4 ms·
I agree it's 99% ridiculous, but to play the devil's advocate: modifications could require re-certifying the transmitter due to regulations, which might make th
by bilegeek 2y ago
I agree it's 99% ridiculous, but to play the devil's advocate: modifications could require re-certifying the transmitter due to regulations, which might make them not financially worth it after the remaining correct tubes die. Especially since regulations governing something so boutique and relatively obscure haven't probably been updated much to make stuff like this easier. (I confess high ignorance to UK law.)
- hilbert42 2y agoI've been through the certifying process for broadcast transmitters from scratch, albeit in Australia. I can tell you it's damn easy to overwhelm the petty certifying bureaucrats, especially so when you can prove your engineering mods give better performance specs (less harmonic interference, etc.) than beforehand. In fact, our bespoke broadcast TXs gave better performance than any commonly-available commercial equipment. Bureaucrats want a quite life, and when threatened with their actual names and positions being published in the press for being obstructive over nothing then they'll cave in. Remember, troublemakers in the public sector aren't usually rewarded with promotions. :-)
- Johnythree 2y agoTransmitters need only be re-certified if they are to be sold in quantity. Once-off Broadcast Transmitters need only demonstrate that they meet the relevant standards. Many of the existing LF and MF BC transmitters were effectively custom built to meet the requirements of their transmit license (for example, the radiation pattern of the antenna were often unique for each station).