Coaxial cable stretcher

Delay is also caused by any induction.

leon
kc0iv

 

@rabbiporkchop
This is all way over my head, but here's where I'm at... Mark has hundreds of raving customers (most I would assume are at least moderately experienced CB'rs) that swear by his work, willing to sit months in line waiting, and willing to put up with his soup Nazi ways, then send their favourite new toy away. He has some pretty convincing videos that appear to support his claims. And Rabbi makes a really good point, that Mark has spent all this time dedicated to just one freq. giving him more experience than most HAMs.

@Ridgeline
On the other hand, Ridge and other HAMs are not buying it. With a whole lot of scientific gobbledegook to back him, written and tested by thousands of people worldwide. I have a hard time believing that only the 11meter band will defy the bounds of science.

I'm conflicted between the two, I'd love to believe there is a golden screwdriver but whom am I to believe Mark from an industry known for its shady work and misrepresentations, the hundreds of raving customers, or Ridge and the radio bible... I don't know?

I think the only way to settle this is to get Ridge one of Marks radios and test it himself. I'd be willing to send one of my own to get Ridge's response.

 

Rabbi, trying to keep this short and simple

I have to say your defence of an really trivial issue seems to consume you.

I mentioned this before, I may or may not know Mark. and to add to this, I have one of the radios he worked on. I never opened it up, nor care to, it works and that's why I got it. I won't provide proof of it but you'll have to take my word I have one.

However this does not mean that I feel he is the top dog, it works as well as other radios that were worked on by other people. I don't need to compare techs nor willing to do a comparison test - it is just a CB radio. A cb tech to me is a self-declared worker, not someone who went through the steps to do the work in order to work on mission critical equipment, like Avionics.

Your point is legit when it comes to the Coax and other little issues (there are a couple things left out on the video) that have to do with the test itself, one I mentioned, this isn't really an issue about vectors but rather an issue with losses.

I digress ... however my issue is about the application of your concerns because there is so much more involved. We (those who dispute this insistence it is important) seem to understand there is a tolerance that is built into the CB radio that negates any issues with things like feed-line delays - remember the largest delay is still in nano seconds.

Having a bench setup do precise, so narrowly defined and tuned/calibrated seems to be an overkill, it is really a marketing talking point which to many seems silly.

Why would someone use such precise equipment to align a CB radio?

Seriously?

It rhetorical so you don't have to answer it.

I've got a few signal generators, I am betting that the cheapest one I bought in the last 40 years can be used to get the same results. There is no distortion from the generator, it is one of the cleanest ones I had but it was built in ... 1938. I've got a pure signal optioned R&S SME300 which does well, it is calibrated (not by NIST but a a very good company that calibrates them in Florida), but when comparing it to the other old generator, it does pretty much the same thing with the same level of performance for this work.

Why would it matter what you use?

It doesn't.

It is a CB you are talking about.

A CB is a mass produced item that comes here by the container full.

A mass produced item that is copied - not really designed like they used to be - with the same parameters (in order to pass the FCC acceptance requirements) and designed to use a wide variety of components/board material but most of all it is a mass produce item that is aligned with sloppy equipment at the factory where ever that is and it would floor people how fast they do this work, it isn't 10 minutes but rather less than 2 minutes.

remember you opened the door for this idea of factory level performance, not me.

While I am looking into producing a CB, I had to learn what they do at these factories which have been really helpful by sending videos and white papers and a bunch of other things, trying to capture my business. I won't use them but they don't know that. Been invited to tour the factories, they build a lot more than CBs, your microwave may be on the next production line over there.

In order for me to legally sell it here in the states as a CB, I am working with a testing lab for this legal requirement. The girl (BS/MS EE with a RF speciality and 35 years of practical knowledge - I have to add this) who is the account engineer for my project(s), read this thread. She even said "we don't worry about that, it isn't on our radar". Now If she said that, why should I believe a CB tech has to have this solved to align a radio right?

By the way, you seem to run to quoting things like the handbook or other material, I am wondering why?

See I rarely quote anything, no cut and paste unless it has directly to do with the point in the context of the quote. It really doesn't matter 49 ohms or what ever, there has to be a tolerance built into the system no matter what.

 

Dude, it is clear to me that you need to learn a lot more before you question what others are saying.

I can't stress this to others, you I gave up on, these are CB radios, using a design from the 1960's and 1970's with no real improvements being made since. CBs are mass produced products to fill a market that with wide range of tolerances. CBs are cheap because they use that old technology, while even the ham radio/commercial radio end of things have progressed to the point that one can purchase a radio at $350 that does a lot more than one that cost 3 times as much 25 years ago.

Not bashing Mark, it really isn't about him, but if he works on CBs, then that's his limit of work. He may produce good work, I could never claim that he is the best but because he came into this late, did things that others did and followed a plan, he seems to be a good tech. There are a lot of others who can tune a cb to his level or better, but you don't hear about them because they don't work on CBs for a living.The limitations are such that cb's are simple devices that provide one of three ways of communicating and leading right back to the above paragraph, they are mass produced for a market that has to have cheap equipment. In other words, CBs are throwaway radios, with no real reason to advance.

Mark isn't you, he may have his reasons for some things but they don't translate well enough to make sense to others like me who've been around a long time through you. I can't compare to him because my work isn't CB work. My hobby isn't CB, even though I am in here trying to show others what makes sense and what doesn't so they don't get ripped off. I find the compare the tech thing is like comparing mechanics, you really can't.

It seems you keep adding layers on top of other layers to justify your defence of him - where truthfully he doesn't need a defence. Now if you want to talk about signal/waveform integrity, we can now talk about engineering issues down to the board itself. In the CB world, the term is meaningless, the need to go to this level of signal purity is just silly and furthers the need to ask the question - marketing BS or true need?

I'm flagging it as marketing BS.

One reason it is silly is the propagation of the signal, especially a Modulated signal has more to do with the conditions created outside the antenna system, not within the radio. The same holds true for the missing link in these discussions, the receiver, which has a lot to do with it and that is not the front end of the receive - so the -135dBm noise floor is a small part of that. You stressed how great this noise floor is, it really is only a very small part of the over indication of a receiver preformance. You seemed to deflect that there is a lot to do with other things I've brought up, like the detector stage having to do with the fading of an AM signal.

I don't know why it even matters if he used a 100 mhz scope or a 300 or if his SA is calibrated in a NITS lab. IT IS a cb radio.

The same goes for a lot of other things that you think matter, I think it makes his job easier to tune the radio, but not important enough to think it matters on the performance end of it that much that we have to concern ourselves with phase shifts in jumpers or how to setup a bench.

Other factors are involved you and possibly mark have no clue about, energy spectral density and power spectral density among a few others on the transmit side, I could list a bunch more but .... There is a lot of AM stuff that is overlooked on the engineering end of things that really don't matter ... because ... it is a cb radio. I can talk about the circuit board, how the engineering of the board itself can be a detriment to the performance level of the radio. OR I can get into the parts sourcing, but why ... it is a CB radio. Forget the fact I've mentioned phase noise several times, it is a mitigating factor in performance, don't even know if he knows how to measure it. The same holds true for IMD and dynamic range, forget the idea of cross channel rejection - all ignored or missed but crap that noise floor is really important.

I want everyone to have a great sounding radio, some will get confused on what I say while others will read and get motivated to learn. I am not selling anyone, as you are, which is one reason why you see my posts a lot opposing some of these things you talk about. In my years, be it trucking, IT or radio, there is one thing I've learn, no one is an expert and no one is so great that their word is the final word on a subject.