[AMRadio] Power Levels

[rbethman at comcast.net]

----- Original Message -----
From: <wwd at netheaven.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:13 PM

> You have been called on this, so tell us what YOU think this term means
> and maybe why you chose to use it. Looks to me like a Freudian slip.

No, it was a definitive insult.  Discussion is to be encouraged not
discouraged.

>
> >> >    I guarantee you that those running T-368s and BC-610s that are
> >> >properly tuned ARE running illegal.
> >>
> >> IllegalLY?? Run a 6155 in the T3 final loaded on the light side. You
could
> >> even keep it in 'tune' mode if you like. But that might not be 'proper'
> >> enough for a boundary-focussed uptight normative. Can't go there!
>
> >1) Please try spell checking before making commentary on others
> >understanding.
>
> Don't be coy. What word do you think is misspelled here and is the
> misspelling germane to the discussion? The only reason I pointed to your
> error was the ambiguity- either it was just misspelling or else following
> words were left out of the sentence (and meaning lost).

I apologize for the mispelling comment.  Until I changed the font it looked
like either three IIIs or three LLLs.

>
> >2) I prefer Pragmatic thank you.
>
> Your 'guarantee' is pure nonsense. 'Presumptuous' would be much more like
> it.

This is based upon actual readings taken from a BC-610 (I) tuned by the
manual procedures, and measured with three different wattmeters, to include
a new Bird and new elements.

>
> >3) If you didn't catch the basic premises, these are stock radios.
>
> Nonsense. There are several models of both rigs all with significant
> differences. On top of that there are any number of modifications that
> have proven sucessful over time.

That is your assumption.  My dealings are with stock radios, no
modifications.
Therefore how can it be nonsense?
>
> > A
> >single 4-400 will easily put out more than enough carrier to make it
> >exceed the limits if modulated to 100%.  A single 4-400 run at 3000VDC
> >plate, 40W drive, shows PEP plate input power of 990W.
>
> Proving once again you have no idea what you are talking about. Best
> recompute that PEP. 'Show' us your math.

Perhaps I will simply point to the Radio Handbook 21st edition figure 22,
edited by William Orr.

>
> >Sorry.  As I said, the topic came up.  Let it run its course.  If you do
> >not care for the thread, use the DEL key.
>
> I did not care for your insulting characterisations, especially when you
> avoid justifying them and they are 180 degrees off (!). Trolls need to be
> dealt with point-by-point, sorry.

It is in YOUR opinion that the question came from a Troll.  And you made
that assumption from a single message asking a question.  You apparently
believe that the list and the group cannot tolerate this or is incapable of
such.  Which is it?

>
> >>
> >> I'd say you have a bright future in the ARRL OO program.
>
> >I doubt it very seriously.
>
> All you can do is gainsay. Not good enough.

And all you do is throw words around and claim it isn't enough.  I won't
have anything to do with the ARRL OO program, nor will I continue to
contribute to the League.  I ceased a bit of time back when the ham
community was ignored by the League

>
> The AM power issue is full of ambiguities and inconsistencies as
> delineated by the FCC. Probably by design. So if you can get a grasp of
> the technicalities involved by close reading this xth-instance rehashing,
> and then interpret the rules from a singular viewpoint, you can sally
> forth as a volunteer OO and ride herd on AMers everywhere. Maybe get you
> an All-States OO certificate for your wall.
>
I don't hunt for any certificates to hang on the wall in any event.  I wish
not to ride herd over any individual or group.  You seem to be trying well
enough on your own.

> Warm regards,
> Bill    K2AME
>
I repeat again, simply let the discussion continue.

Bob - N0DGN