[TenTec] Fw: Top receivers

Mon May 14 07:55:52 PDT 2012

Excellent post Dave.
Ed   K7UC

--------------------------------------------------
From: <d.e.warnick at comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, May 14
            , 2012 6:36 AM
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers

>
>
> There are currently emission standards, etc. that need to be met to gain 
> FCC type acceptance. If the current crop of transceivers meet these 
> specifications & there is still a problem, then the specifications for FCC 
> type acceptanced may (or may not) need to be reviewed. There is a 
> specification for 'spurious emissions', as well as others. If they are not 
> doing the job, then a thoroug h review of those specs may be in order.
>
> What we do not need is any government authority dictating engineering such 
> as a specific type of component ("48v MOSFETs").
>
> Please, please, please allow the consumer to drive the market, and be very 
> cautious about yet more government oversight where it has been proven time 
> and again to increase cost without solving anything.
>
> Just my take.
>
>
>
> We could solve a lot of issues on the air by better educating those among 
> us who overdrive, tune improperly, overprocess, and run fa r more power 
> than necess ary. (Yes, I do use a linear when necessary.) In the current 
> Yemen & Somalia DXpeditions, I have had far more issues with bad operators 
> than with bad signals. (If I hear UP, LID, or worse one more time, I think 
> I'll scream). I have shut down & walked away several times, even though I 
> need the band. My choice, but that's not the ham radio that I have enjoyed 
> for more than 45 years, and I choose to not let it become that. There are 
> guys calling without a break even though a contact is in progress. If you 
> want more government intervention, fund the FCC's enforcement branch to 
> clean this up. (No, I don't really want that either but something has got 
> to give).
>
>
>
> OK, I've had my rant.
>
> Happy Monday
>
>
>
> Dave
>
> WA3F
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> From: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick at DJ0IP.de>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 7:17:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
>
> Bob, you hit it.  We need to stop making transmitters with 12v 
> transistors.
> 48v MOSFETs should be mandatory.  We do need laws to mandate this.
>
> The problem as I see it is with the mobile rigs.
> Maybe we could allow rigs designed specifically for mobile use to still 
> use
> 12v transistors, but have a conspicuous message on the box and a warning
> label on the rig, "NOT PERMITTED TO BE USED WITH A LINEAR AMPLIFIER".
>
> Surely 100w on a mobile whip can't do too much damage!
>
> YAESU definitely needs to clean up its act.
> The bands are flooded with FT-1000s which produce horrendous key clicks.
> Even though W8JI came up with a $2 fix for the problem just months after 
> its
> initial announcement, it took Yaesu nearly 6 years to finally incorporate
> that fix into their new units.
>
> As Floyd pointed out, they still don't know how to build a rig that keys
> cleanly - regardless of price. Shame shame!
>
> If we start now, maybe in 5 years we could get some legislation, and maybe
> in 15 years the bands will finally be cleaner.
> I don't expect to see it in my lifetime!
>
> 73
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: tentec-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
> On Behalf Of Bob McGraw - K4TAX
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 1:28 AM
> To: floyd at k8ac.net; Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Top receivers
>
> Floyd, I agree with you and with many of the other writers.  The receiver
> performance has been pushed ahead and largely demanded by "users" in a
> competitive market while the transmitter performance is largely controlled
> by outdated Government regulations.
>
> Yes, it is time to clean up the bands and push for cleaner transmitters 
> and
> power amps.  However, how does one control the outdated transmitters in 
> use
> today?  Put a time limit on them saying they must meet the current specs 
> or
> be trashed by a certain date?  They have done that for other applications
> and equipment such as the switch from analog TV to digital TV.  That was
> expensive for everyone, specially the broadcasters.  But look how it 
> forced
> the price of digital TV's down.  The price dropped some 75% in just 2 
> years.
>
> Imagine a top of the line ham transceiver for under $2K.  Of course one 
> has
> to look at things differently, i.e. a business vs. a hobby.  Then there 
> are
> countries which mandate when a vehicle gets X number of years old they are
> crushed thus can no longer be used.  That was done to largely effect a
> reduction in air pollution and it worked.  Maybe that would work for ham
> radio.
>
> I'm all up for cleaner bands and cleaner signals.  I believe today we have
> to forgo the idea of 12 volt radios to attain that desired result.
> Technically there is no problem with that concern either.  As one wrote,
> there's the 200 watt class radio that only outputs 75 watts when running 
> in
> class A mode.  Are we willing to accept that fact or are we a culture that
> is too number driven?
>
> I don't like Government intervention any more than anyone else, but some
> effort by manufactures, pushed by Government regulations and us buyers 
> that
> pay our hard earned money for these boxes need to demand better
> transmitters.  That's "better" in terms of cleaner, lower noise, and lower
> IMD products and operators that  operate them correctly.  It is a very 
> large
> topic and will need to be addressed on an international basis.
>
>
> 73
> Bob, K4TAX
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 