Portable/back up transceiver

"RST Engineering - JIm" wrote in message
...

"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message
...


Sure, you can transmitt 55 watts. Provided you can find a FCC approved
device to do so. Good luck with that.

Collins, Sperry, RCA and a few other designed for airline service have a
minimum output of 30 watts, achievable last time I looked by either an
829B or a pair of 6146s. That was when I was with the airlines many
moons ago. I'm sure that they have improved their designs in 45 years, but
I am not sure that even they will go away from devices that can put up
with horrendous VSWRs and just get a little hotter. Put your money where
your mouth is, bozo, and go buy this sort of gear if you want in the
neighborhood of 55 watts.

You do know we're talking about "Portable/back up transceiver(s)", right
Jimmy Boy? And I think the OP's intent was ones that are actually made
today and not one that was made 40 years ago.



Do you ever wonder why Vertex, Icom,
Sporty's, and other handhelds all list their specs as 5w PEP, 1.5w
carrier? Do you think they provide such limited power just for sh**s and
giggles?

Of course not, **** for brains. There are two limitations for handhelds.
One is the amount of power you can get from internal batteries, no matter
how good the technology. The other is designing to price point and not
being able to afford multiwatt solid state devices. Toshiba has a couple
of really nice 7 watt ones, but they run about $20 a stick which adds
$60-80 to the list price of the radio. That is a marketing disadvantage
that they are not willing to take

I got a really good chuckle out of that one, Jimmy boy. Nice dodge, but I'm
really going to have to send the BS flag up on that one. Both Vertex and
Icom produce amateur radios that are virtually identical in size to their
airband models and some use the exact same batteries. Many models have
multiple power settings depending on how much battery life you want, and
almost all of them produce more power than their airband models. Oh yeah, I
almost forgot to mention that many of them are also at least half the price
of the airband models. But you're right, of course. Nobody in their right
might would want a handheld airband radio that has signficantly more power
because the ones already on the market have a range of "1366.7 statute
miles". You crack me up, Jimmy boy. But now I'm sure you'll jump into some
spiel about how none of that matters because Marconi himself made a tube
type handheld that costs 1/2 the average salary of the average American, or
some other great work of irrelevant or fictional nonsense. But that's what
I really like about you, Jimmy boy. When someone calls you on your BS, you
just come up with even better BS. Brilliant!




You can skip the bullcrap, Jimmy. All handheld airband transceivers on
the market today have essentially identical antennas which are close
enough to omnidirectional for this discussion even if it isn't for
mental masturbators like yourself. So you can continue to **** on
everyone's shoes and try to tell them it's raining if you like, but I've
already told you your mental wanking exercise is about as useless to this
discussion as man nipples.

If you are talking about the rubber resistor that comes with most
handhelds, then you apparently don't understand the problem OR the OP does
not understand that rubber duckies are fine for about 5 to 10 miles and
then are, as you say, breasts on a bull.

We did some tests with our S&R unit using three antennas ... the rubber
duckie, a home-made collapsible quarter wave whip with a coax connector
soldered to it to fit the radio, and an external ground plane antenna fed
with ten feet of coax. If you take the ground plane as the standard, the
whip was -5 dB and the duckie was -15 dB.

Had you actually bothered to read my first message that you replied to you
would have seen that I already mentioned an improved antenna for greater
range. So yes, I do understand the "problem". What you can't seem to
understand is the topic of conversation (which ironically enough has been in
the subject line of all your messages in this thread) are radios you can
actually go out and buy at a pilot shop or online, and each and every one of
those come with their own antenna. So while someone could "theoretically"
hook the output of their handheld to a tube type PA and run the output out
of a wire antenna towed behind the aircraft and send voice commands to a
mars landing craft, that's just a bit beyond what I consider to be relevant
to this discussion. But you go ahead as I can always use the chuckle.




Either you have no idea what you are talking about or it is well into
beer-thirty for you.

No, I have a very good idea what I'm talking about Jimmy, which is very
unfortunate for you since you can't pull your usual trick of trying to
baffle everyone with bullcrap.

Engineering calculations can be bullcrap and it is up to the student to
prove otherwise. So far all I've heard is dynamic circumlocution and
periphrastic pleonasms.

I'm not your "student", Professor, although that one was good for a chuckle.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm the one that's schooling you about the
perils of being a sexual intellectual.



Vertex, Icom, Sporty's and a few other
lesser known brands all put out 5w PEP/1.5w carrier according to their
specs and all of them have virtually identical antenna designs.

As do Microair, XCOM, the older Genaves, Baysides, Dittel, and a few other
radios designed to be permanently mounted in an aircraft.

You do know we're talking about "Portable/back up transceiver(s)", right
Jimmy Boy? If you have any questions, consult the subject line.




The FAA radios
put out about 7-9w carrier at the antenna which is pretty close to 7db
more power.

What the hell is an FAA radio?

That would be the radio at the other end you're trying to communicate with,
Jimmy boy. Come now, let's not make this more complicated than it has to
be, OK? I'll break it down for you. When you push the TX button thingy and
speak, someone else at the other end is trying to listen. That would be the
FAA radio and specifically the receiver. When the FAA pushes their little
button thingy and speaks, that would be the FAA transmitter trying to
communicate with you through your transceiver. Is this so hard to
understand, or do you need a schematic?




You do realize that the FAA does NOT have any avenues for approval of
radios other than the original equipment list that came with the airplane?
I've got a '58 Cessna; the only "approved" radio for that genre of
aircraft was the venerable old (vacuum tube) Mark-12. No King, no later
Narco, no Genave, no Icom radio was ever "approved" for those aircraft,
yet the "wink and nod" method of installation has been used universally
for installation of virtually any com radio manufactured. The FAA has
taken the tack that if it OK with the FCC, it is OK with them. Which is
just fine with all the rest of us.




The FAA receivers are undoubtedly more sensitive than the handheld
receivers, but not by 7db, and their squelch is set to around 5
microvolts anyway which is probably going to be pretty close to the
handheld.

Anybody that designs a VHF receiver for anything less than a microvolt is
just asking for trouble, but I don't buy 5 microvolts. Even if I did, a 1
watt transmitter produces 5 microvolts with ground planes (or quarter wave
whips, or dipoles) at 300 miles, so we are back to the original argument.
Transmitter power has damned little to do with it.

I don't give a day old dog turd if you buy it or not, Jimmy boy. 5
microvolts is well within the FAA spec and most are set pretty close to
that. Controllers don't like radios breaking squelch for no reason because
it makes them think someone is trying to call them. So they are set well
off the noise floor. And if TX power has "damned little to do with it", why
do the FAA transmitters and most airborne radios output pretty close to 10w
at the back of the transmitter? I mean, after all, 1w will go "1366.7
statute miles", so it's kind of a head scratcher that the FAA reuses the
same enroute frequencies every 600 miles or so, no? Well, at least for you
maybe.



So
obviously the most significant range limiting factor is the handheld's
transmitter.

That, sir, is patent bull****. Go work the range equation with a noise
bandwidth of 25 kHz. and see what YOU come up with. Post it here and
we'll argue numbers. Until then you are just blowing smoke up your
undies.

I'd rather just stay on the practical side of things, Jimmy boy. You're
blowing enough smoke as it is and I'm not really in the mood to hear your
stories about how NASA is standing outside with a handietalkie communicating
with the space shuttle, even as funny as listening to that would be.



So you can spew all the crap you want about how I have "no
idea", but you haven't offered one iota of anything that is even remotely
useful to this discussion and all you're really concerned about is trying
to impress yourself with what you think you know.

I'm not trying to impress anybody; I'm trying to show facts and figures.
So far all I've heard from you is rhetoric.

Oh, come one now Jimmy boy. That's just about one step beyond your
absurdity I'm prepared to go. Trying to impress yourself is really all I've
ever seen you do in this thread or any other, and as funny as this has been,
I'm growing tired of reading your attempts and giving you just one more shot
at running off a batch of your mental masturbation. It's really quite
pathetic. Since you can't even begin to stay on topic despite me giving you
multiple opportunities to do so, I won't be replying anymore or even reading
your replies, but you go ahead and have the last word and claim victory as
I'm sure such things are of great importance to your fragile ego.