Eimac antenna tuners
AA4NC at aol.com
AA4NC at aol.com
Fri Jul 15 18:03:55 EDT 1994
I was told years ago by my a noted 75m authority (on 3.895) that the FCC only
regulates the amount of power that goes to the final
AMPLIFIER stage, and that they don't care about the antenna tuners!
I believe that people use the amount of power they have on hand. In the old
days when 1 KW DC input was the limit, I (and most all of you) with garden
variety SB220 type outputs would OCCASIONALLY run in excess of this when we
needed an extra push in a pileup, etc.
This is just worse when the amount of power is two 8877s or more
as some folks have. The "big gas" guys are just that much worse. Not that
1600 watts out is any more legal than 10kw, IMHO I feel it's not as blatant
cheating. Since power levels can now be 1500w. out, I'm comfortable with my
pair of 3-500s. It's all just a game - if you have to cheat to win, you
haven't accomplished much...
I thought it interesting that the discussion of W5WMU was done with
no input from the suspect himself. Can you do DNA testing for excessive RF
exposure? We got a huge list of all of the antennasand stuff- that's very
impressive. The question was about the amps and antenna tuners. I guess with
all of that aluminum in the air, the 100 or so watts from the exciter is all
>From pduff at wizards.austin.ibm.com (Phill Duff) Fri Jul 15 22:09:00 1994
From: pduff at wizards.austin.ibm.com (Phill Duff) (Phill Duff)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 16:09:00 -0500
Subject: NA4M IARU94 Score
Message-ID: <9407152109.AA07228 at wizards.austin.ibm.com>
Here's my 10 hours worth...
IARU HF Championship 1994
Call: NA4M Country: United States (S. TX section)
Category: Single Operator - Phone only
BAND QSO QSO-PTS PTS/Q ZONES HQ STNS
160 0 0 0.00 0 0
80 11 27 2.45 4 0
40 22 66 3.00 10 5
20 491 1531 3.12 28 7
15 65 207 3.18 14 0
10 92 228 2.48 5 0
Totals 681 2059 3.02 61 12
Score: 150,307 points
73 de Phil NA4M
Phil Duff INTERNET: pduff at wizards.austin.ibm.com
Amateur Radio: NA4M IBM Risc System/6000, Austin, Texas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with IBM. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>From barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) Fri Jul 15 21:12:17 1994
From: barry at w2up.wells.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 20:12:17 GMT
Message-ID: <77qiPc4w165w at w2up.wells.com>
I have yet to see a definition of power, gas or nitro. I guess I am naive
and don't know what lengths some folks will go to. I presume we're not
talking about pushing that 1500 W to 2000 W.
Are we talking 5, 10, 15 KW or even more?
Barry N. Kutner, W2UP Usenet/Internet: barry at w2up.wells.com
Newtown, PA Packet Radio: W2UP @ WB3JOE.#EPA.PA.USA.NA
Packet Cluster: W2UP >K2TW (FRC)
>From John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org Fri Jul 15 22:51:27 1994
From: John W. Brosnahan" <broz at csn.org (John W. Brosnahan)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 15:51:27 -0600
Subject: soup vs. gas
Message-ID: <199407152151.AA10596 at teal.csn.org>
> 5. Special Note to W0UN: Since you're S9 +30 with only 1W into all that
>aluminum can we expect to see your amplifiers offered for sale? <g>
>Are we complying with the intent of the current regulation requiring
>the use of the "minimum power necessary to communicate" <Hmmm>.
>73 de Bill, N6CQ/3 (n6cq at paonline.com)
Misc. thoughts on Bill's humorous comments.
1) If the regulation only read "minimum power to communicate" that would be
great. Those of us out West could run 10 or 100 KW on 75 to finally work
those eastern Europeans on short path. 2) And, gee, I don't see how I can
run much less power than 1W without putting in attenuators in the line, since
most rigs will only go down that low. 3) And the regulation doesn't state
what communicate means. Does that mean with lots of repeats and spelling
things out phonetically, or does it mean that I can communicate even the
nuances and subtleties in my voice? A lot of dBs between those two extremes
My point was and is that you can't judge someone's power by how strong they
are over the air, otherwise I would "just know" that the east coast must
be running high power when working Europe. Peer pressure is a good way
to reduce the number of cheaters although it certainly won't work on all
of them. But before you expose someone to peer pressure or even behind-
the-scenes rumors you had better have the facts not guesses.
For those who believe that high power is more common now than in the "olden
days" my mentor in the late 50s told me how he and his friends ran 10 KW in
the late 40s. They weren't running it any more, but there were some big
amps back in the post war period.
Check out May 1969 73 Magazine for an article by W0SYK for a pair of
4-1000s. A lot of these amps were built for the DX community around
St. Louis in the 60s.
Check out March 1970 CQ Magazine for another article on a pair of 4-1000s
by W4CJL (for A.M.).
High power has existed for a long time and it was probably more tolerated
then than it is now and probably more tolerated by the DX community than by
the contest community.
I'll bet most, if not all, of the multi-multis are running legal power. With
a lot of ops running around there is just too much to lose by running high
BTW No wonder the east coast is so weird. They call it "SOUP"!? Out west it
has always been referred to as "GAS" or "BIG GAS", where gas means something
over the legal limit and big gas means 10dB more!
73 John W0UN broz at csn.org
A light just lit up over my head. No wonder all of us out west are getting
beat in the pileups by the east coast. We are only running gas and they are
running SOUP. Must be a big difference between the two. Guess I had
better find out where to buy SOUP. BTW how can you run "gas" if you are
using "vacuum" tubes? And it would probably be even worse if you filled
those old glass tubes with soup.
>From stevem at w8hd.org (Steve Maki) Fri Jul 15 23:10:50 1994
From: stevem at w8hd.org (Steve Maki) (Steve Maki)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 18:10:50 -0400
Message-ID: <199407152210.SAA22741 at w8hd.w8hd.org>
Just a philosophical question for all you philosophers out there.
Is illegal power ALWAYS unethical?
Take a hypethetical situation where someone is running 500' of 20 year old
RG-8 on 20 mtrs. He (or she) is saving his pennies for some 7/8" Andrews,
but in the meantime, he has actually measured his power at the antenna and
it has given him an inferiority complex. What to do, what to do.
Measuring the power at the transmitter is the only convenient method of law
enforcement, but maybe, just maybe, power at the antenna should be the
criteria for what is ethical.
Steve Maki K8LX
stevem at w8hd.org
>From oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Fri Jul 15 23:20:29 1994
From: oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 17:20:29 CDT
Message-ID: <9407152220.AA26452 at astro.as.utexas.edu>
>Is illegal power ALWAYS unethical?
>Measuring the power at the transmitter is the only convenient
>method of law enforcement, but maybe, just maybe, power at the
>antenna should be the criteria for what is ethical.
If so, then ERP ought to be used, and if you have a low dipole in
a poor location you should be able to run 100 KW into so as to put
the same amount of power out in the direction of the DX you are
trying to work as someone runnng a mere 5 KW to an antenna farm.
Nothing will be fair until we all sound as loud as each other
everywhere in the world, and then some people will claim a
disadvantage because their callsign is too long.
Derek AA5BT, G3NMX
oo7 at astro.as.utexas.edu
>From dgf at netcom.com (David Feldman) Fri Jul 15 23:34:09 1994
From: dgf at netcom.com (David Feldman) (David Feldman)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 15:34:09 -0700
Message-ID: <199407152234.PAA24806 at netcom14.netcom.com>
>Just a philosophical question for all you philosophers out there.
>Is illegal power ALWAYS unethical?
>Take a hypethetical situation where someone is running 500' of 20 year old
>RG-8 on 20 mtrs. He (or she) is saving his pennies for some 7/8" Andrews,
>but in the meantime, he has actually measured his power at the antenna and
>it has given him an inferiority complex. What to do, what to do.
>Measuring the power at the transmitter is the only convenient method of law
>enforcement, but maybe, just maybe, power at the antenna should be the
>criteria for what is ethical.
Naaaawwww -- just move the gasbox to the top of the tower, like the rest of us!
73 Dave WB0GAZ dgf at netcom.com
>From Dick Dievendorff" <dieven at almaden.ibm.com Fri Jul 15 23:41:46 1994
From: Dick Dievendorff" <dieven at almaden.ibm.com (Dick Dievendorff)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 15:41:46 -0700
Subject: Where to measure the power?
References: <199407152210.SAA22741 at w8hd.w8hd.org>
Message-ID: <9407151541.ZM23233 at penguin.almaden.ibm.com>
On Jul 15, 6:10pm, Steve Maki wrote:
> Measuring the power at the transmitter is the only convenient method of law
> enforcement, but maybe, just maybe, power at the antenna should be the
> criteria for what is ethical.
>-- End of excerpt from Steve Maki
The UK HF power rules call for 400 watts at the feedpoint of the antenna. Many
find that is a difficult place to install a wattmeter. So we measure the power
at the shack and "estimate" the feedline loss. There are many interpretations
of the probable feedline loss.
It's not a philosophical question at all. Both the FCC and DTI (the UK
equivalent) have stated quite clearly where the power is to be measured. Your
friend with the inferiority complex needs new coax, which would help him on
receive as well as transmit.
I have observed that there are vast cultural differences regarding "following
the rules" or "doing the right thing". For a graphic example, visit the
hovercraft port at Folkestone. The crowd consists of generally English and
French. The English are very adept at standing in lines (queues). The French
attitude seems to be, "You English can stand in line if you wish, that is your
choice. I'll get to the front as fast as I can." I don't believe that the
French (or Italians, or Russians or whatever) really think that they're doing
anything at all wrong. The notion of obeying a "rule" when you have little
chance of being caught is not a universally accepted concept. I was raised to
stop at the remote stopsign even when no one's around to observe my actions.
But not all in the world are burdened by my zeal in adhering to a law which at
that time is not really all that important.
de AA6MC, G0MFO
More information about the CQ-Contest