RCI 2950 Power output
Jamie
I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my radio
will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
jam...@themall.net
Bill Eitner
No. If you want me to to explain why, e-mail me at:
kd6...@earthlink.net
--
----------------------------------------
\ /
___ | ___
A
/ | \
-=[Bill Eitner]=- III
III
III
_________III_________
The2X4
In article <3439741f...@news.earthlink.net>, jam...@themall.net
(Jamie) writes:
>
>I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my radio
>will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
>jam...@themall.net
>
>
Depends on whether you are using a buying
or selling wattmeter in a lot of cases.
Maybe, maybe not!
The2x4
tracy glenn
Jsender104
>> >I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my radio
>> >will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
I think about 10 watts AM and 35 SSB is about as far as it can be pushed. I
tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing final
and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to have the
extra power to drive an amp.
STRES TEST
Subject: Re: RCI 2950 Power output
From: jsend...@aol.com (Jsender104)
Date: Wed, Oct 15, 1997 13:15 EDT
Message-id: <19971015171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
this sounds like a load of crap to me !!!
Dave Hall
Firewalker wrote:
>
> Jsender104 wrote:
> >
> > >> >I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my radio
> > >> >will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
> >
> > I think about 10 watts AM and 35 SSB is about as far as it can be pushed. I
> > tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing final
> > and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to have the
> > extra power to drive an amp.
>
> about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
> even get more out of them.
Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Jsender104
>I think about 10 watts AM and 35 SSB is about as far as it can be pushed. I
> tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing final
> and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to have
>the
> extra power to drive an amp.
>
>
>
Would you care to elaborate on your thoughts.
Firewalker
Jsender104 wrote:
>
> >> >I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my radio
> >> >will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
>
> tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing final
> and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to have the
> extra power to drive an amp.
Only 10 watts? <G> Most radio techs can get at least 25 watts AM and
Bill Eitner
STRES TEST wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: RCI 2950 Power output
> From: jsend...@aol.com (Jsender104)
> Date: Wed, Oct 15, 1997 13:15 EDT
> Message-id: <19971015171...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
> >> >will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
>
> I think about 10 watts AM and 35 SSB is about as far as it can be pushed. I
> tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing final
> and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to have the
> extra power to drive an amp.
>
Me too.
I'd like to hear some details on how it was done, not just
empty claims. How was the problem of an inadequate AM
regulator/modulator handled? How was the problem of an
inadequate power supply system handled? How was the problem
of inadequate heat sinking handled? How long did this
miraculous mod take, and how much did it cost? And, all
things considered, is it really worth it compared to just
adding a $100 amp that will put out twice as much? (1)
(1) Reference amp: Palomar 225 (2 X SD1446); $99 at Bill's
2 way.
Firewalker
Dave Hall wrote:
>
> Firewalker wrote:
> > Only 10 watts? <G> Most radio techs can get at least 25 watts AM and
> > about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
> > even get more out of them.
>
> 12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
> into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
> watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
> watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
> turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
You are right, but most good techs also know what to swap out to get the
extra power.
Bruce Bennett
In article <344775...@swbell.net> Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net> writes:
>From: Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net>
>Subject: Re: RCI 2950 Power output
OH, FLAME ON!
You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
day-one?
Speaking as an engineer, I do take offense when someone says
"any good xxx can do it". I went to school many years and have more
years then that in practicle application. And I continue to school myself
to stay SLIGHTLY ahead of the game.
FLAME OFF.
I feel better now! Have a good weekend. And remember, "you get
what you pay for"!
73's,
Bruce
Remove (no.spam.) from my return address.
<<<I'm the NRA>>>
Firewalker
Bruce Bennett wrote:
> OH, FLAME ON!
>
> You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> day-one?
Not here, my rci2950 transmits 40 watts, and has done so for over a year
now. It didn't come this way, when it was new it only transmitted 10
watts max AM. I've seen these radios do 50 watts on AM. Of the radios
modified this way, any failure that there was were not any of the
components affected by the change. Why don't the make them that way???
Hmm I have heard that the mirage 2950 (almost identical to the rci2950)
can do 50 watts out of the box, but have not confirmed this.
> Speaking as an engineer, I do take offense when someone says
> "any good xxx can do it". I went to school many years and have more
> years then that in practicle application. And I continue to school myself
> to stay SLIGHTLY ahead of the game.
Auctually, the guy that does the work with my radio is not an engineer,
but he can hold his own on knowledge against about any engineer out
there. No offence meant, when I said tech, I ment anyone who works on
radios for a living.
Professor
Sandbagger is right, get some swing in your thing...
Professor
"WindowsNT Powered"
Dave Hall wrote in message <34469C...@worldlynx.net>...
>Firewalker wrote:
>>
>> Jsender104 wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my
radio
>> > >> >will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
>> >
>> > I think about 10 watts AM and 35 SSB is about as far as it can be
pushed. I
>> > tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing
final
>> > and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to
have the
>> > extra power to drive an amp.
>>
>> Only 10 watts? <G> Most radio techs can get at least 25 watts AM and
>> about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
>> even get more out of them.
>
>Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
>12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
>into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
>watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
>watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
>turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
>
>Dave
>"Sandbagger"
>
Dave Hall
Firewalker wrote:
>
> Dave Hall wrote:
> >
> > Firewalker wrote:
> > > about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
> > > even get more out of them.
> >
> > Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
> > 12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
> > into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
> > watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
> > watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
> > turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
>
> extra power.
No, a "good" tech knows not to mess with a factory design, just to get a
few more watts out. The question is not whether you CAN get more power,
but whether you SHOULD.
In the long run, you will be a lot happier with your radio running less
power, and using an amp to get to the power you want.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Bill Eitner
Bruce Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <344775...@swbell.net> Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net> writes:
> >From: Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net>
> >Subject: Re: RCI 2950 Power output
> >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:27:32 -0500
>
> >>
> >> Firewalker wrote:
> >> > Only 10 watts? <G> Most radio techs can get at least 25 watts AM and
> >> > about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
> >> > even get more out of them.
> >>
> >> Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
> >> 12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
> >> into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
> >> watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
> >> watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
> >> turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
>
> >You are right, but most good techs also know what to swap out to get the
> >extra power.
>
>
> You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> day-one?
>
> "any good xxx can do it". I went to school many years and have more
> years then that in practicle application. And I continue to school myself
> to stay SLIGHTLY ahead of the game.
>
>
> I feel better now! Have a good weekend. And remember, "you get
> what you pay for"!
>
> 73's,
> Bruce
> Remove (no.spam.) from my return address.
>
> <<<I'm the NRA>>>
I agree completely.
You don't know how many people responded to my
post where I said that if you wanted to know
why a 2950 won't put out n watts e-mail me.
I'll tell you that it was many more than I
expected. So many people (suckers) follow their
favorite radio Pied Piper to nowhere that it's
not even funny anymore.
Here's something to think about: To date no one
has answered my challenge as to how they pulled-
off the often spoken of but never proven 50+ watt
2950 modification. Think about that the next time
your favorite guru starts to play his swan song.
Bill Eitner
Firewalker wrote:
>
> Bruce Bennett wrote:
> > OH, FLAME ON!
> >
> > You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> > I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> > tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> > mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> > of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> > day-one?
>
> now. It didn't come this way, when it was new it only transmitted 10
> watts max AM. I've seen these radios do 50 watts on AM. Of the radios
> modified this way, any failure that there was were not any of the
> components affected by the change. Why don't the make them that way???
> Hmm I have heard that the mirage 2950 (almost identical to the rci2950)
> can do 50 watts out of the box, but have not confirmed this.
>
> > "any good xxx can do it". I went to school many years and have more
> > years then that in practicle application. And I continue to school myself
> > to stay SLIGHTLY ahead of the game.
>
> but he can hold his own on knowledge against about any engineer out
> there. No offence meant, when I said tech, I ment anyone who works on
> radios for a living.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Tell us about the test set-up that you personally
seen that showed you 40 watts out on AM. Tell us
whether it was carrier or PEP. Do you even know
what PEP means? What was the supply voltage?
What was the frequency of the injected audio tone?
What was it's amplitude? What was the dummy-load's
resistance? Did the tech even use a dummy-load?
What percentage of that 40 watts was harmonics? Do
you know what a harmonic is? What brand and model
was the tech's spectrum analyzer? Do you know what
a spectrum analyzer does? Do you really understand
what it is that your claims represent? Do you
understand that the 2950 would have to be overbuilt
by a full 60% to be capable of putting out 40 watts.
Do you understand that that's absolutely out of the
question given today's highly competative market?
Do you now understand that I wasn't full of shit
when I said that you don't know what you're talking
about? (I could on but I won't.)
It's nothing personal, but too many CBers think they
know more than they really do. To my way of thinking,
when you can answer the questions I've asked in this
post, then, and only then, do you deserve a voice in
these kinds of discussions.
Firewalker
>>
>> Only 10 watts? <G> Most radio techs can get at least 25 watts AM and
>> about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
>> even get more out of them.
>
>Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
>12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
>into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
>watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
>watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
>turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
>
>"Sandbagger"
>
Well, try tuning it like this, turn down the voltage going to the RF
section untill it is deadkeying 1 watt.
Then give that voltage to the audio section. The stock mike is not
clean enough for this method, get an astatic d104m6b, I keep mine on 2
and the radio all the way up. The voltage regulator will have to be
swapped out for a clean signal. To do this mod, r289 gets swapped out
and a resistor and a capacitor gets put in its place. I'm not sure of
the values as they are hidden in my radio. I may, in a few weeks, when
I get a chance find out. Well, if you want to do the mod now, ask some
of them engineers to figure it out for you.
John J. Gervasi
I'd like to know how to get more than 10-12 WPEP in AM out of a 2950. I have done
quite a bit of tuning the radio with schematic and I find that when I get close to
12 W the modulation starts to flat top on me. You can drive the shit out of the
finals with the modulation circuit but all you end up doing is flat topping and
sounding like shit. It took me several weeks to find the right power settings for
AM and SSB modulation power settings to get a rounded peak at 100% modulation.
John
Firewalker wrote:
> Jsender104 wrote:
> >
> > >> >I have ordered an RCI 2950 from a Co. And they tell me that my radio
> > >> >will do 35W AM, 45W SSB. Is this possible? Please E-Mail me.
> >
> > I think about 10 watts AM and 35 SSB is about as far as it can be pushed. I
> > tried the Mod to do this but never really used it. Wound up replacing final
> > and driver transistors to get about 25 on AM and 80 on SSB. Nice to have the
> > extra power to drive an amp.
>
John J. Gervasi
Bill Eitner wrote:
> Bruce Bennett wrote:
> >
> > In article <344775...@swbell.net> Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net> writes:
> > >From: Firewalker <mrhi...@swbell.net>
> > >Subject: Re: RCI 2950 Power output
> > >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:27:32 -0500
> >
> > >Dave Hall wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Firewalker wrote:
> > >> > Only 10 watts? <G> Most radio techs can get at least 25 watts AM and
> > >> > about 40 watts ssb out of them. If you know the right one, they can
> > >> > even get more out of them.
> > >>
> > >> Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
> > >> 12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
> > >> into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
> > >> watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
> > >> watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
> > >> turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier.
> >
> > >You are right, but most good techs also know what to swap out to get the
> > >extra power.
> >
> > OH, FLAME ON!
> >
> > You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> > I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> > tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> > mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> > of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> > day-one?
> >
> > Speaking as an engineer, I do take offense when someone says
> > "any good xxx can do it". I went to school many years and have more
> > years then that in practicle application. And I continue to school myself
> > to stay SLIGHTLY ahead of the game.
> >
> > FLAME OFF.
> >
> > I feel better now! Have a good weekend. And remember, "you get
> > what you pay for"!
> >
> > 73's,
> > Bruce
> > Remove (no.spam.) from my return address.
> >
> > <<<I'm the NRA>>>
>
> I agree completely.
>
> You don't know how many people responded to my
> post where I said that if you wanted to know
> why a 2950 won't put out n watts e-mail me.
> I'll tell you that it was many more than I
> expected. So many people (suckers) follow their
> favorite radio Pied Piper to nowhere that it's
> not even funny anymore.
>
> Here's something to think about: To date no one
> has answered my challenge as to how they pulled-
> off the often spoken of but never proven 50+ watt
> 2950 modification. Think about that the next time
> your favorite guru starts to play his swan song.
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> \ /
> ___ | ___
> A
> / | \
> -=[Bill Eitner]=- III
> III
> III
> _________III_________
Well Bill,
I don't know whether you remember me or not but after several weeks of tweaking the
2950 I am getting a clean (modulation that is) 11.42 WPEP. That is it with stock
parts, NO BS here.
John Gervasi
Dave Hall
John J. Gervasi wrote:
>
> I'd like to know how to get more than 10-12 WPEP in AM out of a 2950. I have done
> quite a bit of tuning the radio with schematic and I find that when I get close to
> 12 W the modulation starts to flat top on me. You can drive the shit out of the
> finals with the modulation circuit but all you end up doing is flat topping and
> sounding like shit. It took me several weeks to find the right power settings for
> AM and SSB modulation power settings to get a rounded peak at 100% modulation.
>
> John
Your radio is working exactly as it's designed. Because the transmitter
is designed for about 35 watts max on SSB, you can be pretty much sure
that that is all there is. With this in mind, your AM power and
modulation cannot exceed the max that you can get on SSB. A 100%
modulated AM signal power is 4X the dead carrier power. So if you
multiply 12 watts (Dead carrier) by 4, you get 48 watts. So if you
wanted to get 100% modulation (No flat tops), out of a 12 watt carrier,
you transmitter HAS to be able to make 48 watts. If you take the typical
2950's max output of 35 watts and divide it by 4 you are left with 8.75
watts, and I'll bet that's the point where you stop flattopping.
With a lot of effort, you could change components, and probably get 10
or so more watts out of the radio on SSB. Assuming that you jumped to 50
watts on SSB, if you divide that by 4 you can now run 12.5 watts of AM
carrier, and still hold 100% modulation.
Now the question, is it worth it? Changing parts can cause the radio to
run hotter, draw more current through the regulator circuit, or even
transmit parasitic spurs that can increase your TVI problems. Unless you
have a spectrum analyzer and a complete understanding of transmitters, I
wouldn't attempt it. It's far easier to leave the radio alone, and buy
an add-on amp if you want to boost your signal.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
David Kao
Firewalker wrote:
>
> Do you know that the final in the RCI 2950 can handle up to 50 watts of
> output on AM, and 60 on SSB?
> The radio doesn't need to be overbuilt by 60% to do this.
>
This is clearly saying you don't really know the output wattage of the
2950.
If it is truely 50 watts AM then it should be much greater than 60 watts
SSB.
If it is truely 60 watts SSB then it should much less than 50 watts AM.
In a regular AM/SSB CB, AM is 4 watts but SSB is 12 watts. Same finals,
same
circuit except different (AM or sideband) drives. Why the wattage is
different?
Maybe you do know why the difference. So why a RCI-2950 would give 50
watts
AM and 60 watts SSB? It is clearly flawed!!!
I think your 2950 is set by your tech to a carrier level at 50 watts.
There is
probably no moreor very little room for further swing. That's why you
get
60 watts for SSB. In this case your 2950 would sound like SSB in AM
mode.
Maybe you should say its AM is 50 watts PEP?
David Kao
Firewalker wrote:
>
> Bruce Bennett wrote:
> >
> > You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> > I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> > tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> > mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> > of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> > day-one?
>
> now. It didn't come this way, when it was new it only transmitted 10
> watts max AM. I've seen these radios do 50 watts on AM. Of the radios
> modified this way, any failure that there was were not any of the
> components affected by the change. Why don't the make them that way???
> Hmm I have heard that the mirage 2950 (almost identical to the rci2950)
> can do 50 watts out of the box, but have not confirmed this.
>
> but he can hold his own on knowledge against about any engineer out
> there. No offence meant, when I said tech, I ment anyone who works on
> radios for a living.
You should go to a HAM equipment place and look for Kenwood HF
transceivers.
All but one high end model are rated at 25 watts AM 100 watts SSB. Now
compare
your finals with those Kenwood stuff. Compare the size of hit sinks,
etc.
Then think about what you calimed your 2950 can do. If you are not an
engineer
nor a tech you don't really know the difference between them.
Does anyone know what final transistors does 2950 use?
Anonymous
<19971018174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:16:27 -0700, Bill Eitner <kd6...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> The2X4 wrote:
> >
> > As I said earlier the measuring device
> > may indicate an outrageous power level.
> > Users could care less if it is correct or not.
> > 50 watts looks better than 20, 30 or 40.
> >
> > I can't see how 'informed' members in this group
> > could think a little truth would change the users mind.
>
> That's because you have a learning disorder.
>
> Many people want to know the truth.
>
> > I guess ya'll don't get it.
> >
> > "If 'my' tech said it was putting out 50 watts then
> > it is putting out 50 watts. I saw it on the meter!"
> >
> > Now then here comes the likes of Bill E saying that it is
> > impossible to expect 50 watts ouput. Can you actually
> > think the user, who may be thousands of miles away,
> > observing a 50 watt power output level while talking on his rig
> > to believe Billy knows what he is talking about?
>
> Yes.
>
> > In most cases we can be assured that the user feels sorry
> > for Billy 'cause he cain't get that much out of his radio.
>
> What really happens is that doubt is injected into
> the equation causing the user to begin to question
> the inflated meter reading.
>
> > If Billy
> > wasn't so testy about it the user would probably get his tech
> > in touch with Billy so Billy could 'get out' too.
>
> Billy gets out now. Many operators that are thousands
> of miles away can attest to that now--one of which could
> be the hypothetical person that you've cooked up specifically
> for this post.
>
> > That is how it is folks!
>
> In Carly's twisted mind.
>
> > Carl
>
> Your coherence to the point is becoming more and
> more suspect Carly.
>
> Why don't you just come out of the closet and
> take your position as Landshark's lapdog like
> you've been aching to do for the last few month's
> since I spilled the beans about you being W5RUE's
> punk.
>
> Bye bye loser.
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> \ /
> ___ | ___
> A
> / | \
> -=[Bill Eitner]=- III
> III
> III
> _________III_________
>
> Well here we go again Billie Bob.
You think you would've learned by your mistakes,but you haven't.
Your like some 3 year old on a sugar fix,but worse it's alcohol for
you.
guzzling the liquid courage again I see Huh.... Oh by the way,was that
you that was coming over the Sheriff's radio equip when they chased the
Mexican kiddnapper down from Sacramento,to the slum side
of Menlo Park,and he was hold up in some shit stained home up the street
fom you???? I was told by a Deputy friend of mine they had tell
you twice to cease and desist from transmitting on YOUR REALLY CLEAN
EQUIP.
Also did you ever refund Coastal Kids money for that fine rebuilt
667 that you sold him as new,you know the one that never worked from
the beginning. The one he had to take a real store,you know,a store with
a front door and a business license on the wall. Not a house where you
knock on the side door between the hour of 6:00pm and 11:00pm and the
work done in a garage next to the cat box,real clean work area you
got....
Oh by the way was that you at Grants house that night when that idiot
came to his front door demanding money for that blown up linear
you sold him,Grant then sent him running up his driveway and he dove
into a Ford Areostar van down the road,sure look like yours????????
I dont know why you want to drag my into your petty fight on the news
group,I kinda enjoy these guys when there telling you your wrong,
that really must piss you off when they do that or you wouldn't get
so riled. Keep it up guys I agree with everything you say.
If you would like to more about his great under the table employment
let me know I'll be happy to tell more and give names and adresses to
one and all to check his reference's.
The Landshark
Nationally know,Internationally heard
Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/
Anonymous
The CB Guy
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 07:19:43 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM
(Anonymous) wrote:
---snip----------
> If you would like to more about his great under the table employment
>let me know I'll be happy to tell more and give names and adresses to
>one and all to check his reference's.
>
> The Landshark
>
>
>Nationally know,Internationally heard
>Posted with Spam Hater - see
>http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/
>
>
Anonymous???.....that about says it all.........
Anonymous
<344BE6...@earthlink.net> <344902...@earthlink.net>
<1997102105...@basement.replay.com>
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:14:11 GMT, thec...@ameritech.net (The CB Guy)
wrote:
> Not really,I just hate SPAM,so I've stopped posting under my current
acount. Some out there already have my correct e-mail acount. It really
cuts down on spam in the mail box. Now back to Billie Bob,
I really like how he turns up the power,then the modulation,then cuts
the capacitor in the coil of the k40 antenna and wow it works great..
Until the oil in the antenna burns up,then the radio blows wow now
thats what I call tuning up a radio................
The Landshark
marty gunnarsson
2 2sc2312's
Charles F. Davis Sr.
In article <345007...@worldlynx.net>, nospam_...@worldlynx.net
says...
> David Kao wrote:
> There was even a story about one guy that had a hidden
> amplifier in his jumper lead to the wattmeter. He'd show the customer
> his radio's power on the wattmeter, then he'd do his "magic", hit a foot
> switch that kicked in the amp, and voila! 50 watts!
I knew of that fellow. He operated a store in Greensboro, back in the
70s/80s. JB12 modulator made radios do wonders.
--
-=>Chas<=-
charle...@worldnet.att.net
NC341/27.390/LSB
<<I'm the NRA>>
Steve
Eitner must be left over from some defunct amateur group,
as he demonstrates all the characteristics of a lost child
looking for attention.
I myself have driven a mosquito witha 2950 with 2 watts,this
only yields about 15 watts,this was put in to an Eagle 500(15 meter)
amplifier and yielded 1200 watts pep ssb.
Steve
decent am?
Dave Hall
Steve wrote:
>
> Don't believe it! The maximum output on a 2950 WITH STOCK PARTS is about
> > >> 12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43 wattmeter
> > >> into a dummy load. I would not recommend turning the AM carrier above 9
> > >> watts since you start losing modulation. The difference between 9 and 12
> > >> watts is not even noticeable on an "S" meter. If you want more power,
> > >> turn the power down to 2 watts, and run it into a good amplifier
This is the honest truth. I have the proper test equipment and a fairly
good understanding of transmitter fundamentals, as well as 20 years of
bench time. If you want to argue the point and insist that somehow, a
2950 can put out 40 watts of carrier power (and oh, by the way, the
maximum power output that the finals can dissipate is 50 watts, before
losses, and considering a transmitter efficiency of 60%) I ask you to
prove it using standard calibrated equipment, and supply the technical
details of how this is accomplished. I don't want to hear about
"billy-bob's" wattmeter, that's held together with duct tape, and hasn't
seen a calibration since the day it was made (Assuming it ever WAS
calibrated).
You have to ask yourself, "If this radio is truly capable of producing a
CLEAN 40 watts of AM power, then WHY would the factory deliberately turn
it down to 8 watts?" Don't you think it would make a better selling
point to have higher power?
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Bill Eitner
There you have it. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Steve, like many others, has a problem accepting the truth.
Bill Eitner
Steve wrote:
>
> Bill Eitner wrote:
> >
> > Firewalker wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Bennett wrote:
> > > > OH, FLAME ON!
> > > >
> > > > You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> > > > I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> > > > tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> > > > mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> > > > of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> > > > day-one?
> > >
> > > Not here, my rci2950 transmits 40 watts, and has done so for over a year
> > > now. It didn't come this way, when it was new it only transmitted 10
> > > watts max AM. I've seen these radios do 50 watts on AM. Of the radios
> > > modified this way, any failure that there was were not any of the
> > > components affected by the change. Why don't the make them that way???
> > > Hmm I have heard that the mirage 2950 (almost identical to the rci2950)
> > > can do 50 watts out of the box, but have not confirmed this.
> > >
> > > > "any good xxx can do it". I went to school many years and have more
> > > > years then that in practicle application. And I continue to school myself
> > > > to stay SLIGHTLY ahead of the game.
> > >
> > > but he can hold his own on knowledge against about any engineer out
> > > there. No offence meant, when I said tech, I ment anyone who works on
> > > radios for a living.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> > \ /
> > ___ | ___
> > A
> > / | \
> > -=[Bill Eitner]=- III
> > III
> > III
> > _________III_________
> any halfwit who knows which pot to turn can do that.
He's another goofy response by someone who doesn't
want to believe the truth and can't prove otherwise.
Bill Eitner
A Mosquito has the same transistor compliment as a 2950.
The problem is that it's a linear amp rather than a directly
modulated stage. Only you (an idiot) would put a Mosquito
between a 2950 and an Eagle. The Mosquito driven by a 2950
will NOT make the Eagle put out more than the 2950 could
get out of the Eagle by itself. In fact, a stock 2950 could
get more out of an Eagle than your set-up could. The reason
why is that the driver and final stages in the 2950 are directly
modulated (not linear) stages. Your set-up promotes distortion.
Every top CB tech on the face of this planet shows up here.
You'll find that you're not fooling any of them.
Playing amateur psychiatrist won't do the job either.
You're just a Bozo trying to find an outlet.
Bill Eitner
BIGFOOT 88 wrote:
>
> i think that most people here are discussing the peak power of a 2950, not
> the carrier level.
I'm not so sure about that.
> i myself typically don't set these radios up for
> anything more than about a 10 watt carrier under normal circumstances.
That's because they can't fully modulate a bigger carrier
than that. I set them for an eight watt carrier--they can
fully modulate that.
> with
> the standard driver / final setup and carefull tweaking, i can typically see
> between 33 to 38 watts peak out of one of these. this is using a B & K
> servicemaster wattmeter at 13.8 volts and a 1 kc test tone.
This means 25 to 28 watts using a Bird modified to read PEP.
I've never heard of anyone with more generous meters than
Sean Foley (Big Goofball 88).
> it is possible
> to alter the stock circuitry and replace the finals and achieve appr. 50
> watts peak (or slightly more) on a servicemaster meter,
That means 30 - 35 on a Bird. Like all the others, Sean won't
say how it's done (that's because he knows that it can't), but
he will try to defend the fact that it can be done so he doesn't
look bad.
> but the cost of the
> parts doesn't justify the end result. it is just plain cheaper to put the
> money towards a linear.
This part is very true.
> the majority of mods in the RCI Bible aren't worth
> doing either, so save your money.
This part is true as well.
> every radio is slightly different due to
> production tolerances and may not achieve the exact same results, so keep
> this in mind. not every "tech" or "engineer" is created equal either. Sean
> aka Bigfoot 88
There you go--even the BIG DOPE 88 agrees. Running them in
pure Class C (the distorted, piece of shit mode) so it can
drive bigger finals isn't even worth the money as far as he's
concerned.
> David Kao wrote in article <344B96...@cup.hp.com>...
>
> >Firewalker wrote:
> >>
> >> Bruce Bennett wrote:
> >> > OH, FLAME ON!
> >> >
> >> > You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> >> > I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> >> > tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> >> > mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the
> proformance
> >> > of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> >> > day-one?
> >>
> >> Not here, my rci2950 transmits 40 watts, and has done so for over a year
> >> now. It didn't come this way, when it was new it only transmitted 10
> >> watts max AM. I've seen these radios do 50 watts on AM. Of the radios
> >> modified this way, any failure that there was were not any of the
> >> components affected by the change. Why don't the make them that way???
> >> Hmm I have heard that the mirage 2950 (almost identical to the rci2950)
> >> can do 50 watts out of the box, but have not confirmed this.
> >>
> >> Auctually, the guy that does the work with my radio is not an engineer,
> >> but he can hold his own on knowledge against about any engineer out
> >> there. No offence meant, when I said tech, I ment anyone who works on
> >> radios for a living.
> >
> >You should go to a HAM equipment place and look for Kenwood HF
> >transceivers.
> >All but one high end model are rated at 25 watts AM 100 watts SSB. Now
> >compare
> >your finals with those Kenwood stuff. Compare the size of hit sinks,
> >etc.
> >Then think about what you calimed your 2950 can do. If you are not an
> >engineer
> >nor a tech you don't really know the difference between them.
> >
> >Does anyone know what final transistors does 2950 use?
--
Bill Eitner
Steve wrote:
>
> David Kao wrote:
> >
> > Firewalker wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Bennett wrote:
> > > > OH, FLAME ON!
> > > >
> > > > You are right. Their TECHS, not engineers! I use techs to build what
> > > > I design. When techs re-engineer circuits without consideration to
> > > > tolerances and variables chances are over-stressing and infant
> > > > mortality follow. Consider: if it were so easy to upgrade the proformance
> > > > of a unit (and maintain longevity) wouldn't it have been built in from
> > > > day-one?
> > >
> > > Not here, my rci2950 transmits 40 watts, and has done so for over a year
> > > now.
It's much more likely that it's put out 25 watts over that
year. In many cases, you have to do a full tune-up just
to get 25 watts from a 2950. I doubt that you (or any other
CBer) can tell the difference between 25 and 40 watts out.
> It didn't come this way, when it was new it only transmitted 10
> > > watts max AM.
The 10 watt AM max. part is true.
> I've seen these radios do 50 watts on AM.
This part is false.
> Of the radios
> > > modified this way, any failure that there was were not any of the
> > > components affected by the change. Why don't the make them that way???
> > > Hmm I have heard that the mirage 2950 (almost identical to the rci2950)
> > > can do 50 watts out of the box, but have not confirmed this.
Because it's bullshit (absolutely false). They would fail
if made to put out more than 25 watts peak. Many fail just
trying to put out 25 watts peak.
> > > Auctually, the guy that does the work with my radio is not an engineer,
> > > but he can hold his own on knowledge against about any engineer out
> > > there.
Because you (who doesn't know a thing) believe in him. That
doesn't mean we (who do know what we're talking about) should
believe in him.
> No offence meant, when I said tech, I ment anyone who works on
> > > radios for a living.
That means you know that an engineer is better than a tech.
Why won't you believe it when a tech says that a certain
specification simply isn't possible?
> > You should go to a HAM equipment place and look for Kenwood HF
> > transceivers.
> > All but one high end model are rated at 25 watts AM 100 watts SSB. Now
> > compare
> > your finals with those Kenwood stuff. Compare the size of hit sinks,
> > etc.
> > Then think about what you calimed your 2950 can do. If you are not an
> > engineer
> > nor a tech you don't really know the difference between them.
> >
> > Does anyone know what final transistors does 2950 use?
> Then maybe you could explain why there isnt a Kenwood made that can talk
> decent am?
I hate to agree with the Kau-ball (David Kau) but he's right
here. The 2950 (and all the Galaxy wanna-bees) just aren't
that heavily built. 25 watts is it whether you want to believe
it or not.
The CB Guy
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:14:52 -0800, Bill Eitner <kd6...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
> I hate to agree with the Kau-ball (David Kau) but he's right
> here. The 2950 (and all the Galaxy wanna-bees) just aren't
> that heavily built. 25 watts is it whether you want to believe
> it or not.
>--
>----------------------------------------
> \ /
> ___ | ___
> A
> / | \
> -=[Bill Eitner]=- III
> III
> III
> _________III_________
Perhaps they were using one of those Dozy (pronounced Doosey) meters.
Hell, I've seen Cobra 29's swing to 30 watts on one of those.......
Amor Powers
> > > > >> 12 watts AM and 35 watts SSB. This is measured on a Bird 43
TURN YOUR RCI 2950's POWER DOWN. HERE IS WHY:
(there will be a test at the end of this post)
I've got a couple of RCI 2950 units.
I bought one of those damn 2950s from a local operator who had just
gotten it "turned up" by a "radio-wizard" for $75. The radio-wizard
showed him 50watts on a "meter"! He operated for a while, and noticed
that it quit performing so well, dropping in power on the front panel
meter. I bought it cheap from him at this point. It had blown one of the
finals, so I replaced the final, and re-tuned it properly. It has worked
fine for a long time since [well, as fine as a 2950 can :-)]...
There is little benefit in making 2950s, most CBs, and other
transceivers, put out more power than they are rated at (and a lot of
real good reasons not to). Even if you eek out a few more watts, it
doesn't help you more than a fraction of a dog-biscuit (dB). You need
to at least triple or quadruple your power output to make any big
difference (one S-unit) in a signal. Really, you need 8 or 10 times more
power to make a significantly major difference. Otherwise, it's simply
not worth the effort, and can backfire.
You all can dispute all these power levels until you are blue in the
face. A 200 or 300 watt linear is what is needed to make an RCI 2950 get
out much better than it already does out of the box. Don't forget that
95% of all CB linears are meant to be driven with 12watts or less on SSB
and 5watts on AM. So you'll need to TURN DOWN THE POWER LEVEL CONTROL ON
THE 2950 to use one correctly with a standard linear amp. (This probably
falls on deaf CB ears).
HOMEWORK FOR TONITE:
Why turn an RCI 2950's power down?
A. To get more swing
B. To give it CCAM
C. Because Amor sezz so
D. To excite a linear
E. To excite your neighbor
Amor Powers
---The answer is D---
Bill Eitner
A peaked Cobra 29 will swing 30+ on most any meter (just
don't look at it on a spectrum analyzer). The 2950 and
it's counterparts are not as spikey (or harmonic-ridden)
as the 29; therefore, they won't swing a meter as far.
Bill Eitner
Once you defeat the limiter, the answer is A and D (using a
peak-reading meter).
Squeeze the Weeze
SCROO-DRYVER EXPERTS UNITE......
--
-skweezieweezie
` X o'
-----ooo-0-ooo-----
~
Charles Adkins
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------180720E616F729FA4A586AB4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The CB Guy wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 08:14:52 -0800, Bill Eitner <kd6...@earthlink.net>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I hate to agree with the Kau-ball (David Kau) but he's right
> > here. The 2950 (and all the Galaxy wanna-bees) just aren't
> > that heavily built. 25 watts is it whether you want to
> believe
> > it or not.
> >--
> >----------------------------------------
> > \ /
> > ___ | ___
> > A
> > / | \
> > -=[Bill Eitner]=- III
> > III
> > III
> > _________III_________
>
> Perhaps they were using one of those Dozy (pronounced Doosey) meters.
> Hell, I've seen Cobra 29's swing to 30 watts on one of those.......
Yeah, and I've seen 667V's (Texas Star) put out 1000 watts swinging to
1500 on one of those. can you say Waaaaay out of adjustment? hehehehe
-Charles
--------------180720E616F729FA4A586AB4
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Charles Adkins
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Charles Adkins
n: Adkins;Charles
org: CPA Electronics
email;internet: n8...@concentric.net
title: The Boss of the operation! :-)
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------180720E616F729FA4A586AB4--