Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont- email.me: But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an antenna. Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving picowatts, if I'm lucky. ![]() I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing. You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt, weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at the same ERP as analog? I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients! |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 8/1/2014 8:18 AM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont- email.me: But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an antenna. Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving picowatts, if I'm lucky. ![]() I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing. You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt, weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at the same ERP as analog? I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients! And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business better than I do. But that's trolls for you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 8/1/2014 8:18 AM, Rob wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont- email.me: But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an antenna. Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving picowatts, if I'm lucky. ![]() I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing. You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt, weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at the same ERP as analog? I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients! And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business better than I do. I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten everything now that you are out of it for decades. You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved. For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly receivable. Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands (e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation for a usable signal on the receiver. But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that is clear. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 8/1/2014 12:22 PM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 8/1/2014 8:18 AM, Rob wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 7/30/2014 1:22 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote: Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lr9ohj$33f$1@dont- email.me: But the amplifier you're trying to use is meant to feed a receiver directly, not another antenna. So output is going to be very low (on the order of microwatts) - much lower than any amplifier which feeds an antenna. Small point, but.... Microwatts. Those new legal microstransmitters are said to be in NANOwatt range output, but allegedly work on the distance scales I'm interested in. Microwatts should certainly have worked, but despite the crude test dipole being good (on standard wired reception test anyway), it didn't work for transmitting even a foot or two with the radio's whip parallel to the upper part of it. If nanowatts should have, the MAR-6 looks like driving picowatts, if I'm lucky. ![]() I would suggest you check again. Receivers aren't that sensitive. Most unlicensed transmitters are in the 100-500 mw range, and have a coverage of maybe 100 feet. And picowatts aren't even worth discussing. You were the guy that believed that dBm meant dB over a millivolt, weren't you? And claimed that you had all that experience in cabling and signal levels? And thought that digital TV was transmitted at the same ERP as analog? I'm getting more and more astonished that you made any working system and did not just fry the expensive receivers of all your clients! And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business better than I do. I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten everything now that you are out of it for decades. No, you know NOTHING about my job, the people I employ or their technical expertise. You think EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is as smart as you are. But here's a clue - the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is SMARTER THAN YOU. You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved. For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly receivable. I know EXACTLY what a picowatt is. And I also know what portable receivers are capable of. Sure, if you feed a picowatt directly into the front end of a receiver, a good receiver will hear the signal. But what field strength do you need at the antenna for a portable FM receiver to hear that signal? And most of your inexpensive portable receivers will not hear much of a signal (if at all), even if you do feed a picowatt directly into the front end (not that you can without major surgery on the receiver). Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands (e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation for a usable signal on the receiver. Sure, but you're also talking a 5Khz deviation (actually about 12Khz bandwidth). Commercial FM uses 75Khz deviation (typically around 180Khz bandwidth). A huge difference. But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that is clear. No, i am not used to jumbling them up. You just have no idea what my industry uses for measurements. IOW, a typical troll - thinks he knows it all when he knows absolutely nothing. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business better than I do. I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten everything now that you are out of it for decades. No, you know NOTHING about my job, the people I employ or their technical expertise. You think EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is as smart as you are. But here's a clue - the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is SMARTER THAN YOU. I never doubt that! But I am sure I know more about it than you! And so do many others here. It is you that is *thinking* he has a lot of knowledge, but knows absolutely no facts. Not that this is required to employ people, just make sure you never toucht the stuff yourself! You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved. For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly receivable. I know EXACTLY what a picowatt is. And I also know what portable receivers are capable of. Sure, if you feed a picowatt directly into the front end of a receiver, a good receiver will hear the signal. But what field strength do you need at the antenna for a portable FM receiver to hear that signal? And most of your inexpensive portable receivers will not hear much of a signal (if at all), even if you do feed a picowatt directly into the front end (not that you can without major surgery on the receiver). It was you that was coming up with picowatts when others suggested nanowatts. That tells enough, doesn't it? Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands (e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation for a usable signal on the receiver. Sure, but you're also talking a 5Khz deviation (actually about 12Khz bandwidth). Commercial FM uses 75Khz deviation (typically around 180Khz bandwidth). A huge difference. No, not at all. It is the EU regulation for unlicensed devices operating in the 100 MHz broadcast band that they must not emit more than 50nW. Now I'm sure that in America everything is bigger and the rules are better (not the receivers, apparently), but you are not going to convince me that the same equipment in America emits 100-500mW. That is just ignorance on your side. But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that is clear. No, i am not used to jumbling them up. You just have no idea what my industry uses for measurements. Oh yes I do! dBm, meaning dB over a milliwatt. And in the cable industry, dBuV, meaning dB over a microvolt. In America, where everything is bigger, probably dB over a millivolt, but not expressed as dBm! IOW, a typical troll - thinks he knows it all when he knows absolutely nothing. That's you, I take? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 8/1/2014 1:48 PM, Rob wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote: And I'm more and more astonished that you seem to know my business better than I do. I certainly do! Your claims are all hogwash. Either you did not know your (technical) business when you were in it, or you have forgotten everything now that you are out of it for decades. No, you know NOTHING about my job, the people I employ or their technical expertise. You think EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is as smart as you are. But here's a clue - the VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD is SMARTER THAN YOU. I never doubt that! But I am sure I know more about it than you! And so do many others here. It is you that is *thinking* he has a lot of knowledge, but knows absolutely no facts. Not that this is required to employ people, just make sure you never toucht the stuff yourself! Wrong again. But like all trolls, you THINK you know things you don't. The difference between ignorance and stupidity - ignorance can be cured. And like all trolls, you are just plain stupid. And as a matter of fact, I train the people who work with me. I've been in the electronics business for over 40 years, working on everything from $40 dollar CB sets to multi-million dollar computer mainframes. I doubt you've even touched a soldering iron. You have no idea about what orders of magnitude are involved. For example: a picowatt is about 8.6uV in 75 ohms. An FM receiver will give a clear signal on that. Not full quieting, but certainly receivable. I know EXACTLY what a picowatt is. And I also know what portable receivers are capable of. Sure, if you feed a picowatt directly into the front end of a receiver, a good receiver will hear the signal. But what field strength do you need at the antenna for a portable FM receiver to hear that signal? And most of your inexpensive portable receivers will not hear much of a signal (if at all), even if you do feed a picowatt directly into the front end (not that you can without major surgery on the receiver). It was you that was coming up with picowatts when others suggested nanowatts. That tells enough, doesn't it? Check back - I wasn't the one who mentioned picowatts. However, like all trolls, you can't read, either. Unlicensed transmitters for dedicated frequencies like 433MHz (wireless headphones and the like) are about 10mW, and for broadcast bands (e.g. to link an MP3 player to a radio) they are even less. E.g. in the FM broadcast band the limit in the EU for such a transmitter is 50nW effective radiated power. That still allows for a 30dB path attennuation for a usable signal on the receiver. Sure, but you're also talking a 5Khz deviation (actually about 12Khz bandwidth). Commercial FM uses 75Khz deviation (typically around 180Khz bandwidth). A huge difference. No, not at all. It is the EU regulation for unlicensed devices operating in the 100 MHz broadcast band that they must not emit more than 50nW. That's fine for the EU. It is different in the U.S. Now I'm sure that in America everything is bigger and the rules are better (not the receivers, apparently), but you are not going to convince me that the same equipment in America emits 100-500mW. That is just ignorance on your side. I didn't say the same equipment. I said it is legal in the United States. But as you are used to jumbling up your dBm and dBmV values, you have no idea about that. Your business was probably connecting ready-made equipment, and selling. But certainly not testing and debugging, that is clear. No, i am not used to jumbling them up. You just have no idea what my industry uses for measurements. Oh yes I do! dBm, meaning dB over a milliwatt. And in the cable industry, dBuV, meaning dB over a microvolt. In your country, maybe. But here, most cable technicians when talking dB are talking dBuV. But one again you show your ignorance. In America, where everything is bigger, probably dB over a millivolt, but not expressed as dBm! I never said that, either. But like the troll you are, you can't get anything straight. IOW, a typical troll - thinks he knows it all when he knows absolutely nothing. That's you, I take? You all over. As you just proved once again. But that's only expected from an anonymous poster with an invalid email address and no call sign (probably aren't a ham, either). Too afraid to let his boss know the trash he's posting - he'd get fired. Now I'll let you have the last word. Trolls always need to have the last word. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I never said that, either. But like the troll you are, you can't get anything straight. Your memory is failing Jerry. |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:lrglvk$ub7$1@dont-
email.me: And as a matter of fact, I train the people who work with me. I've been in the electronics business for over 40 years, working on everything from $40 dollar CB sets to multi-million dollar computer mainframes. I doubt you've even touched a soldering iron. Sorry about the tad bit of schadenfreude I'm getting here, but you two remind me of the Lone Gunmen in that amazing X-Files episode, just before Signy Coleman showed up. I think we need Signy Coleman in here. ![]() |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 01 Aug 2014 17:48:22 GMT, Rob wrote:
Oh yes I do! dBm, meaning dB over a milliwatt. And in the cable industry, dBuV, meaning dB over a microvolt. Also dBmV for cable and OTA TV (into 75 ohms): http://www.tselectronic.com/tech_notes/db.php For FM tuners, it's dBf (dB over 1 femtowatt) usually into 300 ohms but sometimes into 75 ohms: http://mail.audiokarma.net/forums/showthread.php?t=29525 http://community.crutchfield.com/car_audio_and_video/f/27/receivers/t/3088/fm-sensitivity#13128 Plenty more to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel#Suffixes_and_reference_values In America, where everything is bigger, probably dB over a millivolt, but not expressed as dBm! Bigger is better. FCC broadcast EIRP specs are most often expressed in dBW (dB over 1 watt) but sometimes dBk (dB over 1 kilowatt). My own version for data sheets and press releases is dBr (dB better than reality). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeff Liebermann wrote in
: For FM tuners, it's dBf (dB over 1 femtowatt) usually into 300 ohms but sometimes into 75 ohms: The Tecsun PL-390 uses dBµ (micro). Most of this is new to me, but I read that Tecsun's dB referencing makes them useful to EMI and RFI engineers, and one related radio beign especially useful for tracing noise, having a plug-in rotatable magnetic loop antenna as well as a long(ish) whip. At this point pouring scorn or praise on Tecsun radios is interesting to me either way, because for the first time in a while I have found a radio I care enough not to be indifferent to it. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
WCBS-FM ralliers get rates boost | Broadcasting | |||
Funding Boost for Radio New Zealand International | Shortwave | |||
Advice Needed: How to boost signal on 2.4 ghz av unit | Equipment | |||
PrePaid Boost/Nextel Special | Swap | |||
FS PRE-PAID BOOST/NEXTEL | Swap |