigger one for contest service. Not to exceed the legal power output
>> limit, but rather to have just a bit more high duty cycle full power
>> capability. I don't regret buying my Titan 425 and it is not for sale. I
>> think it is a great amplifier. You'd probably like one too. Still, for
>> contesting it could be just a bit more stout.
>>
>> DE N6KB
>>
>> Bob McGraw - K4TAX wrote:
>>> The Tentec Titan is hard to beat.  A real proven workhorse.  Two control
>>> lines between the Orion and the Titan plus one coax cable and you are
>>> full
>>> QSK at legal limit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Looking for feedback on the various top shelf legal limit amps. Would
>>>> like
>>>> to find a Alpha 77 in good working order, but am interested in other
>>>> possibilities. Commander 2500 magnum, Alpha 8100, Acom 2000 etc. I have
>>>> heard  that the
>>>> Svetlana 4cx800 tubes are getting hard to get, what are your thoughts?
>>>> What
>>>> is the contesters amp of choice?  Will be using  it with my Orion  .Any
>>>> info
>>>> greatly appreciated. Please reply direct to _W1DXH@AOL.COM_
>>>> (mailto:W1DXH@AOL.COM)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 73'S TNX,
>>>> STEVE   W1DXH
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel
>>>> Guides.
>>>>
>>>> (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>