View Single Post
  #21   Report Post  
Old November 16th 10, 08:56 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Richard Clark Richard Clark is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Matching antenna to crystal radio

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:22:37 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

What do you think of this guys numbers and methodology?
He says he can hear .0078 pw with a Adastra Model: 952-207
http://www.crystal-radio.eu/enluidsprekertest.htm


Hi Mike,

Where did the search for hi-Z go when this 16Ohm speaker was hauled
out for listening? OK, sure, it is all a matter of making a match - I
can go with that.

Let's do the math and see where that leads us for the specification
offered:
SPL @ 1W/1m: 112.5dB

When driven by .0078 pw we find ourselves 140dB below the 1 Watt that
yields 112.5 dB SPL heard at 1 meter. That translates to -27.5dB re
the absolute lowest level of hearing.

OK, supposing you are not 1 meter away from that speaker? I can well
anticipate that you would expect the stethoscope lead comes in to
rescue this claim. Does it get us to within 1mM of the cone to make
up the difference? Your ear can not get that close (maybe a cM) and
the volume of air in the tube makes it worse (unless we are using an
Hemholz resonator, and at that, the program material goes out the
window).

Being generous and saying the claim is off by 1 decimal place still
has us sitting in an anechoic chamber. No one has that kind of bucks
for a hobby pursuit except Bill Gates. Even then, this is about the
threshold of hearing for a juvenile. Is your scribbler 17 years old?
I can well imagine you, like myself, even that age out - 3 to 4 times
over. Program content is going to depress these readings by roughly
5dB for age and another 5 to 10dB for frequency variation.

If you want to copy 1WPM CW at 1KHz, this may fly (if you are buried
alone in a cave in South America). Who transmits A3 modulated CW
(yes, a contradiction in acronyms where CW commonly means morse code)
these days?

So, on the commonsense side of this, no that myth is busted.

The author explores efficiency and states:
The efficiency is 7.03µW / 56.8µW = 0.123

Which was my generous offering in an earlier posting (however, the
author stipulates this is a total conversion efficiency for both
speakers).

Going further we observe:
The efficiency is quite varying with different frequencies, at 1 kHz there was a peak.
At other frequencies the efficiency is lower.
This can be caused by resonances in the speakers, because this situation with two speakers connected is quite different from the normal use.

Normal use indeed (what I call listening to program content). There
is every chance that the coupled speakers were driven at a hemholz
resonance. Using the scope probe as a crude ruler, the volume of air
looks to be close to a half wave long.

Note the leading stipulation again:
The efficiency is quite varying with different frequencies

.... indeed.

I have had a hearing test in specially designed chambers, employing a
test that eliminates guessing when the sound is, or is not there. I've
even designed testing systems that use that methodology for measuring
Army helicopter pilot alertness. The psychological pressure of
expecting to hear a faint sound can drive results that are impossible
to replicate without that testing protocol.

Think you could follow the chain of reasoning here to cross-check the
other transducers' performance? If it is on par, then you can trust
the testing methodology. If my back-of-the-napkin calculations are
off, this will reveal it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC