Article: 101512 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: <@club-internet.fr> References: <1138153798.695122.218770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: wazzup wit BAMA Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:06:38 +0100 Message-ID: <43d777e2$0$26399$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr> in french we say : "rançon de la gloire..." too much people for the same bandwith... "N9NEO" a écrit dans le message de news: 1138153798.695122.218770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Bama sites seem to be getting more and more erratic. I've always used > the edebris site because I never had any probs. Now it's nothing but > probs just like the real BAMA SBC site. > > 73 > Bob > Article: 101513 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: ritchi50@optonline.net Subject: FS: TWINS Collins 32V-3 & Collins 75A-1 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:44:50 -0500 FS: TWINS Collins 32V-3 & Collins 75A-1 VERY nice shape both of them. The only thing that was repainted are the cabinets. Front panels look GREAT!! Price: 1800.00 Or 1000.00 for 32V-3 And 800.00 for the 75A-1 All plus shipping You can see picture on qrz.com or eham or qth.com ritchi50@optonline.net Article: 101514 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Bob W7AVK Subject: FS: CW Filter Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:45:23 -0800 FS: New Old Stock, never installed, optional CW Filter for several older Yeasu Rigs. Yeasu model number XF-455C, 8 pole, 500 hz bandwidth. $42 which inclucdes postage within USA 73 Bob W7AVK Article: 101515 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "YT" References: Subject: Re: TWINS Collins 32V-3 & Collins 75A-1 Message-ID: <58OBf.15676$Jd.2335@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:59:45 GMT oh , oh , oh how nuch power does this 32-v put out? 600 w?? or maybe the 75-A1 receives strereo FM also. get lost wanker wrote in message news:a77ft1tmacj73lnpqoalcc2bb4uhf1b555@4ax.com... > FS: TWINS Collins 32V-3 & Collins 75A-1 > VERY nice shape both of them. > The only thing that was repainted are the cabinets. > Front panels look GREAT!! > Price: 1800.00 Or 1000.00 for 32V-3 And 800.00 for the > 75A-1 All plus shipping > You can see picture on qrz.com or eham or qth.com > ritchi50@optonline.net Article: 101516 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Edward Knobloch Subject: Re: wazzup wit BAMA References: <1138153798.695122.218770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT N9NEO wrote: > Bama sites seem to be getting more and more erratic. I've always used > the edebris site because I never had any probs. Now it's nothing but > probs just like the real BAMA SBC site. > > 73 > Bob > Hi, I've had good luck with the edebris site using FTP directly: ftp://216.24.174.245 Just remember not to try to download more than one document at a time, or you'll get the "Too Many Connections (1)" warning. The downloads are slow, but at least they happen. 73, Ed Knobloch Article: 101517 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: ritchi50@optonline.net Subject: FS: RCA 77-DX Microphone Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:06:51 -0500 I have forsale a RCA 77-DX Microphone. This is an old RCA Vintage Microphone and works great on my Collins 32V-3 I'm selling this microphone because I just don't use AM anymore. Looks great not beat up at all. Make offer, I'm ready to sell. Please don't ask how much, Just make offer. Thanks for reading my ad, also has the rca bag cover. ritchi50@optonline.net To see a picture go to: QRZ.COM Article: 101518 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: - exray - Subject: Re: wazzup wit BAMA Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:38:18 -0400 Message-ID: <11tg6fst4hsaqc7@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138153798.695122.218770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1138231981.617117.80130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> N9NEO wrote: > > And lastly mr Knobloch I will try FTP. Thanks for the suggestion. I > think I may need an ftp client. No? Last time I used cute ftp, but > that was many years ago. > > regards, > Bob > N9NEO I see you are using Mozilla. Type in the ftp address as a URL and it may do the trick just fine. GL, Bill Article: 101519 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: Collins 32V-3 HF Transmitter NICE!!! Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:05:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3aoat1589n2cv0bgf8osbaituhaln7el1u@4ax.com> Gary (and anyone else who cares), since my last post, which responded to several other posts on the topic of PEP in an AM transmitter, I looked up some things and cleared up a major misunderstanding in my own mind. I will add that as comments to the part of your post, below, which is relevant to the issue. As far as all of your definitions below, PEP wattmeters, S-metes, SSB signals are concerned, I think you made a lot more mistakes than you realize. However, I'm going to delete all these irrelevant parts (most of what you said) and concentrate on the source of the confusion. I may make comments in a separate post on the parts I deleted fro this one. On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: > > Let's review some definitions to start: > > AVERAGE POWER > > Average power is found by squaring RMS voltage and dividing by > resistance. Or RMS voltage times RMS current. > > > PEP > deleted > > PEP WATTMETERS > deleted > > > S METER READINGS > deleted > > > AM TRANSMITTER > deleted > > > CONVERTING RMS TO PEAK > deleted > > > AM LINEAR > deleted > > > POWER IN SIDE BANDS > deleted > > > PLATE CURRENT AND VOLTAGE DOUBLING Here is the crux of the problem. Earlier today I looked in my old RCA receiving tube manual and transmitting tube manuals at the transfer characteristics of many dozens of tubes and I looked at them with this question of PEP for an AM signal. I will incorporate some of what I learned as comments on your comments. The basic fact that I was not aware of is that there is an apparent conflict between the relationship between plate current and plate voltage if you look at the curves that show plate current as independent of plate voltage and then ask how do you get, on modulation, a peak input power four times the unmodulated input power so you can get a peak, on modulation, output power that is four times the unmodulated output power. > It is easiest to see with a triode tube that is plate modulated. Nah, "easiest" has nothing to do with it. Triode has nothing to do with it. The issue is that all of the triode transfer characteristics curves I saw showed plate current to be _proportional_ to plate current (but with offsets and some non-linearities, which are mostly unimportant). When I looked at all the tetrodes and pentode curves, then, yes, they all showed plate current independent of plate voltage. However, at any given plate voltage, plate current was also _proportional_ to screen voltage (also with and offset and some non-linearities). Now, it makes sense that if screen voltage is made proportional -- in some fashion (usually a screen voltage dropping resistor connected to the modulated plate supply)-- to plate voltage, then plate current will increase, or decrease, in parallel with plate voltage as modulator voltage adds, and subtracts, from the B+ plate voltage (all as the modulator output signal varies with audio input waveform) > Doubling the plate voltage will cause the plate current to also > double. >From the curves, the relationship between plate current and plate current might not always be exactly a 1:1 relationship, but to an approximation this doubling is an acceptable understanding. And, that is how, on peak input from modulation one gets four times unmodulated input, and output will be proportional to input which can be looked at as average or peak, but the peak output on modulation will also be four times unmodulated output. > That is if the tube is capable of providing enough emission. That is a separate issue and anyone designing a circuit and sellecting a tube for use needs to understand the specifications in the manuals. > This must be a linear function in order to avoid distortion when > modulating. Almost nothing is perfectly linear. All audio circuits will have measureable distortion (IM, harmonic, and others). The only criterion is whether the distortion is acceptable. > Tubes that are weak may not be able to provide this. That is one > reason that PEP may not fully reach 4 times the carrier power with > 100% modulation. I think for this issue one needs at least an oscilloscope to even start measuring and investigating what is going on (and they need to be wideband or sampling scopes, too). "Meters" are just indicators. > Screen grid tubes are not linear in this respect. Plate current is > somewhat independent of plate voltage. That is why you must also > partly modulate the screen along with the plate when using a screen > grid tube in the final. There is an equally important reason why you must, and preferably, fully modulate the screen voltage as well as the plate voltage (and this is almost never discussed). If you ever have screen voltage above plate voltage, then screen current will go up dramatically and so will screen heat dissipation. You could melt the screen grid with just one word into the microphone. You can blow the screen grid almost instantly just by accidentally having screen voltage present without plate voltage. You want to have a linear plate voltage to > plate current relationship. > > This is also why a lot of broadcast transmitters use triodes in the > final. Easier to maintain linear modulation. I think, if you looked at as many transfer characteristics, as I did earlier today, for transmitting tubes, you might appreciate that there is more heterogeneity between triodes than tetrodes or pentodes in terms of plate I/V relationships. Broadcast AM transmitters never gave us any kind of high fidelity so linearity was never that much of an issue. In broadcasst FM transmitters, power and voltage linearity anywhere in the RF chain was irrelevant. > > HANDBOOK > > All this can be found in the AM section in some of the older > handbooks. I was never very satisfied with much in the handbooks, whether early or late. >The newer ones do not cover AM very well. They are covering tubes and analog subjects less well, too. Everything is going digital, solid stae, chips, and software. Art, W4PON > 73 > Gary K4FMX > > > > Article: 101520 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 -0500 Message-ID: Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube manual). This is a KW input class C triode. >From the curve: at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current 2 kV 500 ma That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current 4 kV 750 ma looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, and at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like 400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with reality is pure conjecture. If anyone wants to put an appropriate oscilloscope on the transmitter output and measure the RF voltage of unmodulated carrier into an appropriate load and then measure the peak RF voltage when the carrier is modulated, then and only then do they have a reasonable _basis_ for making a claim about peak (instantaneous) output power. Article: 101521 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Message-ID: <9kXBf.14911$bF.14484@dukeread07> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:26:52 -0500 "Straydog" wrote in message news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0601252142230.9221@panix3.panix.com... > > Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope > power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing > of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than > the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare > or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! > Terman explains how high-level Class C modulation works in Radio Engineering (1932 edition) on page 370. Article: 101522 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Clif Holland" References: Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:47:46 GMT Are you as dumb as you seem?? -- Clif "Straydog" wrote in message news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0601252142230.9221@panix3.panix.com... > > Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope > power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing of > tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than the > impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare or > almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! > > Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube > manual). This is a KW input class C triode. > > From the curve: > at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current > 2 kV 500 ma > That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp > > at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current > 4 kV 750 ma > > looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 > a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near > linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero > current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated > slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, > current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 > miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, and > at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be > doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. > > My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start > with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions > about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like > 400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with > reality is pure conjecture. > > If anyone wants to put an appropriate oscilloscope on the transmitter > output > and measure the RF voltage of unmodulated carrier into an appropriate load > and then measure the peak RF voltage when the carrier is modulated, then > and only then do they have a reasonable _basis_ for making a claim about > peak (instantaneous) output power. > Article: 101523 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Message-ID: <43D871CA.70E7A98B@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: wazzup wit BAMA References: <1138153798.695122.218770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:53:53 GMT N9NEO wrote: > > Mr Terrell, > > I am an old Tin Can Sailor Outta Pearl and have a DD214 as well. Thanks > for your service, and prey for our young children in the military, and > for those we have lost and for their survivors. Thank you for your time in the service as well, Bob. The sig is being used because of a few derogatory comments made to me online about US Veterans, and my work with local Veterans. I am 100% disabled veteran, but I volunteer my time for the local Vets helping Vets" program, as well as help provide working computers to local disabled and disadvantaged Veterans in Marion County. My latest information is that there are over 48,000 Veterans in Marion County and a lot are either senior citizens, or disabled, so much so that the VA recently opened a second outpatient clinic in Marion County, and is expanding the VA hospital in Gainsville due to the heavy workload. Also, due to the warm climate and the large protected areas of the Ocala national Forest there were a little over 2000 homeless veterans living among the trees in makeshift camps about a year ago. Its had to help most of them because they were told "NO" so many times in the past that they don't trust people who do offer to help. We are working an another round of having volunteer doctors and dentists visit the more populated areas in mid April to try once again to help some of them back into society. We already try to provide them with food and clothing, but most won't leave their camp for fear of it being raided or torn down while they are gone. Its a very sad place to visit. BTW, I hope you meant to say "Pray", not "Prey" Lousy spell checkers! ;-) > And lastly mr Knobloch I will try FTP. Thanks for the suggestion. I > think I may need an ftp client. No? Last time I used cute ftp, but > that was many years ago. > > regards, > Bob > N9NEO "Cute FTP" from Coffee Cup Software is available all over the web for free. If you have trouble finding it just e-mail me and I'll get a copy to you. I got my copy from one of the "Web Builder" CDROMS. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 101524 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Doug Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Message-ID: References: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:47:10 GMT On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 -0500, Straydog wrote: > >Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope >power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing >of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than >the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare >or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! > >Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube >manual). This is a KW input class C triode. > >From the curve: >at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current > 2 kV 500 ma >That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp > >at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current > 4 kV 750 ma > >looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 >a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near >linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero >current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated >slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, >current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 >miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, >and at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be >doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. > >My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start >with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions >about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like >400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with >reality is pure conjecture. > >If anyone wants to put an appropriate oscilloscope on the transmitter output >and measure the RF voltage of unmodulated carrier into an appropriate load >and then measure the peak RF voltage when the carrier is modulated, then >and only then do they have a reasonable _basis_ for making a claim about >peak (instantaneous) output power. Methinks you are way too hung up on the abtract theory of how linear tubes are. In practice the majority of AM transmitters rated at 100 watts of carrier output are indeed putting out 400 watts PEP with 100% modulation. As another poster pointed out, this is easily proved by using an oscilloscope or with SOME Peak reading wattmeters. The FCC certainly agrees with the 4:1 ratio. That's why when the Amateur power levels permitted by the FCC in the USA were raised to 1500 watts output PEP, the net result was that users of A.M had to REDUCE carrier power to approximately 375 watts output. Many diehard AM'ers and even the ARRL vigorously protested this net reduction of power for AM use. As I remember the FCC grandfathered the old power limit of 1000 watts DC input to the final amplifier for Am'ers but only did so for a couple of years. Back in the good old days, I used to run a Technical Materiel Corp GPT-750 AM transmitter on 3885KHZ. I ran 1KW DC input on the plate with 100% modualtion. That required a 500 watt modulator in the transmitter. The pair of 4-400A's in the rig easily achieved a power output of 800 watts under class C high level modulation. Thus I was legally running 3200 watts PEP output power. The power supply exceeded 3000 volts and was rated at 1.5 amps CCS, easily achieving the peak power demands.. You are sort of beating a dead horse. this was extensively discussed everywhere in Amateur circles about a decade ago. Doug/WA1TUT Article: 101525 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "NORMAN TRIANTAFILOS" Subject: test Message-ID: <%o7Cf.37346$Le2.34994@trnddc04> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:11:23 GMT test Article: 101526 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "YT" References: <3aoat1589n2cv0bgf8osbaituhaln7el1u@4ax.com> <6xwBf.11951$bF.2404@dukeread07> <9jadt1lhkf6n6kpvd74t1bc8d7hodngtq0@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Collins 32V-3 HF Transmitter NICE!!! Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:59:43 GMT Good explanantion! "Gary Schafer" wrote in message news:ej7ft11qo9ncn2cc8ct05k6hf9t4ckbtqg@4ax.com... > > Let's review some definitions to start: > > AVERAGE POWER > > Average power is found by squaring RMS voltage and dividing by > resistance. Or RMS voltage times RMS current. > > > PEP > > It helps to fully understand exactly what PEP is in an SSB > transmitter. Then it is easier to see in an AM transmitter. > > Peak envelope power is important because that is how the FCC defines > how much power we can run. > > Let's look at the FCC definition of Peak Envelope Power: > > "Peak envelope power output of a transmitter is the AVERAGE power at > the crest of the modulation envelope over at least one rf cycle." > > NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH AVERAGE POWER READ ON A METER as it swings > around! > > If you think about what that is saying it will make sense. If you > transmit just a carrier with an SSB transmitter of say 100 watts. That > is 100 watts average power output. It is also 100 watts PEP output. > (in this case the envelope is infinitly long) If you were to key it on > and off in the CW mode the power relationship would be the same. 100 > watts PEP on each CW dash or dot sent. > > If you now switch to the SSB mode and modulate the transmitter so that > the peaks on the scope looking at that signal reach the same height, > the transmitter will be putting out 100 watts PEP. > > If you were to modulate that same SSB transmitter with 2 equal > amplitude tones you would get a scope pattern that looks similar to an > AM signal modulated with a single tone. The crest (or peak) of the > waveform represents 100 watts PEP same as with voice but with the > tones it is easier to see as the waveform will be stable. > > If you were to increase the speed of the time base on the scope and > spread the waveform out you would see that each crest of the audio > wave form has within it many cycles of the RF frequency. These many > cycles of RF are the AVERAGE power contained in the signal. > > You will note that the maximum AVERAGE power is only reached for > several RF cycles at the crest of each audio cycle. > > This is what is known as PEAK ENVELOPE POWER. (see definition above > again) > > > PEP WATTMETERS > > A true PEP reading watt meter will show the peak envelope power of the > above signals as described. > There are a lot of so called PEP watt meters on the market. Not all > are able to properly read. Even the Bird meters have problems with > some types of wave forms. > > > S METER READINGS > > S meter readings will vary according the particular receiver being > used but most all S meters are peak responding circuits. Most will > read pretty close to the peak values, depending on the decay time of > the circuit some may not hang up there like others do. If you think > about it if you have ever been plagued with pulse noise like ignition > noise it only takes a very narrow pulse occurring at a rather slow > rate to hold the S meter up high. Increasing the rate will not > increase the meter reading. > > Likewise with an SSB signal, once the station is transmitting his peak > power on a regular basis, increasing mike gain or increasing > compression will not raise the S meter reading maximum. > > The AVC circuit in the receiver must respond to the peaks or the > receiver would overload the detector if the gain was not cut back when > a peak was received. The S meter reads AVC voltage. > > > AM TRANSMITTER > > It is best to try and understand the output signal of the AM > transmitter before trying to coralate it with what goes on at the > input side. Swapping back and forth can be confusing. > > Take our 100 watt carrier output transmitter again. Measuring the > output voltage of the RF we find that it is 70.7 volts RMS across our > 50 ohm load. P = I squared / R so 70.7 x 70.7 = 5000. 5000/50 = 100 > watts. > > Let's modulate 100% with a single audio tone. We get out of it a 100 > watt carrier and two 25 watt side bands. 3 distinct signals. As you > stated before the carrier always remains constant. > > If we look at the output signal on our scope we will see that it looks > similar to the SSB signal that was modulated with 2 tones. We see the > modulation envelope. We can again expand the scope's time base and > look at the RF cycles within each modulation peak. Same as with the > SSB signal, at the crest of the modulation envelope is the peak > envelope power of the composite signal. > > Now let's get back to measuring that PEP. We know that the carrier > alone had a power of 100 watts which produced 70.7 volts across a 50 > ohm load. If we look at the scope with and without modulation we see > that the voltage output doubles with modulation so it will be 141.4 > volts RMS at the crest of the modulation wave form. > Again P = E squared /R. 141.4 x 141.4 = 20000. 20000 / 50 = 400 watts > PEP. > > If we were to measure this with a good PEP wattmeter we would see the > meter also indicate 400 watts PEP. > Again some so called PEP meters do not do well on this type of wave > form. The carrier tends to confuse the meter as it causes an offset > in the voltage being read by the meter and the meter tries to average > it so the net result is some gets subtracted from the reading. It is > due to the way in which the particular meter circuit operates. > > > CONVERTING RMS TO PEAK > > It would seem at first glance that you could find the peak power of > the 25 watt side bands and add things together but that doesn't work. > You can not convert power. THERE IS NO RMS IN POWER! > > There is a wide misconception that there is something called RMS > power. There is no such thing! There is only AVERAGE power and PEAK > power. (note the FCC definition of PEP) > > You find average power by using RMS voltage. But once you multiply or > divide, RMS term, the RMS goes away. > So once you have power you can not multiply it by 1.414 to find peak > power. > > To find peak power you must first add the voltages together or find > the peak voltage of an rms voltage by multiplying by 1.414 then > finding power. > > > AM LINEAR > > Operating an SSB transmitter and amplifier in the AM mode, if properly > set up, will produce exactly the same looking output signal as a plate > modulated AM transmitter. > > If we have an SSB amplifier that will put out 1000 watts PEP on SSB it > will also put out 1000 watts PEP on AM. > But in order to do so the carrier output must be limited to 250 watts > output. It must be tuned up in the CW mode for 1000 watts output. Then > when switching to AM the carrier is reduced to 250 watts output > without touching any tuning controls. The amplifier must still be > tuned to be able to produce the 1000 watt peak envelope output. > > When we modulate the 250 watt carrier with AM the peak envelope power > at 100% modulation will reach 1000 watts pep (or 4 times the carrier) > just as it did with the plate modulated AM transmitter. Looking at the > output with a scope we will see the voltage double with modulation > verses just the carrier. > > > POWER IN SIDE BANDS > > As a note is seems that having 2 side bands with the same information > in an AM signal is useless but it is not. > In the detector of the receiver the energy in both side bands combine > and add together. So rather than using only 1 side band of 25 watts > you are really using 50 watts of side band energy. So a 3 db addition. > There is also another 3 db gained in the detector because of the > voltage doubling with the side bands being coherent in the detector. > So the carrier is really the only thing wasted. > > > PLATE CURRENT AND VOLTAGE DOUBLING > > It is easiest to see with a triode tube that is plate modulated. > Doubling the plate voltage will cause the plate current to also > double. That is if the tube is capable of providing enough emission. > This must be a linear function in order to avoid distortion when > modulating. > > Tubes that are weak may not be able to provide this. That is one > reason that PEP may not fully reach 4 times the carrier power with > 100% modulation. > > Screen grid tubes are not linear in this respect. Plate current is > somewhat independent of plate voltage. That is why you must also > partly modulate the screen along with the plate when using a screen > grid tube in the final. You want to have a linear plate voltage to > plate current relationship. > > This is also why a lot of broadcast transmitters use triodes in the > final. Easier to maintain linear modulation. > > > HANDBOOK > > All this can be found in the AM section in some of the older > handbooks. The newer ones do not cover AM very well. > > 73 > Gary K4FMX > > > Article: 101527 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "NORMAN TRIANTAFILOS" Subject: test Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:51:52 GMT test My Logbook NORMS PLACE http://realham.blogspot.com Article: 101528 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: Collins 32V-3 HF Transmitter NICE!!! Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:26:21 -0500 Message-ID: References: On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:05:30 -0500, Straydog wrote: > > Everything that I commented on was to try and help you understand the > things that YOU brought up on the subject and apperently did not have > a full understanding of. Yes, and all of the threads, including my own reflection and further study, helped me develope a better understanding of an issue that never had been presented to me by others in a complete manner. This includes the apparent conflict between Ip/Vp curves which in all tetrodes and pentodes or nearly all that I've seen that show Ip independent of Vp over a range that would normally be used under real conditions in AM. I have more comments, below. >> >> Gary (and anyone else who cares), since my last post, which responded to >> several other posts on the topic of PEP in an AM transmitter, I looked up >> some things and cleared up a major misunderstanding in my own mind. I will >> add that as comments to the part of your post, below, which is relevant to >> the issue. As far as all of your definitions below, PEP wattmeters, >> S-metes, SSB signals are concerned, I think you made a lot more mistakes >> than you realize. However, I'm going to delete all these irrelevant parts >> (most of what you said) and concentrate on the source of the confusion. >> I may make comments in a separate post on the parts I deleted fro this >> one. > > Yes I would be interested in where I "made mistakes". > >> >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: >> >>> >>> Let's review some definitions to start: >>> >>> AVERAGE POWER >>> >>> Average power is found by squaring RMS voltage and dividing by >>> resistance. Or RMS voltage times RMS current. >>> >>> >>> PEP >>> >> deleted >>> >>> PEP WATTMETERS >>> >> deleted >>> >>> >>> S METER READINGS >>> >> deleted >>> >>> >>> AM TRANSMITTER >>> >> deleted >>> >>> >>> CONVERTING RMS TO PEAK >>> >> deleted >>> >>> >>> AM LINEAR >>> >> deleted >>> >>> >>> POWER IN SIDE BANDS >>> >> deleted >>> >>> >>> PLATE CURRENT AND VOLTAGE DOUBLING >> >> Here is the crux of the problem. Earlier today I looked in my old RCA >> receiving tube manual and transmitting tube manuals at the transfer >> characteristics of many dozens of tubes and I looked at them with this >> question of PEP for an AM signal. I will incorporate some of what I >> learned as comments on your comments. The basic fact that I was not aware >> of is that there is an apparent conflict between the relationship >> between plate current and plate voltage if you look at the curves that >> show plate current as independent of plate voltage and then ask how do you >> get, on modulation, a peak input power four times the unmodulated input >> power so you can get a peak, on modulation, output power that is four >> times the unmodulated output power. > > As I first explained, there is a direct relationship in a triode > between plate voltage and plate current. You (and others) talked about a doubling of plate current with a doubling of plate voltage and gave no basis for this statement. That is why I said "it is > easiest to see when looking at a triode". And, I stand by my comment below. > A tetrode does not have that same direct relationship so it gets a > little more complicated to modulate a tetrode. And, you can use the same phrase -- "direct relationship"-- for triodes vs tetrodes and above. It is just that the "direct relationship" will be different and anyone who compares the characteristics of two or more tubes will see that. >> >>> It is easiest to see with a triode tube that is plate modulated. >> >> Nah, "easiest" has nothing to do with it. Triode has nothing to do with >> it. >> >> The issue is that all of the triode transfer characteristics curves I saw >> showed plate current to be _proportional_ to plate current (but with >> offsets and some non-linearities, which are mostly unimportant). >> When I looked at all the tetrodes and pentode curves, then, yes, they all >> showed plate current independent of plate voltage. However, at any given >> plate voltage, plate current was also _proportional_ to screen voltage >> (also with and offset and some non-linearities). Now, it makes sense that >> if screen voltage is made proportional -- in some fashion (usually a >> screen voltage dropping resistor connected to the modulated plate supply)-- >> to plate voltage, then plate current will increase, or decrease, in >> parallel with plate voltage as modulator voltage adds, and subtracts, from >> the B+ plate voltage (all as the modulator output signal varies with audio >> input waveform) > > Operating almost as a triode as far as modulation goes. "almost" is another one of your mistakes because, "as far as modulation is goes," you will definitely need to modulate the screen grid which is in tetrodes and above but is irrelevant for a triode which has no screen grid. > Glad you understand. > > I assume that when you say "plate current and plate current" that you > mean to say plate voltage and plate current. Yeah, I make mistakes, too. Not my first, not my last. >> >>> Doubling the plate voltage will cause the plate current to also >>> double. >> >> From the curves, the relationship between plate current and plate current >> might not always be exactly a 1:1 relationship, but to an approximation >> this doubling is an acceptable understanding. And, that is how, on peak >> input from modulation one gets four times unmodulated input, and output >> will be proportional to input which can be looked at as average or peak, >> but the peak output on modulation will also be four times unmodulated >> output. > > The PEAK ENVELOPE POWER output will be 4 times the unmodulated output. > Re-read the deffinition of PEP which you deleted. Yeah, I read it. Some of us have heard the rumor that the FCC has lawyers write its material, not engineers. I wasn't too impressed with that definition, by the way. > One tries to operate the tubes in the most linear portion of the > curve. The non 1:1 relationship is called distortion. I would make a distinction between non-linearity and distortion. I can think of situations where non-linearity is part of a characteristic of a device or circuit but distortion (a word which is a specification on an output signal which is less than perfect) is irrelevant. >> >>> That is if the tube is capable of providing enough emission. >> >> That is a separate issue and anyone designing a circuit and sellecting a >> tube for use needs to understand the specifications in the manuals. > > It is not a seperate issue. It is an all important issue whether > operating or designing. The cause of not enough emission can be from > several causes. Too low fillimant voltage, It should be possible to assume that the tube has the correct fil voltage on it. > improper screen voltage, Why would anyone build a circuit and not understand the need for the proper screen voltage? > final loaded too heavy, Any time one sees output power go down with more loading, they should know better. > not enough grid drive, In a class-C amplifier with self-generated control grid drive, the plate current has always gone up in my tubes (sometimes this is mentioned in the manuals and handbooks). Or, the clamp tube limits the plate current (eg. Johnson Rangers) or fixed bias from a separate control grid bias supply limits plate current (I've had this, too, in my homebrew creations) or a cathode resistor (and I've done this, too, in one of my homebrew rigs). weak tube, etc. Any of > these can be the cause for low PEP compared to carrier power. All of the above are _abnormal_ situations or conditions. They are otherwise irrelevant to the fundamental question of the relationship between Ip and Vp and determining peak input power. >> >>> This must be a linear function in order to avoid distortion when >>> modulating. >> >> Almost nothing is perfectly linear. All audio circuits will have >> measureable distortion (IM, harmonic, and others). The only criterion is >> whether the distortion is acceptable. > > "Must be a linear function" denotes as near linear as practicable. Of > course nothing is perfectly linear. And, acceptable can range from specifications of 5-10% audio harmonic distortion given in equipment reviews for some older rigs compared to some of the most recent rigs which are much much lower (mostly for purists, not me) >> >>> Tubes that are weak may not be able to provide this. That is one >>> reason that PEP may not fully reach 4 times the carrier power with >>> 100% modulation. >> >> I think for this issue one needs at least an oscilloscope to even start >> measuring and investigating what is going on (and they need to be >> wideband or sampling scopes, too). "Meters" are just indicators. > > Yes indeed a scope is a must to properly set up an AM transmitter. It > also helps to understand what is happening. The reason I suggested > "looking at the wave form on a scope". I agree. > You do not need a wide band scope. Only one that will cover the RF > frequency that you are operating on. I have actually used both "narrow band" (DC to 500 kc) and "wide band" (DC to 20 mHz) scopes to do this and the narrow band scopes can have such a rapid decrease in sensitivity at the lowest ham bands that the only way to get vertical deflection is to raise the RF voltage up to hundreds of volts and you can't get that from a 50 watt rig without a RF transformer between the rig and the scope to raise the input voltage and then you may overheat the (usual) 1 megohm input swamping resistor in most scopes that is across the input terminals. This is another thing people need to think about before they just use "any old scope." The other option is to use a diode and capacitor (with an appropriate RC time constant) to measure the _envelope_ of the RF coming out of the transmitter, but I consider this kludge as a kludge to be avoided. >> >>> Screen grid tubes are not linear in this respect. Plate current is >>> somewhat independent of plate voltage. That is why you must also >>> partly modulate the screen along with the plate when using a screen >>> grid tube in the final. >> >> There is an equally important reason why you must, and preferably, fully >> modulate the screen voltage as well as the plate voltage (and this is >> almost never discussed). If you ever have screen voltage above plate >> voltage, then screen current will go up dramatically and so will screen >> heat dissipation. You could melt the screen grid with just one word into >> the microphone. You can blow the screen grid almost instantly just by >> accidentally having screen voltage present without plate voltage. > > It is not that great a problem. You can't say this without saying under what conditions it is not a great problem. The small external anode tubes (eg. 4X150, and on up) all have, in their spec sheets, a strict warning about losing plate voltage with screen voltage present. All of those physically small tubes have much lower max grid dissipations than the old big internal anode tubes. > Audio has a very low dity cycle. If > the screen is fed with a resistor the screen current will be somewhat > self limiting. There are many transmitters that get abused in this > manor. However it is best to control it properly. I think it unwise to present to people that this problem "is not that great" and you can't say things like "low duty cycle" when you also don't distinguish between voice typical duty cycle and a sine wave audio from a signal generator that could maybe triple the screen dissipation or more. Self limiting the screen current (with a screen bypass) may not be enough and even then an increased screen current for a continuous current (vs. a varying current with lower average value) could also damage the screen resistor. I would not treat this issue as lightly as you do. >> >> You want to have a linear plate voltage to >>> plate current relationship. >>> >>> This is also why a lot of broadcast transmitters use triodes in the >>> final. Easier to maintain linear modulation. >> >> I think, if you looked at as many transfer characteristics, as I did >> earlier today, for transmitting tubes, you might appreciate that there >> is more heterogeneity between triodes than tetrodes or pentodes in terms >> of plate I/V relationships. Broadcast AM transmitters never gave us any >> kind of high fidelity so linearity was never that much of an issue. > > As you learn more about AM transmitters you may change your mind on > this point. I am thankful that an issue that has bothered me for decades has been considerably cleared up in the last two days. However, although people here talked about Ip doubling with Vp, no one here explained the descrepancy between this claim and all of the tube curves that show Ip (in tetrodes) as independent of Vp! I had to put that one together by myself. Modulating the screen is not as linear as simply > modulating the plate of a triode. >From all the curves I saw of both triodes and all screen grid tubes I can only say that you can't say one is "not as linear" as the other without specifying the tubes to be considered AND going into technical details that are far beyond the scope of our discussion. > Simply modulating the screen along with the plate works well for some > type screen grid tubes but not others. Sometimes the amount of > modulation to the screen must be limited. You can overmodulate the > screen and have it cut off well before the plate voltage swings to the > cutoff point. It will have the same splatter effect as overmodulating > the plate. Other tubes need more audio applied to the screen to > modulate properly. > Distortion is usually highr when modulating a screen grid tube than > when modulating a triode. I would agree these are some of the details. I can think of more. >> In >> broadcasst FM transmitters, power and voltage linearity anywhere in the >> RF chain was irrelevant. > > I won't comment on FM transmitters for fear of being accused of > introducing extranious information to the thread. :>) Fine, I just wanted to give an example where linearity of any kind in the RF chain is irrelevant. >> >>> >>> HANDBOOK >>> >>> All this can be found in the AM section in some of the older >>> handbooks. >> >> I was never very satisfied with much in the handbooks, whether early or >> late. > > There is some good stuff in the older handbooks regarding AM. Its a mixed bag for me. And, I'm an old timer that appreciated simpler circuitry and the situation that because of that it is easier to understand what one is doing. All contemporary rigs are so complicated that a high understanding of what is going on requires much more study, repairs often require sending the rig off for long periods, and if the rig is even not that old but specific chips are no longer available then sometimes it is easier and simpler to repair and maintain the even older tube rigs for which discrete devices are still available and there is enough extra space inside for kludge fixes if restoration fixes are imp.ossible. My two cents irrelevant to the original subject). Art, W4PON > 73 > Gary K4FMX >> >> Art, W4PON >> >>> 73 >>> Gary K4FMX >>> >>> >>> >>> > > Article: 101529 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:31:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 -0500, Straydog wrote: > >> >> Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope >> power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing >> of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than >> the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare >> or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! >> >> Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube >> manual). This is a KW input class C triode. >> >> From the curve: >> at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current >> 2 kV 500 ma >> That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp >> >> at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current >> 4 kV 750 ma >> >> looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 >> a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near >> linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero >> current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated >> slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, >> current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 >> miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, >> and at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be >> doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. >> >> My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start >> with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions >> about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like >> 400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with >> reality is pure conjecture. >> >> If anyone wants to put an appropriate oscilloscope on the transmitter output >> and measure the RF voltage of unmodulated carrier into an appropriate load >> and then measure the peak RF voltage when the carrier is modulated, then >> and only then do they have a reasonable _basis_ for making a claim about >> peak (instantaneous) output power. > > You can't just look at static curves. Consider that with AM modulation > there is usually grid leak bias on the final tube being modulated. > This allows the grid voltage to somewhat follow the modulation and > helps smooth out the non-linearity in the plate. This was discussed in the RCA transmitting tube manual, but it also referenced the technical references which go into this in much more detail. However, if you want to say "you can't just look at static curves" then you also can't just say "doubling plate voltage also doubles plate current" either. > If you have access to any of Termans books, as peter said, there is an > excellent section on how modulation works. > He in fact shows that "plate current follows plate voltage almost > exactly with modulation". His words. > > He also says that "triodes have considerably less distortion than > screen grid tubes". I will decline to check this but words and phrases like "almost exactly" and "considerably less" are unquantitative. > 73 > Gary K4FMX > Article: 101530 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:47:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Doug wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 -0500, Straydog wrote: > >> >> Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope >> power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing >> of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than >> the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare >> or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! >> >> Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube >> manual). This is a KW input class C triode. >> >> From the curve: >> at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current >> 2 kV 500 ma >> That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp >> >> at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current >> 4 kV 750 ma >> >> looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 >> a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near >> linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero >> current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated >> slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, >> current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 >> miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, >> and at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be >> doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. >> >> My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start >> with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions >> about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like >> 400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with >> reality is pure conjecture. >> >> If anyone wants to put an appropriate oscilloscope on the transmitter output >> and measure the RF voltage of unmodulated carrier into an appropriate load >> and then measure the peak RF voltage when the carrier is modulated, then >> and only then do they have a reasonable _basis_ for making a claim about >> peak (instantaneous) output power. > > Methinks you are way too hung up on the abtract theory of how linear > tubes are. > > In practice the majority of AM transmitters rated at 100 watts of > carrier output are indeed putting out 400 watts PEP with 100% > modulation. As another poster pointed out, this is easily proved by > using an oscilloscope or with SOME Peak reading wattmeters. Well, I'll buy into the scope measurement. I'll also buy into my prior incomplete understanding of Ip vs Vp relationships when the tube curves are looked at without realizing that screens have to be modulated as well as plates. I don't like wattmeters (with mechanical needles) that claim to indicate peak watts or have peak watt scales. But, that is my prejudice. > The FCC certainly agrees with the 4:1 ratio. That's why when the > Amateur power levels permitted by the FCC in the USA were raised to > 1500 watts output PEP, the net result was that users of A.M had to > REDUCE carrier power to approximately 375 watts output. I remember some of that. But at that time I was an SSB user only. > Many diehard AM'ers and even the ARRL vigorously protested this net > reduction of power for AM use. > As I remember the FCC grandfathered the old power limit of 1000 watts > DC input to the final amplifier for Am'ers but only did so for a > couple of years. > > Back in the good old days, I used to run a Technical Materiel Corp > GPT-750 AM transmitter on 3885KHZ. I ran 1KW DC input on the plate > with 100% modualtion. That required a 500 watt modulator in the > transmitter. The pair of 4-400A's in the rig easily achieved a power > output of 800 watts under class C high level modulation. > Thus I was legally running 3200 watts PEP output power. > The power supply exceeded 3000 volts and was rated at 1.5 amps CCS, > easily achieving the peak power demands.. And what do you do now? If you don't mind me taking a little more of your time. And, what about all these guys I hear on AM (160 & 75) who say they are running Johnson "Desks" at 1 kW input, and modified former AM broadcast transmitters with 833s in the final? > You are sort of beating a dead horse. this was extensively discussed > everywhere in Amateur circles about a decade ago. A decade ago I was not interested in anything AM. A decade ago I had nothing that would even come close to putting out any power that would have even made me have to think about this FCC specification. Recently, out of pure nostalgia, I partly restored a very chopped up Johnson Ranger and got it back on the air, on AM, to my considerable delight. Otherwise it was too chopped up for a full restoration (to include CW). Similarly, lots of things I was interested in a decade ago, I'm not interested in any more. And, I spend much more time at the bench now than at the microphone. Art, W4PON > Doug/WA1TUT > > Article: 101531 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:18:51 -0600 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: How to earn money with PAYPAL!!!! 37 References: <1137709653.497618.151660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <174c$43d041ea$18d6b488$14817@KNOLOGY.NET> <1137785765.969348.81760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <43d974fb$0$33682$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> hhc314@yahoo.com wrote: > Same here Cecil. > > The young kids don't have a clue about Social Security, because it > isn't important to them at their time in life, nor was it for me when I > was 25. None of us ever thought that we would live to see 65, hence it > was just like income tax, something that you simply had to pay. > > The problem is not for us elders, but for the younger people who will > hopefully someday reach 65. Today, most of these kids don't realize is > that the fault with the Social Security system is not in its basic > design, but what I beleve is called SSI that allows anyone regardless > of age to claim benefits unser Social Security by claiming some form of > disability, even if they have never contributed to the system. > > Just as an example, when I went to the Social Security office to claim > my earned beneits, I was the only American present in the waiting area > containing roughly 30 applicants. Most of these individuals were there > seeking SSI benefits, few were American citizens, and most had never > paid a dime into the system. This is precisely the problem that Social > Security faces. > > No wonder Social Security is in trouble. It is comparable to a > corporation that pays dividends to people that don't even own stock in > the company! > > 'Nuff said on that subject. > > Curmudgeonly yours, Harry C. > Social Security is in trouble because when they figured the original numbers, the average person lived to 65, so the government thought they would, more or less, never really have to pay anything significant out. That changed due to decent medical science, as most people in this group (rraa is where I am right now) are more than aware. Social Security has been busted for more than a couple decades, and none of the bastards in the Senate or Congress or the Administration have had the balls to let it just disappear. It is a dinosaur. And please note I never mentioned a party here, since all are guilty of just covering their asses just to get through another term. And, at 52, I am one of the people that's going to lose evcerything that the government stole from me and gave away in this deal, so don't start ripping me for not caring. Tom K0TAR Article: 101532 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:22:53 -0500 "Straydog" wrote in message news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0601252142230.9221@panix3.panix.com... > > > > looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 > a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near > linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero > current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated > slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, > current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 > miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, > and at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be > doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. > > My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start > with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions > about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like > 400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with > reality is pure conjecture. > > In some cases it is a lot easier to accept what is technically correct, and work backwards to correct erroneous conclusions. First, a Class C amplifier is driven into grid conduction, almost to the point of plate saturation. High Level AM modulation is applied to the SCREEN and PLATE, only doubling the plate voltage as in your 6F6 example to show a non linear relationship isn't a valid argument. What is the operating Class of the tube, and did you account for the modulating voltage also being applied to the screen grid? To quote Henny: "A linear relation must exist between plate voltage and tank circuit current for good operation... In such a modulated amplifier, the output peak will be four times the unmodulated carrier and the continuous power output with complete modulation is 1.5 times the power at zero modulation." Note that is only true for a true Class C power amplifier stage, and not for Class A or B. I doubt that Henny or Tenny based their texts on conjecture or misguided realities. Pete Article: 101533 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Uncle Peter" References: Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:29:00 -0500 " Uncle Peter" wrote in message news:cufCf.16380$bF.7979@dukeread07... > > I doubt that Henny or Tenny based their texts on conjecture or > misguided realities. > > Pete > > Henny or Terman!! Arggh! Typo. Article: 101540 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Message-ID: <43DA38F1.6000804@nucleus.com> From: Ken Subject: FS: Original RCA Rack Shelp Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:16:38 GMT I have an original RCA 19" rack shelf, for such items as the RCA BA6a or RCA 86A compressor Limiter The unit is in very good original condition,from 1950's, asking $125.00US I can send photos to interested parties Thanks Ken Gold 403-239-4956 Article: 101541 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:57:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:drcg4o$7mc$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > The harder the modulated tube is driven into class-C conditions and > saturation, the more linear does the plate modulation become. > > Operation of the tube becomes independent of curvature in the tube's > characteristic. The plate current operating angle is small. > It behaves more like an on/off switch. > > The more non-linear it is, the smaller the operating angle, the more > linear is the modulation. ====================================== PLATE MODULATION. It's really all very simple. Imagine a class-C triode amplifier with very small operating angle and running nearly into saturation. The plate load is a tuned tank circuit having a high impedance at resonance. Or it can be a Pi-tank circuit. Makes no difference! With the high impedance load, conditions are such that whatever is the DC plate voltage, the RF plate volts swing down to a very low plate-to-cathode voltage. Ideally it should be zero volts. But in practice it cannot fall below the positive, peak, instantaneous, RF grid volts. This corresponds to the instant of peak plate current. The RF voltage across the tank is then very nearly EQUAL to the DC plate voltage regardless of the tubes characteristic curves. Curvature doesn't matter. It is obscured by the small operating angle. The tube is conducting only for a small fraction of the time. Modulate the DC plate voltage at an audio frequency. With 100 percent modulation the DC plate voltage swings between a very low voltage and twice the DC supply volts. And so do the RF volts across the tank. The job is done. You have an almost perfect linearly modulated amplifier. It is necessary only to ensure grid drive is just sufficient to drive the tube into saturation when the DC plate volts is twice the DC supply volts. It will then remain saturated at all lower voltages. With a triode, saturation occurs when the RF plate voltage swings down to not much more than the peak RF grid volts. With a beam tetrode, saturation occurs when the RF plate voltage swings down only to something less than the DC screen-grid volts and 100 percent linear modulation cannot be achieved. But 100 percent modulation is always undesirable because of the risk of over-modulation. With a bipolar transistor, modulation can be even more linear because, with the high impedance tuned tank, the device saturates or 'bottoms' at very nearly zero RF collector volts. About 0.7 volts. ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 101542 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:32:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: "COLIN LAMB" wrote in message news:ypqCf.4633$1n4.1234@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > The more non-linear it is, the smaller the operating angle, the more > linear is the modulation. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ. > > Hello Reg: > > Does this mean that you are going to have a software program for us soon? > You have written us programs for almost everything else useful in ham radio. > Actually, what I need is a program that designs a maximum legal limit AM rig > using the parts I have, and that then tells me where to get the parts I do > not have with the least work and expense. > > 73, Colin K7FM ========================================== Colin, A real amateur would visit hamfests, look around the junk, take a selection of the junk home, then sit and think about what he could do with it. If you stick out your tonge and pull a funny face, the stall holders might throw something at you - for free. The bits and pieces left over can be put towards the next project. ;o) ---- Reg. Article: 101543 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "YT" References: Subject: Re: RCA 77-DX Microphone Message-ID: <0zvCf.28135$H71.15745@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:40:28 GMT >Microphone and works great on my Collins 32V-3 Oh yeah, that 450 watt rig. >I'm selling this microphone because I just don't use AM anymore But your right up there with the slop bucket gang on HF - breaker good buddy. wrote in message news:rhmft1ti6u9hbe1rl6l7df0r7njq0vmgkm@4ax.com... >I have forsale a RCA 77-DX Microphone. This is an old RCA Vintage > Microphone and works great on my Collins 32V-3 > I'm selling this microphone because I just don't use AM anymore. Looks > great not beat up at all. > Make offer, I'm ready to sell. > Please don't ask how much, Just make offer. > Thanks for reading my ad, also has the rca bag cover. > ritchi50@optonline.net > > To see a picture go to: QRZ.COM Article: 101544 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: Collins 32V-3 HF Transmitter NICE!!! Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:06:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <9jadt1lhkf6n6kpvd74t1bc8d7hodngtq0@4ax.com> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-732003899-1138399618=:11605 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:45:57 -0500, Straydog wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:26:21 -0500, Straydog wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> The PEAK ENVELOPE POWER output will be 4 times the unmodulated output= =2E >>>>> Re-read the deffinition of PEP which you deleted. >>>> >>>> Yeah, I read it. Some of us have heard the rumor that the FCC has lawy= ers >>>> write its material, not engineers. I wasn't too impressed with that >>>> definition, by the way. >>> >>> Well then if you don't believe anyone you should go and look it up for >>> yourself. You will find that same deffinition in the ARRL handbook. Oh >>> I forgot you don't believe what is in there either. Then try some of >>> the Collins Radio SSB handbooks. Maybe Art Collins didn't know what he >>> was talking about either? How about in the IEEE handbook. >>> >>> Keep in mind when trying to understand PEP that there is no peak power >>> involved. It is all average power. >>> >>> Also when calculating side band power and carrier power that is all >>> average power too. Forget about peak power. >>> >>> Once you understand how this works then you can work from there to >>> figure out the rest. >>> >>> I have eliminated all the other stuff as you seem to be going round >>> and round only for the sake of arguing and not for understanding. >> >> I'm sorry but how you can write a sentence, above, like "Keep in mind wh= en >> trying to understand PEP that there is no peak power involved" when you >> use "PEP" and "peak power" in the same sentence and say something that >> sounds like "its there but it isn't there." > > Let me explain: There is peak envelope power and there is peak power. > Peak power is seldom used. Peak power is the instantaneous power at > the very peak of the voltage and current. You will see peak currents > discussed in tube manuals often. Yes, and I've looked at them very often. The term "instantaneous power"=20 seems more appropriate to me since it implies a time dependent function,=20 but that is just my prefernce. More below. > Our 100 watt carrier output transmitter with no modulation is 100 > watts average power as we talked about before. The actual peak power > is 200 watts output. (nothing to do with modulation right now) This is > found by multiplying the 70.7 volts RMS output voltage by 1.414 to > find peak voltage. That gives us 100 volts peak. Divide that by 50 > ohms and we have 200 watts peak output power. Note that peak power is > 2x average power with a sin wave. > > PEP > Peak envelope power does NOT involve peak power as above. It only > deals with AVERAGE power. > Remember the definition of PEP: The AVERAGE power out at the crest of > the modulation waveform. > (perhaps the "peak" in peak envelope power is a misnomer) I think it very well is a misnomer, but that is also maybe "my" problem. Defining what we mean, and explaining very technical issues bery=20 accurately is much more difficult than most people realize and sometimes=20 people read things and still don't understand what they are reading. Just= =20 about everything you wrote above and below is fine with me except that=20 I've already explained several times in several posts that the problem I=20 always had, for tetrodes and above, is that all the published curves show= =20 Ip being independent of Vp and I could not see how, under modulation,=20 there would be enough instantaneous input power to give a 4X instataneous= =20 output instantaneous power. Now that I realize that modulating screen=20 voltage can make Ip move in proportion to Vp, and thus give double current= =20 at double voltage, my problem with understanding this dissapears. And,=20 this was the major basis for my squabble with the PEP spec on the 32V3=20 original post. Non linearities are still an issue, but minor. I guess I am= =20 just dismayed that nobody is reading what I'm saying to see what I'm=20 saying but they all jump in to talk about everything except the problem=20 that I more or less figured out by myself after re-reading, thinking, and= =20 getting some stimulation from the discussions. But, thank you for your time. You need not repeat yourself any more. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D no change to below, included for reference and context =3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D > The modulation voltages, that we use to calculate PEP, in each side > band are also RMS voltages, they are not peak voltages. > In the figures below are typical voltages present in the signals at > the output of an AM transmitter modulated 100%. I gave these same > figures in another post. > > 100 watts into 50 ohms =3D 70.7 volts (carrier) > 25 watts into 50 ohms =3D 35.35 volts (side band) > 25 watts into 50 ohms =3D 35.35 volts (side band) > Total voltage =3D 141.4 volts (which is 2 x carrier > voltage) > > 141.4 x 141.4 =3D 20000 / 50 =3D 400 watts PEP. This takes care of our > PEP power. > > The amount of voltage that you see on a scope when looking at this > same modulated signal, if we actually measure them with the scope, > will be peak to peak voltage as that is what the scope sees. > > So measuring the composite signal voltage on the scope it will show > 400 volts peak to peak. Take =BD that to find peak voltage and you have > 200 volts peak. To find RMS voltage multiply that by .707 and that > will give you 141.4 RMS volts. This is what is used to calculate PEP. > > 73 > Gary K4FMX > > > --0-732003899-1138399618=:11605-- Article: 101545 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:28:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:32:41 -0500, Straydog wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:31:08 -0500, Straydog wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 -0500, Straydog wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope >>>>>> power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing >>>>>> of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than >>>>>> the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare >>>>>> or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! >>>>>> >>>>>> Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube >>>>>> manual). This is a KW input class C triode. >>>>>> >>>>>> From the curve: >>>>>> at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current >>>>>> 2 kV 500 ma >>>>>> That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp >>>>>> >>>>>> at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current >>>>>> 4 kV 750 ma >>>>>> >>>>>> looking in my RCA receiving tube manual (RC-20) I found for a 6FG6 >>>>>> a sharp cutoff tetrode that only at zero grid volts was there a near >>>>>> linear relationship between plate current and plate voltage (meaning zero >>>>>> current at zero voltage, and a straight line [which actually deviated >>>>>> slightly from a straight line] with some slope. But at 100 v on plate, >>>>>> current was 14 milliamps, at 200 v on the plate, plate current was 34 >>>>>> miliamps. Definitely NOT a linear relationship. For the 6EM7 a triode, >>>>>> and at any of a wide range of grid voltages, plate current could be >>>>>> doubled with only a 15-20% increase in plate voltage. >>>>>> >>>>>> My thinking on all of this leads me to claim that anyone who can start >>>>>> with a 100 watt carrier from an AM transmitter and make a few assumptions >>>>>> about 100% modulation and come up with a _calculation_ of something like >>>>>> 400 watts of peak power and represent that as having something to do with >>>>>> reality is pure conjecture. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anyone wants to put an appropriate oscilloscope on the transmitter output >>>>>> and measure the RF voltage of unmodulated carrier into an appropriate load >>>>>> and then measure the peak RF voltage when the carrier is modulated, then >>>>>> and only then do they have a reasonable _basis_ for making a claim about >>>>>> peak (instantaneous) output power. >>>>> >>>>> You can't just look at static curves. Consider that with AM modulation >>>>> there is usually grid leak bias on the final tube being modulated. >>>>> This allows the grid voltage to somewhat follow the modulation and >>>>> helps smooth out the non-linearity in the plate. >>>> >>>> This was discussed in the RCA transmitting tube manual, but it also >>>> referenced the technical references which go into this in much more >>>> detail. However, if you want to say "you can't just look at static curves" >>>> then you also can't just say "doubling plate voltage also doubles plate >>>> current" either. >>>> >>>>> If you have access to any of Termans books, as peter said, there is an >>>>> excellent section on how modulation works. >>>>> He in fact shows that "plate current follows plate voltage almost >>>>> exactly with modulation". His words. >>>>> >>>>> He also says that "triodes have considerably less distortion than >>>>> screen grid tubes". >>>> >>>> I will decline to check this but words and phrases like "almost exactly" >>>> and "considerably less" are unquantitative. >>> >>> Do you even know who Terman is? >> >> Yep, and I've even looked in his books. But its more than I want to go >> into. > > His writings are very easy to understand compared to many engineering > books. He leans less on the math and more on practical explanations. > He was one of the most highly thought of professors in the radio > field. Although his books were written in the 30's and 40's, they do > not include some of today's newer discoveries, they are very well > written to explain circuit theory and things like modulation. Fine. Maybe next time I see some of his works at a hamfest, I'll take a look and see if I might want to delve more deeply. I might add that I've looked at and own one of the RSGB ham handbooks which are sometimes more detailed than the ARRL handbook. However, I also want to keep ham radio a hobby for me rather than a vocation (as, say, an EE) >> >>> I would doubt that you do or you would not make statements like that. >>> As a matter of fact if you had read any of his work you would not be >>> making most of the statements that you are in these threads. >> >> I don't have the benefit of reading his works, I'm presuming that you >> have, is that correct? > > I am not an expert by any means but I often refer to a few of his > books. Well, there are a lot of gaps in my knowledge, too, and, yes, I know there are books out there that go very deeply into theory, math, etc. My other favorite books are the bil Orr (I think W6SAI?) "Radio Handbooks" which I also think are very nice and cover things differently. >> >>> At first I thought that you were interested in learning but I see you >>> would rather argue for the sake of arguing. >> >> Very early in my comments I brought up the issue of Ip being independend >> of Vp in all of the curves (these are facts) for tetrode and pentode >> transmitting tubes and receiving tubes and nobody but nobody called >> attention to the possibility that this conflict with claims of plate >> current doubling with plate voltage doubling could be resolved by >> including changes in screen voltage proportional, in some relationship, to >> changes in plate voltage. A few of your statements were a little >> bit helpful but even the comments in the RCA transmitting tube manual were >> weak in dealing with this issue. > > That is exactly what I told you in my very first post to you. That was > the one that had several different topic headings. The one that you > deleted most of the headings as "incorrect information". > > This was under AM TRANSMITTERS. > "Screen grid tubes are not linear in this respect. Plate current is > somewhat independent of plate voltage. That is why you must also > partly modulate the screen along with the plate when using a screen > grid tube in the final. You want to have a linear plate voltage to > plate current relationship." Well, you also deleted my response to this, too. >> >> What is a further issue is why the FCC decided to drop steady DC input >> (easily measured with a plate current meter) in favor of making PEP output >> measurement the new criterion by which transmitter power is to be >> measured. The only thing I can think of is that there were, in the far >> past, some AM amateurs who were running some form of ultra modulation or >> super modulation and putting KWs of audio on a 1 KW DC input to the final >> signal and the FCC didn't like that. Maybe if any of you have some >> background on this, you could mention it. > > That could have been part of it. It is difficult to tell exactly how > much power is really going out with different types of modulation. Yes, One other thing I was thinking about way back then as to why they could come up with this way of measuring power was that someone told someone else in the FCC somethin glike this: since the books say that in grounded-grid amplifiers, a part of the input drive power gets fed through to the antenna, maybe someone could build some kind of weird grounded-grid amplifier where the final has a DC imput of 1 kW and the final is driven with 5 kW of input drive power and the final puts out, say 0.5 kW and 4.5 kW of drive power feeds through the final and adds to the 0.5 kW from the final to give 5 kW of output with just 1 kW to the final and goes into the antenna and its legal. I don't know, just my wild speculation. > Probably the biggest reason for the change was SSB. Watching the plate > meter kicking up and down was not a very accurate means of measuring > power but in the old day's access to a PEP watt meter was almost non > existent. And, scopes were big and expensive, too. Personally I always just looked at plate current while saying "ahhhhhhhh" and multiplying by plate voltage and telling people VxI=watts and that is my "average" power DC INPUT. And, I've heard, on the air, all manner of misunderstandings of power. I actually heard one guy say "And, I'm getting 700 watts DC output out of my linear" and I was wondering how you get DC out of an RF output SO-239 connector off a commercial linear amplifier. :-\ > Now with a PEP wattmeter it is much easier to read power output than > it is input power. Well, I'd rather not trust the needle meters. At least I'd want to check it against a scope with bandwidth high enough to measure those voltage peaks under voice modulation (as I've done with my Ranger). > Another part of the change was to reduce the maximum power that hams > were able to use. As discussed the 1 kw input AM transmitter could > easily have in excess of 3000 watts PEP output and lots more with some > modulation schemes as you refer to. Yes, and it all seems so silly to me. I always had the feeling that talking (in the old days) about 2 kW PEP when 1 kW input was the max was more of a ego hype ploy to make people feel they had something when, from a practical point of view, the S-meter was going to be responding to the average power which was easier to measure anyway. But from this one can argue in lots of branching directions. > SSB also could have well in excess of 3000 watts PEP output as well. > The old means of measuring SSB power was the plate current meter on > the final not kicking over the 1 kw DC input level. The meter had to > have a time constant of less than .025 seconds. No sluggish meters > allowed. But the average power in speech is only around 10 to 20% and > that is what was measured. And, you could have some weird speech waveform with funny transients in it that spiked up, too. ' Anyway, 73 > 73 > Gary K4FMX > > Article: 101546 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Joe Curry" References: Subject: Re: Plate-modulating tetrodes and pentodes Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 02:34:00 GMT Or, if you use a separate, fixed, screen supply, feed the screen through a 10 henry choke.This allows the screen to "float up" to audio frequencies. I've done this several times with plate modulated 813s, both singly and in parallel pairs. 73, Joe K3ICO "David J Windisch" wrote in message news:mImCf.49264$tK4.8755@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com... > Iirc, among tips for doing subject operation "much more better" is to feed > the screen-grid from a dropping-resistor connected to the modulated-DC > side of the modulation xfmr. > 73, Dave, N3HE > Article: 101547 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <0zvCf.28135$H71.15745@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: RCA 77-DX Microphone Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:11:24 -0500 Message-ID: <89c83$43dafd12$97d56b99$13538@ALLTEL.NET> It does in fact put out the power he says is does, however to compare apples to apples he has to plug it in to his 339.36 volt wall outlet. Probably was recently connected to an 11 meter 63 dB gain antenna. "YT" wrote in message news:0zvCf.28135$H71.15745@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > >Microphone and works great on my Collins 32V-3 > > Oh yeah, that 450 watt rig. > >>I'm selling this microphone because I just don't use AM anymore > > But your right up there with the slop bucket gang on HF - breaker good > buddy. > > > > > wrote in message > news:rhmft1ti6u9hbe1rl6l7df0r7njq0vmgkm@4ax.com... >>I have forsale a RCA 77-DX Microphone. This is an old RCA Vintage >> Microphone and works great on my Collins 32V-3 >> I'm selling this microphone because I just don't use AM anymore. Looks >> great not beat up at all. >> Make offer, I'm ready to sell. >> Please don't ask how much, Just make offer. >> Thanks for reading my ad, also has the rca bag cover. >> ritchi50@optonline.net >> >> To see a picture go to: QRZ.COM > > Article: 101548 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Subject: FS: 12BY7a, UHF Mitrek, mics,2m amp From: "JB" Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:39:35 -0800 Message-ID: Various stuff http://tekstuff.freespaces.com Article: 101549 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: ritchi50@optonline.net Subject: Wanted: Collins KWM-2A Round Emblem Message-ID: <5h6nt1lgbj6j02qke2u88qib0m77r9f21f@4ax.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:22:03 -0500 Wanted: Collins KWM-2A Round Emblem Please state condition and price. Also please leave number to call. Thanks Rich Article: 101550 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "EdT" Subject: FS: Swan 500CX Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:43:31 -0500 Message-ID: <11tn7pkdgj4375b@corp.supernews.com> Cabinet has no dents but has been repainted. Some small scratches in the paint. Numerous scratches in the front panel but all lettering is ok. Rcvr works great, xmtr loads to full output. It has the 100/25kc calibrator factory installed. Inside a bit dusty but not rusty. Power supply is the 230xc, ps and speaker cabinet. PS has original paint, some scratches and works fine. Asking $175 for both plus shipping from 22601. Thanks for reading, Ed KC4FD. Article: 101551 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Bill Powell Subject: Re: $1000 SX-100 again? Message-ID: References: Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:57:20 GMT Nope - same one - same serial numbers Guess his shill bidder pushed it a little too far? On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:28:28 -0500, K3HVG wrote: >OK... he says not... guess it isn't. > >K3HVG wrote: > >> Is it my imagination.. or is that the same SX-100 that was sold a few >> days ago for $1600? The ad pictures are the same, although the >> completed auction pictures have been deleted. Just curious. >> Item #5857172450. I was considering putting mine up, given the prices >> offered... (or not?). >> Article: 101552 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Brian Hill" References: Subject: Re: $1000 SX-100 again? Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:38:20 -0600 "Bill Powell" wrote in message news:nvbnt11k9chlthkibig7l3vv5luafh2tfc@4ax.com... > Nope - same one - same serial numbers > > Guess his shill bidder pushed it a little too far? > > LOL. Yea he's a real class act. B.H. Article: 101556 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: chris+news@suslowicz.org (Chris Suslowicz) Subject: Re: $1000 SX-100 again? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:49:09 +0000 Message-ID: References: In article , Straydog wrote: > >On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, K3HVG wrote: > >> Is it my imagination.. or is that the same SX-100 that was sold a few days >> ago for $1600? The ad pictures are the same, although the completed auction >> pictures have been deleted. Just curious. >> Item #5857172450. I was considering putting mine up, given the prices >> offered... (or not?). >> >> > >At this rate, it may become profitable to build "reproductions" and make >out like a bandit. It may just be a bandit, of course. (Someone is/was auctioning a T1154/R1155 setup that was sold a few weeks ago in England (the buyer is in England and very happy with it, apparently); but... the same items (including serial #s) reappeared for sale in the US. Very Suspicious.) Chris. -- a.s.r: You will not soon find a more wretched hive of ranting and pedantry. We aim to please, so duck. -- ADB Article: 101557 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Charles P.L. Stokes" Subject: Clegg 22'er Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:26:18 GMT I have a Clegg 22'er for sale with Instruction Manual and schematic. It's like new and worked fine when last turned on about 5 years ago. -- 73' WB4PVT Charlie Article: 101558 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Ron H" Subject: Central Electronics 20 A Phase shift question Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:13:52 -0600 Setup: CE 20A to dummy load 1 KHz audio input tone scope accross the output of the phase shift network ( 90 deg shift) Observation: The X-Y scope display shows a very nice circle which varies in diameter with the amplitude of the input and also varies in diameter (although less variation) with the input frequency. The inside of the circle always looks to be a well defined circle but the thickness of the line has some variation around the circumference. Thin and sharp at 6:00 thru 10:00 and a little thicker from 12:00 to 2:00. The two signals look great in the time domain just like two sine waves out of phase. Question: Is there something going on that needs correction? K3PID Ron H. Article: 101559 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Straydog Subject: Re: $1000 SX-100 again? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:18:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Chris Suslowicz wrote: > In article , > Straydog wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, K3HVG wrote: >> >>> Is it my imagination.. or is that the same SX-100 that was sold a few days >>> ago for $1600? The ad pictures are the same, although the completed auction >>> pictures have been deleted. Just curious. >>> Item #5857172450. I was considering putting mine up, given the prices >>> offered... (or not?). >>> >>> >> >> At this rate, it may become profitable to build "reproductions" and make >> out like a bandit. > > It may just be a bandit, of course. (Someone is/was auctioning a T1154/R1155 > setup that was sold a few weeks ago in England (the buyer is in England and > very happy with it, apparently); but... the same items (including serial #s) > reappeared for sale in the US. Very Suspicious.) > > Chris. Thanks for the FYI. I've heard all kinds of funny stories and I'm not an expert on eBay stuff, either. There could be "operators" who just set up multiple userids on eBay and sell the stuff to themselves (who would find out?) but the rising prices get recorded somewhere and someone I know who knows a lot more about how to do this says you can look up recent past prices for specific things. Then, if you do this, it looks legit and -- guess what-- it credibly pumps up the "going" price on stuff. I was looking for some boatanchor receivers a few weeks ago and saw bidding going --as far as I was concerned--beyond what I would consider as reasonable. I backed out. > -- > a.s.r: You will not soon find a more wretched hive of > ranting and pedantry. We aim to please, so duck. -- ADB > > Article: 101560 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Joe" Subject: Nice D-104 (Black) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:22:03 GMT Anyone need a nice D-104 Night Eagle with preamp before it goes to "that other place" $40 + actual shipping costs from 11030 (around $7 USPM with conf) USA 50 only Big Photos http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2pdtg/d104.jpg http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2pdtg/d1042.jpg -Joe "NOSPAM" Article: 101561 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: STEVE TROOK Subject: Re: Nice D-104 (Black) References: Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:57:19 -0500 what is it wired for??? I am interested. Joe wrote: > Anyone need a nice D-104 Night Eagle with preamp before it goes to "that > other place" > $40 + actual shipping costs from 11030 (around $7 USPM with conf) > USA 50 only > Big Photos > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2pdtg/d104.jpg > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2pdtg/d1042.jpg > > -Joe "NOSPAM" > > Article: 101562 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "YT" References: <5h6nt1lgbj6j02qke2u88qib0m77r9f21f@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Wanted: Collins KWM-2A Round Emblem Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:26:56 GMT Eblem available for 5 KW rig only - might work with your VFO..... wrote in message news:5h6nt1lgbj6j02qke2u88qib0m77r9f21f@4ax.com... > Wanted: Collins KWM-2A Round Emblem > Please state condition and price. > Also please leave number to call. > Thanks Rich > Article: 101563 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: Central Electronics 20 A Phase shift question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:58:01 -0600 Message-ID: References: I assume you mean the audio phase shift net... This suggests another signal getting in that is somehow affected by the audio voltage level. What you describe could be related to the scope astig adjustment. or How about RF in the scope. Kill the RF somehow. Or power suppkly hum. 73, Steve, K,9.D.;C'I "Ron H" wrote in message news:lJ6Df.7716$XG4.7514@fe14.lga... > Setup: > > CE 20A to dummy load > 1 KHz audio input tone > scope accross the output of the phase shift network ( 90 deg shift) > > Observation: > > The X-Y scope display shows a very nice circle which varies in diameter with > the amplitude of the input and also varies in diameter (although less > variation) with the input frequency. The inside of the circle always looks > to be a well defined circle but the thickness of the line has some variation > around the circumference. Thin and sharp at 6:00 thru 10:00 and a little > thicker from 12:00 to 2:00. > > The two signals look great in the time domain just like two sine waves out > of phase. > > Question: > > Is there something going on that needs correction? > > K3PID > Ron H. > > > Article: 101564 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: Jack O'Neill Subject: Re: Nice D-104 (Black) References: Message-ID: <36wDf.89$C11.51@fe12.lga> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:07:09 -0500 Joe wrote: >Anyone need a nice D-104 Night Eagle with preamp before it goes to "that >other place" >$40 + actual shipping costs from 11030 (around $7 USPM with conf) >USA 50 only >Big Photos >http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2pdtg/d104.jpg >http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2pdtg/d1042.jpg > >-Joe "NOSPAM" > > > > And the old heathkit clock still ticking!!!! Amazing!! 73 Article: 101565 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: vozoeu@optonline.net Subject: XxX Secret BathCam Shots XxX 4547 [1/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:56:32 GMT Here i post secret cam pics of my mother in the bath tub , i hope u like them. lqzsdghsmizuuuiwsdrjffbpmlzqvfncsdijfejelpodxjzufrxxpslrqwgpczomzbpldruqosuqsclq Article: 101566 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:26:59 -0600 Message-ID: References: <2hlgt11412cqb72lm3br4qtsb2il7u3p6n@4ax.com> Jumping into the middle of a thread with a single, but useful, comment, Steve, K9DCI says: "Gary Schafer" wrote in message news:nmsit19q25el331ev90tk8djq0ri5egpmu@4ax.com... > On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:31:08 -0500, Straydog wrote: > > > > > > >On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Gary Schafer wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:09:48 -0500, Straydog wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Since my earlier post (dealing with the question of what is peak evelope > >>> power output in an AM transmitter), I've been doing more scrutinizing > >>> of tube Ip/Vp characteristic curves. They are much more non-linear than > >>> the impression you get from just looking at the curves. Also, it is rare > >>> or almost non-existant to find Ip vs screen voltage! Probably because the screen and supressor grids are not the main controlling grids, but are there only to reduce Ip vs. Vp and control secondary emission off the plate respectively. > >>> Lets look at the venerable 833 (from my RCA TT-3 transmitting tube > >>> manual). This is a KW input class C triode. > >>> > >>> From the curve: > >>> at zero grid volts, 1 kV on the plate gives 175 ma plate current > >>> 2 kV 500 ma > >>> That's more than a doubling of Ip for a doubling of Vp > >>> > >>> at minus 50 grid volts, 2 kV on the plate gives 50 ma plate current > >>> 4 kV 750 ma ... OK OK TWO comments... I think someone else pointed out that this is a static situation and in a circuit, the supply voltage and the plate voltage are not the same thing when you have a tank circuit in there. 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 101567 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: More on PEP, AM, average power, etc. Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:33:22 -0600 Message-ID: References: <2hlgt11412cqb72lm3br4qtsb2il7u3p6n@4ax.com> <0m7jt19blpu5a113nem2940o2hv5h2e2ga@4ax.com> "Straydog" wrote in message news:Pine.NEB.4.63.0601271707530.11605@panix1.panix.com... ,... > >> What is a further issue is why the FCC decided to drop steady DC input > >> (easily measured with a plate current meter) in favor of making PEP output > >> measurement the new criterion by which transmitter power is to be > >> measured. The only thing I can think of is that there were, in the far > >> past, some AM amateurs who were running some form of ultra modulation or > >> super modulation and putting KWs of audio on a 1 KW DC input to the final > >> signal and the FCC didn't like that. Maybe if any of you have some > >> background on this, you could mention it. While possibly (probably) true... DC was easy to measure (by hams) and RF power difficult to measure in the early days. As time progressed, RF power became easier to measure and, after all, was the thing which would cause trouble as far as interference was concerned. 73, Steve, K9DCi Article: 101568 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: hhkenx@optonline.net Subject: Amateur Sisters Shower Time With Dildo... 5563 [1/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:27:15 GMT Here i post secret cam pics of my younger sister (big tits) in the shower getting it on with her dildo, i know its sick but i want to get into filming porn so i picked her as my first subject. Download her here, hope you like her :) vjkimjzwrdwcvnezblzvwfkyqwszrlbjeqvwtjhxyhghkoxzlcotgqndppoksshkmewbpxgfsjfzoyxjznxm Article: 101569 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: mddwix@optonline.net Subject: MOTHER AND SISTERS XMAS DILDO LESSON 676 [1/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:54:04 GMT Hi Sick i know but i filmed my own mother showing my sister how to use a dildo 1 night over the xmas period, Download the pics here and hope you enjoy :) bfcbhifitfbrhkrpnwywltgbyoextemslvkhztfkjfxnhtjvofjkmxipehxt Article: 101570 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: mddwix@optonline.net Subject: MOTHER AND SISTERS XMAS DILDO LESSON 676 [2/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:54:05 GMT begin 644 MomsisterXmas26.12.scr M35J0``,````$````__\``+@`````````0``````````````````````````` M````````````````````@`````X?N@X`M`G-(;@!3,TA5&AI,P@23)=#$K0^P1TH8A!'J*>AQ6J%81;8&*(\"(8B+AJ=>H6*L0FB:#UKR<; M`7H@"VK^HI*).:V`3`,0+C!@__L?S"D[.70U4B0DL5V:C:J8S7`+(06#&R&X MX53_7Z_1UW\PH>!CLD/B@[7?ZO4K\HFK#E%[J8MDM`@0=?^WA>0B>H3H.A9I MA7WB.H7`?_@$A)G!,/PLEH_>%*6,"9`9#+!T3'LUROT2L/!#FCCO)"(>X"_1 M_#$`#C1V@V+.4`Y[D6'N#[4TA"-N!,+1['X:I0L]1CM5K?;G!8AK"!"AL`0# MS-$@#%3%58#F1IP9@D)4X@@!>4$Q=X!GS\8O!S6UC(.5GLM*=$D)I(U13+MT MY=(%GM`-FGA1IJ]-K8)T&^L-6"T,!T)HX\<$%Z<,F*&4"#+!4Y!^0U/V*.QY M'"WN>A?[KY:S0#$D#(@%CTY_+"QM,:CG0DYPS4@<%'$:XO5^#_?\6+`F(GLY*; M2N'#XFX^`1ZEHP@_5)@/`7UR?%(`8NSO#E:/=8_G/."`M:_4L0R(L,(*J0!I\U2PU<2@/'S:I^&!%(3K"Y MW#SQ[Z3O2C$[/T9MR8BS.+,0IM`=/)YXO+@A"R0&L.\[S3^!%,#E>I%BAG2) MF!;EZ.OIXX(!2"V#M0S."&R_-5A/+-#Z2JZIP5$$A"+J2^0FPHGA`P?G!/S) M`/JE)OX<$'$]$7L)5%Y<"L,[IRC2I1S$!PI3EG!9',N=@9Q=RL&Z0(D#8]C8 MQ+D($J;$A"&X-FB\DF[`'-39%O@"CC"7@JEFWX#<@RYP%=0MGJ@D@3Q!I)#* MQ`=AUU.B)<)/4()F_Z>3:@&%F,508[08J/HQ$@N/8Y'*/TNP!*M:4/M'_?T$ MYZ%50)GU.]%'C]F/AL(HAP5V+4YQNIKB:ZIJTD8H MJ)@F["9A[*0G/FH4`!77LBY7%C,>SYF_PL;#Y<`:0]@%,NH[@3@QD8.YZ?\9 MI+!"8IPSC:H?J`S(+:F?0=N[U!0++4IHPZT0'O3`HO@WTGKN3HH)B?2+N99E M5)KRH*]4,-B-U9IF?"U@5I`I!-;74F14I(H=J#\QF5T05HMYZOHOD\1VP<\K MP4;.R_M#R9S@G$T:6]7UG%YTWX:K>WXHN@86*(V@@B>.$/R0=N"M01`=H)BY M3!Y=XW$@8*"A>;[(3R-<'O30XDE*J7070P$&B\_1ANM,K`%/532/.XQ8,-?E M+P<).9@B*!#PHNX+G!L0'%%"UP7M589;<$!R1P&=R]_SC[N*GTO-2!I39,5M MF@_-'D4^R54GZ&DI1,T`J,Z*OI9*HR!\4#Q7\@N_`:$R2`'M-S(H@JI;GF-4 MH](]7]TZXC(3"=+&>C'%[VL+OJ,E"1KE\E`0<$LH.ELVOJ*@\Y'W<\QYF!@: M8M_!%-Q.%@W0_QB<,$$T^GR6)?)M"PGA7$&2-%J@IVW,VPA.Y3AWK2O*-#A/ M8'TCBHPN614**J&5VI26@,UMWYFY2_%?(VI!@[:_4BQ;IQHI:C+BI@U3.C@+ MP#;_96`XK!>$V$*MP$\=4\_1^LF?'$.("1'6I2PID\P-+OS`>Y`M3\.L@=1& M'U)[D18Y7X3>K@QUBBF;&GNHNS<9O(]11]'S((8C+H+"_GP055\*/"IF9(G6 M@1JI@$-6\^57T(+._O@+'[K[*SD[CGJS]\2?GD,,.)!*XJ:*O)" MH%4$U7P/<$((-C5;1/L0?[*E(NN/.@'-16.RA8%IJ!5B+&,$E^LN';W18H9@ M:5R]%8ZKXY26P[',H&&X>MP;#&"J5X(-MHK5)ODJ<`U$Z!:``F'\KS]ACZ&H MU_*AU5)G4031PC=\&B?_O&XXB=A5(`*U%Q`QMA8JR M%]2H/UE3D>@`N9N%O^CQ^@0LO&Z7=44V2('*7B1I-HL]I]H\Z!2LDG![3*!8 MHF8N2)Y`(K*RD.)/?+#(D0^0Q<\<-69.DU/@^*LN)U6@^"$/>![Q^Y,8#\TB M1-=*_8FM2\:_ZDTI76'BA!2$X1^9:$D'K'`!I0I/ M71A4^"HR(Q0.+Z59X!QHX%24#+!BII,(D:#Q#C>'+1(5S=AD"B6'3,G6!DZ& M?E+Y'\P''X,84Z'G:$4%:%U7[JD"Q_/1U=*V$J&JB(TT(VFDM(#"\F?D5Z!7 M@E]B4)%7-+-I!(DI1XFF[DK_UPE9V&:":1`*C1Z(#N8T*0(B_,OY,((?567T MB\WKTA:8$2"9)MCL;&N9*P-#Y*TP0F^-P=2-`5>&*I5@W!1'Z7(P-$B2I'HX M6IE4".32T9(%^E6);&W!!SN7`'[LRZ.1N;X(2]\.KB\W8*#XAT?`E:9G%HMGAT ML1T1#@Y$42_V_`&%PD.@@X8,E`JLB(DV%CCR;6@8=AJ'[OK%!5GPP?AI=3D1"ODK6H8?FCW7/N+"B4!6.>AF(;M(O`@8%QD`^7*7'JP% MBE8%*-J89#@7D[.%OL1''R34`P*4@KH8#8TE0E6CA;H.6'@=S)`M%WNQ)528 M"6[0S*&=>AFRQR'R;4RI#`0!<;-H;0)-J`-"E'=?,X3"TK$QDJ[]&*`*Z**U M*A`QNO-J7GTN*ZD1`[D6,99H(&D,T=L<7CXGU0DJ@\_2`99*.O]%5HJ#-8?S M;T(4^'M2 M?A[QMH17=G1ACR,2):UY>?'DS&I.+?_YVP/)EGAB':E^=L-@-9KJ8H2"^9T, M64R=:I.98--5+KI6+4II2Z&.(VO+%5Z&5?A+DW[H-*-,H#8#%&&8`U09 MY0/<'"4-U!RECF)*O+4:C7D:\DE8`.=$C_1L:,GI9\\)^"^U0]4`QI-AQ3R+ M/,.@?1]/K8"(E*J7P,'<<^=5"D)^@-*(97C&A)SA\[:KGS[5TP2E*SI%8 M0L<30I(&DB97$WQCIOR'HVXCZCQIZ6-3Q\94Y*&+F5J-6CF5V,N_P!/-2"]4 M:ISUHYXII9WJMO.Z]4PQP:X_V-.$.RZ4&5\0*0Y6*R"I(8X[X#%7'T&ICI2T M4[DSUBXD=9LH+*ZH@ZN@JY>5;2:E2-EN;"00S8L_]/`PF62WAM+<>[2EY]S! MBG/?3Q:[,)1.V%13PP"GXVWO#&'%?=L27^0';(2C=%%N%.C22`>H77#M`NU^ M-,$CD\:+V$3/X%Q4S@93"1IL,(^PXG^/[-FB7*%BD=,-E*>O"88#B+\+]0X#2F"U9B?;] MJ'G%+\"UYBBSM*&H(LV$#0FXVY@EC($''N1VR=L\Q#TGE3?:H,J-\>*[&$-9 M_(WVJF'%@'*NB-!5*I'RHRB%C:+(HD'G0"ZS'!5<@2;1&I9W;>)N6VP(U7*E M0T;T$F0LB!"&J#]N:#V`-FX=Y]G$YZ7^C>1SQ=%:[0'>IFJ91(Z.*J9!9CV= M88?1;PFSE.JJYN M2[@IXND(+9),U-26S.1ZBE:BM4@L*-[->)$JOUPO6'^)[D#Z#DV\NP.^$40 MKO[0NIPX^LE#17$T"%<+6F90BIT-6Y%1;*&05#V8U*.4;OO M`:33#QZ4Q3OFQCQ[S;@/%"-M MO+5&8'SD&1EK`*P8YGF^-,2>!PH2OS3*]X%TZ'M%1XB4+[2^@<^]$IU.^-G1 M5JR&19U/<@^EI`(:*7XK%%-[$,$ZJ7-],2=94FY`_B+X;A":\8<%1BJE)0T( M!JY/B)$,!`;I;@=_/ZI+_G2]7*(MI,0>"C@)*=)0RO%#^T+.$5](V'V.%Q+V MNH'4RN/]Y\MM;-/INHN_#U%B@^J#B9FN/ MR1VAV">[T:S'[CSR/V65)/XWGI0J"W_*(J<<.8^E!-("Q[R1"N"\O4+I<=)' MC^"YC>?ZIS>++:))M#/IM[,]F6[40@C9/5E&RX5L;X[*M(@^O2P8E%.OF$0. M@I.I5(\7]8_KXJ0J3)G#]=+9AV/$5"[?<\Q$:Q001:PVCYN;KM0$=`TW/3*L%U/P6)TE M+L@XQSOL,8VLN\D9Z2H4:&E(`=#"$J*A2R?T3<*(78QJX5?O6S<*^D6#&5Q6 MRL4=90\Z7.E2-!O,DL8%VOM6F*&C=NW((%8G)@@YC\:+A12]]Y*!U&#$5.9` M!P*QZ1'$9E>"C24JP7H'=H)6E5\#:*VE6(YUC32[S!>T%CGQ4$J*;@^ M5WHR*3_%CA)!*B!1"YVV&22S"&,4J#8#1C%;=8J(N=71`[J%KI41)U3:BT%8) MKP9>'RM?L+)2RW0'50:X\%+V4:92)J*1:WKLYXNVT;H<(/VI/UPF4&4.*M9[ M<4LQO&O&`JC>3OP=-9C0?14J-6+*!P&-$T';VA7_*CJK/\_1W3Q#&Z@RE(?/ M'V7C%!TT#?U42.,MJTGSKZPKAT&`L1;WI+5+3D/M8%V"`YC#<E^B?]FX@XOIZ83)NP MCP<_:&`!&A@S+A'72:&P8*T99:I`BB$PHP.J-9@YFOG$*'^@`%!'U-0\R M^$_H`SS2`(`3F:<.-$:T&3C`L1HS5`L0`)4"IU`JV/0Q0MW&NT+=-0RD#]^C M8$=C+PBL3L3Y%]>6/H*4X7EAS_$8^V7??+)>G&QABS92O_.H/UT.$$V91[P" MC(N1^PI/&=50_=61VT^VMQT:CO7J>Y$28PQNYX#K_E$6`Y1JT^N]DRCXVO6, M$4^^Y5>PA@L?/''4ZJ>HOQ_S4PR/1*Z4-H>31$Q'S!GE4]"L.'_&:/=>M[!Q M-8!IR"P5ULBBVYM12C_KB;,<%)>-+CGF[6M(^;D=Y`&>A>`KB-]((M^:52N3GY7OO::VB1^Y0 MA:QL"$(*>?'O4)5OOI7L*BV0%JFT,];0,(L=)!T1,2(I5J%J(\:JV=5(<=&! M.N>JN;@B>Y)Y997BK=N5,RO_92-Z,?K*:VW8F&EQ_B0!VJG#FZNL*DW?4.]2 M`8%C*(.O8'"59@HZ@NA'RRI1;2`H3]R%4EQIY]>YOOE2FKGQSIJ`](*8ZLBOXE6?D8#1V%LHSK\4.Z"L0K0%BC1KDRS/=[SJ($TS+@.,R<.)

AA#9@46P3)A942$6Q\1)%@UF!P1]>5NT*GHCHNZFU]UIE"W*?/DQ MP?0J^%PI0P+96Y5AKX_.H&`A$MQ,_P&#&6.QQH3JT:X&'1@CG?I3Z>CU2L7N`60]T!39)%XGKA?&9SE%.DZ$P7>A0?^Z"!8X(@2 MO^,1RD`S0N.I0O4H4]5=#2ES&VEY6@BB96JY0;I2*\JK"_8C'(\K0?VY(7QOMP:^!]^"H+8%1P+:K@D<$UO5DDV2+$UK0E@2U6/I;+)M_B[WF M_X;`Y'8%1`*#V*,-Z0ZFK1W:[:,S$IY'4X_M@\B@9U20>8+"38IZ MAZ+"(SEAU&\HP@:A%^]`G$DFC&V_&D@A:K\L^0=FU)T.PW"4V;5%'.G'3\L' M()IU`AZ&G"-W22B/K^.U\9"J@0CAVHKXXU_U4AAUX,C?QD/#2PP]C'.Z9?XD M_#$0Z6=R9R"GEW*PZY7Y\UA,\5A&FR!A2OG[C\;^C("A0>%R:!1W:A*=\5'M MXLM\-'2Y")#,"*BC5/?76/PPH!#QP$!A'!3@J_T/;-V`!-5R5'TGRL@;,.YN M0W,H$C9.M"BRH'I=P?1^0L\%(B=H#_U=CSVQK*%#22T$8#_Q$ MQE\OL*Y"<19(7!EB*DP$DZ.0H]3-B:(IM4[:K3R2MCN1]:`)R^I]%#!U483Q MBGQ%G?1X(B9\,QEJ#>]-E`J"8'+!K^4\7P`IEZ8U*OH8U30>"@X^-50J[BC8 M1Q\*O!^TQVOO0-O4/V@K3B#X'ZLJRZS:"J2PJ.O:9#I[P\9]HV&XBU=)?^V% M<5$3%=I2"U24F3/,XWJ*ZDO-03!\#BG1U8D3]@"50+0%$X!H]BX*?3B8=@%9 MV;W']I\FMDFN2B09*MRSRB)AN/UB%%$?J1=*XH8_I@VG6= MC"5AS@^2;[IN%>A"44#:T5VNY;B38K=N85(AV75JC8BK96_"D*.2S"]:55(* MK48[&NZ#YQH==\<=^GDP^)UM]>BHYKN,.SU<^4%:J!Y`BU$K(Z5=1I-2?E0G M^<*)UUR.UP$=X`SPEPI0GY8B2[,0&1:\SXI_Q3ZJ,\H=,;Q,?JBY:/<81:JC MTNPK35)M2WM$,&(I1?3YOCGI*$>0)%J(]>;H;2W@AV"?9A,-0SOCGW]>,`K" M:)JI\X8_"S]_W/33$\6LZ\_FO M1/)14`9:TX!(E(F,K)#L.JX?&\;83%46;0R)Z`/U.W=J3Q<4E10770YE\%[< MJ:SKTWDWA4V;3%=T])@O1+LBOMPH()%5]T23;)B M$;712L@I^OUX7Q=W:7L+I9M=5\Z!]9CO?`4A0F^+OPS`?\V(<@.+*LO]6`%; M;:Y@56U=E8/>2Y4)>4SB5EF=/?1>40%CR$F(OH`3`NZ5`'B2^(<0&O@41 M`2"FZ("4S!V@?HOR5%_FKFYA;#$6/;NX%AJ(1>I&"XMPET4/"*)IF!)Y]+`S M&*FK'MIUVT5A'V>"3[=F[<`K:E,\RX59M$#YG]2B%%894ARE>N-KHXXW@W@_ M$+F2ZNK3SU%0C9%W`D]O`N\7@*J*UHL/.W\C6JMI5[,EN4N:Z9]R4+3?,ON, MRT.ER@?59`,RZZ"/T+%[&(E5+:A`S,NFBKCPV6(K\F"T]<.JZ6B12A`:GN67 M=1QE]/FBJ"]VHE]'4@_VDG2-QHFHP(=Z##?:^ZR$T+5DI71,!"_C.`TH<;?! MLH363V@'2)OKLW8V\+0\4+EQ2+4^J>Z+JLPZDH'Z[2US^O!Z=#8?\_"Q=!_)GFAUPZ.6'/C<45 M):FUI*AZZM.Z`JD0KD_9HU561F^DZ(GM)\O+U@$3>?]0CM$^>)OK%0X*,S:E MVPVCN0OMGSA331K%1Q)$F@25H>7VJ48AE7XU.$J+Z2$4]6D<:R9\@6BWZ^;2:@N!@`3IA"JK('E5X M%+F\N2DG>T=)%LA''*BU/#?GM+QE]V@U4\N3&SXC=0>3GN?,D2^2L%Z5*`]&"CPZ>V+HI>.KCMRJM*9ZB#@J?*,>&S>"12(LR M8K14%'U!Z5-6H%"BS>I;0Q_?_2W)P8;S#=VW!UW_R*0@FF"D5Q*M)^(PZ&*K M4Q;919+DB+XJ"F(,4#">J)_(>QU?$7OO'`3`TC!4$8Q7!5@$ MW=:5:FS;M'1C80JR+<6R-HK92N>%D46")7*+VIDM)V]N!"?-PVH(X9#(0I+:51@`-3X[@(^0C:M#`8?#I6: MM$N;=D'2"R6F91L6[9IBR)8X6.1>ER.T)1\!`)(H,$`_\!I(1`;*Q2-%!+Z> M#S/<(Y6-Y8GB%QB8/!](-@%+>GT>SF&/\&T<0"@`?1+UB(86P23LGKX"'X'.^[UD`/"P`G?(,*=$0K$`#.#!>$,- M:$`#OL'[_`3>X6F@QH.?A]/:!!50R(2VLLX*T%A!*+-R=XT#<\%9&IJ&>+K9 M.O6S<^2`XF$-D64*X*0UT]7#(9RN":/PP%1'1Z@#&PK8GBV4@+%8J@)W;'T3 MUB:_HE4%6`2Q@]MP62W083%V#3?7 MTL18FA8AZ`XR#&?'!K$M7[Y^"3Y"1T9L\?(`(0P$IJ`91[$K0X MD%[_3NP8(H;A?I&3EM*9+G!HQNLG$(NYA#B$P5#V8T>C!>G1"):&V!D&S)F" M_%@3+L9K>.%]Q@GSN'./&0+04\R-D'6!/0,Q!A20;LP$SDUEY,5BBF"06[B\ M;6KK[PV)>SUWSA43<&,\X&\C+X)G$9ZCA.+FAL$R)3A26!PDA2$(!$=Q+-)! M`*[^50W!`2^LNRLG;,W47]U*O4DI2P4").0$UW8)/3_L!Q;I7E`/+OK(S1B1 M"ACU0:4(T#6&CFP:"T=Z1%7CH MF`@V&_1I3B4RZ>+A9W]C+))VSA`G96)LH3.14LY"H?+EHZ(B*-*E#CX3Q'+1 MF;0R8/P--.B9KH%6;3U=L_$`E>W6+-L\4PP"G,AQ., MX"E@)P1DD(/V''NJ501$J"D8%S4>VS'X01NX*4F'*TS9-\IX#`I,/"",^@`# M,A4XRN;AJ6)NT1&;<32@+.&.1&@PP>&%2S$-_M9,`1JJ,5@Q?H[DK3#.>B6I M5@#CZ0`)OJ0PX<'JC1@0F^_NW2/R69&/3X()KKAQTT%D13%;05]P;%&`,,<9 MLPAIN+^16VJ[<)#L4M,#5#3:22P$UP95,L7F40\U*"D&-^@PVO_ MG'I[5R:9.Y.EQ1;VD,`'T@?J:F%0FK.4@/)\QM)J5%`2XY)DT+HM/(-4YR+,!S@H\'!0@H$T44Y/4@$3&'HP+&>G@#1J`%[*021-F\^9,,$PA$J-`@$B.H),"DB"\L:+1HWNQ MSB+%H-Y"F\PE66*V;H0&MC=9ZX"M%H&'BG2%8HW,%)1$!*!GI"@/%)N&,^"2 M)D0"-35:XQLF82=.K9A/G%6$G&HUZ8#1*=7QAJ8#A+)V"5%5=) M3E2_Y$.Y/9C%@["$JBU&U1(.Z"#6@XIDK388+:"0K7(6*Y.RLY+,TTZ5`@S1 M>WH!YM@!F46#DF+BRKR.5'ND&+5AJRE9V&B4R@/WZ%E5S4"H;V%\>W=Q/;U" M6^IE6#A""=)7Q\&5D)(DQ-)F=665')O&R.D)'\1NC=1M5Z'XC(!$36?(P];T M,[L:T%#+00Y0[!2L-*\0[+QB>0!82DJ\#M-IY8D$/&VTN!'SX#()+*K#``@6 M20IL35A#.^,+C2Y`#;,-08UD$&:615I=J,TIS2@[&`WE`3.**NEP0UB M0Y:$!02\Y*,RCER$_'QT:\AH5PVWMT7I@CNT;5TL=(P-)MH_8]E/)A*97RUM"W2&`-5$'8%$\U%E"@O$44(ND9?H>A@]PBW1@*'5IT?4 MH?P29PFX1-8C2#15">8H$>=UT]F1V=D,L`#4,0"B+A&/[QR&7BK-4.*<$<`1 ML$I$)<(KH96)L\18)>02;93H2]Q1A$P31%,B*1)4B:A+;"6N+4&6`+@$6R+N M$G()^$OP)81.(Y13(BEA4HFG!)7CM`H`N#&`8BP!CNTVER'A@8\525+`R7E#V91@1(65+*14-1--]H)M";A)3]IYHI^`+"\,8C M,5N?>S7[1$;.D=-<&F4)7D("KN0)-L[:`$9IC,(\!F#,5&X6XGZ//`Q&#,M8 M,OTL[-!*'AR*>=)9\LOG$(-W&&`,LRI.'G,_+YXXC[(TI>29HGO4L[PP$WXE M6^5D5HHW#N/*@N<`)C*GEVI>0!^,"Q+X2F)>+VHI<'9BB>=WW2J.GRC+P5*. MK7-@ZJ&SRHL"IZ"HJ.)'*(QE*6L"7RWS@R,(Z"`P$2".`H@*K+&/"2./+Z:E MH2C#!4AHA,'7NQ&"^04A%@S&/#NT%(01)=_^#1P',8"D%3XX4^CYSKVT4O?+ ME(L%,0"OGQSXA^45ZT1F$*:P?&ZLU&R862RQWF,J;(0_@3+ZH]75)%^Y28D: MRU!BET",,O(T:``"$PO;N&&;:G0,Y>5'03!F,0@U:&R974BML$IRH+E!$;0- MD=M91]2ABNPJ`$YPBC?6L5:;#$1S1;`A0"1V*PB`>%O*K6HH6&SLKED3"JBY MQF!8QJ)0@CNT``Z!<`2Y.#Q`@)P'5W:+V00`!H$&!``.@7`$M7 M@\0(,?_K"VCT`0``Z!<`2'M':@!H$&!``&C`>T``Z!<`2!L)P'4%@_\%?-MH MP'M``&@EFD``C85D_?__4.@7`$L_@\0,:@5J`(V%9/W__U!H$&!``&AGG4`` M:@#H%P!%_VH`Z!<`1T_H%P!'EV@@FD``4.@7`$N3@\0(B<8)]G0FB?&#R/]` M@#P!`'7Y@_@(=A5HT`<``.@7`$A[B?"#P`10Z!<`1T-HRI!``&H!:@#H%P!( MMZ/4?D``Z!<`1Z,]MP```'4':@#H%P!'3V@$`0``:,![0`!J`.@7`$>O:`0! M``!H`````-CLB#$````````#``,````H``"`#@```$```(`0````6```@``` M``#8[(@Q`````````0`!````<```@`````#8[(@Q``````$```#H``"`B``` M@`````#8[(@Q`````````0`!````H```@`````#8[(@Q`````````0`)!``` MN`````````#8[(@Q`````````0`)!```R`````````#8[(@Q`````````0`) M!```V`````"Q```(!@`````````````(MP``%```````````````'+<``,0" M``````````````<`00!0`%``20!#`$\`3@```````````"@````4````*``` M``$`"```````X`$```````````````````````#___\`_?W]`+Z^O@"ZN+@` MN[FY`(:'AP"`@(``P,#``#`P,```````JZZO`/#O[P!K:VL`75U=`+2RL@!R M<7$`AH2$`*RJJ@#7U]<`T-#0`,G(R``X-S<`.#DY`)>5E0"^OK\`=W9V`(V, MC`#4TM(`N+>W`,3$Q`"HIZ<`1T='`$Q,3`#.S]``[M[5`*:GJ`!85U<`JJFI M`)R:F@!>7EX`?WQ\`,7$Q`#FYN8`?'Q\`$E*2P#&QL8`2TM+`(>&A@!V=G8` M.CHZ`$]/3P"LK*P`GIZ>`$A(2`!!04$`B8B(`%A86`"*BHH`,3$Q`*&@H`!) M24D`='1T`/GY^0#__OX`8F)B`#0T-`"?G9T`34U-`(*"@@"WM;4`Y.7E`(^/ MCP!]?'P`[>WM`+R\O`!Z>GH`S7D` MC(R,`+FYN0"ZNKH`MK:V`)V=G0!_?W\`*RLK`"\O+P`S,S,`*BHJ`!@8&``: M&AH`$Q,3`!L;&P`U-34`-C8V`#L[.P`*"@H````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````5Q$7 M%QH&&4<1"P``"TU5`````$TW!P0W10,H4A<:$BD/#4(````^-U$20UD-!RTH M)Q&RE24R@7%``````+%P``114@-@X2&SLD4E)1 M``````<"``!.,F8G44U1$PTR)!$`````.QM%*0`2)A).*!D;$%A2%P`````F M)A4V`P$^`!I/;B@[-AD7/@```!HG-C80&R`40#8?#3LN&29)````-R0V-B@4 M)Q0G-A\G'A\9)@L````7!E@U%Q0B*A!!%4<.6"@7/@```#L.%S<[1QD.&Q`0 M31I91R8`````*1%,11%````````1``-``$`1@!I`&P`90!$`&4```N`&\`<@!G``````!$``T``0!/`'(`:0!G`&D`;@!A`&P`1@!I`&P` M90!N`&$`;0!E````4P!C`'(`90!E`&X`(`!3`&$`=@!E`'(``````%``&``! M`%``<@!O`&0`=0!C`'0`3@!A`&T`90``````1`!I`'(`90!C`'0`+0!3`&4` M>``@`%,`8P!R`&4`90!N`"``4P!A`'8`90!R````+``$``$`4`!R`&\`9`!U M`&,`=`!6`&4`<@!S`&D`;P!N````,0`N`#````!(`````0!6`&$`<@!&`&D` M;`!E`$D`;@!F`&\``````"@`!````%0`<@!A`&X`$8D%D,UIZ-+^Y=5-:`H=?2A+52K4)JU*L6++2/ M?@B\,$NX^$QYT/IJV-)FPBUA(/3%&ZNM;UCJ5>0%9ZC=A]5HX&"`2X"(&[U7 MJU962),OW/C)0H4B@,W_9S(Q!O!V52ID`D([F#+X&`<0)#X8<9`N6?U7KRR@ MS[UY<-=(8&I(WSX`P:>=AYT;PU1,K8D#9!DG,(%@@$D&3,9$M=)RBVZ@&DE+ M3Z!])9D&31//N/_Q#R;A@1*Z?3&96G03[(/6A#4-`JO-AYA?$KP/Q(42E?"# MD=>LI#$2IG^Q(16\<@+@,WG*!ZZ6[V+51-'[`M\-?:VIPVBK=DA=8]^0F3O@#5DP!!>4>M=A];NWKAT'@93%9AW4!08@^N`U# M!$[Q\)7$4[Z1()A^,,$/;*\O7>09D*#O@#Y>3]"H"U=37J@G0@A!G:_T6;\B M:NH*,,@%#(W>-MI"J;-VKJJ?$F@5J$0;*:REZ"G9>[`.;L`.:(T_A9!<#UF6 MR2T(&%6R\F(#4IH;PI)Z-<8"PD*PL-7KR5@>K#[3P%'EQB*)1:W'5FEB2RH$ M.(7T_._?V4*UA)4"B1G1X@@*!Y@'6TD8Z=I??Z#=<*X]1"_)+92K&/JE8/SP MZT;X)/]P3(A9^!PN-H"%$/&Q([!N\@*+]1QHE#9K#1/G856X1UH*)Y8:-=T( MUV35*C4"2;(;7"Q=Y8+!!V>98/M"#_=(?7`'3.[Q@<$#@P2(M`5[H!"72G:V M0,(HKE3[0`,,+$PR449S0XT!:B3""XK,1:7=W)#`@S9V6,/U.1K34'XU;102 MW+";Y\4T;64GO5MUX^#KUN:!@#^P!,9F@<^<&9Y#.:$!#`2ZQ%#I'V$EPH." MA^O&&!`%`02!#]N>:$W74$#>A.D'(YI92G0(HZK42U)#Z,88S$;,`](=+$/B>\!```#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y$])S0KT``0`` MN0@````SP(VD)``````%``````/2=0B+%H/&!/D3TA/`277OB`='3776`])U M"(L6@\8$^1/2+V.GG````@_D"#X3M````03/`D`/2=0B+%H/&!/D3 MTA/`277OB40D%.E&_O__N0$```"0`])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\D#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y M$])RY$E)=3&+P[D!````C:0D`````(O_`])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\D#TG4(BQ:# MQ@3Y$])RY.EI````28O!BTPD%(OH,\#3Y3/``])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\!)=>\+ MQ8O8N0$```"-FP`````#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y$](3R0/2=0B+%H/&!/D3TG+D/0`` M`0!S%#W_-P``EW_?__C6PD M&(MT)""#?@8`=$Z+3@*+="0D,\"#^01R,XVD)`````"-9"0`BQX#P]'C@],! M,\.#Q@2#Z01T%8/Y!'/HN@0````KT2ORN00```#KV(MT)"`[1@9T!#/`ZP:+ MQRM$)"1>7UO)P@@`````````P```#````+8P```````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` *```````````````` ` end Article: 101571 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: "Benjamaniac" Subject: Re: How old are you? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:15 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1138669094.511626.286550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> I'll be 50 here real shortly. Ben wrote in message news:1138669094.511626.286550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Just a question that has been rattling around in the gourd. What age > group are B/A enthusiast-type folks here on the Net? I know we have the > folks from when they (the B/A's) were the most active (and I'm talking > SX11 here), but I wonder if there's a large following of Boomers that > picked up on it too. I only say this because I don't see as many > 30's-40's-50's people at the Hamfests and other gatherings as I see my > elders (Gentlemen, all). So the question bubbles up outta the tar? How > old are the folks on rec.radio.amateur.boatanchor? > rgds, Mark S. > Article: 101572 of rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors From: " Ron in Radio Heaven" References: <1138669094.511626.286550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: How old