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: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Transmitter performance  (Read 6656 times)
W6RMK
Member

Posts: 657




Ignore
« on: January 02, 2014, 03:29:04 PM »

Interesting article from Leif SM5BSZ

http://www.sm5bsz.com/dynrange/dubus313.pdf

Measurements on Flex 1500, other radios..

Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 1967




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2014, 05:26:11 PM »

Interesting article from Leif SM5BSZ

This article will make K-3ers ecstatic and Flexradio 5K/1500 owners looking for a way to debunk/spin the info..  Cheesy

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
K5TED
Member

Posts: 748




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2014, 05:52:45 PM »

No doubt. Great article and kudos for taking the time to do all the testing. I'll keep my Flex. Haven't had any complaints from 300kc down the band..

Logged
PJ2BVU
Member

Posts: 114




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2014, 08:03:54 PM »

... I'll keep my Flex. Haven't had any complaints from 300kc down the band..

...  Flexradio 5K/1500 owners looking for a way to debunk/spin the info..  Cheesy
Stan K9IUQ

Spot on, Stan.
Ted: If another Flexer was sending all this crud on your frequency you wouldn't even know what hit you as your panadapter is only 192K wide (96K on each side of your frequency). May be you could if you have 2 RXes but I guess you wouldn't dare to look  Grin

Jean-Claude PJ2BVU
Logged
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2037




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2014, 10:11:05 PM »

This article will make K-3ers ecstatic and Flexradio 5K/1500 owners looking for a way to debunk/spin the info..  Cheesy

With all the knowledge and experience that Leif got I'd like to see how they'll do it  Grin
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 1967




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2014, 05:31:09 AM »

I'll keep my Flex. Haven't had any complaints from 300kc down the band..

Attitudes like yours is exactly why transmitter performance does not improve from the manufacturers..

Does anyone but me remember the CW 160/80 meter transmit spur debacle on the Flex 5K? Flexers would spin "It is no problem for me as I don't operate cw or 160 meters." This serious problem was ignored by Flexradio for 3 years and was only fixed because of a ham that repeatedly complained publicly about the problem.

Nothing gets fixed unless people complain and rock the boat. Flexradio is not the only company to operate in this manner.

Stan K9IUQ

« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 05:44:33 AM by K9IUQ » Logged
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2037




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2014, 06:48:09 AM »

It may be worthwhile to ask ARRL as they also are criticized in this paper. It is a very good idea to enforce testing of modern transmitters to include these criteria. This would in turn force the manufacturers to pay more attention on their design flaws.
Logged
K9IUQ
Member

Posts: 1967




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2014, 01:32:24 PM »

This would in turn force the manufacturers to pay more attention on their design flaws.

Zenki has been posting about this for a long time. Could Zenki be --------?

Stan K9IUQ
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 960




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2014, 04:02:47 PM »

I am alive and well. I am busy building  a yacht. Not much time for ham radio these days. Looking forward to playing ham radio in the  tropics surrounded by seawater.
I suppose when  i come back after 5 years, the ham transmitter performance will be  the same poor standards or maybe even worst.

I read in the RSGB Radcom about the  efforts by good hams and engineers who are trying to improve the EMC test and measurement procedures to reduce radiated interference from things like LED light and Plasma TV's. The momentum in professional circles seem to be gaining  towards tighter EMC standards for radiated and conducted emissions.  Then we come back to hams and their own standards and nobody wants to do a thing about improving our own standards. Hams then  wonder why they get treated with so little respect from the authorities. We  cant even get our equipment to the very basic professional standards set by the ITU, we carry on like we all handicapped and living in a world using old 3rd world technology because we cant do  any better.  Then our standards for aspiration is no better than a RM Italy CB amplifier for transmitter standards. We fast becoming dinosaurs because ours skill set  and understanding of these simple standards is so backward.

All current HF radio manufacturers  are improving their transmitter standards because of the strict requirements of digital HF. Hams think that they can defy the laws of physics by using equipment that will have inferior BER's on future HF digital models. Improving transmitter standards will help both analog and digital performance. Again so many hams dont get because they stuck in their CB mind set.

Logged
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2037




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2014, 11:28:09 PM »

I am busy building  a yacht.


With your high quality demands, will the yacht ever be finished?  Grin
Logged
HAMMYGUY
Member

Posts: 85




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2014, 12:35:53 PM »

This would in turn force the manufacturers to pay more attention on their design flaws.

Zenki has been posting about this for a long time. Could Zenki be --------?

Stan K9IUQ

Anybody who has been around this forum for a length of time probably has a good idea who "Zenki" is.  His style of writing, attitude, very knowledgeable posts, and disappearance of another certain member are all excellent clues.  
« Last Edit: February 01, 2014, 01:12:44 PM by HAMMYGUY » Logged
N2DTS
Member

Posts: 102




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2014, 06:55:14 PM »

Its not just sdr's, I picked up a Ten Tec Argonaut 5 which is a nice little radio with great receive audio, and the TX is not bad, but it puts out a boat load of hash on frequency.
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 960




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2014, 03:57:57 AM »

Ten Tec Argonaut  6 and Eagle would have  been best buys in ham radio if the transmitters  had a better standard of design in regards to their performance.
The Ten Tecs have sufficient receiver performance for most hams. Its just a shame that TenTec chose to  use such a poor transmitter designs in these 2 radios.
Same goes for the Orion, nice receiver shocking transmitter that  caused a lot of splatter.

Ten Tec need to use high voltage mosfet PA's and abandon 12 Volt bipolar  CB style transistor amplifiers. This is before we start talking about TX phase and spurious noise.
If a radio has got good RX phase noise and has a noisy TX its clearly a design problem that can be fixed.

Its not just sdr's, I picked up a Ten Tec Argonaut 5 which is a nice little radio with great receive audio, and the TX is not bad, but it puts out a boat load of hash on frequency.

Logged
N2DTS
Member

Posts: 102




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2014, 11:36:11 AM »

I don't have the info with me, but the Argonaut 5 uses an analog to digital converter, then processes the signals (RX and TX) in a dsp chip, then does another digital to analog conversion, along with some mixers I think.

I am not sure what the hash is coming from, its like white noise within the passband.
Its not a problem with the final transistors, and I am not sure it would make sense to use high voltage output devices on a 20 watt pep small radio.

I can see why it makes sense to run anything that might be portable off 12 volts, but something designed for base operation could be higher voltages...drive the cost up though I suppose.
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!