[Boatanchors] AM PEP, one final comment...

[Donald Chester]

...because the topic that started the firestorm was immediately side-tracked, and never got discussed:

Thu Oct  1 05:16:55 EDT 2015 Rob Atkinson ranchorobbo at gmail.com,  wrote:

>> It runs  400W of
>> carrier and 1500W PEP.
>
>  I wish AM operators would quit expressing power in therms of PEP

Right away the topic veered to the pros and cons of the PEP power limit. Granted there are a lot of strong feelings on that subject,  but that wasn't what Rob was referring to, and the ensuing discussion should have continued to a separate thread.  

Rob was talking about what I agree is a disturbing trend, that AMers are increasingly referring to their transmitter power in terms of PEP, regardless of whether or not they are running anywhere near "legal limit".  I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with Rob.  When discussing how much power your AM transmitter is running, the base figure has always been CARRIER power.   If you want to describe your peaks, that should be in terms of PERCENTAGE OF MODULATION.  That's how professional engineers talk about it.  You never hear WSM announce "200,000 watts clear channel 650". It's totally lame to tell someone over the air that your DX-100 or Valiant is running "400 watts" or to call it a "400 watt" transmitter.

AM PEP should be reserved for topics and discussions relevant to the legal limit , not how much power you are getting out of your Ranger, DX-60, or plastic radio running in AM mode. 

Many of us don't even own a PEP meter in the first place.  A PEP meter is no substitute for a modulation monitor scope.

Don k4kyv