"I have always shown respect for everyone on this forum, except for the notable exception of two who have clearly demonstrated that they deserve no respect."
Everyone deserves at least a little bit of respect. I respect your experience, expertise and suggestions. I respect you as a human being.
What I don't think is respectful is your complete rejection of certain individuals ideas and alternatives. Everyone here has a different approach and different prospective. And you know what, everyone learns something when everyone gives everyone a fair chance to throw a concern onto the table so those alternatives can be explored openly by all.
In keeping with this particular thread's topic, we know that there are a wide range of variables to contend with for a realistic review of ANY low power Part 15 transmitter. It is that reason why I had suggested earlier in this thread, and in other similar discussions about reviews, to create categories and sort each transmitter into respective categories for fair testing.
Is it such a bad thing to want any and all units put up for review to have an even testing parameter to their own category? For example, a TX built to tune a 10 foot wire/indoor category and a category for outdoor 3 meter systems.
I believe I even agreed with establishing a bench testing category with YOUR suggested simulated antenna. I only questioned if that simulated load would be a fair testing load to other transmitters that have a different output final circuit and matching network design. And given the past discussions on your newest unit with someone wishing to match it up to a 50 ohm antenna, an Isotron I believe, in that exchange of info you again had eluded to the loading characteristics of the new 5k TX as tuning up to near the same load impedance as suggested for the test bench simulated load for reviewing. Perhaps just coincidence or synchronicity of random forum discussion I don't know.
At any rate, if there is gonna be effort to do reviews, then those reviews should be done in conditions everyone agrees to be fair and equal. One size does not fit all, as one form of testing does not answer for all when your testing variables from various units.
"Someone who has done "sumptin'", and wants $230 each for his product, ought to show respect for those trying to evaluate said product to see if it is worth the asking price."
That's all I'm concerned about. A comparative evaluation under conditions to which I as a possible purchaser would install and operate the unit. If said unit cannot operate in the manner I intend to install it, then perhaps a lot of time and grief and temper can be saved by simply stating said unit is not intended to operate on a 3 meter outdoor antenna over a ground radial system. Done deal after that..and no biggie, no hurt feelings, no disrespect. Just a friendly thank you for the info have a nice day.
So with that...and since it's night time, have a good evening.
RFB
"We're talkin' milliwatts, guys. Who on this earth is gonna mess around and put up a whole lot of money to see a difference of a few milliwatts or the quality of modulation of a toy?"
Then what's the point? What's the goal? What's the intent? What's the purpose?
If it's all just toys, there sure are a lot of operators out there putting hundreds if not thousands of dollars in studio gear and processors. Sure be a waste to be feeding a "toy" transmitter.
Ain't no one here trying to compete with 50Kw stations. What we are trying to do is maximize the performance of our Part 15 stations as best as it can be. And if there are 5 people or 50 people or 500 people tuned in and like what they hear on my stations, it damned sure isn't any toy to me.
Dunno about anyone else.
RFB
"I think for having a standard set of practices for reviewing and testing transmitters masts should probably be excluded."
Totally agree. The conditions should be equivalent to how units are tested for certification. 1 meter off the ground.
RFB
The concept of "toy" is worth exploring.
It is something to play with.
What is play?
Play is the pastime of enjoyment.
Depending on ones means, a yacht could be a "toy", or perhaps a slick sports car.
Playboys think women are "toys."
Model railroaders have very sophisticated toys.
The part 15 world is the real world in miniature, just like an N-scale railroad.
I find all this to be quite serious. NOT something that could be dismissed as "mere" toys.
Part 15 involves real-world science and has a place on the scale of reality.
If you believe "toys" are of no consequence, why are you here?
If I believed that this was just a "fun" toy, I wouldn't have invested near 2k and countless hours into it. I've built two SSTrans and an FM kit. I've operated a Rangemaster remotely from my home. I've even simulcasted!
This stuff intrigues me totally! I've had lots of fun with messin' around with it but let's admit. It has it's limits!
Even if you're sharp enough to get the max and more out of it, it's possible that your gonna get busted!
It's not a career, it's an interesting hobby! When ya'll start talkin' all of this indepth, complicated stuff, it scares the bejeebers out of the newbees, I'm sure..
I remember when I had my first xmtr and played music onna radio across the room. What a thrill! It wasn't "exact" or "perfect" but it worked! It was simple and I didn't feel like a dummy anymore. I did it! Now I can run with the big dogs!
I observe and learn. That's why I'm here. I know that there's a lot of passion on this subject among some folks around here but let's remember. No one knows it all! Let's stop the bickerin' and get along! Learn from each other instead of assuming that "I'm smarter than you"!
As for evaluation of different units, they all need a precise, common basis to work from. No one can make the perfect "area" or "test spot" because these test areas are going to be different at different locations. I say load 'um up with a resonant RL circuit and be done with it. Do the math and see what they do. It has nothin' to do with real world situations because it would be rare for ANYONE with good, common knowledge to make a perfect set-up. I'm sure these units were designed on paper assuming clinical conditions so test them as such.. JMO..
I have no listeners. But my station
is a very precious toy, that's for
sure.
Then there are the Part 15 stations with
listeners, and to me, that's a whole
different ball game.
i don't know what to call those advanced
operations, but they are amazing to me.
Bruce, DRS2
"I say load 'um up with a resonant RL circuit and be done with it. Do the math and see what they do. It has nothin' to do with real world situations because it would be rare for ANYONE with good, common knowledge to make a perfect set-up."
Then there is no point with a review. Simply post the published specs off the manuals or websites and be done with it.
Let's all just throw away our REAL WORLD experience and stay within the 8x11 piece of paper.
You all can...I won't.
Have fun.
RFB
My vision of Real World Experience..
I buy/assemble an SSTran. I build the base loaded antenna, mount it outside and add a couple ground rods. It works.. "Alright". I add some more grounding and things get better! I keep tweakin' things until I can't tweak anymore. I document everything in blueprint form..
I disassemble everything and bring it over to your house and reassemble it. (In a comparable location to where it was first built) Being very careful on details..
Is it gonna work the same? Will the adjustments be exactly the same? Will it work identical to the original build specs? I highly doubt it personally. I know this because I've moved my mount three times and each location was different. Every spot was unique. (I have 10 acres to play on) Things loaded differently and range changed. I don't have any A.C. lines around to mess with things. I'm totally off the grid! Now that's Real World Experience to me..
Now, would it be a fair shake to test a bunch of different units at your or any specific location? The results that you get at your location ain't gonna be the same here! There isn't a proven, perfect load to the amplifier to be fair! Too many natural variables..
If I build an RL circuit and bring it over to yer house, it's gonna work the same there as it does here! The whole question is the efficiency of the final output amplifier. The more efficient it is, the more one has to work with. They all should follow the law of 100mW to the final or they wouldn't have been certified or be legal, for that matter. 100 in.. 60 out.. 100 in.. 85 out.. That's the question. The audio can be fixed with numerous other gizmos that doesn't have a whole lot of effect on a dead carrier..
Please explain your version of Real World Experience..
12vman wrote "If I build an RL circuit and bring it over to yer house, it's gonna work the same there as it does here! The whole question is the efficiency of the final output amplifier. The more efficient it is, the more one has to work with."
This nicely summarizes why a bench test is useful, especially the remark abouot the efficiency being what one has to work with.
Therefore I support and adopt for my use Phil's recommendation for a RC test load to be used for comparison purposes. Again I say that if two transmitters test at 30 mW and 90 mW output with 100 mW input respectively it is a predictor that the 90 mW unit will outperform the 30 mW unit when both are tweaked for optimum on air performance at a particular site.
Let me put it another way: All else being equal which transmitter would you purchase?
Neil
"Please explain your version of Real World Experience.."
My version of real world experience is what happens beyond the test bench and controlled environment...as well as beyond the numbers and baselines.
I don't disagree with establishing that baseline, mentioned that more than once and again here, even going with Phil's simulated load for that baseline reference. My only concern is will that simulated load fairly work across the variety of TX's tied to it when their final networks also vary from one unit to another.
Also my real world experience comes from 4 decades of building transmitters, antenna systems, receivers, receiving antenna systems, the broadcast engineering field both television and radio, and other areas outside of the civilian realm. In every case, every project or new build or retrofit or just dangling a wire off a thumbtack in the middle of a room, there was always a difference between a simulation vs real world application.
Now with these very low power levels, those variables become even more critical. And as I know, and you know and have put it, not every location is the same. Thus isn't it prudent to create testing under conditions that replicate a variety of conditions, from worst case to optimum, to be doing any side by side reviews of said unit's performance under those variables?
How does one static simulated load provide us with the data across even 3 basic variables of worst case setup to mid optimum to absolute best?
The new ownership of this site proposes to do reviews and has asked for further input in doing so. I believe in what takes place outside of the calculations, outside of the controlled environment, outside of the 8x11..or outside the box to be more direct. This is not saying let's exclude the baseline reference from the bench. I AM saying let's not limit ourselves or the "newbies" or anyone else to just a work bench and piece of paper with numbers on it.
The more information, the better informed purchase decision can be made by everyone.
RFB
I can see that we are on the same plane and I do respect your experience, which is much more than mine. I'm just looking at it on a very basic theory..
A 60 watt bulb puts out more lumens than a 30 watt bulb. That's a fact. A 60 watt bulb is gonna light up more area with more brightness than a 30 watt bulb ever will. Under a controlled environment, if one xmtr allows 60 mills to the antenna and another allows 75 mills, it would be in my best effort to put my time in the xmtr with the most output. It's then entirely up to me, as the tech, to get the maximum out of what I have to work with. It's up to me to design and build the most perfect antenna system that I can to extract every little milliwatt out of it possible and spray it into the sky. I ain't gonna expect to win the Indy 500 inna VW beetle..
It's great to get different viewpoints. Everyone wins!
That brings us to my proposal, which was to combine every available means of transmitter testing and leave it to the reviewer to describe what he did.
Aside from that, I have begun ground work outdoors which will result in a fully ideal installation, radials and 3-meter vertical.
I think a detailed physical description of outdoor location should be part of real world tests.
Time of day, weather, and all that is also a huge variable, as I was reminded today in the bright 4 o'clock sun when my AMT5000 was heard way beyond it's usual range, up on a hill where I usually get no signal.
Speaking of light bulbs, we switched from incandescent lamps to LED's in our traffic signals.
Previously we used 135 watt incandescent bulbs. The LED's on average consume 15 watts and are as bright or brighter.
An intersection signal that used to draw 12 or 15 amps now draws 3 to 5 amps.
Now there's a real world effeciency comparison.
Aha! I am testing one of the AMT3000s into a PhilB Official Dummy Load and I love it!
Well, almost official. I have a 30pF capacitor on back order, so I dug around and found a 46pF spare part, and it works well enough for the moment. I amazingly had a 30-ohm 5% resistor, pretty lucky.
The transmitter is testing at 1710 kHz, now all I need is a reason for the test.
"Aha! I am testing one of the AMT3000s into a PhilB Official Dummy Load and I love it!"
I don't think I have ever seen this much excitement over a 30 ohm resistor or any kind of dummy load before.
Where's the party?!!
So...now what's next?
I am following kc8's activity and so far his is the only one, to me anyway, worth paying attention to as it involves actual real world setup conditions. There is reason to be real world excited with his current findings! No Dummy (load) Required.
RFB