ive seen this meter online looks like a pdc600 but supposed to be
a very accurate meter.just curious if anyone else has one or seen one
a very accurate meter.just curious if anyone else has one or seen one
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
-
Retevis is giving away Radios for the New Year and Every Member is Eligible. Click Here to see the details!
hp5000 watt/swr 3window meter
- Thread starter hotrod
- Start date
Everything I see on the internet indicates that it's "very accurate", but nowhere does any seller quantify the term "very". It does appear to read PEP, which might be a plus.
I'd be "very" surprised if it's any more accurate overall than most truckstop stuff.
I'd be "very" surprised if it's any more accurate overall than most truckstop stuff.
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
the rf limited pw-3000 below it is rated for %5 accuracy .
http://www.premiere-electronics.net/store/swrwattmeters.html
if i were gonna put that much money into a meter though id consider adding enough to get a palstar .
http://www.premiere-electronics.net/store/swrwattmeters.html
if i were gonna put that much money into a meter though id consider adding enough to get a palstar .
yea i want a good quality meter but i dont need a bird meter even though
i know its the best.i was also looking at the diamond line of meters in a ham catalog
universalradio.com.also diawa [cant spell it lol] these meters any good.my budget
wont allow a bird or coaxial dynamics so guess i like to have next best thing
i know its the best.i was also looking at the diamond line of meters in a ham catalog
universalradio.com.also diawa [cant spell it lol] these meters any good.my budget
wont allow a bird or coaxial dynamics so guess i like to have next best thing
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
palstar makes a very respected meter thats about $150 . never read a single bad comment about them .
for base use : http://www.palstar.com/pm2000a.php
for mobile use : http://www.palstar.com/pm2000am.php
for deeper pockets : http://www.palstar.com/pm5k.php
for base use : http://www.palstar.com/pm2000a.php
for mobile use : http://www.palstar.com/pm2000am.php
for deeper pockets : http://www.palstar.com/pm5k.php
The nice thing about the palstar PM 200Am is the remote pick-up, lets you mount the small meter away fron your heavy coax 
73
Jeff
73
Jeff
that is pretty neatt.another questio but little off topic has either of yaThe nice thing about the palstar PM 200Am is the remote pick-up, lets you mount the small meter away fron your heavy coax
73
Jeff
tried thier lowpass filters?there meters seem pretty respected thought maybe
thier lpf might actually be good.so far only decent one ive found is the bencher-ya-1?
now im looking at these palstar.any thoughts?
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
what problems are you having that you feel a filter would fix or help with ? i may be wrong but i think the only thing they will help with is bleeding over on other channels and also with nearby electronics that are suspectable to rf . are you running a amp ? if so what kind and how much power ? there are fixes for those problems that may work well enough and cheap enough to pass (hehe,hawhaw) on the low pass filter .
A "low-pass" filter won't do anything to stop splattering onto adjacent channels; those are at basically the same frequency. What a LPF WILL do is attenuate harmonics, spurs and IMD products ABOVE its cutoff frequency. The nasty stuff BELOW the cutoff frequency won't be affected much.
For reducing adjacent-channel splattering, you need a BPF (band-pass filter). Problem is, you'd need a separate BPF for each channel, and that would get expensive.
For reducing adjacent-channel splattering, you need a BPF (band-pass filter). Problem is, you'd need a separate BPF for each channel, and that would get expensive.
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
no i dont splatter channels,even with my ts turned on.however i do
come over my pc speakers.no biggie here but i thought if other complaints
from neighbords occur id already have the filter.i know about proper drive for
amps,lots of info here
come over my pc speakers.no biggie here but i thought if other complaints
from neighbords occur id already have the filter.i know about proper drive for
amps,lots of info here
For computer speakers: shorten the cables (physically) as much as possible. If the problem is still there, use ferrites on each cable, as close to the speaker as possible.
These things are notorious for sensing RF. They're Part 15 devices, and should be labeled as such. However, Part 15 applies to RFI from a LICENSED source. CB isn't protected by Part 15 unless you're using a stock 4/12 watt radio and NO amplifier.
These things are notorious for sensing RF. They're Part 15 devices, and should be labeled as such. However, Part 15 applies to RFI from a LICENSED source. CB isn't protected by Part 15 unless you're using a stock 4/12 watt radio and NO amplifier.
Just one 'picky' correction about Part-15 devices. They are not "protected" under any circumstances. They have to accept any interference and can cause none. No choices at all. Part of the definition of 'Part-15'.
To go along with that torroid suggestion, placing a 0.001 capacitor in series with the speaker's 'hot lead sometimes helps. Might change the frequency response of the speakers a bit, but that's better than interference, I'd think. A five gallon bucket of torroids is a nice thing to have around...
- 'Doc
To go along with that torroid suggestion, placing a 0.001 capacitor in series with the speaker's 'hot lead sometimes helps. Might change the frequency response of the speakers a bit, but that's better than interference, I'd think. A five gallon bucket of torroids is a nice thing to have around...
- 'Doc
Most computer speakers I've seen, changing their frequency response can only help!
And 'Doc -- I didn't mean to imply that Part 15 devices are protected. It's the transmitter of the equipment that may be causing the interference that's protected, and the wording used to be that a Part 15 device had to accept interference from any LICENSED source, such as a ham station being operated correctly. This wording may have been changed, but it pointed squarely at illegal CB operation, freebanding and other UNLICENSED radio operations.
And 'Doc -- I didn't mean to imply that Part 15 devices are protected. It's the transmitter of the equipment that may be causing the interference that's protected, and the wording used to be that a Part 15 device had to accept interference from any LICENSED source, such as a ham station being operated correctly. This wording may have been changed, but it pointed squarely at illegal CB operation, freebanding and other UNLICENSED radio operations.
Truer words were never spoken.I have a set of JBL computer speakers and I get almost no interferance at all on them and they sound quite good, in fact better than most everything else I have heard for computer speakers.I do not have any torroids etc on this set and all I get for interferance is a slight HUMMMMMMMM when I transmit on the wire antennas especially on 80m.The other set I had were elcheapo spkrs and I had a beoitch of a time getting the RF out of them.I had to wind the audio leads and power cord through torroids and be carefull of the tuner settings as it even affected the old spkrs. I gave them to my parents when I got the JBL's.They have no problem as there is no TX nearby.In fact I am probably the closest one at a mile away.We won't count the 300 foot cellular tower about 500 feet behind their house however.
