Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nice Amplifier  (Read 23226 times)
KD8MJR
Member

Posts: 2157




Ignore
« Reply #75 on: May 31, 2013, 04:16:00 PM »

But despite them making a "loss", the executives still get very large bonuses and pay rises!

 Grin Grin
Logged
WI8P
Member

Posts: 260




Ignore
« Reply #76 on: June 01, 2013, 07:50:34 AM »

But despite them making a "loss", the executives still get very large bonuses and pay rises!

Including the ones at companies that go bankrupt!  I'm not making this up - I saw it at Dephi Corp.
Logged
9A7PJT
Member

Posts: 30


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #77 on: June 01, 2013, 12:58:04 PM »

I have this model, http://www.rmitaly.com/scheda.asp?IDGr=1&cat=0&tipo=99 , . . . Get away from that company as far away Undecided. . .


                                                                                                                                 73 PJT
Logged
WD5GWY
Member

Posts: 392




Ignore
« Reply #78 on: June 01, 2013, 01:33:38 PM »

I have this model, http://www.rmitaly.com/scheda.asp?IDGr=1&cat=0&tipo=99 , . . . Get away from that company as far away Undecided. . .


                                                                                                                                 73 PJT
Not defending RM Italy, but, that series of amplifiers is quite different
than the HLA series of amps that they manufacture. Little to no filtering
at all. And is really intended for the 11 meter crowd. IF, I HAD to choose
between that amplifier and the HLA-300V, I'd buy the HLA-300V. At least,
with it, you can keep the drive level low and it will not produce near as much
splatter as that amplifier does. That amp sells for half the price of the HLA-300V
and there is a reason for that.
james
WD5GWY
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20565




Ignore
« Reply #79 on: June 01, 2013, 07:33:52 PM »

I work in military electronics and the government allows us a profit of 10%. Right now we are in financial loss mode as are many military suppliers.

Apple for the quarter ending March 30, 2013 had gross income of $43B and net profit of $9.5B. That's 22%. Not bad if you can do it.

Military contractors can make whatever profit they wish to make if they offer something nobody else can offer.

We (my company) makes the real time processors for the Global Hawk and Predator and also the old U-2, which is still flying.  If our profit margins were only 10%, we'd be long gone, and they know that.

It's probably more like 50%.  It doesn't really matter; if you can offer something that's otherwise unavailable and still needed, it's irrelevant.
Logged
KE3WD
Member

Posts: 5694




Ignore
« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2013, 05:59:54 AM »

BIK -- Just make sure you offer product that can't ever be designated as COTS...
Logged
N4ATS
Member

Posts: 808




Ignore
« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2013, 09:39:26 AM »

"Just make sure you offer product that can't ever be designated as COTS..."

Nice one , I work with COTS items all the time nat the plant , better yet not "MCOTS"
Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 5973




Ignore
« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2013, 05:41:42 PM »

Here is an interesting article that discusses cost-plus government contracts.

http://www.crowell.com/documents/docassocfktype_articles_471.pdf

It states that the government limit on profit is 10%. Fixed-price contracts may or may not garner more profit. The bidding entity will often pad the quote to ensure they don't lose money. The downside of this is that another contractor can underbid them. So when it's all said and down defense contractors make a profit of around 10%.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20565




Ignore
« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2013, 06:10:45 PM »

So when it's all said and down defense contractors make a profit of around 10%.
There's different kinds of profit.

We have several military contracts with "gross" profit margins in the 50% range.  But that's not "net" profit, which is harder to define.

This shouldn't matter to the government.  What should matter is "value."  If a contractor makes 90% gross margin, but they're the only one in the world who can do a particular job that is required, and the budget allows for that expense, who cares? Wink

We make the RTC systems for the Global Hawk, Predator, U-2, etc.  The technology is "old" but the systems are very unique and include a lot of I.P. the Fed never paid for.  They can either pay us what we ask, or just kill these programs.  Their choices are pretty limited.  These are all considered "COTS," but good luck trying to find someone else to build them; that could take several years of R&D which no sane company would invest without a guaranteed manufacturing contract.

Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4467




Ignore
« Reply #84 on: June 03, 2013, 12:08:19 AM »

The tortuous government procurement bid process is expensive (sometimes very expensive!) for a contractor, and that needs to be considered when figuring out the eventual profit.
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 916




Ignore
« Reply #85 on: June 03, 2013, 01:25:08 AM »

Introducing ITU  and FCC type acceptance requirements for transmitter IMD wont be  cost burden. Its just another  5 minute  test  and a tick in a box. All these tests are automated with pass fail IMD masks.

Reading how poorly this issue is understood  by  hams, shows why there is need for type acceptance or laws for minimum IMD standards. Hams seem to have turned into black box operators that are  no different to a marine VHF radio user or a CB operator. End users  who have  very little interest in operating  practices that is considerate of others. If there is no interest in the technical aspects of operating a  unregulated transmitter in a considerate manner, then  hams have really lost their technical credibility and  license to do  what they want under the guise of  technical experimentation. Dumb'ed down radio operators that is no different to any other consumer should have laws applied to their irresponsible operating behavior.   

Logged
N4KC
Member

Posts: 287


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #86 on: June 03, 2013, 10:15:24 AM »

Be careful what you wish for, Zenki.  I don't think many of us would vote for full type acceptance of all ham gear.  You really want to put manufacturing for our niche market into that deep freeze?

I listen to a lot of bands and activity.  I simply don't perceive a major problem with splatter or other spurious stuff.  Yes, one guy with a dirty amp, mis-tuned, and with the processor set on "100" is a major problem to you if you are trying to rag chew with somebody down 2.  But is that any reason to ask that your friendly central government step in and slap arbitrary regulation on us when none is really needed?

I still maintain that the marketplace will help control the quality and performance of our gear.  If the Italian amp is OK, it should be a viable option.  If it is dirty, I'd bet enough eHam "zero" ratings and on-air admonishment and OO reports...and maybe even a note from the FCC if they still do that sort of thing...would keep it from being a viable choice, at any price.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
 
 
Logged
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 397




Ignore
« Reply #87 on: June 06, 2013, 06:34:22 AM »

In other countries , it appears most Hammies are happy with what they have , this good fellow just got him a new RM Italy and uses it on PSK31.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEXdL16YkrQ


Oh man....on PSK31 no less.  Good grief.

I think our Italian friend needs to read up on the goals of PSK31 as a mode....CLEAN, LOW POWER operation with no distortion products.  It's probably just me, but that country seems to have some strange ideas when it comes to ham radio.  Sheesh.


Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 916




Ignore
« Reply #88 on: June 07, 2013, 04:16:00 PM »

Hi Don

Well ham gear and amplifiers are already Type Accepted by the FCC. Do you think adding a simple dynamic IMD test is going to be the end of the world for ham radio? I think not.
All that IMD type acceptance will do for ham radios  under the current test regime is this.

1. Eliminate most of the garbage CB amplifiers from being passed off as "clean" ham amplifiers. It will never stop a idiot ham from using one.
2. It will eliminate radios with  poor ALC designs that cause splatter.  Many of Yaesus current radio have a poor ALC design that causes excessive splatter. It will stop radios that have the infamous power over shoot issue
    from being sold onto the market.
3. It will force manufacturers to adjust their bias systems for better high order IMD suppression and design PA's with better IMD performance.

So the outcomes will be all good.  Most ham transceivers could PASS ITU or FCC marine  type acceptance regulations. Its only the really bad amplifiers and radios that will fail. Who really wants to own crap equipment anyway?

Look at the marine HF market. Icom has for years had equipment that passed the old FCC Type acceptance for IMD. Lately  its  newer marine radios pass the ITU standards and these radios sell for less than most ham transceivers at
the moment. All this equipment operates on 12 volts. So the arguments of increased costs because of this testing is not valid argument  since only 1 radio has to be sent for testing, not every radio produced.  All this type acceptance testing is done by automated test systems with quick pass fail masks. The only costs is getting the ham radio design engineers off poor design practices and do some real engineering. We see the same poor transmitters and ALC designs year after year. They not trying very hard.

As for IMD not being a issue,  well it depends where and what style of operating you doing. Its a problem in Europe on any band. Its a problem in the DX window on 75 meters. Its really a problem on all bands. Many hams dont  really  know what a "clean" transceiver and what acceptable minimum  typical IMD standards should be. I hear many hams refer to splatter as a station moving in alongside them and into their nominal receiver passband. This is not splatter. I hear hams constantly saying "you sound clean here, no splatter" without tuning down 5, 10 or 15 khz. So its a complex issue that most hams cant be bothered becoming experts at. To these hams if they buy a radio  and it costs a lot of money and even if it does  splatter, its OK to them because they spent a lot of money on it. Its hard telling hams that just because they spent 8000 dollars on a radio, it  does not mean its perfect and even splatter free. Every current radio can be made to splatter because of the very poor ALC designs in them. A  Type accepted radio will never have a poor ALC design or one that uses ALC as a form of compression  So type acceptance in the long run will be good
for all hams. We just need people like the ARRL to raise the issue. However  I doubt the ARRL will ever review a transceiver and say that its transmitter has poor TX  IMD and a poor ALC design. They have turned a blind eye to this problem for decades now and casually mention poor TX IMD in reviews as normal. Then on the other hands they harp all day about receiver numbers, it seems the receiver number stupidity flu has infected the league as well.

And a final a point is that most transceivers have receiver IMD dynamic range numbers  that are far higher than can be ever used. Its typically 80 Db higher than the equivalent transmit IMD number  at the same frequency spacing.
How is it possible that so many brag about all this receiver performance when the laws of physics state that its an impossible reality. Hams buying a 10,000 dollar radio and then using a poor  IMD amplifier that ruins the best radios
dynamic range potential is the height of stupidity at its best. Its for this reason alone that those who defend the use of CB and ham garbage amplifiers just dont get it, they really dont.  We wasting money pursuing design objectives whose end result  is not any better than using the worst receiver from 30 years ago. That is the brutal impact of poor TX IMD. If half of this effort that was put into  designing receivers with ridiculously  high receiver numbers was put into
transmitter design we would not be talking about this issue. Its all about restoring a harmonious  balance between transmitter and receiver performance. Its a disaster when they are so many radios that are priced over 6000 dollars on the market and yet they  no  better than a 20 dollar CB radio in the transmitter performance. Why there is outcry is beyond belief, all it saying to the manufacturers  is that we all a big bunch of dumb suckers!
 

Be careful what you wish for, Zenki.  I don't think many of us would vote for full type acceptance of all ham gear.  You really want to put manufacturing for our niche market into that deep freeze?

I listen to a lot of bands and activity.  I simply don't perceive a major problem with splatter or other spurious stuff.  Yes, one guy with a dirty amp, mis-tuned, and with the processor set on "100" is a major problem to you if you are trying to rag chew with somebody down 2.  But is that any reason to ask that your friendly central government step in and slap arbitrary regulation on us when none is really needed?

I still maintain that the marketplace will help control the quality and performance of our gear.  If the Italian amp is OK, it should be a viable option.  If it is dirty, I'd bet enough eHam "zero" ratings and on-air admonishment and OO reports...and maybe even a note from the FCC if they still do that sort of thing...would keep it from being a viable choice, at any price.

Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
www.donkeith.com
 
 
Logged
K6AER
Member

Posts: 3500




Ignore
« Reply #89 on: June 07, 2013, 09:05:37 PM »

 I know this is off subject, what ever that might be.... but I was just wondering...Zenki, are you married???
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!