![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"jan olieslagers" wrote in message
... Of course NiMH have better capacity, but Murphy says they'll be full anytime anyway, except when you need them. That's why I don't particularly like rechargeables of any type for emergency use. A good fresh set of non-rechargeable alkalines will give you about 5 years of shelf life depending on how they are stored and lithium batteries will last a bit longer. The manufacturers sometimes spec 10 years or more on lithiums, but you're getting down to 50-70% of capacity at that point which is not exactly what I'd like to be thinking about in IMC. Most of the portable transceivers have battery pack options that allow you to use alkaline or lithium batteries along with rechargeables. It's very nice to have both packs so you can swap them around when you're using the transceiver for non-emergency uses. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Enough about batteries. Want portable/back up comm recommendations -
Icom, Sporty's etc? Have portable GPS, so Nav is not that important. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jul 27, 9:32*pm, bobengr wrote:
Enough about batteries. *Want portable/back up comm recommendations - Icom, Sporty's etc? *Have portable GPS, so Nav is not that important. You can't go wrong with Icom. I have had an A2 for over 20 years, and have had no trouble (other than batteries). Don't waste your money on an optional Nav function. Regarding batteries, I use alkalines exclusively. Rechargeables need to be cycled regularly (run down then charged up) to be dependable. The batteries in a backup tranceiver tend to see only very occasional use (with long periods of neglect in between). Alkalines have an excellent shelf life. The only downside is that they have a higher internal resistance, and don't put out current as well as the others. That translates into "use low power on transmit unless absolutely necessary to use high power". Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"bobengr" wrote in message
... Enough about batteries. Want portable/back up comm recommendations - Icom, Sporty's etc? Have portable GPS, so Nav is not that important. I had a Vertex that failed completely after about 5 years. I now have the Icom A4 and I like it just fine. It's no longer being made, but you can still find them for sale new. It's been replaced by the A14. I think it might have a slightly lower power output than most, but it wasn't enough that I could notice any difference compared to my old Vertex. None of them work very well unless you're reasonably close to the ATC radio anyway, although if you have an externally mounted antenna you can increase your range somewhat. All of them are limited by power output, so most are going to have virtually the same range. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Given the fact that a 1 watt transmitter on one end and a 1 microvolt
receiver on the other end have a maximum theoretical range of 1800 miles, how in the world can you say that a 4 watt transmitter is "limited by power output"? The limitation is always by line of sight or antenna configuration. Jim "Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message ... .. I think it might have a slightly lower power output than most, but it wasn't enough that I could notice any difference compared to my old Vertex. None of them work very well unless you're reasonably close to the ATC radio anyway, although if you have an externally mounted antenna you can increase your range somewhat. All of them are limited by power output, so most are going to have virtually the same range. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"RST Engineering - JIm" wrote in message
... Given the fact that a 1 watt transmitter on one end and a 1 microvolt receiver on the other end have a maximum theoretical range of 1800 miles, how in the world can you say that a 4 watt transmitter is "limited by power output"? The limitation is always by line of sight or antenna configuration. Since all transceivers of this type are limited by the FCC in regards to how much power they can output(and most of them develop the max power allowed at about 1.5w nominal) and since all of them come with essentially identical omnidirectional antennas, I can pretty much assume they will all have very similar ranges, since obviously the transmitter is going to be the limiting factor seeing as how the other end is putting out roughly 7db more power. So you can use the opportunity to mentally masturbate your "engineering" knowledge and talk about theoretical true parabolic reflectors and receiver sensitivities that don't even approach practical applications, but you're not really contributing much to the OP's question. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message
... "RST Engineering - JIm" wrote in message ... Given the fact that a 1 watt transmitter on one end and a 1 microvolt receiver on the other end have a maximum theoretical range of 1800 miles, how in the world can you say that a 4 watt transmitter is "limited by power output"? The limitation is always by line of sight or antenna configuration. Since all transceivers of this type are limited by the FCC in regards to how much power they can output(and most of them develop the max power allowed at about 1.5w nominal) and since all of them come with essentially identical omnidirectional antennas, I can pretty much assume they will all have very similar ranges, since obviously the transmitter is going to be the limiting factor seeing as how the other end is putting out roughly 7db more power. So you can use the opportunity to mentally masturbate your "engineering" knowledge and talk about theoretical true parabolic reflectors and receiver sensitivities that don't even approach practical applications, but you're not really contributing much to the OP's question. I don't always agree with Jim; but he is absolutely right on this one. When I worked as an avionics technicial, most of the problems that I saw were ultimately wiring issues of the coaxial cables (frequently broken at the antenna connector) and only occasionally degraded sensitivity of the receiver. That was long ago, and more modern receivers should suffer far less degradation. The most entertaining case was a Bellanca on which one of the two comm transceivers would successfully receive the tower frequency about 6 miles from the airport and transmit just a little further. It turned out that there was an in-line coax connector which had become disconnected and the radio signals both transmitted and received were only through the braiding of the coax cable! Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
... "Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message ... "RST Engineering - JIm" wrote in message ... Given the fact that a 1 watt transmitter on one end and a 1 microvolt receiver on the other end have a maximum theoretical range of 1800 miles, how in the world can you say that a 4 watt transmitter is "limited by power output"? The limitation is always by line of sight or antenna configuration. Since all transceivers of this type are limited by the FCC in regards to how much power they can output(and most of them develop the max power allowed at about 1.5w nominal) and since all of them come with essentially identical omnidirectional antennas, I can pretty much assume they will all have very similar ranges, since obviously the transmitter is going to be the limiting factor seeing as how the other end is putting out roughly 7db more power. So you can use the opportunity to mentally masturbate your "engineering" knowledge and talk about theoretical true parabolic reflectors and receiver sensitivities that don't even approach practical applications, but you're not really contributing much to the OP's question. I don't always agree with Jim; but he is absolutely right on this one. When I worked as an avionics technicial, most of the problems that I saw were ultimately wiring issues of the coaxial cables (frequently broken at the antenna connector) and only occasionally degraded sensitivity of the receiver. That was long ago, and more modern receivers should suffer far less degradation. The most entertaining case was a Bellanca on which one of the two comm transceivers would successfully receive the tower frequency about 6 miles from the airport and transmit just a little further. It turned out that there was an in-line coax connector which had become disconnected and the radio signals both transmitted and received were only through the braiding of the coax cable! Peter The subjet is "Portable/back up transceiver" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike" nospam @ aol.com wrote in message ... Since all transceivers of this type are limited by the FCC in regards to how much power they can output(and most of them develop the max power allowed at about 1.5w nominal) and since all of them come with essentially identical omnidirectional antennas, I can pretty much assume they will all have very similar ranges, since obviously the transmitter is going to be the limiting factor seeing as how the other end is putting out roughly 7db more power. There are various ways of measuring the output power of an AM transmitter. One manufacturer's 1-watt transmitter may be much the same as another manufacturer's 4-watt transmitter. There are other important issues, such as the type and quality of the modulation and the audio processing. The devil is in the details. Actually, the quality of the receiver is (in general) more important than transmit power. In my experience, both Vertex and Icom are good brand names for that type of equipment. Vaughn |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "vaughn" wrote in message ... There are various ways of measuring the output power of an AM transmitter. One manufacturer's 1-watt transmitter may be much the same as another manufacturer's 4-watt transmitter. Yes. One trick that a pioneer in the field of solid state avionics design stooped to because in the '60s to get a watt at 127 MHz was a real trick was to measure power "peak to peak". This gives you an inflated number over the standard CW or carrier power of about 3:1. In those days Mark 12s were routinely putting out 10 to 12 watts and solid state "real" watts were about 1.5, which made the "peak to peak" watts somewhere around 4.5 watts, which of course the ad department "rounded up" to 5 watts. There are other important issues, such as the type and quality of the modulation and the audio processing. The devil is in the details. Amen. Decent audio processing in the modulator will make any radio sound good. The problem is that I can count the number of quality VHF AM engineers around today without even taking my pants and shoes off. Not understanding the subtleties of the AM process makes a radio sound thin and whiny, while good processing and modulation makes a real loudenboomer. Actually, the quality of the receiver is (in general) more important than transmit power. That is a question we've been debating for as long as I've been in this game. Sure, I can give you a tenth of a microvolt receiver that crossmods like hell when good buddy fires up his cb a mile away. Or I can do crossmod and intermod like gangbusters and the price you pay is decreased sensitivity. Like the old saw says, price, quality, time. Pick any two. Crossmod, intermod, sensitivity. Pick any two. Jim |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blue Angels back in Pensacola - practice session - Diamond heading back to the hangar | Pensacola Beachcomber | Aviation Photos | 0 | March 23rd 08 04:28 PM |
Did VHF transceiver need TSO certificate? | [email protected] | Home Built | 13 | March 31st 07 06:27 PM |
FS: Val Com 760 TSO Transceiver | aieo | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | January 25th 07 04:38 PM |
FA: 760ch transceiver | EOC | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 27th 05 08:23 PM |
Transceiver | BoDEAN | Products | 0 | April 7th 04 06:08 AM |