On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:29:22 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Receiver sensitivity was 0.2 mv for 20db S+N/N ratio.

I'll assume that you mean 0.2 microvolts, not millivolts.
Also, nobody has uses 20dB S+N/N since about the 1960's except maybe
the ARRL[1]. 12dB SINAD has been around since about the mid 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINAD

I don't know
how much better; the surplus signal generator I was using wasn't that
accurate.

At the time, I used a Gertsch FM-something. It's the box with only
the left handle showing at the extreme right of the pictu
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/PMC02.html
It wasn't every accurate, and not really intended to be used as a
signal source. However, I had a precision step attenuator, and since
the Gertsch factory was near my parents house, it wasn't too difficult
to get it calibrated in trade for some grunt work.

And BTW - 'm' can also mean micro, especially when you don't have a
Greek alphabet available. 'u' is not the same as the Greek 'mu' and can
be confusing. Of course, using 'm' for both milli and micro can be
confusing, unless you know the context.

If you follow SI standards, the "m" means milli.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

If you have a PC keyboard, try using the key combination:
alt0181
on the number pad which produces a µ symbol.
http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/accents/codealt.html


[1] It took me about 10 years to stop using micro-microfarads and
switch to picofarads. I suppose there might be some dinosaurs roaming
the earth still talking about "20 dB quieting".

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:25:42 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/24/2014 7:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:04:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

The easiest way of seeing it is looking at the output of both tube and
transistorized transmitters on a spectrum analyzer. You will see much
more hash on the transistorized transmitter.

Amazing. You might see more hash with a synthesized transistor
xmitter, but for crystal controlled, they noise is quite a bit less
with transistors.

You obviously don't use a decent spectrum analyzer.

I've never seen or used an indecent spectrum analyzer. These are
admittedly antiques, but do a tolerable job for most things I need:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/test-equip-mess.html
I wouldn't mind owning a much better spectrum analyzer, but I can't
justify the expense. If I need one, I can usually borrow, or if
really desperate, rent.

Sure - WITH DUPLEXERS. I did it WITHOUT DUPLEXERS. A HUGE difference.
But obviously one YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Do you even know what a
duplexer is? (I really doubt it).

I've been fairly polite up until now. I've tried to correct your
mistakes, but have never stooped to personal insults and accusations.
You don't seem to know how to engage in a technical discussion without
being insulting. No more nice guy.

I've designed two 900 MHz commercial duplexers used in wireless SCADA
systems. I've tuned probably around 50 assorted duplexers for a
mixture of ham and commercial users. My only failure was when a local
ham machined a rather nice looking duplexer out of 6" stove pipe, and
then wondered why it didn't work as well as the silver plated variety.
In my spare time, I'm trying to improve on the bad joke of a duplexer
found in the Motorola MSF5000 UHF repeater.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/K6BJ-MSF5000/
Yes, I think I know what a duplexer is.

Yes, nowadays, there are transistors with lower noise figures. But they
are relatively expensive, and you won't find them in the less expensive
receivers.

Rubbish. pHEMT devices are available with 0.75dB NF at 1GHz for under
$3/ea. For example:
http://www.minicircuits.com/pdfs/PSA4-5043+.pdf
Note that this isn't just a single device but a MMIC amplifier capable
of belching 100 mw (+20dBm) with 1dB gain compression.

Which you don't use in the front end of a receiver. But I see you don't
understand anything that's been said in this thread, so no surprise there.

Actually, you do, but I picked an example that could be used in a
transmit chain, which I believe was the topic of discussion.

No, AGC will not "try to keep the S/N ratio constant". It tries to keep
the output of the IF constant. As the signal increases, the noise will
decrease, improving the S/N ratio. But you also don't seem to
understand how AGC works.

I stand corrected. The rest of what I said about AGC is correct.

Even back in the early 70's, commercial tube VHF radios could easily get
.15mv for 20db S+N/N ratio. Not much different than the transistorized
versions today.

I think you might mean 0.15 uv/12dB SINAD. A 0.15mv receiver would be
considere comatose.

No, I mean 20db S+N/N ratio. The equivalent SINAD would be somewhere
around .12mv (or a bit less). Not at all "comatose".

Please fix your abrevs.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

I never saw any tube receivers with 0.12µV/12dB SINAD sensitivity.
However, that was at UHF. I don't recall the numbers I was getting
for VHF and low band tube receivers. I could probably excavate some
old Motorola Research line manuals and see what Motorola specifies in
the manual.

That must be because you were working on GE Pre-Prog. I worked with
both Motorola and RCA sets (plus a few others which weren't quite as
good). We were able to get them to .15mv. on VHF.

The radios in the repeater rack are all Progress Line, not Pre-Prog.
No experience with RCA, but the Motorola 5V, 40V, 80D and 140D were
much the same as the Progress line radios. The UHF (T44) versions
started out at about 0.5µV/12dB SINAD and slowly deteriorated to about
1µV. VHF receivers were somewhat better than that, but I don't recall
the numbers.

But then according to you, such a radio would be "comatose". I wonder
just how bad your GE's were?

The comatose was in reference to your abuse of the SI prefixes.

1mv/12DB SINAD is terrible. Such a receiver would never have left our shop.

Please fix your abrevs.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

0.5mv wouldn't leave our shop, either.

Please fix your abrevs.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html

And both Motorola and RCA rigs
would hold their sensitivity for much longer than that, even in a mobile
installment.

It was worse in repeater service, where we had to cram 3 repeaters in
a rack because of limited floor space. Note the big squirrel cage
blowers on the bottom of the rack.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/Santiago-01.html
Mobiles had to be retuned about once a year to maintain optimum
performance. TX output tubes would last about 3 years. (6907 for GE
and 2C39 for Motorola).

Somewhat later, in the 1970's, I found myself designing marine radios.
Typical VHF sensitivity was about 0.25uv/12dB SINAD using a dual gate
MOSFET front end such as a 40673 or 3N212. We ocassionally used
JFET's such as a U310 but the sensitivity was about the same.

Yea, one of the shops I worked at sold similar quality rigs, mainly for
those who wouldn't pay for a good RCA. The Motorola shop didn't sell
anything else, of course.

Interesting. I mention the front end devices and you immediately
deduce everything about the product, the quality, and maybe even are
able to guess the manufacturer? Wanna take a guess? You can even
Google for the right answer without much difficulty. We were making
marine radios in the USA for about 15 years. It wasn't the lack of
quality that eventually killed the company. It was competition
initially from Japan and later from China. Of course, you must prefer
the current level of quality from China.

Maybe in your designs, but not in the ones most of our clients demanded
and paid for.

You designed radios? Good to know. Our radios were used by the USCG,
tug boats, inland waterways barges, bridges, and cruise ships. Those
types of customers don't tolerate failures very gracefully. We also
offered a lifetime warranty to underscore the point. Resurrecting 10
year old radios was not fun, but that's what it took to stay in
business.

Incidentally, my best day was when I visited the USCG repair depot on
Yerba Buena Island, and saw a rather large pile of Motorola Modar
radios. When I asked, I was told those were the one's they couldn't
fix. We just smiled and continued the tour.

Incidentally, have you found the maker and model of the F connector
that your un-named distributor will only sell to "professional"
customers? It was in your office the last time you offered to find
it.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/25/2014 6:18 AM, Jeff wrote:

Whilst I agree with your first point, Smiths Charts do not "explain what
is happening inside of a piece of coax X inches long". They are an easy
way to plot impedances, and show what happens if you *change* the length
of coax, but more importantly they give you an easy way of working out
how to match impedances (with or without any length of coax involved).
They can also display other valuable quantities such as Q.

jeff


They do if you know how to use them properly. For instance, they will
tell you when the reactive portion of the impedance is zero (neither
capacitive nor inductive), which indicates resonance. They will also
tell you the antenna's impedance at a specific frequency. Both can be
used to indirectly determine antenna efficiency.


Rubbish, they tell you nothing more than the impedance at the point
that you wish to plot it. They tell you nothing about how well an
antenna may, or may, not radiate. A 50 ohm resistor will be purely
resistive (parasitic elements neglected) but won't radiate well. Also an
antenna does not have to resonant to radiate well or have high efficiency.

Jeff

Keep thinking that, Jeff, while those who know how to use Smith Charts
continue to design antennas.

Your ignorance is underwhelming.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 1/25/2014 1:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:29:22 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

Receiver sensitivity was 0.2 mv for 20db S+N/N ratio.

I'll assume that you mean 0.2 microvolts, not millivolts.
Also, nobody has uses 20dB S+N/N since about the 1960's except maybe
the ARRL[1]. 12dB SINAD has been around since about the mid 1960's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SINAD

I don't know
how much better; the surplus signal generator I was using wasn't that
accurate.

At the time, I used a Gertsch FM-something. It's the box with only
the left handle showing at the extreme right of the pictu
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/PMC02.html
It wasn't every accurate, and not really intended to be used as a
signal source. However, I had a precision step attenuator, and since
the Gertsch factory was near my parents house, it wasn't too difficult
to get it calibrated in trade for some grunt work.


Yea, right. And your "homemade attenuator" was accurate to several
microvolts. Tell us another one, Jeff! LMAO!

And BTW - 'm' can also mean micro, especially when you don't have a
Greek alphabet available. 'u' is not the same as the Greek 'mu' and can
be confusing. Of course, using 'm' for both milli and micro can be
confusing, unless you know the context.

If you follow SI standards, the "m" means milli.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html


I didn't say anything about SI standards. I was speaking of common usage.

If you have a PC keyboard, try using the key combination:
alt0181
on the number pad which produces a µ symbol.
http://symbolcodes.tlt.psu.edu/accents/codealt.html


Which doesn't work on all computers, all OS's, nor all charsets.



[1] It took me about 10 years to stop using micro-microfarads and
switch to picofarads. I suppose there might be some dinosaurs roaming
the earth still talking about "20 dB quieting".


Gee, most people learn to use pf right away - I know I did. And yes, 20
db quieting is still a standard used in FM.

But you just continue to show your ignorance. You're only making a fool
of yourself.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On 1/25/2014 2:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:25:42 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

On 1/24/2014 7:14 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:04:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

The easiest way of seeing it is looking at the output of both tube and
transistorized transmitters on a spectrum analyzer. You will see much
more hash on the transistorized transmitter.

Amazing. You might see more hash with a synthesized transistor
xmitter, but for crystal controlled, they noise is quite a bit less
with transistors.

You obviously don't use a decent spectrum analyzer.

I've never seen or used an indecent spectrum analyzer. These are
admittedly antiques, but do a tolerable job for most things I need:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/home/slides/test-equip-mess.html
I wouldn't mind owning a much better spectrum analyzer, but I can't
justify the expense. If I need one, I can usually borrow, or if
really desperate, rent.


But you know better than those who have used them regularly. You only
continue to show your ignorance.

Sure - WITH DUPLEXERS. I did it WITHOUT DUPLEXERS. A HUGE difference.
But obviously one YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Do you even know what a
duplexer is? (I really doubt it).

I've been fairly polite up until now. I've tried to correct your
mistakes, but have never stooped to personal insults and accusations.
You don't seem to know how to engage in a technical discussion without
being insulting. No more nice guy.


You only continue to show your ignorance. And the fact you can't read.

I've designed two 900 MHz commercial duplexers used in wireless SCADA
systems. I've tuned probably around 50 assorted duplexers for a
mixture of ham and commercial users. My only failure was when a local
ham machined a rather nice looking duplexer out of 6" stove pipe, and
then wondered why it didn't work as well as the silver plated variety.
In my spare time, I'm trying to improve on the bad joke of a duplexer
found in the Motorola MSF5000 UHF repeater.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/K6BJ-MSF5000/
Yes, I think I know what a duplexer is.


Who gives a damn about you and your duplexers you've supposedly
designed? The fact here is, you can't read. And you only continue to
show your ignorance.

But I am curious - who designed and built your duplexers for you?

Yes, nowadays, there are transistors with lower noise figures. But they
are relatively expensive, and you won't find them in the less expensive
receivers.

Rubbish. pHEMT devices are available with 0.75dB NF at 1GHz for under
$3/ea. For example:
http://www.minicircuits.com/pdfs/PSA4-5043+.pdf
Note that this isn't just a single device but a MMIC amplifier capable
of belching 100 mw (+20dBm) with 1dB gain compression.

Which you don't use in the front end of a receiver. But I see you don't
understand anything that's been said in this thread, so no surprise there.

Actually, you do, but I picked an example that could be used in a
transmit chain, which I believe was the topic of discussion.


ROFLMAO! I have yet to see a 100mw amplifier in the front end of a
receiver. Probably because I don't know of any receivers which take 1mw
input. Yet you claim you use them in the front end of a receiver. Your
ignorance is astounding.

No, AGC will not "try to keep the S/N ratio constant". It tries to keep
the output of the IF constant. As the signal increases, the noise will
decrease, improving the S/N ratio. But you also don't seem to
understand how AGC works.

I stand corrected. The rest of what I said about AGC is correct.


You don't understand AGC, either. You probably don't even understand FM
receivers don't have an AGC circuit.

Even back in the early 70's, commercial tube VHF radios could easily get
.15mv for 20db S+N/N ratio. Not much different than the transistorized
versions today.

I think you might mean 0.15 uv/12dB SINAD. A 0.15mv receiver would be
considere comatose.

No, I mean 20db S+N/N ratio. The equivalent SINAD would be somewhere
around .12mv (or a bit less). Not at all "comatose".

Please fix your abrevs.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html


Please learn how to read.

I never saw any tube receivers with 0.12µV/12dB SINAD sensitivity.
However, that was at UHF. I don't recall the numbers I was getting
for VHF and low band tube receivers. I could probably excavate some
old Motorola Research line manuals and see what Motorola specifies in
the manual.


You're the only one who brought up UHF. But now you have to backpeddle
again because your ignorance is so astounding.

That must be because you were working on GE Pre-Prog. I worked with
both Motorola and RCA sets (plus a few others which weren't quite as
good). We were able to get them to .15mv. on VHF.

The radios in the repeater rack are all Progress Line, not Pre-Prog.
No experience with RCA, but the Motorola 5V, 40V, 80D and 140D were
much the same as the Progress line radios. The UHF (T44) versions
started out at about 0.5µV/12dB SINAD and slowly deteriorated to about
1µV. VHF receivers were somewhat better than that, but I don't recall
the numbers.


Then why did you say Pre-Prog? Backpeddling again? Or just showing
your ignorance again.

But then according to you, such a radio would be "comatose". I wonder
just how bad your GE's were?

The comatose was in reference to your abuse of the SI prefixes.


Learn how to understand conversational writing. But then people
interested in technical conversations discuss technical items. Trolls
pick nits. It seems you are the latter.

1mv/12DB SINAD is terrible. Such a receiver would never have left our shop.

Please fix your abrevs.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html


Please stop trolling.

0.5mv wouldn't leave our shop, either.

Please fix your abrevs.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html


Please stop trolling.

And both Motorola and RCA rigs
would hold their sensitivity for much longer than that, even in a mobile
installment.

It was worse in repeater service, where we had to cram 3 repeaters in
a rack because of limited floor space. Note the big squirrel cage
blowers on the bottom of the rack.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/Santiago-01.html
Mobiles had to be retuned about once a year to maintain optimum
performance. TX output tubes would last about 3 years. (6907 for GE
and 2C39 for Motorola).


We had multiple repeaters in a rack, also. But our Motorola and RCA
rigs would last much longer than that without retuning. Of course, this
was from the midwest, where the temperature only ran -20 to +110 F
(that's Fahrenheit for the trolls), and the building was semi-unheated
(actually it didn't need much heat due to all the transmitters. Cooling
was another problem).

Somewhat later, in the 1970's, I found myself designing marine radios.
Typical VHF sensitivity was about 0.25uv/12dB SINAD using a dual gate
MOSFET front end such as a 40673 or 3N212. We ocassionally used
JFET's such as a U310 but the sensitivity was about the same.

Yea, one of the shops I worked at sold similar quality rigs, mainly for
those who wouldn't pay for a good RCA. The Motorola shop didn't sell
anything else, of course.

Interesting. I mention the front end devices and you immediately
deduce everything about the product, the quality, and maybe even are
able to guess the manufacturer? Wanna take a guess? You can even
Google for the right answer without much difficulty. We were making
marine radios in the USA for about 15 years. It wasn't the lack of
quality that eventually killed the company. It was competition
initially from Japan and later from China. Of course, you must prefer
the current level of quality from China.


Many years of training and experience and I know what's good in front
ends and what isn't. And if your radios were any good, Chinese and
Japanese companies wouldn't have killed your radios. There are many
American companies who compete quite successfully with overseas
companies based on higher quality - even though the price is higher.
But then people don't want to look at the REAL reason their company failed.

And although in my current business I can find many Chinese
manufacturers, none of them have the quality my customers demand.

Maybe in your designs, but not in the ones most of our clients demanded
and paid for.

You designed radios? Good to know. Our radios were used by the USCG,
tug boats, inland waterways barges, bridges, and cruise ships. Those
types of customers don't tolerate failures very gracefully. We also
offered a lifetime warranty to underscore the point. Resurrecting 10
year old radios was not fun, but that's what it took to stay in
business.


Well, let's see. USCG typically purchased based on lowest bid (although
like much of the government, they've learned and lowest bid is no longer
the only factor). And as for the others - many of them also purchase
based on lowest price. And just because maybe one or two cruise ships
might have had your radios really doesn't mean anything.

The fact you had to provide a lifetime warranty to sell them is quite
telling, however.

Incidentally, my best day was when I visited the USCG repair depot on
Yerba Buena Island, and saw a rather large pile of Motorola Modar
radios. When I asked, I was told those were the one's they couldn't
fix. We just smiled and continued the tour.


Which means what - the technicians weren't very competent? When I
worked for a Motorola shop, there was NEVER a radio we couldn't fix.

Incidentally, have you found the maker and model of the F connector
that your un-named distributor will only sell to "professional"
customers? It was in your office the last time you offered to find
it.


Sure, but I really don't give a damn about what trolls want. So I'm not
going to bother to dig it out.

But as I said - I can't post a picture here, and you can't access the
distributor's site without an account. So it really doesn't matter, anyway.

And I know it really torques you to know there's something others can
get but you can't.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes




[1] It took me about 10 years to stop using micro-microfarads and
switch to picofarads.

But have you started referring to them as "puffs"? This is the normal UK
colloquialism for picofarads, but I believe it raises the American
eyebrow!


--
Ian

"Ian Jackson" [1] It took me
about 10 years to stop using micro-microfarads and
switch to picofarads.

But have you started referring to them as "puffs"? This is the normal UK
colloquialism for picofarads, but I believe it raises the American
eyebrow!


I too was using the uuf and uf. Then it took me a while to get used to the
pf. I still can not relate to the nanofarad. Every time I see that
nanofarad I have to put the numbers on a piece of paper and convert it to uu
or u.

I have often heard the uuf referred to as puffs. After the first couple of
times I never gave it a second thought when someone says puffs. I am in the
US.

I still use Hz and cycles without giving it a thought as to which one I am
saying. Just can not get it my head not to say cycles when I should be
saying Hz.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

At the time, I used a Gertsch FM-something. It's the box with only
the left handle showing at the extreme right of the pictu
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/PMC02.html

I can not tell what the Gertsch is from the pix. I have a Singer/Gertsch
FM-10C, but it looks to be older than that. Do see the old generator next to
the scope. I have one like that and play with it from time to time.
Checked the output amplitude of it with my hp 8924c and it seems to be very
close allowing for the fact it is an analog dial and you have to set it to
the mark on the meter.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 1/26/2014 9:12 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes




[1] It took me about 10 years to stop using micro-microfarads and
switch to picofarads.

But have you started referring to them as "puffs"? This is the normal UK
colloquialism for picofarads, but I believe it raises the American eyebrow!



Yep, I first heard the term "puffs" here in the U.S. back in the 60's.
Still used a lot by techs and engineers in the field.

I haven't heard micro-micro farads in decades.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On 1/26/2014 5:09 AM, Jeff wrote:

Rubbish, they tell you nothing more than the impedance at the point
that you wish to plot it. They tell you nothing about how well an
antenna may, or may, not radiate. A 50 ohm resistor will be purely
resistive (parasitic elements neglected) but won't radiate well. Also an
antenna does not have to resonant to radiate well or have high
efficiency.

Jeff

Keep thinking that, Jeff, while those who know how to use Smith Charts
continue to design antennas.

Your ignorance is underwhelming.


Well Jerry, please help me increase my knowledge. Please tell me now to
show what "goes on *inside* a bit of coax" on a Smith chart, or how to
show the efficiency of an antenna from a Smith chart.

Jeff

I'll tell you what, troll. You go to college. Get a EE degree. Learn
the math and the theory. Them maybe you can understand basics and we
can discuss the subject intelligently (although I doubt it).

Usenet is not the place to try to teach you four years of math, physics
and electronics.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================