[AMPS] 1500 Watts of Disipation - Is that fair?

[Merit W6NQ]

>Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:03:02 -0700
>To: RobertW@ewol.com (Robert W. Stankus)
>From: Merit  W6NQ <rfp@rfparts.com>
>Subject: Re: [AMPS] 1500 Watts of Disipation - Is that fair?
>Cc: [AMPS].contesting.com
>
>
>Dear Robert:
>Your proposal makes a lot of sense, I guess.  There may be a bit more dreaming of the ideal rig than are actually built.  Although is is most unlikely that these large tubes would end up in anything but a broadcast transmitter, we probably should all guard against such a serious possibility.  
>
>After reading your suggestion for a NPRM against conservatively built equipment, I have come up with a few quite good ideas of my own.  I would like you to consider what I feel are excellent proposals for the benifit of mankind:
>
>In reality, it isn't really necessary to engineer in quality and reliability when a few new rules could force a "cheaper" design into the market.  Designs should guarantee a predetermined wearout cycle of tubes, transistors, transformers, etc.  Should one mistune the amp, one would be abruptly reminded that tubes, switches, relays, etc. in the "marginal" designs will have to be replaced.  Such a requirement would also have the hidden benifit of periodically stopping the long winded ham, the CW operator that lays too long on the dash, RTTY users, etc.  The same thought should be applied to our transceivers, too.  Radios made in China would all of a sudden meet the new ham requirements toward lower design standards and thus go a long way to reducing the escalating cost of new equipment.  
>
>Also, in going one step further, since most of us have already degraded to the status of knob twisters and may not know which end of the soldering iron to grab, it might make sense to eliminate all home built equipment and require "type accepted" gear (as in CB).  We would not need U.S. production as Asia-built gear is much cheaper.  You could buy them at the local Tru-Value and save a trip to AES or HRO!
>
>(I think we forget how great it was to have the vintage tube TV sets which spent most of their life in the repair shop. Many of us made a good living fixing them.)  
>
>Your proposal also reminds me of the problem we have with the new cars-- their reliability seems to be a bit higher than necessary.  Perhaps the manufacturers could reduce cost by limiting all automobiles to four cylinder engines, and use the V6 in trucks when over 12,000 lbs GVW.  Take all the Chevy Suburbans and cut their reserve torque-- Take out the 454 and put in a 239 cu. in. straight 6 (i.e 1950 Chev).  It may seem technology is going backwards, but such a step would benifit the small auto repair shops around the country.  There would be increased employment for engine and service work.
>
>I realize there are highway speed limits restricting the use of horsepower, so maybe a manditory RPM governer would be appropriate.  We could take our cars in for a governer calibration when they do the smog check.  (I'll call the DMV and see what they think!!  As a governmental agency, they are always looking for more ways to generate useless rules.)  
>
>Actually, I am in favor of your proposal, as I make a good living selling electronic parts.  Reducing equipment standards of ruggedness would definitely guarantee job security to service techs and us parts peddlers!! 
> Keep up the good work.
>
>Regards,   Merit  W6NQ/W6NLO
>
>
>
>At 04:56 PM 4/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>To my distinguished ham radio friends.
>>
>>Yes, 1500 watts is more than enough!
>>Our cars today are cut back in effeciency to make our atmosphere cleaner
>>and
>>healthier. We deliberately retard the spark on internal combustion engines
>>to abide
>>by the regulations in turn making them less of a threat to our environment.
>>Why not,
>>RF amplifiers.
>>It is time to get our sharp pencils out, our thinking caps on and start
>>pursuing new
>>amplifier designs. Have you seen the latest article in QST regarding this
>>new Class E amplifier? True, it won't work on SSB but it will later on as
>>more people get
>>involved with experimenting.
>>This amp is 90% effecient using a very small footprint. We have a lot
>>of bright guys out there...ready to tackle this engineering problem.
>>As for the guys worrying about the P5.....you will make it without a doubt.
>>If you are
>>on the Honor Roll or close to it, you have the skills necessary. You don't
>>have to
>>"turn up the wick" to do it.
>>I have given this NPRM much thought...over 5 years of study and contacts
>>with
>>many,many distinguished amateurs. It has met with much controversy, I
>>assure
>>you.
>
>>I think the NPRM has merit!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<PLEASE DON'T USE MY NAME IN VAIN
>>Good topic for disussion at Dayton next month.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bob - K4NV
>>RobertW@ewol.com
>>
>>--
>>FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
>>Submissions:              amps@contesting.com
>>Administrative requests:  amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
>>Problems:                 owner-amps@contesting.com
>>
>>
>

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