When is more than a few watts power needed?

Discussion in 'VHF/UHF - 50Mhz and Beyond' started by N0PKG, Oct 27, 2015.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. W7CJD

    W7CJD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Right, slopping over all that bandwidth.. no splatter there.

    Like everyone is stupid, and doesn't know the big stations by hearing.

    ..and no one does a lookup to see their QRZ or Buckmaster or whatever.

    No, everyone is stupid.

    Words have no meaning: "splatter" is anyone's guess, and no, it is not aggression in your criticisms of individuals posts in the forum, no matter what the topic.

    Justify what is said in every thread?

    I have seen this too many times, at this forum, from very few people.

    I will not be responding further.

    I found the Ignore selection.
  2. KA9JLM

    KA9JLM Ham Member QRZ Page

    It can make you miss some good things.

    I hope it works for you. I manually ignore, so my wife says.
  3. KC9UDX

    KC9UDX Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Power has nothing to do with bandwidth.

    Do TV broadcasters all splatter?
  4. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Because of the "shape factor" of filters, the stronger the signal the broader it will appear to be. In that respect, the power has an apparent effect on how wide the signals appears to be on any particular receiver.

    Also, especially with solid-state receivers, a strong signal may overload the "front end" of the receiver and the signal will appear to be much broader than what it really is. Way too many operators blame the strong signal when the real problem is in their receiver and/or how the operator actually uses his/her receiver.

    Glen, K9STH
  5. W7CJD

    W7CJD Ham Member QRZ Page

    ..so have a kW or full legal limit, and you cannot easily move off a frequency, while you act like you own it, and you are not the problem because you refuse to use the minimum power necessary for the QSO's that run on and on, not providing your callsign to start, end, or during the long-winded talk about nothing much if anything at all, and it is for everyone else to "filter" out the only "apparent" wider signal (do you have a Bachelor of Science degree?) with all the splatter, and, even harmonics on other bands.

    If their equipment won't handle it, they should purchase equipment that can.

    It is their problem to have the "skill" or the equipment to have filters to continue looking for a QSO DX, or just a QSO, with absolutely everyone else that does not run a kW or full legal limit.

    In other words, I've got all the big toys, you don't: that's your problem.

    In summary, if this is your station, then it is "up to the rest of us" in the hobby to record you and make the FCC complaint.

    Everything wrong about loud CB'ers and loud kW and full legal limit radio amateurs is what everyone else really hates.

    If you can have a clean signal, and, it is a conversation, and ID to start, during, and at the end, no one minds that a bit.

    It is enjoyable to hear a well-operated station and a radio amateur that loves their hobby enough to keep the rules of getting on-the-air, even if they are running a kW or "full legal limit".

    I would say, for nearly everyone else, our "fun" is about picking out a radio signal out of the noise floor, and having a new contact with the world.
  6. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page


    The vast majority of time, when someone complains about adjacent frequency problems, etc., the problem IS in the receiver and NOT the transmitter! Using the pre-amplifier, turning on the noise blanker, and several other things definitely result in problems when receiving and many operators do just that!

    Front end overload is a problem with many solid-state receivers whereas tube-type receivers generally are not bothered with this. Using a pre-amplifier on HF only increases the front end overload problem. Frankly, on HF, the ambient noise level is, like over 99.99% of the time, stronger than the LDS/MDS of the receiver and increasing the sensitivity only makes things worse.

    When someone is bothered by an adjacent frequency signal, the first thing is to make sure that the pre-amplifier is turned off. Next, make sure the noise blanker is turned off. Finally, turn OFF the AGC/AVC, increase the volume control, and then use the r.f. gain control as the volume control. In the vast number of situations, the adjacent frequency problem disappears.

    Also, if the receiver has a rejection control, adjustable i.f. band-pass tuning, etc., take time to learn how to use these controls as well as using the receiver with the AGC/AVC turned off and so forth. An hour, or so, spent in actually learning how the receiver operates under various conditions utilizing the various controls, will definitely be rewarded with many hours of enjoyable operation which, otherwise, might not happen because of problems that "seem" to come from others transmitting when the problem is actually in the receiver.

    Many times I wish that newcomers, to amateur radio, should have to use, for like 6-months, the "average" receiver that amateur radio operators used in the 1940s, 1950s, and even into the 1960s, maybe the early 1970s, before being allowed to use "modern" equipment. The "broad as a barn" bandwidth, drifting, poor sensitivity above 10 MHz, and a number of other things, made amateur radio a LOT more difficult in the "goode olde dayes". Having a completely "clear" frequency was unheard of. QRM, QRN, etc., were a fact of life. However, no one ever told us how bad the receivers actually were. Therefore, we made thousands of QSOs and, basically, "had a ball"!

    Even the lower end SSB transceivers have features that were then only in the highest priced equipment and there are a number of features that were not even thought of back then. When compared to the average equipment of yesteryear, "modern" equipment is not only considerably cheaper (when inflation is taken into consideration), but the performance is light years ahead.

    Glen, K9STH
    ZL1UZM, WA9ROB and WG7X like this.
  7. AG6QR

    AG6QR Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Causing interference is NOT already against the rules, at least not always. Certainly, it's against the rules to "willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal" (97.101(d)). And there are other sections of the rules that prohibit causing harmful interference with certain other radio services. But if one ham accidentally and unknowingly interferes with another ham, while everything else about the operation is legal, the accidental interference is not something that's punishable.

    If you're running a station with high power and little ability to hear (an Alligator -- all mouth, no ears), then you stand a good chance of causing interference to stations without even realizing it.

    By using the minimum reasonable power to get the job done, you greatly decrease the risk that your signals will accidentally cause interference with someone else. If the accidental and unknowing interference comes as a result of using a kilowatt of power from a ridgetop to reach a repeater that's a few miles away with a clear line of sight, where a half watt would easily achieve just as full quieting, then I think it's right that the egregious use of power far in excess of what's useful should be a violation.

    Yeah, that rule is somewhat ambiguous, but so are most laws -- that's why the courts stay busy. I don't have a problem with someone using a bit more power than needed; often it's hard to know just how much might be required, and many rigs don't have that many power choices, anyway. But at least try and avoid egregious violations of that rule.
  8. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    The problem with the regulations is that "desired communications" is not defined. If the "desire" of the operator transmitting is for maximum signal strength, then running maximum power is definitely within the definition of the regulations. If the "desire" of the operator transmitting is for a signal level so weak as to require great strain from the receiving operator, then that also is definitely within the definition of the regulations!

    Next, what appears to be a very strong signal at 1-location may also produce a very weak signal at another location for any number of reasons including propagation, noise level, and so forth. On HF, the power needed to communicate over relatively short paths is often considerably more than what is required to communicate over much longer paths utilizing the exact same frequency. Therefore, in many "round-table" operations, stations have to run higher power because there are relatively nearby stations that require considerably higher transmitted power to even be able to "hear" the transmissions.

    Again, receiving problems are almost always the fault of the receiver and NOT the transmitter! Yes, there are operators who do have problems with the operation of their transmitters. But, most of the time, things like front end overload, or using the noise blanker, are the actual cause of problems and not the transmitter on the "other" end.

    Glen, K9STH
    WG7X, N0PKG and KC9UDX like this.
  9. WA7KKP

    WA7KKP Ham Member QRZ Page

    For years (mostly back when tubes were used), output powers of 10 to 30 watts were the norm, and with receiver sensitivities in the 0.5 and higher microvolt range, you just didn't' get that far. Now we have good low-noise front ends with GaAsFets, and automotive DC systems good for gobs of amps, 100 watts is not that hard to come by.

    About the only radios that still do 100 watts output on 2 are ex-commercial trunk mounts, like GE Mastr II's and Motorola Micors' (and newer versions).

    We just like having a full quieting signal with NO hiss or crackle in the background, we continue to use the repeater just to hear someone a few miles down the road. Repeaters were intended to increase the range of 10 watt mobiles and 1-5 watt handhelds. Many ops don't realize that a good 90% of their contacts could be easily made on the simplex channels, and 50 watts into a moderate gain beam (10 db or so) will do the job nicely. They could even go SSB, and really get out there, without the use of repeaters.

    Then they could go satellite, and . . . .

    I guess we just like to sit back and here the silence of a full-quieting signal on the repeater tail. Makes ya feel like you're getting out there.

    Gary WA7KKP
  10. NC5P

    NC5P Ham Member QRZ Page

    I get into the White Tanks 927.3375 repeater with 3W and a rubber duck from 40 miles distant. I check into the Calzona net on Sunday nights. I break up though into Pinal Peak, 63 miles to SE. I once had a 110 watt mobile on 2m with a 5/8 on the roof of a big pickup. I had no problem getting into any repeater I heard. Motorola XTL, Spectras, Astro-Spectras all available in high power versions on ebay. EF Johnson, GE/Ericcson/MA-COM Orion, Kenwood? Dual band APX7500 sometimes available but for price of a very snazzy HF rig.

Share This Page