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 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

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

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

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:03:55 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

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.

Thanks for reminding me. I have exactly the same problem. Old habits
die hard. I don't think I've ever used nanofarads in any design. Some
of the software I use offers an option to disable the use of
nanofarads. However, as new versions arrive, I'm seeing that less and
less.

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.

That one was easy for me. Cycles per second is just too many
syllables to easily roll off the tongue. I usually favor the shortest
and most abbreviated term. When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

Where we came from:
http://www.hemyockcastle.co.uk/measure.htm
With that history of units of measure, I would hate to guess where
we're going.

I did invent a unit of measure which seems to have stuck for a time at
a former college. During college, I built a device to quantify female
desirability. It was an IR detector that basically measured the mount
of exposed skin. I needed a unit of measure for female desirability
which became the milli-Helen. Since Helen of Troy launched 1000
ships, 1 milli-Helen would launch 1 ship. The negative was also true
as negative 1 milli-Helen would sink 1 ship. Unfortunately, it
somewhat backfired and failed to provide me with any additional dates
and lady friends.

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

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes



When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).





--
Ian

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:23:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).

That's because of the English accent. Try pronouncing it as "hurts".
In New York, the pronunciation is something like "hoits".
At Avis rent-a-car, Hertz is never mentioned.

Drivel: Marketing people like to identify their products with names
and letters that make the speaker smile when pronouncing it. The
common "say cheese" in photography is an example. "Cycles" doesn't
quite make one smile, but it's close. "Hertz" is produces almost a
frown, which may explain why you're having difficulties with 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

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:23:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).

That's because of the English accent. Try pronouncing it as "hurts".
In New York, the pronunciation is something like "hoits".

At Avis rent-a-car, Hertz is never mentioned.

Drivel: Marketing people like to identify their products with names
and letters that make the speaker smile when pronouncing it. The
common "say cheese" in photography is an example. "Cycles" doesn't
quite make one smile, but it's close. "Hertz" is produces almost a
frown, which may explain why you're having difficulties with it.

Hertz certainly hurts a bit when you say it - especially if you
pronounce it correctly, as 'hairts' (almost a grimace).

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air. Also, the units 'Hz', 'kHz'
and 'MHz' don't lend themselves to pronunciation, whereas 'cycles',
'kay-sees' and 'megs' do.

Just to get back on topic, since we started using Hz, I'm sure antennas
have become less efficient and signal strengths lower - and it's certain
that QRM is now much worse.
--
Ian

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

snip

I did invent a unit of measure which seems to have stuck for a time at
a former college. During college, I built a device to quantify female
desirability. It was an IR detector that basically measured the mount
of exposed skin. I needed a unit of measure for female desirability
which became the milli-Helen. Since Helen of Troy launched 1000
ships, 1 milli-Helen would launch 1 ship. The negative was also true
as negative 1 milli-Helen would sink 1 ship. Unfortunately, it
somewhat backfired and failed to provide me with any additional dates
and lady friends.

That's interesting, since a coworker and I did something like it in the
1990s. (No animal testing was performed.)

You rated women's looks based on the Optimum Viewing Distance in feet. At
200 feet, say, you can tell it's a woman but not much more. At 50 feet, you
can gauge whether you want a closer look, so lower numbers indicate a
more-attractive woman. If she still looks good at 15 feet, but you can see
her crooked teeth and nose hair at 10 feet, then the rating is set to 15,
the "best" viewing distance for her.

If she's really attractive, you probably would want to make physical
contact, so she becomes a 0, in effect a completely attractive woman. In
this system, the rating number could actually go slightly negative but that
would be splitting hairs.

"Sal"

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

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