|
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is
coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Hello Group, Approximately 8 weeks ago fellow group member Steve Ratzlaff and I had an discussion about the noise performance of amplifiers for Non Directional Beacon work. Steve suggested that it may be a good idea to look at the Antenna Amplifier noise floor with a simulated antenna inductance, rather than using a resistance equal to the amplifier input z. Steve's suggestion makes perfect sense when one considers that the real and radiation resistance of loop antennas are very small in comparison to the loops inductance. First I retested two active antennas; Wellbrook's ALA100 and ALA100LN in the paddock using 20m circumference loops. Loop area 21 sq.m. Both antenna use noiseless feedback. The ALA100 uses Bipolar transistors, the ALA100LN uses JFETS. The gain comparison on MW/LW was an increase of 2-4dB in favour of the ALA100LN. Unfortunately the ambient noise level was too high to see any noise floor difference. Next; Bench Tests ( gain and Noise Figure NF of both ALA100 amps.) were conducted using a Marconi 2019A Sig. Gen. and WinRadio Excalibur. A 9dB Norton amplifier in the Antenna Interface was used to ensure that the total gain was approx. 10dB higher than the Excalibur NF. Thus to ensure that the higher amplifier gain would mask the receiver NF affecting the measurements. A 20uH inductor was used to simulate the loop’s reactance. The NF was measured using the gain method i.e. the excess noise above the amplifier gain when the input is terminated with a resistor. The negative NF is measured with a inductance connected to the amplifier input. Both ALA100s have an approx. 50 Ohm resistive input z as determined using an Array Solutions AIM 4170C Antenna Analyser. WinRadio Excalibur set 1kHz BW and the S Meter to RMS AVG. -144dBm is used as reference for the 1kHz BW The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. Test results. Old ALA100 1MHz gain = 27dB (18dB with Passive Interface ) Noise with 50 Ohm input = –116dBm NF = 1.0dB Noise with 20uH input = –118dBm ( -127dBm with Passive Interface ) NF = –1dB. New ALA100LN 1MHz gain = 28dB (19dB with Passive Interface ) Noise with 50 Ohm input = –116dBm NF = 0.0dB Noise with 20uH input = –124dBm ( -133dBm with Passive Interface ) NF = –8dB. 3 other ALA100LNs were tested, the worst case was a -6dB NF. Looking at the above one can see that there is only a 1dB difference in the gain and NF of the two Head amps with a 50 Ohm input. The apparent -1dB NF of the ALA100 with the 20uH input is probably due to the fact that Inductors are noiseless compared to a 50 Ohm resistor. However, what is striking, is the apparent high negative NF of the ALA100LN. My first thoughts were when this showed up, that the gain had dropped by 8dB because of the loop inductance and this would show up as low antenna gain. However, the on air comparison suggested that this wasn't the case. Also Dave Aichelman ran some comparative tests confirming my observations. I do not have an explanation yet as to why the ALA100LN has an apparent negative NF or why the noise floor drops by 8dB, but it certainly accounts as to why some users are seeing improved performance. The theoretical NF of the ALA100LN is close to 0dB. One could speculate that there is a significant mismatch of the antenna noise from its real and radiation resistance being a small fraction of the amplifier input z. However, I have only been able to achieve a significant negative NF using JFETS. The ALA100LN uses 8 x J309 Fets. with noiseless feedback. The negative NF can be increased to approx. -10dB by altering the feedback and increasing the amplifier gain. Also the negative NF increases by a couple of dB where the loop inductance is higher e.g. a 20m circumference thin wire loop ( 30uH ). Also the negative NF is maintained as the frequency rises. The ALA100LN has a sister, “Florence” the FLG100LN with an input matching/isolation transformer of 1152 Ohms for Terminated loop antennas e.g. Flag and KAZ. However, the antenna termination resistance makes the negative NF feature unrealisable. One may ask what is the significance of the amplifier having a negative noise figure of -8dB? It basically means, that there is the potential of an 11dB s/n improvement when compared to a conventional amplifier of the same gain and NF of say 3dB with a similar loop size. This feature could be used to compensate for any mismatch loss over wide bandwidths. Additionally the negative noise figure could compensate for usual NF degradation when loops are run as close spaced Phase Arrays. I am currently exploring to see if the apparent negative NF can be exploited with smaller loops. To this end I have extended the bandwidth of the ALA100LN from 10MHz to 30MHz by configuring the FETs to run in cascode with two Bipolar devices. However, there may be a bandwidth limitation due to the fixed input impedance of the amplifier compared to the ALA1530 with its loop/amp. impedance tracking verses frequency. -- Rick |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote:
I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek Hello Group, Approximately 8 weeks ago fellow group member Steve Ratzlaff and I had an discussion about the noise performance of amplifiers for Non Directional Beacon work. Steve suggested that it may be a good idea to look at the Antenna Amplifier noise floor with a simulated antenna inductance, rather than using a resistance equal to the amplifier input z. Steve's suggestion makes perfect sense when one considers that the real and radiation resistance of loop antennas are very small in comparison to the loops inductance. First I retested two active antennas; Wellbrook's ALA100 and ALA100LN in the paddock using 20m circumference loops. Loop area 21 sq.m. Both antenna use noiseless feedback. The ALA100 uses Bipolar transistors, the ALA100LN uses JFETS. The gain comparison on MW/LW was an increase of 2-4dB in favour of the ALA100LN. Unfortunately the ambient noise level was too high to see any noise floor difference. Next; Bench Tests ( gain and Noise Figure NF of both ALA100 amps.) were conducted using a Marconi 2019A Sig. Gen. and WinRadio Excalibur. A 9dB Norton amplifier in the Antenna Interface was used to ensure that the total gain was approx. 10dB higher than the Excalibur NF. Thus to ensure that the higher amplifier gain would mask the receiver NF affecting the measurements. A 20uH inductor was used to simulate the loop’s reactance. The NF was measured using the gain method i.e. the excess noise above the amplifier gain when the input is terminated with a resistor. The negative NF is measured with a inductance connected to the amplifier input. Both ALA100s have an approx. 50 Ohm resistive input z as determined using an Array Solutions AIM 4170C Antenna Analyser. WinRadio Excalibur set 1kHz BW and the S Meter to RMS AVG. -144dBm is used as reference for the 1kHz BW The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. Test results. Old ALA100 1MHz gain = 27dB (18dB with Passive Interface ) Noise with 50 Ohm input = –116dBm NF = 1.0dB Noise with 20uH input = –118dBm ( -127dBm with Passive Interface ) NF = –1dB. New ALA100LN 1MHz gain = 28dB (19dB with Passive Interface ) Noise with 50 Ohm input = –116dBm NF = 0.0dB Noise with 20uH input = –124dBm ( -133dBm with Passive Interface ) NF = –8dB. 3 other ALA100LNs were tested, the worst case was a -6dB NF. Looking at the above one can see that there is only a 1dB difference in the gain and NF of the two Head amps with a 50 Ohm input. The apparent -1dB NF of the ALA100 with the 20uH input is probably due to the fact that Inductors are noiseless compared to a 50 Ohm resistor. However, what is striking, is the apparent high negative NF of the ALA100LN. My first thoughts were when this showed up, that the gain had dropped by 8dB because of the loop inductance and this would show up as low antenna gain. However, the on air comparison suggested that this wasn't the case. Also Dave Aichelman ran some comparative tests confirming my observations. I do not have an explanation yet as to why the ALA100LN has an apparent negative NF or why the noise floor drops by 8dB, but it certainly accounts as to why some users are seeing improved performance. The theoretical NF of the ALA100LN is close to 0dB. One could speculate that there is a significant mismatch of the antenna noise from its real and radiation resistance being a small fraction of the amplifier input z. However, I have only been able to achieve a significant negative NF using JFETS. The ALA100LN uses 8 x J309 Fets. with noiseless feedback. The negative NF can be increased to approx. -10dB by altering the feedback and increasing the amplifier gain. Also the negative NF increases by a couple of dB where the loop inductance is higher e.g. a 20m circumference thin wire loop ( 30uH ). Also the negative NF is maintained as the frequency rises. The ALA100LN has a sister, “Florence” the FLG100LN with an input matching/isolation transformer of 1152 Ohms for Terminated loop antennas e.g. Flag and KAZ. However, the antenna termination resistance makes the negative NF feature unrealisable. One may ask what is the significance of the amplifier having a negative noise figure of -8dB? It basically means, that there is the potential of an 11dB s/n improvement when compared to a conventional amplifier of the same gain and NF of say 3dB with a similar loop size. This feature could be used to compensate for any mismatch loss over wide bandwidths. Additionally the negative noise figure could compensate for usual NF degradation when loops are run as close spaced Phase Arrays. I am currently exploring to see if the apparent negative NF can be exploited with smaller loops. To this end I have extended the bandwidth of the ALA100LN from 10MHz to 30MHz by configuring the FETs to run in cascode with two Bipolar devices. However, there may be a bandwidth limitation due to the fixed input impedance of the amplifier compared to the ALA1530 with its loop/amp. impedance tracking verses frequency. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:24:25 -0400, rickman wrote:
I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Hello Group, Approximately 8 weeks ago fellow group member Steve Ratzlaff and I had an discussion about the noise performance of amplifiers for Non Directional Beacon work. Steve suggested that it may be a good idea to look at the Antenna Amplifier noise floor with a simulated antenna inductance, rather than using a resistance equal to the amplifier input z. Steve's suggestion makes perfect sense when one considers that the real and radiation resistance of loop antennas are very small in comparison to the loops inductance. First I retested two active antennas; Wellbrook's ALA100 and ALA100LN in the paddock using 20m circumference loops. Loop area 21 sq.m. Both antenna use noiseless feedback. The ALA100 uses Bipolar transistors, the ALA100LN uses JFETS. The gain comparison on MW/LW was an increase of 2-4dB in favour of the ALA100LN. Unfortunately the ambient noise level was too high to see any noise floor difference. Next; Bench Tests ( gain and Noise Figure NF of both ALA100 amps.) were conducted using a Marconi 2019A Sig. Gen. and WinRadio Excalibur. A 9dB Norton amplifier in the Antenna Interface was used to ensure that the total gain was approx. 10dB higher than the Excalibur NF. Thus to ensure that the higher amplifier gain would mask the receiver NF affecting the measurements. A 20uH inductor was used to simulate the loop’s reactance. The NF was measured using the gain method i.e. the excess noise above the amplifier gain when the input is terminated with a resistor. The negative NF is measured with a inductance connected to the amplifier input. Both ALA100s have an approx. 50 Ohm resistive input z as determined using an Array Solutions AIM 4170C Antenna Analyser. WinRadio Excalibur set 1kHz BW and the S Meter to RMS AVG. -144dBm is used as reference for the 1kHz BW That is 174 dBm/Hz, indicating about 300 K noise temperature (room temperature). UHF people would call that 3 dB reference level and it is not so hard to go down to 100 K (1 dB NF) in a good preamplifier. If the noise level is below 3 dB, someone would call it a negative NF:-). Anyway, at VLF/LF the band noise is so huge, that I do not understand what a low NF would help, unless the antenna is extremely small and lossy, such a ferrite bar with -60 to -80 dB antenna efficiency and hence similar gain. A several meter in diameter loop will have a half decent efficiency, so extremely low amplifier NF is seldom justified. Of course, putting the amplifier at the antenna will help keeping interference from entering the downlead. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:24:25 -0400, rickman wrote:
I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Yes, it is. NF = 0dB is about as low as you can go without magic. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/26/2015 12:38 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek I suspect he said he didn't like your sarcastic replies because you made sarcastic replies much more than he didn't want to discuss anything he said. -- Rick |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
amdx wrote:
On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek ** SNIPPED for brevity ** Even at DC frequencies (eg: broadcast FM or even AM) Litz wire gives an edge for higher Q; that is a proven fact. BUT.... If you do not give a rat about Q or gain losses or noise figure (again, at DC frequencies), then bag Litz and pay the price on all of them.... |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
In message , Jeff writes
On 26/06/2015 13:24, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Both definitions are correct and mean the same thing; a negative NF, when expressed in dB, would be when the SNRout is less than the SNRin. However, the big but is that an negative NF is not possible. It only appears to be the case due to the fact that the OP is not comparing like with like, the test method used is only valid if the system impedance remains the same. You cannot compare oranges with lemons. Is that formula correct? If the input SNR is poor, an amplifier with a high NF has very impact on the output SNR. Also, are the units ratios, or are they in dB? -- Ian |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:04:43 -0700, Robert Baer
wrote: amdx wrote: On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek ** SNIPPED for brevity ** Even at DC frequencies (eg: broadcast FM or even AM) Litz wire gives an edge for higher Q; that is a proven fact. BUT.... If you do not give a rat about Q or gain losses or noise figure (again, at DC frequencies), then bag Litz and pay the price on all of them.... Litz is useful at VLF/LF/MF due to the high inductance and hence large number of turns required. On a small coil former, the requirement is to use the available copper cross section as effectively as possible. At high HF and VHF, fitting a few turns into a coil former is required, so using 0.5 mm solid thick wire to contain the RF within the skin dept is not a problem. For a single turn loop antenna, there are no such size restrictions. A 1-2 m loop antenna made of 10-20 mm copper tubing works quite well as a transmitting antenna at 3.5 MHz with perhaps 1 % efficiency (-20 dB gain). I once made a loop antenna into a hoola hoop using a flat cable using "off by one" connection to create a multiturn loop. The problem was that the self capacitance between turns made it tunable only at VLF frequencies. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/27/2015 1:04 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
amdx wrote: On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek ** SNIPPED for brevity ** Even at DC frequencies (eg: broadcast FM or even AM) Litz wire gives an edge for higher Q; that is a proven fact. BUT.... If you do not give a rat about Q or gain losses or noise figure (again, at DC frequencies), then bag Litz and pay the price on all of them.... Yes, his comment made no sense to me. So I ask about it, that was a mistake! Mikek |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/26/2015 9:46 PM, rickman wrote:
On 6/26/2015 12:38 PM, amdx wrote: On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek I suspect he said he didn't like your sarcastic replies because you made sarcastic replies much more than he didn't want to discuss anything he said. I was not being sarcastic in my response when I ask about the Litz. My understanding is Litz reduces R losses thus Q increases, if Q is not important, why is Litz the only type of wire to use? He probably realized that what he wrote made no sense and being ask about it offended his ego and I'm that's why got angry. On the other hand, if both of his statements are correct, it would be interesting to learn why. I would learn something, because as it stands, I can't reconcile the two statements. In the end, the ferrite loaded antenna I was working on had a low Q, I was using some surplus ferrite material I had, and it was lossy, especially in the upper AMBCB. It had Q's under 100 down to 40. To support Ratzlaff's theory, it did bring in stations that the radio didn't hear if not near the Ferrite loaded antenna. But that's subjective and I don't know what it would be like if it had a Q of 800. Mikek |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/27/2015 7:48 AM, amdx wrote:
On 6/26/2015 9:46 PM, rickman wrote: On 6/26/2015 12:38 PM, amdx wrote: On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek I suspect he said he didn't like your sarcastic replies because you made sarcastic replies much more than he didn't want to discuss anything he said. I was not being sarcastic in my response when I ask about the Litz. Look at the larger picture. -- Rick |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:48:59 -0500, amdx Gave us:
On 6/26/2015 9:46 PM, rickman wrote: On 6/26/2015 12:38 PM, amdx wrote: On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek I suspect he said he didn't like your sarcastic replies because you made sarcastic replies much more than he didn't want to discuss anything he said. I was not being sarcastic in my response when I ask about the Litz. My understanding is Litz reduces R losses thus Q increases, if Q is not important, why is Litz the only type of wire to use? He probably realized that what he wrote made no sense and being ask about it offended his ego and I'm that's why got angry. On the other hand, if both of his statements are correct, it would be interesting to learn why. I would learn something, because as it stands, I can't reconcile the two statements. In the end, the ferrite loaded antenna I was working on had a low Q, I was using some surplus ferrite material I had, and it was lossy, especially in the upper AMBCB. It had Q's under 100 down to 40. To support Ratzlaff's theory, it did bring in stations that the radio didn't hear if not near the Ferrite loaded antenna. But that's subjective and I don't know what it would be like if it had a Q of 800. Mikek The µ of the ferrite makes a difference. Especially in cost.. There is also an "ideal" (or nearly so) diameter (and length) to best use. One can buy one inch specimens and glue them together when tuning to find a "best use" scenario for the desired fo under which to continue tuning practices. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/27/2015 4:07 AM, Jeff wrote:
On 26/06/2015 13:24, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Both definitions are correct and mean the same thing; a negative NF, when expressed in dB, would be when the SNRout is less than the SNRin. However, the big but is that an negative NF is not possible. I don't think both definitions mean the same thing. If the amplifier adds *any* noise it increases the NF above zero by the conventional definition. The only way the NF can be negative is if the amplifier removes noise from the input, or in other words, increases the SNR. What he seems to be suggesting is that NF is the ratio of the signal noise to the amplifier noise. It only appears to be the case due to the fact that the OP is not comparing like with like, the test method used is only valid if the system impedance remains the same. You cannot compare oranges with lemons. -- Rick |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:43:16 +0100, Jeff Gave us:
On 27/06/2015 13:26, rickman wrote: On 6/27/2015 4:07 AM, Jeff wrote: On 26/06/2015 13:24, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Both definitions are correct and mean the same thing; a negative NF, when expressed in dB, would be when the SNRout is less than the SNRin. However, the big but is that an negative NF is not possible. I don't think both definitions mean the same thing. If the amplifier adds *any* noise it increases the NF above zero by the conventional definition. The only way the NF can be negative is if the amplifier removes noise from the input, or in other words, increases the SNR. Yes that is correct, but the definitions are also correct. The flaw in the negative noise figure argument is that it is not possible to have a better SNRout than SNRin *for the same system conditions*. The apparent negative noise figure only come about by comparing the NF of the amp in a 50ohm system with the output from a system with something different on the input. The test method used is also very prone to measurement errors for low noise figures. Jeff To me, NF refers to "noise floor". Lets see him go below that. GPS received signals are among the lowest "power" signals we currently grab. They sit just above the noise floor. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:02:49 +0100, Jeff Gave us:
Is that formula correct? If the input SNR is poor, an amplifier with a high NF has very impact on the output SNR. Also, are the units ratios, or are they in dB? For a particular NF the effect on the output s/n ratio is always the same regardless of the actual input s/n, until you get to the point where the signal vanishes in the noise, but even then it still holds true but you just can't see it. The signal will go up by the gain of the amplifier, and the noise will go up by the sum of *power* of the input noise times the gain and the noise power of the calculated from the NF times the gain. The noise powers being in watts calculated from the NF; in a 1Hz Bandwidth by convention. So its dB above kTB converted to watts if you are working with NF in dB. So for a particular NF the added noise is always the same, therefore the SNRin/SNRout holds, and is a standard definition of NF (not in dB). Jeff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm Look at the last four entries in the table. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/27/2015 7:11 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:48:59 -0500, amdx Gave us: On 6/26/2015 9:46 PM, rickman wrote: On 6/26/2015 12:38 PM, amdx wrote: On 6/26/2015 7:24 AM, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick I once ask Ratzlaff about the FSL antenna, in his comments he said, "high Q or low Q has little relation to how the FSL will actually perform for receiving weak signals.", but then went on to say, "Of course using Litz is the only type of wire to use." When I ask him about why Litz is important if Q isn't, he got ****ed off and wrote back, "When you make sarcastic replies to the info I passed along, and question what I say, then I write you off as just a tire-kicker, not interested in possibly learning something, and I have no interest in saying anything more." Seems to me he said something incorrect and didn't like having someone ask him to clarify it. I'll leave it to you to figure out which part was incorrect. I thought Q would be important, an FSL is a ferrite loaded tuned loop. With magic mixed in! ;-) If Q is not important, why use Litz? I suspect you might have already tried to ask him, and now he's mad at you too! Mikek I suspect he said he didn't like your sarcastic replies because you made sarcastic replies much more than he didn't want to discuss anything he said. I was not being sarcastic in my response when I ask about the Litz. My understanding is Litz reduces R losses thus Q increases, if Q is not important, why is Litz the only type of wire to use? He probably realized that what he wrote made no sense and being ask about it offended his ego and I'm that's why got angry. On the other hand, if both of his statements are correct, it would be interesting to learn why. I would learn something, because as it stands, I can't reconcile the two statements. In the end, the ferrite loaded antenna I was working on had a low Q, I was using some surplus ferrite material I had, and it was lossy, especially in the upper AMBCB. It had Q's under 100 down to 40. To support Ratzlaff's theory, it did bring in stations that the radio didn't hear if not near the Ferrite loaded antenna. But that's subjective and I don't know what it would be like if it had a Q of 800. Mikek The µ of the ferrite makes a difference. Especially in cost.. There is also an "ideal" (or nearly so) diameter (and length) to best use. One can buy one inch specimens and glue them together when tuning to find a "best use" scenario for the desired fo under which to continue tuning practices. These FSL antennas are a different breed, they use 10's of rods or bars in a 4" to 10"+ diameter cylinder. Then a coil is wrapped around and tuned with an air capacitor. Here's a good link. http://www.am-dx.com/antennas/FSL%20...timization.htm Mikek --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:49:12 +0100, Jeff Gave us:
To me, NF refers to "noise floor". Lets see him go below that. GPS received signals are among the lowest "power" signals we currently grab. They sit just above the noise floor. It might to you, but in this context it means either Noise Factor or Noise Figure. Of course you can go below the Noise Floor, and in some circumstances and modes the signal is receivable and decodable. 30dB below the noise floor.... http://www.bentongue.com/xtalset/1nlxtlsd/1nlxtlsd.html The answer to all your needs. Less is more. That Chef's Hat conglomeration is overkill. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
In message , Jeff writes
To me, NF refers to "noise floor". Lets see him go below that. GPS received signals are among the lowest "power" signals we currently grab. They sit just above the noise floor. It might to you, but in this context it means either Noise Factor or Noise Figure. But you have to be careful, as "noise factor" is a numerical ratio, and "noise figure" is in dB. Of course you can go below the Noise Floor, and in some circumstances and modes the signal is receivable and decodable. In the analogue cable TV world, the noise figure (in dB) can be looked at as the amount of noise power that (say) a real-world amplifier notionally has at its input in excess of that which would be generated from a perfect resistor as its source impedance. As a rule-of-thumb, in a 4MHz vision bandwidth, a perfect 75 ohm resistor generates -59dBmV. [Subtract around 48dB if you want dBmW.] The output of a noiseless amplifier would be -59dBmV + G, where G is the gain in DB. The output of a real-world amplifier would be -59dBmV + NF + G, where N is the noise figure. One method of measuring the noise figure is first to feed the amplifier first from a resistive source, and measure the output noise level. Next, feed the amplifier from a source containing a known amount of noise, and note the increase of output noise. The noise figure can then be calculated. In practice, the noisy source is usually a calibrated noise meter*. The first reading is taken with the noise meter set at zero additional noise output, and then the noise output is increased until the amplifier output level rises by 3dB. This means that the noise meter is now contributing the same amount of noise as the amplifier, and the noise figure can be read directly from its output display. [This conveniently saves having to do any further calculations.] *Usually, a noise meter has a calibrated output meter or other display, and this indicates the level of its noise output in a stated bandwidth - both as an absolute level, and as the equivalent in dB with respect to the basic minimum absolute level. In the cable TV world, the minimum would be -59dBmV (probably shown in microvolts) in a 4MHz bandwidth, or 0dB. If, to increase the amplifier output level by 3dB, the noise meter output had to be turned up to -49dBmV / 10dB, its noise figure would, of course, be 10dB. -- Ian |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:49:50 +0100, Jeff wrote:
For a particular NF the effect on the output s/n ratio is always the same regardless of the actual input s/n, until you get to the point where the signal vanishes in the noise, but even then it still holds true but you just can't see it. The signal will go up by the gain of the amplifier, and the noise will go up by the sum of *power* of the input noise times the gain and the noise power of the calculated from the NF times the gain. The noise powers being in watts calculated from the NF; in a 1Hz Bandwidth by convention. So its dB above kTB converted to watts if you are working with NF in dB. So for a particular NF the added noise is always the same, therefore the SNRin/SNRout holds, and is a standard definition of NF (not in dB). Jeff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm Look at the last four entries in the table. ..and your point is??? ....between its shoulders. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:39 -0400, krw Gave us:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:49:50 +0100, Jeff wrote: For a particular NF the effect on the output s/n ratio is always the same regardless of the actual input s/n, until you get to the point where the signal vanishes in the noise, but even then it still holds true but you just can't see it. The signal will go up by the gain of the amplifier, and the noise will go up by the sum of *power* of the input noise times the gain and the noise power of the calculated from the NF times the gain. The noise powers being in watts calculated from the NF; in a 1Hz Bandwidth by convention. So its dB above kTB converted to watts if you are working with NF in dB. So for a particular NF the added noise is always the same, therefore the SNRin/SNRout holds, and is a standard definition of NF (not in dB). Jeff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm Look at the last four entries in the table. ..and your point is??? ...between its shoulders. krw is a pointless jackass, despite what some have said. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067595/ |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 27.6.15 15:43, Jeff wrote:
On 27/06/2015 13:26, rickman wrote: On 6/27/2015 4:07 AM, Jeff wrote: On 26/06/2015 13:24, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Both definitions are correct and mean the same thing; a negative NF, when expressed in dB, would be when the SNRout is less than the SNRin. However, the big but is that an negative NF is not possible. I don't think both definitions mean the same thing. If the amplifier adds *any* noise it increases the NF above zero by the conventional definition. The only way the NF can be negative is if the amplifier removes noise from the input, or in other words, increases the SNR. Yes that is correct, but the definitions are also correct. The flaw in the negative noise figure argument is that it is not possible to have a better SNRout than SNRin *for the same system conditions*. The apparent negative noise figure only come about by comparing the NF of the amp in a 50ohm system with the output from a system with something different on the input. The test method used is also very prone to measurement errors for low noise figures. Jeff The whole discussion has a strong scent of golden speaker leads of the audio fans. Just substitute Litz for the gloden leads / connectors. Is the whole project for the new crystal sets? -- -TV |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:19:23 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:43:16 +0100, Jeff Gave us: On 27/06/2015 13:26, rickman wrote: On 6/27/2015 4:07 AM, Jeff wrote: On 26/06/2015 13:24, rickman wrote: I read this post in an antenna group and I don't get how this guy is coming up with a negative noise figure. Looks to me like he is calculating the noise figure of a resistor, not the amplifier. Anyone care to explain this to me? The part that seems bogus is this... The negative NF is defined as the amplifier noise being less than the increase in noise due to the amplifier gain. I thought noise figure was NF = SNRin / SNRout Rick Both definitions are correct and mean the same thing; a negative NF, when expressed in dB, would be when the SNRout is less than the SNRin. However, the big but is that an negative NF is not possible. I don't think both definitions mean the same thing. If the amplifier adds *any* noise it increases the NF above zero by the conventional definition. The only way the NF can be negative is if the amplifier removes noise from the input, or in other words, increases the SNR. Yes that is correct, but the definitions are also correct. The flaw in the negative noise figure argument is that it is not possible to have a better SNRout than SNRin *for the same system conditions*. The apparent negative noise figure only come about by comparing the NF of the amp in a 50ohm system with the output from a system with something different on the input. The test method used is also very prone to measurement errors for low noise figures. Jeff To me, NF refers to "noise floor". Lets see him go below that. GPS received signals are among the lowest "power" signals we currently grab. They sit just above the noise floor. And you believe everything that your government claims ? The GPS DSSS signal is more than 1 MHz wide, so you could claim -30 dB SNR. However, after despreading, the signal is only 1 kHz wide and the data rate is only 50 bit/s wide. Thus, the SNR should be calculated at 25-50 Hz bandwidths, giving quite positive SNR. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:50:39 -0400 krw wrote in Message
id: : On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:49:50 +0100, Jeff wrote: For a particular NF the effect on the output s/n ratio is always the same regardless of the actual input s/n, until you get to the point where the signal vanishes in the noise, but even then it still holds true but you just can't see it. The signal will go up by the gain of the amplifier, and the noise will go up by the sum of *power* of the input noise times the gain and the noise power of the calculated from the NF times the gain. The noise powers being in watts calculated from the NF; in a 1Hz Bandwidth by convention. So its dB above kTB converted to watts if you are working with NF in dB. So for a particular NF the added noise is always the same, therefore the SNRin/SNRout holds, and is a standard definition of NF (not in dB). Jeff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm Look at the last four entries in the table. ..and your point is??? ...between its shoulders. ....and under his comb-over. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us:
...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
In message , Jeff writes
On 27/06/2015 17:08, Ian Jackson wrote: In message , Jeff writes To me, NF refers to "noise floor". Lets see him go below that. GPS received signals are among the lowest "power" signals we currently grab. They sit just above the noise floor. It might to you, but in this context it means either Noise Factor or Noise Figure. But you have to be careful, as "noise factor" is a numerical ratio, and "noise figure" is in dB. Of course you can go below the Noise Floor, and in some circumstances and modes the signal is receivable and decodable. In the analogue cable TV world, the noise figure (in dB) can be looked at as the amount of noise power that (say) a real-world amplifier notionally has at its input in excess of that which would be generated from a perfect resistor as its source impedance. As a rule-of-thumb, in a 4MHz vision bandwidth, a perfect 75 ohm resistor generates -59dBmV. [Subtract around 48dB if you want dBmW.] The output of a noiseless amplifier would be -59dBmV + G, where G is the gain in DB. The output of a real-world amplifier would be -59dBmV + NF + G, where N is the noise figure. One method of measuring the noise figure is first to feed the amplifier first from a resistive source, and measure the output noise level. Next, feed the amplifier from a source containing a known amount of noise, and note the increase of output noise. The noise figure can then be calculated. In practice, the noisy source is usually a calibrated noise meter*. The first reading is taken with the noise meter set at zero additional noise output, and then the noise output is increased until the amplifier output level rises by 3dB. This means that the noise meter is now contributing the same amount of noise as the amplifier, and the noise figure can be read directly from its output display. [This conveniently saves having to do any further calculations.] *Usually, a noise meter has a calibrated output meter or other display, and this indicates the level of its noise output in a stated bandwidth - both as an absolute level, and as the equivalent in dB with respect to the basic minimum absolute level. In the cable TV world, the minimum would be -59dBmV (probably shown in microvolts) in a 4MHz bandwidth, or 0dB. If, to increase the amplifier output level by 3dB, the noise meter output had to be turned up to -49dBmV / 10dB, its noise figure would, of course, be 10dB. Great way if you have a R&S SKTU!! Indeed it is. The '3dB rise' method is essentially a good dodge for engineers to avoid having to do any hard sums. The normal way these days is the Y-factor method and uses a switchable noise source with a fixed known and calibrated Excess Noise Ratio (ENR). The noise power from the device is measured with the source on and off and the NF calculated from that ratio. That is how Noise figure test sets normally work. Which is sort-of what I said in the middle of my ramblings. It should be relatively easy to conjure-up your own noise measuring machine by using an old-fashioned, high-gain, rather noisy, wideband amplifier as the noise source, and follow it with a switched (or calibrated variable) attenuator. If you know the amplifier noise figure, and its gain, you know how much output noise it will produce - although it would help if you can get a friendly guru to check. For high noise levels and low attenuator settings, the noise is essentially inversely proportional to the attenuator setting, but if there's low noise and a lot of attenuation, the noise output becomes asymptotic to the basic noise floor of the noise generated in the attenuator itself (ie no matter how much attenuation you switch in, the noise doesn't get any lower). -- Ian |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? -- Rick |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:55:04 -0400, rickman Gave us:
On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? At least you didn't ****ing blame me this time. That is an improvement. Here is another... http://www.lz1aq.signacor.com/docs/f..._loop_engl.htm |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote:
On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? It was a nice, informative discussion until those two showed up. Too bad. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:39:57 -0500, John S Gave
us: On 6/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote: On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? It was a nice, informative discussion until those two showed up. Too bad. Bull****, child. Too bad you are ****ing blind. The links I gave provided more clues than any of the antenna banter did. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:55:04 -0400, rickman wrote:
On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? No one is forcing you to read anything either of us write. If you don't like it, go away. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote:
On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? Pot-Kettle-Black -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0k ================== |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
Gave us: On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote: On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? Pot-Kettle-Black Wrong, Stucklett. Rickman has attacked no one. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 10:16 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle Gave us: On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote: On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? Pot-Kettle-Black Wrong, Stucklett. Rickman has attacked no one. ROFLMAO! Another troll heard from. And this is even a third grader - from the immature name calling. And one who can't read, either. But then it's only what one expects from a no-name troll. How many other groups are you known for trolling? I found a half dozen in less than a minute... Why not go back to sci.electronics.design? Or don't they want you, either?h -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:33:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
Gave us: On 6/28/2015 10:16 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle Gave us: On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote: On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? Pot-Kettle-Black Wrong, Stucklett. Rickman has attacked no one. ROFLMAO! Another troll heard from. You're an abject idiot, child. And this is even a third grader - from the immature name calling. No. The name used was quite clever and mature, unlike the lies you are about to spout. And one who can't read, either. I read fine, putz. Why are you even in this thread? Oh... that's right... to stir ****. But then it's only what one expects from a no-name troll. I have a name.. Just not for retarded putz jackasses like you. How many other groups are you known for trolling? Not a troll, dumb****. I found a half dozen in less than a minute... Major lie. The only time I *ever* post outside the two groups I subscribe to is when a retard not unlike yourself decides to cross-post. Why not go back to sci.electronics.design? I never left, you retarded dumb****. The OP is also from there. he merely posted here because it was thought that *some* of you might have an IQ above 12.. Or don't they want you, either? This is Usenet, you zero brained dumb****. I do not give a fat flying **** what you or anyone else in this realm "wants", and you are far too stupid to make assessments, as evidenced by the post you made, which I responded to. Then you chimed in with this childish baby bull****. h You also can't proofread the horse**** you spew. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:33:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
Gave us: ================== Remove the "x" from my email address You mean like this... Too pussified to post it? Don't code it in either idiot. Wake up, little suzzie. Oh that's right... you are as awake as an idiot with only two functioning neurons can be. Good job, jackass. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:33:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
Gave us: ================== Remove the "x" from my email address You mean like this... Too pussified to post it? Don't code it in either idiot. Wake up, little suzzie. Oh that's right... you are as awake as an idiot with only two functioning neurons can be. Good job, jackass. |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 10:52 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:33:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle Gave us: On 6/28/2015 10:16 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle Gave us: On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote: On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW Gave us: ...and under his comb-over. Full head of hair here. That makes complete sense, furball for brains. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. You're projecting again, Furball. Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? Pot-Kettle-Black Wrong, Stucklett. Rickman has attacked no one. ROFLMAO! Another troll heard from. You're an abject idiot, child. You're the one with the third grade name calling. Your mommy should wash your mouth out with soap. And this is even a third grader - from the immature name calling. No. The name used was quite clever and mature, unlike the lies you are about to spout. ROFLMAO! I take that back. Even a third grader would know it was neither clever nor mature. You don't even reach that level. And one who can't read, either. I read fine, putz. Why are you even in this thread? Oh... that's right... to stir ****. You don't read at all. But then it's only what one expects from a no-name troll. I have a name.. Just not for retarded putz jackasses like you. No, you're only a nameless troll. You have no respectability here or in other newsgroups. How many other groups are you known for trolling? Not a troll, dumb****. I found a half dozen in less than a minute... Major lie. The only time I *ever* post outside the two groups I subscribe to is when a retard not unlike yourself decides to cross-post. No lie at all. Quite easy to find. Why not go back to sci.electronics.design? I never left, you retarded dumb****. The OP is also from there. he merely posted here because it was thought that *some* of you might have an IQ above 12.. Unfortunately, you don't. Or don't they want you, either? This is Usenet, you zero brained dumb****. I do not give a fat flying **** what you or anyone else in this realm "wants", and you are far too stupid to make assessments, as evidenced by the post you made, which I responded to. Then you chimed in with this childish baby bull****. I know what usenet is. That doesn't mean that others in other newsgroups want you. And from the posts I found, it's quite obvious you are not wanted in a number of newsgroups. h You also can't proofread the horse**** you spew. ROFLAMO! Another troll response. Now you go running back to your mommy and tell here the mean old guy spanked your ass. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 10:55 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:33:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle Gave us: ================== Remove the "x" from my email address You mean like this... Too pussified to post it? Don't code it in either idiot. Wake up, little suzzie. Oh that's right... you are as awake as an idiot with only two functioning neurons can be. Good job, jackass. Ah, another troll who needs psychiatric help. Only ones like you would try to purposely get someone spammed. You really need to have your mommy take you to a shrink. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure
On 6/28/2015 10:56 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:33:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle Gave us: ================== Remove the "x" from my email address You mean like this... Too pussified to post it? Don't code it in either idiot. Wake up, little suzzie. Oh that's right... you are as awake as an idiot with only two functioning neurons can be. Good job, jackass. I just don't like SPAM. However, I at least use an email address which is easily decoded (read CAPTCHA), unlike the non-existent email address you use. What are you afraid of - maybe your mommy might find out what crap you're posting on usenet? Give it up - you have zero respectability on usenet - here or anywhere else I've found. But then that's expected from someone less mature than a third-grader who needs serious psychiatric help. I hope your mommy gets it for you. You will be much happier. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com