"Indestructable" Transmitter ??

[steve_qix]

Hi!

Well, I've been using the new class E-Z transmitter for about a month now... and have run an extensive
battery of tests designed to prove the robustness of the design under adverse conditions.

To quickly recap the design:  The transmitter is a 10 MOSFET transmitter designed to run about 300 - 400 watts of power.
The RF amp uses a single driver IC for each module, and the rig is bandswitched between 80 and 160 meters. The
modulator is a small Pulse Width design.

The tests:

1)  At full power, and under modulation, repeatedly short-circuit the RF output, both at the
transmitter and along the feedline.  Rig shut down each time; no failures.

2) At full power and under modulation repeatedly disconnect the antenna at several
points.  Rig shut down each time; no failures.

3) Attempt to operate the transmitter at too high current. Rig shut down each time; no failures.

4) At full power and under modulation remove the RF drive.  Rig shut down each time; no failures

These tests were repeated on purpose, and by accident numerous times.

I am in the process of creating complete schematics of the entire transmitter, modulator
and power supply.  Also laying out a PC board for the modulator and associated
control and protection circuitry.  The design is complete from microphone to
modulated output.  The layout will accept up to 6 MOSFETs in the modulator
output section (up to 1200 watts of modulated DC) and includes all drivers, pwm generator,
8 pole Butterworth input filter, negative peak limiter, tone compensation (mic preamp), etc.

The builder can opt to not populate whatever sections of the
PC board are not needed (such as the mic preamp, if this is not desired, or the
output section, etc. etc.).

The board layout is flexible enough to allow it to be used in a wide variety
of applications and transmitter designs.

I am absoultely looking for feedback, if anyone has any. 

Regards,

Steve

[K6IC]

Hi  Steve,

Thanks for the update,  many of have been anxiously awaiting this info.

I assume that a brute-force DC supply is required ala the one for the previous design,  just scaled for the required power of the RF Deck ?

Some of us may want to get the critical parts on order,  so a heads up on the Driver chip part #,  and any other critical part #'s would be helpful.

Thanks again for your efforts. 
Did hear U on 75 Meters,  think that it was in early January,  was approaching 2:00 AM  EST on a weekday,  and you were working some in the Midwest and West Coast.  U sounded marvelous !

72   Thanks again   Vic  K6IC

[WBear2GCR]

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Sqeeeeeeeeeeeeegggggggggggg
               SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Feedback.   





Steve... what more can anyone say other than can't wait to see the schematics!
Sounds fabuloso!

           _-_-WBear2GCR

[w3jn]

I suspect most class E xmitter failures are due to people driving them with riceboxes.  People forget and rrun a hunnert watts into 'em, or there are switching transients that blow the gates.  Better to run with an internal VFO/buffer/driver, IMHO.

Look forward to the project publication, Steve.

[WA1GFZ]

John, I bet you are right on the drive thing.
Steve, Motorola tested their amplifiers with a length of coax hanging across the output to reflect a 30 to 1 swr and a good reflected vlotage. You might look at some old manuals.  I've found a partial short a lot worse than a dead short.

I need to get some of these cool driver chips for my 160 meter rig driver.

Steve, Consider this. I provide a digital output from my transmitter at operating frequency. This way I can monitor my frequency with a counter.

[WBear2GCR]

Seems like it's none to difficult to set up ur own Class E rig to prevent overdrive at the input.

Maybe even a zener would suffice to clip the voltage if overdriven... dunno.
Seems like the protection circuit that Steve has now will shut it down anyhow..

Perhaps I'm all wet on this.

         _-_-WBear2GCR

[steve_qix]

Seems like it's none to difficult to set up ur own Class E rig to prevent overdrive at the input.

Maybe even a zener would suffice to clip the voltage if overdriven... dunno.
Seems like the protection circuit that Steve has now will shut it down anyhow..

Perhaps I'm all wet on this.

         _-_-WBear2GCR

Hi Bear,

The input protection is well established.  For transmitters that use an external driver, we've been
using TransZorbs (18 volt units) to protect the gates.  Works like a charm!

My new transmitter uses a driver IC, with a 12 volt power supply so the gates can't
be overdriven.  I still use TransZorbs across the gates just in case :-)

Regards,

Steve

[K6JEK]

Boards?  You're making boards?  When you get these going, I'll build one.    I'm a lousy test though.  I still run the 6 FET single ended with the class H modulator and haven't blown anything up since the original construction screw ups.

Jon

[WA3VJB]

Steve I know you've been self-conscious about the series of crap-outs most if not all of the Class E stations have suffered in the past few years. Brent feels awful and I have a lot of compassion while he was off the air.

I wonder if the type of MOSFET commonly used in your projects could be a problem?  The broadcast industry's use of this solid state device, patented 30 years ago in the context of "Class E," has proven very reliable.

It is because of that reliability that stations have been tossing out the old plate-modulated tube transmitters in to the grateful, awaiting arms of AMers here.

I wish you the best in boosting the confidence people can have in a ham radio version of a Class E design, even if they're not likely to throw out their heavy metal if that's a result...

Cheers,

[steve_qix]

Steve I know you've been self-conscious about the series of crap-outs most if not all of the Class E stations have suffered in the past few years. Brent feels awful and I have a lot of compassion while he was off the air.

I wonder if the type of MOSFET commonly used in your projects could be a problem?  The broadcast industry's use of this solid state device, patented 30 years ago in the context of "Class E," has proven very reliable.

It is because of that reliability that stations have been tossing out the old plate-modulated tube transmitters in to the grateful, awaiting arms of AMers here.

I wish you the best in boosting the confidence people can have in a ham radio version of a Class E design, even if they're not likely to throw out their heavy metal if that's a result...

Cheers,

Hi Paul,

Hmmmmm... Well, I don't think I'm particularly self-conscious about people experimenting with class E - any more than you might be if someone
who experiments with a tube rig and has a problem....  I'm an engineer, and this sort of stuff is pretty normal in the engineering world.  If we
ran scared from  automobiles, space travel or computer software each time someone had a problem, we'd all be riding horses would never have gone
to the moon, and we'd be writing on paper    It's sort of like computers were 25 years ago.  "I'll never have one of them dang thangs in MY
house".

To address Brent's issue - there are exactly 4 people, world wide (that I know of) who have successfully built class E transmitters as extensive
as Brent's.  That's quite an accomplishment on Brent's part (since it's strictly experimental), and he is certainly a pioneer.  Yup, he will probably
experience some problems because it's an experiment.  Same things happens in ALL fields - but we LEARN from our mistakes.  My hat is off to those
who have the balls to get out there and try something unproven.  To sail big ships you have to go where the water is deep.

Everyone's Having Crap Outs?  I don't think so!

It would appear that the assumption that class E IN GENERAL is less reliable than tube equipment is a rumor started by users of the same.  In
fact, "most" people running *proven design* class E transmitters (once built properly and in regular operation) DON'T have crap outs... and for sure,
at no higher rate than tube operators.  I can site a number of such stations (myself included) who have NEVER had a crap out of
any kind since the transmitter was built (over 4 years for my 5 class E transmitters on 3 bands).

The nature of experimentation

Like the experimenters in tubes, the experimenters in class E, building non proven designs may experience crap outs.  I sure have experienced
a lot of crap outs when I was building TUBE equipment because everything I built was experimental!!  Well, most of the solid state transmitters
on the air today are experimental.  There is not a 50 year body of knowledge of "proven practice" from which to draw.

Back in the '70s, tube equipment failures were rampid - it seemed EVERYONE was having crap outs.  Fires, exploding capacitors, tube
melt downs, arc-overs, MODULATION TRANSFORMER FAILURES, mercury vapor rectifier arc-backs.... How many times did I hear
Tim WA1HLR say "So and so had a craaaaaaaaaap out last week".  Well, people running tubes are STILL having crap outs.. I heard just YESTERDAY
someone talking about their blown modulation transformer.  In fact, among builders, improper transmitter operation, failure, constant modifications,
rebuilding, etc. is common - tube or solid state.

As I think about it, going back over my 35 years in ham radio, I know of a number of tube transmitters that didn't go a couple of weeks without
some kind of problem.... because they were experimental in nature.  Should I draw the conclusion that tube equipment is junk because SOME
PEOPLE have crap outs?   

I could draw a conclusion that class E rigs are more reliable because many folks (including myself) are on the air daily and there are no failures. 
The fact from my own personal experience is, my solid state equipment is MUCH more reliable than any of my tube equipment ever was.  And it sure
is SAFER to build and operate the solid state equipment, that's for sure!!!

Solid State Broadcast Rigs

To answer the question about broadcast rigs:  In the broadcast industry, most designs until recently were using an H bridge configuration,
with very slow, very high power devices.  The H bridge is self-protecting from a voltage standpoint.   At 3.5 mHz and above, the H bridge design
cannot be used for a variety of reasons - mostly due to the switching speed of diodes - internal and external - associated with the design.  Another
difference between broadcast rigs and short wave is, at broadcast frequencies, square wave drive is practical.  This is a much better drive method
(I'm using it with the new driver chips in my 2 band transmitter) because it reduces the likelyhood of parasitics. 

One of the biggest technical challenges builders of high gain, very low impedance, wide bandwidth, switching  amplifiers face is parasitic oscillations.  The best way to eliminate parasitics is to make sure the amplifier is not allowed to operate in the analog region long enough for a parasitic to build
up.  This is where the driver circuitry and circuit layout become very important.  Remember, most of these folks are rolling their own physical layouts
here, and herein comes a problem.  If you lay it out correctly, and drive it correctly, your class E amplifier will be ultimately stable.  Anyway, this is
where my  new design comes in.  The design significantly reduces the driver and driver layout problem, and the result is a very stable RF amplifier.

By the way, the early solid state broadcast rigs crapped out ALL THE TIME (remember that first Gates solid state transmitter)?  I was offered one
of those, and apparently, every device in the transmitter was bad!!  Talk about catastrophic failure!!  But, the industry learned, and the
transmitters have become much more reliable.  The broadcast tube rigs still survive lightning much better (I was in broadcast engineering for years).

The main reason the broadcasters have migrated from tubes to solid state is the same reason I have - the transmitters SOUND BETTER, are
MORE EFFICIENT (less expensive to operate).... and in the case of Ham Radio, are LESS EXPENSIVE to build than a tube transmitter with
the *same capabilities* (if you could even build it at all!).

Old Dogs, and do you "love" your Transmitter (does SHE have a name??)

So, what's the conclusion of all this?  There is no "tube v/s solid state - which is better" argument or problem.  Experimenters have failures - tube
or solid state.  The "tube v/s Class E" "issue" is strictly emotional.  People have "relationships" with their transmitters, particularly if they are big,
expensive, and took a lot of work to get into their houses and on the air!  And that's OK.  It's part of the fun.  I would never presume to say
my class E rig is "better" or a tube rig is "better".  "Better" is in the mind of the beholder.

And, the old saying about "old dogs and new tricks" is also coming into play here. As an "old dog" myself, there are certain things I don't want to see changed...  my transmitter technology NOT being one of them.  Music - that's another story! 

But, a lot of "old radio dogs" LIKE the old, comfortable tube technology - it makes them feel nice - and this is a good thing :-) 
I like Rite 1 (a form of church service) and Rite 1 is very old and traditional.  It makes me feel good - gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling of tradition.

Amateur is derrived from the French word "to love" - and love is an emotion... and that's what this whole discussion is really about - and that's OK 

Fond Regards,

Steve, QIX

[WA3VJB]

Steve,

I don't understand the defensive tone in your posting.

There was no premise of "tube vs. solid state" in my offering, and I certainly didn't posit that one is better than the other.

I know there's been understandable feelings of not fitting in among certain people who are running your design, but it's the same, in my opinion, as people who check into an AM QSO using a rice box. Some folks are in awe of the classic big tube heavy metal transmitters of the past. They describe feeling dwarfed when they run a simple little box, or a project like yours that does not glow when it is working properly.

You're to be commended, and have been, for promoting an aspect of homebrew that otherwise might have been overlooked.  With all such experimentation there are setbacks, yours included, and recognizing that inevitable vulnerability is part of feeling satisfied when indeed the rig is successfully repaired or re-designed.

Regards

    Re: "Indestructable" Transmitter ??
« Reply #9 on: Today at 01:00:29 PM

It would appear that the assumption that class E IN GENERAL is less reliable than tube equipment is a rumor started by users of the same.  In
fact, "most" people running *proven design* class E transmitters (once built properly and in regular operation) DON'T have crap outs... and for sure,
at no higher rate than tube operators.  I can site a number of such stations (myself included) who have NEVER had a crap out of
any kind since the transmitter was built (over 4 years for my 5 class E transmitters on 3 bands).

The nature of experimentation

Like the experimenters in tubes, the experimenters in class E, building non proven designs may experience crap outs.  I sure have experienced
a lot of crap outs when I was building TUBE equipment because everything I built was experimental!!  Well, most of the solid state transmitters
on the air today are experimental.  There is not a 50 year body of knowledge of "proven practice" from which to draw.

Back in the '70s, tube equipment failures were rampid - it seemed EVERYONE was having crap outs.  Fires, exploding capacitors, tube
melt downs, arc-overs, MODULATION TRANSFORMER FAILURES, mercury vapor rectifier arc-backs.... How many times did I hear
Tim WA1HLR say "So and so had a craaaaaaaaaap out last week".  Well, people running tubes are STILL having crap outs.. I heard just YESTERDAY
someone talking about their blown modulation transformer.  In fact, among builders, improper transmitter operation, failure, constant modifications,
rebuilding, etc. is common - tube or solid state.

As I think about it, going back over my 35 years in ham radio, I know of a number of tube transmitters that didn't go a couple of weeks without
some kind of problem.... because they were experimental in nature.  Should I draw the conclusion that tube equipment is junk because SOME
PEOPLE have crap outs?   

I could draw a conclusion that class E rigs are more reliable because many folks (including myself) are on the air daily and there are no failures.
The fact from my own personal experience is, my solid state equipment is MUCH more reliable than any of my tube equipment ever was.  And it sure
is SAFER to build and operate the solid state equipment, that's for sure!!!

Solid State Broadcast Rigs

To answer the question about broadcast rigs:  In the broadcast industry, most designs until recently were using an H bridge configuration,
with very slow, very high power devices.  The H bridge is self-protecting from a voltage standpoint.   At 3.5 mHz and above, the H bridge design
cannot be used for a variety of reasons - mostly due to the switching speed of diodes - internal and external - associated with the design.  Another
difference between broadcast rigs and short wave is, at broadcast frequencies, square wave drive is practical.  This is a much better drive method
(I'm using it with the new driver chips in my 2 band transmitter) because it reduces the likelyhood of parasitics.

One of the biggest technical challenges builders of high gain, very low impedance, wide bandwidth, switching  amplifiers face is parasitic oscillations.  The best way to eliminate parasitics is to make sure the amplifier is not allowed to operate in the analog region long enough for a parasitic to build
up.  This is where the driver circuitry and circuit layout become very important.  Remember, most of these folks are rolling their own physical layouts
here, and herein comes a problem.  If you lay it out correctly, and drive it correctly, your class E amplifier will be ultimately stable.  Anyway, this is
where my  new design comes in.  The design significantly reduces the driver and driver layout problem, and the result is a very stable RF amplifier.

By the way, the early solid state broadcast rigs crapped out ALL THE TIME (remember that first Gates solid state transmitter)?  I was offered one
of those, and apparently, every device in the transmitter was bad!!  Talk about catastrophic failure!!  But, the industry learned, and the
transmitters have become much more reliable.  The broadcast tube rigs still survive lightning much better (I was in broadcast engineering for years).

The main reason the broadcasters have migrated from tubes to solid state is the same reason I have - the transmitters SOUND BETTER, are
MORE EFFICIENT (less expensive to operate).... and in the case of Ham Radio, are LESS EXPENSIVE to build than a tube transmitter with
the *same capabilities* (if you could even build it at all!).

Old Dogs, and do you "love" your Transmitter (does SHE have a name??)

So, what's the conclusion of all this?  There is no "tube v/s solid state - which is better" argument or problem.  Experimenters have failures - tube
or solid state.  The "tube v/s Class E" "issue" is strictly emotional.  People have "relationships" with their transmitters, particularly if they are big,
expensive, and took a lot of work to get into their houses and on the air!  And that's OK.  It's part of the fun.  I would never presume to say
my class E rig is "better" or a tube rig is "better".  "Better" is in the mind of the beholder.

And, the old saying about "old dogs and new tricks" is also coming into play here. As an "old dog" myself, there are certain things I don't want to see changed...  my transmitter technology NOT being one of them.  Music - that's another story!

But, a lot of "old radio dogs" LIKE the old, comfortable tube technology - it makes them feel nice - and this is a good thing :-)
I like Rite 1 (a form of church service) and Rite 1 is very old and traditional.  It makes me feel good - gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling of tradition.

Amateur is derrived from the French word "to love" - and love is an emotion... and that's what this whole discussion is really about - and that's OK 

Fond Regards,

Steve, QIX


---------

Hi Paul,

Hmmmmm... Well, I don't think I'm particularly self-conscious about people experimenting with class E - any more than you might be if someone
who experiments with a tube rig and has a problem....  I'm an engineer, and this sort of stuff is pretty normal in the engineering world.  If we
ran scared from  automobiles, space travel or computer software each time someone had a problem, we'd all be riding horses would never have gone
to the moon, and we'd be writing on paper    It's sort of like computers were 25 years ago.  "I'll never have one of them dang thangs in MY
house".

To address Brent's issue - there are exactly 4 people, world wide (that I know of) who have successfully built class E transmitters as extensive
as Brent's.  That's quite an accomplishment on Brent's part (since it's strictly experimental), and he is certainly a pioneer.  Yup, he will probably
experience some problems because it's an experiment.  Same things happens in ALL fields - but we LEARN from our mistakes.  My hat is off to those
who have the balls to get out there and try something unproven.  To sail big ships you have to go where the water is deep.

It would appear that the assumption that class E IN GENERAL is less reliable than tube equipment is a rumor started by users of the same.  In
fact, "most" people running *proven design* class E transmitters (once built properly and in regular operation) DON'T have crap outs... and for sure,
at no higher rate than tube operators.  I can site a number of such stations (myself included) who have NEVER had a crap out of
any kind since the transmitter was built (over 4 years for my 5 class E transmitters on 3 bands).

The nature of experimentation

Like the experimenters in tubes, the experimenters in class E, building non proven designs may experience crap outs.  I sure have experienced
a lot of crap outs when I was building TUBE equipment because everything I built was experimental!!  Well, most of the solid state transmitters
on the air today are experimental.  There is not a 50 year body of knowledge of "proven practice" from which to draw.

Back in the '70s, tube equipment failures were rampid - it seemed EVERYONE was having crap outs.  Fires, exploding capacitors, tube
melt downs, arc-overs, MODULATION TRANSFORMER FAILURES, mercury vapor rectifier arc-backs.... How many times did I hear
Tim WA1HLR say "So and so had a craaaaaaaaaap out last week".  Well, people running tubes are STILL having crap outs.. I heard just YESTERDAY
someone talking about their blown modulation transformer.  In fact, among builders, improper transmitter operation, failure, constant modifications,
rebuilding, etc. is common - tube or solid state.

As I think about it, going back over my 35 years in ham radio, I know of a number of tube transmitters that didn't go a couple of weeks without
some kind of problem.... because they were experimental in nature.  Should I draw the conclusion that tube equipment is junk because SOME
PEOPLE have crap outs?   

I could draw a conclusion that class E rigs are more reliable because many folks (including myself) are on the air daily and there are no failures.
The fact from my own personal experience is, my solid state equipment is MUCH more reliable than any of my tube equipment ever was.  And it sure
is SAFER to build and operate the solid state equipment, that's for sure!!!

Solid State Broadcast Rigs

To answer the question about broadcast rigs:  In the broadcast industry, most designs until recently were using an H bridge configuration,
with very slow, very high power devices.  The H bridge is self-protecting from a voltage standpoint.   At 3.5 mHz and above, the H bridge design
cannot be used for a variety of reasons - mostly due to the switching speed of diodes - internal and external - associated with the design.  Another
difference between broadcast rigs and short wave is, at broadcast frequencies, square wave drive is practical.  This is a much better drive method
(I'm using it with the new driver chips in my 2 band transmitter) because it reduces the likelyhood of parasitics.

One of the biggest technical challenges builders of high gain, very low impedance, wide bandwidth, switching  amplifiers face is parasitic oscillations.  The best way to eliminate parasitics is to make sure the amplifier is not allowed to operate in the analog region long enough for a parasitic to build
up.  This is where the driver circuitry and circuit layout become very important.  Remember, most of these folks are rolling their own physical layouts
here, and herein comes a problem.  If you lay it out correctly, and drive it correctly, your class E amplifier will be ultimately stable.  Anyway, this is
where my  new design comes in.  The design significantly reduces the driver and driver layout problem, and the result is a very stable RF amplifier.

By the way, the early solid state broadcast rigs crapped out ALL THE TIME (remember that first Gates solid state transmitter)?  I was offered one
of those, and apparently, every device in the transmitter was bad!!  Talk about catastrophic failure!!  But, the industry learned, and the
transmitters have become much more reliable.  The broadcast tube rigs still survive lightning much better (I was in broadcast engineering for years).

The main reason the broadcasters have migrated from tubes to solid state is the same reason I have - the transmitters SOUND BETTER, are
MORE EFFICIENT (less expensive to operate).... and in the case of Ham Radio, are LESS EXPENSIVE to build than a tube transmitter with
the *same capabilities* (if you could even build it at all!).

Old Dogs, and do you "love" your Transmitter (does SHE have a name??)

So, what's the conclusion of all this?  There is no "tube v/s solid state - which is better" argument or problem.  Experimenters have failures - tube
or solid state.  The "tube v/s Class E" "issue" is strictly emotional.  People have "relationships" with their transmitters, particularly if they are big,
expensive, and took a lot of work to get into their houses and on the air!  And that's OK.  It's part of the fun.  I would never presume to say
my class E rig is "better" or a tube rig is "better".  "Better" is in the mind of the beholder.

And, the old saying about "old dogs and new tricks" is also coming into play here. As an "old dog" myself, there are certain things I don't want to see changed...  my transmitter technology NOT being one of them.  Music - that's another story!

But, a lot of "old radio dogs" LIKE the old, comfortable tube technology - it makes them feel nice - and this is a good thing :-)
I like Rite 1 (a form of church service) and Rite 1 is very old and traditional.  It makes me feel good - gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling of tradition.

Amateur is derrived from the French word "to love" - and love is an emotion... and that's what this whole discussion is really about - and that's OK 

Fond Regards,

Steve, QIX

[WA1GFZ]

No tube rig or solid state rig is indestructable.....sorry Steve



solid state rigs are a lot easier to build (if you follow the rules) than tube rigs, having done both.

but then real men can design synthesizers and I will be the first to admit my synthesizer design is lacking performance.

[steve_qix]

Steve,
 . . .
Some folks are in awe of the classic big tube heavy metal transmitters of the past. They describe feeling dwarfed when they run a simple little box, or a project like yours that does not glow when it is working properly.

Hi Paul,

You may be missing something very important - and maybe that's why some of us get really turned on by class E stuff - just like you do with tube equipment.

Simple Little Box?

I believe your equating of a project like a home brew class E transmitter to a "simple little box" is inaccurate.  The only thing they have in common
is that they're solid state.  Would I get any more pleasure from an unmodified Sonar tube rig than a rice box?  It certainly glows.  But, somehow I
don't think I'd feel a whole lot better running that thing than I would a rice box.  I have received MANY emails and comments on the air about how
much fun folks are having in building their class E transmitters, and how good they feel about using and owning them.  Somehow, this does not seem
dissimilar from the feeling you get from your tube equipment.  In fact, it appears to be the same.

Many people, myself included, are in absolute awe of putting out a high power, high quality AM signal from something
that doesn't wear out, makes virtually no noise, wastes very little power, and is completely home built.
I still at times look inside the transmitter, which looks EXACTLY like a vintage tube transmitter on the outside, and am rather
amazed at the fact that it's doing what it's doing.  But, one would have had to actually do it and experience it for one's self to understand.  

The feeling is EXACTLY the same.  And, it is a feeling - like I said - this whole discussion is emotional.   Class E rigs boring?  "Don't have a soul"?
Feel drarfed?  Not hardly!.  Don't knock it 'till you've tried it  

Ham Radio Today - AM Today - and the Next Generation

We have a problem in ham radio today:  Rice boxes have largely killed off the "feeling" and personal satisfaction folks experienced as a result of
work and accomplishment.  And, the demographics and types of operators we see in the hobby today brear this out.
We need to get the "feeling" back if we want the hobby as we know it (or knew it) to survive.  Like it or not, we need
to move to an accessible, practical, affordable and AVAILABLE technology for folks to build, get their hands dirty with, and feel good about.

My 14 year old is studying for his ham license.  Only 14 - he does not know about tubes, tube testers in every drug store, old TV sets, boat anchors
or virtually anything about the 50 year old technology that WE know all about because we grew up with it in our world.  It is not in his world.  Not
because of me, because it's simply not used anymore - except by a few of us "old dogs".  My son's world is ICs, transistors, circuit boards, instant-on,
etc. because everything he encounters from his TV set to his computer to his radio is made of this stuff.  

He does know personal accomplishment, the thrill of building something that he can use to talk with someone else, the feeling of wonder and
discovery, and everything else that makes folks become involved in this (or any) hobby.  He has already built a transmitter.  From junk parts lying
around the shack floor and some stuff from Radio Shack - solid state parts - because that's the reality of today.  He needed a power transformer -
25VCT.  Rat Shack had it.  Good thing the transmitter he built didn't need a 450 volt transformer or 450 volt filter capacitor or a tube because he
would not have known where to such a thing.  Not to mention all of the other special parts (tube parts ARE special parts in today's world) he would
have needed!!!!  20 distributors could have supplied the solid state parts my son used for his transmitter, reliably, and at low cost.  And, he got some
parts from old solid state stereo units and an old VCR.  These things are today's version of the old tube TVs we used to get parts from many, many
years ago.

On AM'ers

There is something very special about most of the AMers - they get their hands dirty with building and tinkering, they take pride in their
personal accomplishments, are generally trying to learn more, and are generally interested in helping others get into the hobby.  But, if we do not
move all of that good stuff to a practical, current technology platform, all of that good stuff I mentioned will disappear when we do.

In conclusion, I do not say class E or tubes are "better", but I can probably say, with reasonably certainty, that solid state transmitters are
the only way we are going to inspire the next generation of hams into doing what we all did and do that keeps us coming back for more of this
great hobby and the great thing we call AM and home building.

Thanks and Regards,

Steve

[steve_qix]

No tube rig or solid state rig is indestructable.....sorry Steve



solid state rigs are a lot easier to build (if you follow the rules) than tube rigs, having done both.

but then real men can design synthesizers and I will be the first to admit my synthesizer design is lacking performance.

Well, of course :-)  That is why I put it as "quote" indestructable "quote"  :-)   

I do enjoy the "real men" do (whatever)  Let's see :-)

Real men:

 . . . adjust the balance of their class E rigs when they're transmitting (Brent does this!).
 . . . use a 50 amp power transformer when a 10 amp unit will do because it's "more reliable"
 . . . put up their antennas during a snow storm (of course it will work better, too!)
 . . . attach relays to the side of their racks because it makes that "chunk" when going from receive to transmit
 . . . don't get freaked out when something explodes
 . . . like a little smoke in the shack from time to time - gives it "character"
 . . . think measuring AM power in PEP is for wimps
 . . . draw arcs of their transmitter's tank components just to show "it's working correctly"
 . . . make sure they schedule important events such as weddings, baby births, funerals and the like far from important hamfests like the Hosstraders
 . . . are not members of the Marconi net

Regards,

Steve

[The Slab Bacon]

Hmmmmm.......................... This is getting good!! the ford vs chevy thing is still alive and well! I can argue both sides of this argument, but you know what, it is a lot more fun to stand on the side and watch others argue!!!!

Sort of reminds me of the old "I spent $3000 on my valiant" and no one can hear me thing. If no one can hear me I'll just take my toys and go home! (hee, hee,hee)

Grab that plate cap, whistle into the mike, and hang on till your mega hurts!!!!!

                                                                     The Slab Bacon

[WA3VJB]

Steve,
I apologize that today I seen to be having trouble writing clearly for you.

I tried to portray my impression that there is a sort of apologetic entrance to AM QSOs I've been part of by some people, some of whom are on rice boxes, some of whom are on your MOSFET homebrew rigs. Each pays some sort of polite, introductory homage when they enter a QSO where classic tube transmitters are at play.

Most of the people I hang with don't need any sort of deferential comment just because they're running big old tube transmitters, yet such comments are warmly received as the conversation welcomes the person in. Nice for all concerned, even though I wonder why such people are self-conscious in the first place.

Many people have heard me go out of my way to try to dispel any feeling they should feel dwarfed or less-worthy, or whatever else they've given off. Maybe it's just a way to politely join up, I don't know. Next time I shall ask.

The reference to a simple little box was not intended to malign you, and I'm sorry you bristled at what you thought I meant. The reference was to the contemporary modern transceiver, also not "simple," but certainly diminuitive and that's where I now see I could have been more accurate. In the posting, I said "or" to then cite my experiences interacting with some people using your homebrew design, and I had not considered the level of complexity they may represent.

Remember that the comparison of tube vs. solid state, and characterization of "better or worse" were entirely yours, and that you now are spending time elaborating on those two points you made. I'm not there, and have little interest in promoting some sort of competition between what resembles a class struggle.

It's probably more helpful to independently establish the merits of whatever technology, intellectual discussion, or other topic under discussion, and avoid comparisons that may unintentionally cause bad feelings.  For my part, I'll try harder not to lump things together as seems to have been the case here for you.

--Paul/VJB
 


 Re: "Indestructable" Transmitter ??
« Reply #12 on: Today at 02:54:12 PM »

Hi Paul,

You may be missing something very important - and maybe that's why some of us get really turned on by class E stuff - just like you do with tube equipment.

Your equating of a project like a home brew class E transmitter to a "simple little box" is quite inaccurate.  The only thing they have in common
is that they're solid state.  Would I get any more pleasure from an unmodified Sonar tube rig than a rice box?  It certainly glows.  But, somehow I
don't think I'd feel a whole lot better running that thing than I would a rice box.  I have received MANY emails and comments on the air about how
much fun folks are having in building their class E transmitters, and how good they feel about using and owning them.  Somehow, this does not seem
dissimilar from the feeling you get from your tube equipment.  In fact, it appears to be the same.

Many people, myself included, are in absolute awe of putting out a high power, high quality AM signal from something
that doesn't wear out, makes virtually no noise, wastes very little power, and is completely home built.
I still at times look inside the transmitter, which looks EXACTLY like a vintage tube transmitter on the outside, and am rather
amazed at the fact that it's doing what it's doing.  But, one would have had to actually do it and experience it for one's self to understand. 

The feeling is EXACTLY the same.  And, it is a feeling - like I said - this whole discussion is emotional.   Class E rigs boring?  "Don't have a soul"?
Feel drarfed?  Not hardly!.  Don't knock it 'till you've tried it 

We have a problem in ham radio today:  Rice boxes have largely killed off the "feeling" and personal satisfaction folks experienced as a result of
work and accomplishment.  And, the demographics and types of operators we see in the hobby today brear this out.
We need to get the "feeling" back if we want the hobby as we know it (or knew it) to survive.  Like it or not, we need
to move to an accessible, practical, affordable and AVAILABLE technology for folks to build, get their hands dirty with, and feel good about.

My 14 year old is studying for his ham license.  Only 14 - he does not know about tubes, tube testers in every drug store, old TV sets, boat anchors
or virtually anything about the 50 year old technology that WE know all about because we grew up with it in our world.  It is not in his world.  Not
because of me, because it's simply not used anymore - except by a few of us "old dogs".  My son's world is ICs, transistors, circuit boards, instant-on,
etc. because everything he encounters from his TV set to his computer to his radio is made of this stuff. 

He does know personal accomplishment, the thrill of building something that he can use to talk with someone else, the feeling of wonder and
discovery, and everything else that makes folks become involved in this (or any) hobby.  He has already built a transmitter.  From junk parts lying
around the shack floor and some stuff from Radio Shack - solid state parts - because that's the reality of today.  He needed a power transformer -
25VCT.  Rat Shack had it.  Good thing the transmitter he built didn't need a 450 volt transformer or 450 volt filter capacitor or a tube because he
would not have known where to such a thing.  Not to mention all of the other special parts (tube parts ARE special parts in today's world) he would
have needed!!!!  20 distributors could have supplied the solid state parts my son used for his transmitter, reliably, and at low cost.  And, he got some
parts from old solid state stereo units and an old VCR.  These things are today's version of the old tube TVs we used to get parts from many, many
years ago.

There is something very special about most of the AMers - they get their hands dirty with building and tinkering, they take pride in their
personal accomplishments, are generally trying to learn more, and are generally interested in helping others get into the hobby.  But, if we do not
move all of that good stuff to a practical, current technology platform, all of that good stuff I mentioned will disappear when we do.

In conclusion, I do not say class E or tubes are "better", but I can probably say, with reasonably certainty, that solid state transmitters are
the only way we are going to inspire the next generation of hams into doing what we all did and do that keeps us coming back for more of this
great hobby and the great thing we call AM and home building.

Thanks and Regards,

Steve

[WBear2GCR]

Hmmmmm.......................... This is getting good!! the ford vs chevy thing is still alive and well! I can argue both sides of this argument, but you know what, it is a lot more fun to stand on the side and watch others argue!!!!

Sort of reminds me of the old "I spent $3000 on my valiant" and no one can hear me thing. If no one can hear me I'll just take my toys and go home! (hee, hee,hee)

Grab that plate cap, whistle into the mike, and hang on till your mega hurts!!!!!

                                                                     The Slab Bacon

Ford vs. Chebby?

Valiant? $3,000??

Everyone knows a Valiant is a Plymouth!!
I've got a '61 Wagon, fwiw... (they called that a "compact car")

 

     

[WA1GFZ]

Hey Frank,
Have you looked at a Chev Vortex block....= Ford Y block

Y Block strongest hunk of iron known to man and a bitch to machine.


classe Driver since '95 and have blown it up a couple times.

I WANNA SPARK RIG

[The Slab Bacon]

Hey Frank,
Have you looked at a Chev Vortex block....= Ford Y block

Y Block strongest hunk of iron known to man and a bitch to machine.


classe Driver since '95 and have blown it up a couple times.

I WANNA SPARK RIG

Frank,
I have always been the oddball, I used to race MOPARs back in the 70's!! MOPAR big blocks (383's and 440's) are also "Y" block designs. they are also only 2 bolt main bottom ends. I never had any bottom end problems with my 440's twisting them well in excess of 7000 rpm! 3800 lb stickshift cars going 10.90's back then were a lot of fun!!!! THE SZHT HITS THE FAN WHEN YOU LET THE CLUTCH FLY !!!!!!

And to Bear: A valiant is a Plymouth love them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                                      The Slab Bacon

[The Slab Bacon]

ok, and uh, furthermore lets stir the pot a little!

I built my 4x1 transmitter around 5 years ago. It has run since then without any hint of a crapout. This includes bouncing it up and down the stairs on a handtruck. bouncing it down the road in the back of a pick up truck, beating the crap out it doing the "Special Event" things. We have literally ran the ba's off of that thing, and it still ticks like s timex"  It is my own design with no help from anyone else in design or construction. It is truely an "appliance" all I do is turn it on and use it!

And furthermore You should have seen the look on Steve (WB3HUZ) and Ritchie (KB2AM)'s faces the night that i disconnected the antenna connector and hit the transmit switch, and then went upstairs to make coffee! I left it on for a half hour while we did coffee and donuts! they looked at me like I was nuts and I just giggled.
When we returned to the radio room, I killed the tx switch, reconnected the antenna and we got back on the air without even the slightest hint of a failure.
So this proves that it CAN be done if you do the proper head scratching!

Real men can pull a mean second gear and build transmitters that DONTcrap out!!!

                                                                      The Slab Bacon

[WA1GFZ]

Real men can spank second gear in about 3 feet starting at red line and never take your foot off the gas.
I used to offset the neutral gate a littls so it would slide in to third the same way.
Lots a grease on the shifter guts and steal bushings everywhere.
AND PRAY IT SLIPS IN and stays turning

Then I worked on airplanes.....test pilots have 3 balls!

I have to agree My pair of CG310s sitting in the bottom of the rack like a pair of ox yanking the 4CX3000A presents a lot more fear than .3F charged to 150 volts.

But a solid state rig is the thing to use on a hot summer day.

Who cares what you use it is the pride of rolling your own. I don't care what the active element is it is all in the taming of the beast.

"It's not the kill it's the thrill of the chase"!   

[The Slab Bacon]

Real men can spank second gear in about 3 feet starting at red line and never take your foot off the gas.
I used to offset the neutral gate a littls so it would slide in to third the same way.
Lots a grease on the shifter guts and steal bushings everywhere.
AND PRAY IT SLIPS IN and stays turning

Dont forget to weld up the factory rubber handle isolator bushings if it was a  mopar factory Hurst.

468 cid + 12.5-1CR + 320deg cam + 512gear + 90/10 shocks = 2nd gear with the front wheels still off the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you better be able to pull second QUICKLY!

Boy, Frank, sounds like we grew up in a parallel universe! An eyeball qso could be a lot of fun, we seem to have a lot in common.

I agree with you 100% the feeling of satisfaction that comes from "rolling your own" is one of life's greatest pleasures no matter what it is.
 
I still remember the first day "maiden run" on the first real drag car that I built over 30 years ago. I was at Capital Raceway with a bunch of the the local "elders" that I looked up to. When I went up to make the maiden run, they all stayed in the pits and were cracking on me. They were betting that My car wouldnt fall out of a tree.
All but 1, he watched me build it. When I pulled back down in the pits, they were smugly laughing when they asked me "How fast did it go". They all liked to have szht when I didnt say a word and handed them an 11.01 time card for the first run. Their attitudes changed dramatically from that point on. It only got faster from that point on!

Respect in ANY field of conquest is something that must be earned, and the best way to earn it is by showing the "elders" that you can run with or outrun them whenever you want!

I am sort of an ornry bastard by nature, it is just the way that I am. I love to occasionally "put one accross your bow". I tease and antagonize just about everyone close around me. It is really no fun when you do that to somebody and they get upset. If I put " one across your bow" I am full well expecting you to fire one back!
If you dont / cant, I am usually a bit dissapointed!

Life is far too short to walk around with your nose up un the air and a chip ou your shoulder!!!!!
                                                      The Slab Bacon

[steve_qix]

Hi Slab B...

I just drive an old pick-em-up truck (Ford F350) so I can plow my driveway during those New England winters!

So far, it's been a great LIGHT SNOW winter!

Not much curb appeal, but does get the job done.

Hey, you ever going to get back on the air :-) 

Talk later and Regards,

Steve

[The Slab Bacon]

Hi Slab B...

I just drive an old pick-em-up truck (Ford F350) so I can plow my driveway during those New England winters!

So far, it's been a great LIGHT SNOW winter!

Not much curb appeal, but does get the job done.

Hey, you ever going to get back on the air :-)

Talk later and Regards,

Steve

Hi Qixie,
            I think you got me confused with the other Bacon, he is Bacon light, I am the "Slab Babon wit the fat meat shakin" all 270 lbs. I have never gotten off of the air, I was on last night till around 2:00 am. I am still very active on the air (unlike the "other" Bacon) (Hee Hee). We have worked many times and I have always complimented you on your signal strength. See, if you were on the air more, you would know who I am. Everybody else does!

Funny, you should mention the snowless winter, It has been the same down here, I was just out cleaning out the garage. I just put the snow blowers away in the back shed and brought out the summer implements of destruction. It was near 89 deg down here today. It has me itching for a good long motorcycle ride!!!

The Slab Bacon has become a pen name that I have taken, but that is another long story.

                                                             The Slab Bacon 

[WD8BIL]

I don't know if its indestructable or not....
But my 1988 F150 is set to turn 300,000 miles old this spring.
I figure.... if it ain't brokt by now, it ain't a' gonna !!!