[1000mp] QST Product Reviews whitewash

[Tom Rauch]

> I don't know, Jeff; I gave a lot of the reasons that ARRL continues to
> report IMD relative to PEP and none of them were "it makes the
> manufacturers look better."  Your continuing the "whitewash"
> accusation makes me think that you did not believe me.

Hi Ed,

Part 97.307 requires a minimal suppression below the *mean power*, 
not PEP. With that in mind, why use PEP?

The bottom line for IM is the requirement we not cause harmful QRM 
outside of the required bandwidth for that mode .

The main problem I see is the confusion dB PEP causes. Most people 
barely know what PEP is, let alone single tone power. Many think PEP 
is 1.414 times carrier, and even generally reputable manufacturers 
like Nye Viking sold products calibrated on that misconception!
 
As another example, Eimac uses dB below one tone...as do virtually 
all manufacturers. The use of a dual measurement standard opens the 
door to marketing games, such as the one a tube importer played when 
they compared dB PEP measurements of their "modern tetrodes" to dB 
single-tone measurements of Eimac triodes. The Eimac tubes were 
substantially cleaner, yet the mixing of dB PEP allowed them to cook 
the data without raising eyebrows.

For an example of this, look at the ARRL's measurements of tetrode 
amplifiers and compare those clean modern tetrodes to the old GG 
triodes. Your own reports reveal the old triodes are actually 
substantially cleaner, but the confusing standards allow marketing 
people to "play games" making tetrodes look better.

Another case is where a manufacturer tried to get me to use 
semiconductors that were dirty, but used the dB PEP method to make 
the stuff look acceptable.

Respectfully, it would be better if the ARRL used the industry 
standard or the rest of industry used the dB PEP ARRL standard. It 
would put the skids on such nonsense.73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com