W3JDR wrote:
So it's not a "mathematical fact" in the sense that any of us can look it up
and see how it was derived, it's your recollection of something you heard
and vaguely remember convincing yourself it could be true, right?


Andy replies:
That's right. But just because I don't remember how to derive it,
or can
give you the name of the paper that I read 25-30 years ago, it doesn't
mean it's wrong. So I would suggest you do your own research....

Whether it is true, or not true, IS a mathematical fact, and if you
are
capable of understanding the math proof, you are probably also
capable of proving or disproving it yourself on paper. Me, hell , I
always
had a good lab where I could try things out if I had doubt.....

It is probly easier, if you have access to a good lab, to rig up an
experiment to find out..... That way you wouldn't have to bother with
newsgroups to learn about this stuff.....

I would encourage you to try. If you come up with a good answer you
can be proud of, post it back here for us all to see. I am sure many
people here would be interested , since lots of time is often wasted
coming up with circuits whose purpose is doomed from the start....
such as using "hard limiters" to improve the SNR........

As far as the "tangential sensitivity", you can probly do a google
search and learn all about it.... If you haven't run into it yet, you
probably don't deal with OOK pulses like radar and stuff. There's no
shame in that.....

:)))) Andy in Eureka, Texas W4OAH