Larry Phipps wrote:
You may be right on a couple of counts. I am only a QRPer in the field,
and tend to be more more a "100-watter" at home. Since I had 90dB of
dynamic range to play with, I decided to use it all, thus the 2500W top
end
I have a very good (and not cheap) QRO wattmeter which is highly inaccurate
below about 20 watts. Sometimes I want to measure QRP power levels, so I am
stuck buying another instrument. If your unit had been available when I bought
the QRO unit, I certainly would have chosen it. Why have two meters when one
can do the job?
Would a 100W or 200W top-end offend people? Don't know.
I've already been warned to moderate my expression of opinion about people who
take offense at the concept of using the minimum amount of power necessary to
communicate in any given case -- from QRP to full legal power. So I won't
express it again! However I will say that for me, being useful at both ends of
the scale would be a selling point.
From a marketing point of view, since the great majority of hams have 100 watt
transceivers, limiting a meter with a 90 db dynamic range to less than 200 watts
full scale would be silly.
As far as having a remote coupler, this is almost a necessity for a 1.5KW + unit
because nobody wants fat coax pulling the unit off the table. But at the 200
watt level, one can always use RG58 jumbers to and from the meter, even if the
antenna itself is fed with thicker coax. So maybe you might add a less
expensive 200-watt maximum unit with a built-in coupler to your line (but keep
the QRP-to-2500 watt version).
--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
