Posted: 1/20/2014 8:31:48 AM EDT
|
Just as an FYI
I called up SGC to ask about the power ratings of their couplers since the manual is not 100% clear on the duty cycle SG-230 = 3 to 200W (PEP) and 80W (Continuous) SG-235 = 3 to 500W (PEP*) and 200W (continuous) Here is what I was told: The rating in the manual is basically CCS (Continuous Commercial Service), as in constant transmission. As amateurs we would be using ICAS (Intermittent Commercial and Amateur Service), typically 50/50 or less. At ICAS the 230 and the 235 can be used at full power (200/500). The limiting factor is heating in the inductors. I was told to monitor the SWR and if it starts to change during long transmissions it indicates heat buildup. If heating it present the power should be reduced to prevent the inductors from heating up. Hopefully this info helps someone else. PS: Do not take this as gospel since it not in the manual (but is makes 100 sense). |
|
Quoted:
Thanks Mr. Harry. I've been considering putting one of those units at the base of my vertical. I have been very happy with my SG-230 I am considering the SG-235 (so I can run higher power) but the 235 wants a longer antenna, so I need to look at re-configuring things a little here (I may just setup an external coil that can be switched in for 160). |
|
this post is relevant to my interests. coincidentally, have been looking at these SGC couplers the last 2-3 days. was trying to decide b/w the 230 & 237. seems like the 237 can only do 40W continuous, which is kind of a bummer. perhaps, though, from your info, it means for amateur use i could do the full 100W for CW use?
that 230 is kind of a big beast, & weights 8 pounds vs. the <2 lbs of the 237. if one chose the 230, what kind of mast would one need to support the 8lbs at the top, near the feedpoint of a dipole, say at 20 feet up? seems like the 237 would be easier to mount/support on a mast, given its significantly lower weight. supposedly, these tuners/couplers are the cat's whiskers. ETA: comparison chart for SGC tuners |
|
I ran the 237 when I was doing NC for the digital net with just the 7200, and it seemed to tolerate 80W
(2X the rating) pretty well at probably a 50%+ duty cycle. I tried a 230, but it got kind of upset at QRO. Strangely enough I ended up with MFJ because the QRO version of the SGC (the 235) is just way too much freakin' money; I got a MFJ that could handle almost the same power levels for about 1/4th the price. Still love the 230/237 for when I'm not using the amp, tho! |
|
thx for the real-world info. much appreciated.
Quoted:
I ran the 237 when I was doing NC for the digital net with just the 7200, and it seemed to tolerate 80W (2X the rating) pretty well at probably a 50%+ duty cycle. I tried a 230, but it got kind of upset at QRO. Strangely enough I ended up with MFJ because the QRO version of the SGC (the 235) is just way too much freakin' money; I got a MFJ that could handle almost the same power levels for about 1/4th the price. Still love the 230/237 for when I'm not using the amp, tho! |