This statement/viewpoint is unwarranted from objective readers of my posts. But certainly Mr. Roos is entitled to his opinion.I'm glad to see you at last not claim to be an expert.
You are correct.The correct understanding, use, and reference to physical principles does not require one to be an "expert," or even to have stayed in a Holiday Inn.
pascoradio ... Do you think anybody actually read Post #32? Would you, yourself, have the cajones to write such a post? I'm sure that you can produce such a post by simply getting a hold of the software (if you haven't already), which in a version suitable for Part 15 AM, can be obtained for free on the Internet.
Odd that Mr Roos is encouraging a post from pascoradio to include a paper blizzard when Mr Roos apparently dislikes paper blizzards.
pascoradio,
You have previously described yourself as an EMC specialist, and you indicated in this thread that you have achieved considerable success in your field although, like Fry, you do not possess an engineering degree. I want to say that I have great respect for what you do, and there is no need for you to join in circling the wagons around Fry simply because he is a fellow non-degreed technical specialist.
If you would, please consider Post #32 in this thread, which Mr. Fry was kind enough to supply as an example of his many "paper blizzards." Fry now embraces the term, "paper blizzard." Tell me, John: do you think that Post #32 was intended to inform the reader, or to dazzle and impress him with Fry's brilliance? Do you think anybody actually read Post #32? Would you, yourself, have the cajones to write such a post? I'm sure that you can produce such a post by simply getting a hold of the software (if you haven't already), which in a version suitable for Part 15 AM, can be obtained for free on the Internet.
... With regard to post #32, it is unclear to me what Rich's intent was as the graphics he posted are familiar to all involved with this thread. ...
Pascoradio,
Yes, I am familiar with your brand of dry humor, which I had called "European style" in another thread on this site. Of course, you are a true American USN vet, not European at all.
I enjoyed your link to the tutorial explaining Class E tuning on another site, and the good humor you used to deal with the enforcer from the Cult of Phil, who saw your contribution as a possible threat to orthodoxy.
... The major point of contention in the results of the Challenge seems to be relatively poor showing of the AMT5000. The fact that it was tested using its supplied wire antenna certainly raises questions in my mind. It is highly unlikely that anyone going to the trouble of assembling the kit would use that wire antenna for anything other than testing. I doubt very much that the individual who supplied the transmitter uses the wire antenna - the manufacturer recommends using a base loaded whip (i.e., something similar to the ATU/whip of the Talking House).
There ARE some valid criticisms to the AM Transmitter Challenge as it stands right now.
The biggest is the fact that different antennas were used with each transmitter. In Part 15 broadcasting systems, having a good ground and antenna system is probably the most important factor in maximizing field strength. I understand that one of the conditions of the test was to use the antennas supplied with the transmitter, but the title of the test (and magazine article) is not Transmitter + Supplied Antenna. The 2 tests involving identical Talking House transmitters with different antennas (wire and ATU/whip) clearly demonstrates that using different antennas on the same transmitter can positively or negatively affect field strength to a large extent.
The major point of contention in the results of the Challenge seems to be relatively poor showing of the AMT5000. The fact that it was tested using its supplied wire antenna certainly raises questions in my mind. It is highly unlikely that anyone going to the trouble of assembling the kit would use that wire antenna for anything other than testing. I doubt very much that the individual who supplied the transmitter uses the wire antenna - the manufacturer recommends using a base loaded whip (i.e., something similar to the ATU/whip of the Talking House).
So while the Challenge was indeed a worthwhile exercise (the testers are to be praised for their hard work), it still leaves open the question as to which transmitter (and transmitter alone) is the most effective at delivering a signal to an antenna. And I suspect that testing each with an identical base loaded whip would have produced better - and different - results.
There ARE some valid criticisms to the AM Transmitter Challenge as it stands right now.
The biggest is the fact that different antennas were used with each transmitter. In Part 15 broadcasting systems, having a good ground and antenna system is probably the most important factor in maximizing field strength. I understand that one of the conditions of the test was to use the antennas supplied with the transmitter, but the title of the test (and magazine article) is not Transmitter + Supplied Antenna. The 2 tests involving identical Talking House transmitters with different antennas (wire and ATU/whip) clearly demonstrates that using different antennas on the same transmitter can positively or negatively affect field strength to a large extent.
The major point of contention in the results of the Challenge seems to be relatively poor showing of the AMT5000. The fact that it was tested using its supplied wire antenna certainly raises questions in my mind. It is highly unlikely that anyone going to the trouble of assembling the kit would use that wire antenna for anything other than testing. I doubt very much that the individual who supplied the transmitter uses the wire antenna - the manufacturer recommends using a base loaded whip (i.e., something similar to the ATU/whip of the Talking House).
So while the Challenge was indeed a worthwhile exercise (the testers are to be praised for their hard work), it still leaves open the question as to which transmitter (and transmitter alone) is the most effective at delivering a signal to an antenna. And I suspect that testing each with an identical base loaded whip would have produced better - and different - results.
... It is the trickier tuning requirement of Class E that has kept Class E from overtaking Class D in commercial AM broadcast transmitters.
... The factory supplied documentation for the AMT5000 makes no mention of any accommodation for any external antenna, ...
nor does the manufacturer produce or supply any external antenna tuning device like the Radio Systems i.AM.Radio.
It had been discussed that the ground conductivity in the test area has been documented as being poor, which appears to be the downfall of the AMT5000. Had the manufacturer of the AMT5000 been more forthcoming and supplied ample information on tuning...