[ICOM] IC-756PROIII No Transmit

[Lawrence Young]

Alex: All I can say is, the hams I know, will squeeze a nickel until the buffalo screams for mercy. That extra $100 cost increase to incorporate that degree of extra protection is very likely a marketing decision and competetive pricing likely figures into it as well.
Larry K4LXV


--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Alex <kr1st at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: Alex <kr1st at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [ICOM] IC-756PROIII No Transmit
> To: "ICOM Reflector" <icom at mailman.qth.net>
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 12:29 PM
> > Guys: Products like the Burghardt BEV-756 are designed
> to serve as a front end
> > saver for those hams who may not understand that one
> cannot safely transmit on
> > one antenna and leave another one such as a Beverage
> receive antenna  still
> > connected to the receiver. I am amazed at the number
> of hams that I know who may 
> > do this without realizing the possibility of damage to
> the radio.
> 
> What should amaze you more is that manufacturer's of
> radios don't build in this kind of front end protection
> while they do include protective measures to prevent a PA
> from transmitting into a bad load. I'm not surprised
> that some hams come to expect such a protection to be there,
> especially since it's such a well understood problem and
> has been around since RX-only antenna options have been
> added to radios. Of course someone's going to say that
> it would make a rig more expensive...
> 
> 73,
> --Alex KR1ST
> http://www.kr1st.com
> http://www.airlinkexpress.org