The paper about envelope distortion I referred to is avilable without charge on the Internet, but I didn't consider it appropriate to supply a link. The IEEE wants $32 per copy for non-members ($13 for members), and they probably would not like me distributing it. However, I e-mailed a copy to SSTRAN.
When testing into the dummy loads for the AMT3000 and AMT5000 I used normal program audio, which consists of two main components:
Speech and high quality music.
The judgement of sound quality was my own, as a several decades builder and operator of a professional recording service.
Overall, in all kinds of installation experience with the AMT5000, I never encountered audio distortion caused by the transmitter regardless of tuning status.
Without the participation of 1580 in further discussion of this matter, the matter has become moot and our attempts to explain his experience are increasingly disconnected.
That AM envelope distortion exists in class E amplifiers with high loaded Q output tuning at high modulation frequencies has been well-established for nearly three decades, and the posts by 1580 describing distortion at higher modulation frequencies indicate what would be expected when the phenomenon is encountered. During the process of trying to get bottom of what is happening, first the compainant goes underground, then others with hardware that might be tested make vague and indefinite hand-waving statements, and the manufacturer issues mind-numbing defensive paper blizzards.
Detractions aside, what I find is a one-sided conclusion put forward by a self-proclaimed technician with no actual part 15 practice but only hear-say theory aimed at discrediting a significant transmitter and its manufacturer together with all of the products defenders.
Line up with the several anti-part 15ers who nip at the heels of the hobby.
Confess finally what the anti-part 15ers hope ultimately to achieve and on who's behalf?
Carl,
The indirect and peculiar manner in which you used the English language made comprehending your post difficult for me. Did I understand correctly that you are saying that I have no practical experience with Part 15, that I do not have real technical knowledge, and that I am anti Part 15?
Mr. Roos said -- "During the process of trying to get to the bottom of what is happening, first the compainant goes underground, then others with hardware that might be tested make vague and indefinite hand-waving statements, and the manufacturer issues mind-numbing defensive paper blizzards."
Did 1580 miss a deadline for coming back to this thread? You have abruptly offended every participant in this thread for not meeting your standard for "getting to the bottom of what's happening".
Indeed the one truth we have so far is that we do not know the reason for 1580's audio distortion.
But you have declared a reason anyway, so it appears to me, by concluding that a document not in evidence stands as "proof" of your position that the AMT5000 is faulty.
The approach taken resembles negative propaganda and not science.
Ermi Ross said:
"...and the manufacturer issues mind-numbing defensive paper blizzards."
The technical details I posted are only "mind numbing" to those who don't have the required technical experience to fully understand them. This is not in any way intended as a negative thing. Most people hare are more interested in the art of broadcasting than technicalities. I posted this information in direct reply to you in particular with the added intent that it be documented publicly. Others, who are interested and have the technical experience will understand my posts. Those that don't care about the technicalities are free to ignore my posts, although I would hope they read my conclusions.
In the world of science, nothing is proven as fact unless thorough documentation of experiments are provided. If further documentation is required, I will provide it. You can't just casually brush it off as a "mind-numbing defensive paper blizzard", unless it is mind numbing to you.
Ermi wrote: Carl, ...Did I understand correctly that you are saying that...I am anti Part 15?
This phrase is sometimes seen when the point of view of its user is different from that of another poster. At times it is based more on emotion than science.
The performance and adjustment of r-f amplifiers of any class (including Class E) into various load impedances is not a topic limited to Part 15 AM transmitters.
If this discussion had not been de-railed, then all of us may have been able to learn from it.
Personally I hope that Ermi, Neil, Phil, and any others will resume it.
Hello Rich.
Why not resume the topic yourself, since you're interested?
Not quite sure as to how to respond to this thread now. If other life priorities that have been consuming me to no end is 'underground' then so be it. I have a young child to raise along with juggling two jobs and going back to school.
Anyways, I just want to thank you guys, especially Carl, Neil and Phil B for the great help and from this point I will deal directly with the manucfacturer over the phone when time permits.
Thanks.
I'm glad you are still moving with your part 15 plans, and I hope you will come back here anytime for the good advice that we try to provide.
Never mind the flack that gets stirred up on full moons, or whatever causes it.