[CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs

[Zack Widup]

I have never heard any complaints about my TS-850. I run it barefoot; no
amp here.

I just did the capacitor mods - replaced all the caps on the CAR board and
the display board (the latter because the display went out!)

I've often operated on one frequency with someone a couple hundred Hz away
and not complaining to me.

73, Zack W9SZ


On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Tom Osborne <w7why at frontier.com> wrote:

> I would think that my old TS-450 must be pretty clean because it seems
> like just about every RTTY contest I get in, I can be CQ'ing and someone
> will move in right next to me, inside my 250 cycle passband.  I figure it
> must be someone with a new 'state of the art' rig that can screw their
> passband down to about 150 cycles and then crowd right in next to me and
> totally QRM me, while not even knowing I'm there.
>
> Sometimes I just wish there was somewhere I could set mine wide enough to
> get their attention.
>
> Maybe what we need is some organization to set up a 'cash for dirty rigs'
> like they did with the 'cash for clunkers' program.  I'd be glad to swap my
> TS-450 for a K-3 :-)  73
> Tom W7WHY
>
>
>
>
> On 10/20/2014 10:43 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> On 10/20/2014 2:05 PM, Stuart Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> The FCC publishes required levels of operation for several aspects of
>>> radio performance but is silent on matters like phase noise etc beyond
>>> using phrases like “commonly accepted engineering practice”.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Stu,
>>
>> As I wrote in TXNoise.pdf,
>>
>> "FCC Rules 97.307 (a) No amateur station transmission shall occupy more
>> bandwidth than necessary for the
>> information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with
>> good amateur practice. Figure 12
>> clearly shows that Yaesu and Icom transceivers are using 3 times more
>> bandwidth than Kenwood and 5 times
>> more than Elecraft. As I read the Rules, this puts anyone using them in
>> violation of 97.307 (a)."
>>
>> Follow my logic. Elecraft, with their K3, have defined "good amateur
>> practice" with respect to CW. Kenwood's TS590S, less than half the cost of
>> a K3, is next best, and the modern ICOM and Yeasu rigs are much worse. I've
>> seen data from Flex for their 6xxx-series rigs putting them in a class with
>> the K3 for cleanliness, but these data have not been verified by ARRL. In
>> simple terms, today's ICOM and Yeasu rigs are in violation because they use
>> MUCH more than the minimum bandwidth needed for transmission. 97.307 (b)
>> and 97.307 (c) expand upon that standard.
>>
>> As I see it (and as principal author of all AES Standards on EMC, I have
>> used similar wording), "good amateur practice" with respect to occupied
>> bandwidth was specifically written into the Rules to not tie the hands of
>> innovative designers and allow the State of the Art to advance. Wayne
>> Burdick, Elecraft chief engineer, showed many (all?) of his cards in an
>> Appendix to my report. There is no magic there, simply good, innovative
>> engineering. The methods are available to all.
>>
>> For years, we were taught that CW bandwidth was related to CW speed,
>> which is a total falsehood -- CW bandwidth is solely a function of rise and
>> fall waveforms, distortion in RF stages, including the output, and phase
>> noise.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>