Don Wilhelm wrote:
> With both low power out and low current drawn, there is clearly not enough
> energy being developed by one of the transmit stages.

OK, this is kinda annoying, and kinda good news.

[...]
> Once you have localized the problem to one stage, we can help you localize
> the component at fault.

Right, I've sussed it. the "component at fault" was the one between the
K2 and the DL1. I was using a stupidly long bit of antique co-ax. Seemed
like a good idea at the time - it was all I had, no other connectors, no
other patch leads, and I didn't fancy my chances of successfully
removing the connector from one end and making a 2m patch lead out of my
25m lead.   :-/

I've now obtained a newer, nicer, cleaner, 2m lead, and I get the
expected 5W or 10W at the other end (slightly more actually, but not
enough to worry about).

Doesn't quite qualify for the "stupid mistakes" thread, but another
"stupid question that's not stupid unless you fail to answer it"...
Please educate me...

I can understand why the power at the DL1 end was low, but why was the
current drawn on the supply at the K2 end so low? If the dodgy old co-ax
had any sort of resistive loss, I'd imagine the K2 would still be trying
just as hard to pump out 5W or 10W, drawing just as much supply juice?

Is my dodgy cable more shorted, or more open than it should be, or is
this some other effect?

Thanks in advance, and hopefully you get a chance to scoff at me after I
scoffed at you for pointing out ohm's law as applied to human bodies and
different mains voltages   ;-)

-- 
"Nosey" Nick Waterman, G7RZQ, k2 #5209.
#include <stddisclaimer>    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is ten o'clock; do you know where your processes are?
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to