On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:52 GMT, "
wrote:
So I consider the statement that 1db is insignificant
a bit over the top when one is working with antennas and what one can
achieve what others can't.

Hi all,

This "over the top" and other straining to get a "louder" signal begs
a real number - like 1dB. Such testimonials (negative or positive)
are emotional comparisons.

This "over the top" expression speaks for itself. If a 12% drop is
outrageously "over the top," then there would be runs on the bank for
the 30% fall of the dollar's value in the world market. Back when we
had double-digit inflation (hmmmm, 12% is double-digit) the party now
in charge went ballistic about the state of the economy. Now that we
have outsourced inflation - 30% is cool. Merely a matter of who's ox
is being gored.

Well, so much for fun with numbers; let's look at "louder" signals.

What does it mean to be "louder" with a modern (post Depression era)
receiver? Is 1 dB perceived as being "louder?" Well, by definition:
just barely (IFF you turn up the volume control). Why do I
parenthetically add this constraint of a necessary active
participation of turning up the volume control? Because in a modern
receiver, the circuitry deliberately compensates for that 1dB boost by
depressing the gain by the same amount. Net result? Voila! 0dB by
perception and design. Well, by aural perception that is. So much
for "louder."

You "might" see (another perception) the S-Meter shift by something
less than one needle's width if that makes you feel that something has
been accomplished - in this case they could as easily calibrate the
meter in ego-Satisfaction units. Then again, maybe you would have
missed 1dB entirely (should we insist on a negative multipliers for
that ego reading?). The correct appeal is found in S+N/N where the
improvement adds clarity - merely bombasting about "loudness" is
provincial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,
you have responded to my post but frankly I miss the point or points
you are trying to make. Sorry about that as I would have liked a discussion
on the subject
Regards
Art

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:52 GMT, "
wrote:
So I consider the statement that 1db is insignificant
a bit over the top when one is working with antennas and what one can
achieve what others can't.

Hi all,

This "over the top" and other straining to get a "louder" signal begs
a real number - like 1dB. Such testimonials (negative or positive)
are emotional comparisons.

This "over the top" expression speaks for itself. If a 12% drop is
outrageously "over the top," then there would be runs on the bank for
the 30% fall of the dollar's value in the world market. Back when we
had double-digit inflation (hmmmm, 12% is double-digit) the party now
in charge went ballistic about the state of the economy. Now that we
have outsourced inflation - 30% is cool. Merely a matter of who's ox
is being gored.

Well, so much for fun with numbers; let's look at "louder" signals.

What does it mean to be "louder" with a modern (post Depression era)
receiver? Is 1 dB perceived as being "louder?" Well, by definition:
just barely (IFF you turn up the volume control). Why do I
parenthetically add this constraint of a necessary active
participation of turning up the volume control? Because in a modern
receiver, the circuitry deliberately compensates for that 1dB boost by
depressing the gain by the same amount. Net result? Voila! 0dB by
perception and design. Well, by aural perception that is. So much
for "louder."

You "might" see (another perception) the S-Meter shift by something
less than one needle's width if that makes you feel that something has
been accomplished - in this case they could as easily calibrate the
meter in ego-Satisfaction units. Then again, maybe you would have
missed 1dB entirely (should we insist on a negative multipliers for
that ego reading?). The correct appeal is found in S+N/N where the
improvement adds clarity - merely bombasting about "loudness" is
provincial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:44:05 GMT, "
wrote:

I would have liked a discussion on the subject

Hi Art,

About superconducting antennas? I've researched patents for a
superconductor think tank in California. Talk about more smoke than
fire.

Unfortunately, a poor choice of phrase, because in a newsgroup, it is
more talk than smoke. errr writing than talking....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

This discussion kinda reminds me of a tome I read (and once actually
thought possible), from a CQ article by one "Dr. Shorza Gitchigoomie"
(if i spelled that right), progonosticating on the magnicifiant
effects of negative resistance! Like applying it to light bulbs (they
absorb light)! Or, to electric heaters (air conditioning).
If this indeed would work, then why not - the lower the power- the
higher signal strength! 'Corse this article was published , in APRIL,
about 40 some years ago, and in the intervening years have
discovered that there are some serious flaws in his research!
And I dont expect too much out of Super Conductor Antennas (if they
could work well, would not they be in use at the international space
station, as that temperature must be at least colder than liquid
nitrogen)? or have the laws of Newtonian Physics been repealed?
I await the dawning of the new age! Jim NN7K


Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:44:05 GMT, "
wrote:


I would have liked a discussion on the subject


Hi Art,

About superconducting antennas? I've researched patents for a
superconductor think tank in California. Talk about more smoke than
fire.

Unfortunately, a poor choice of phrase, because in a newsgroup, it is
more talk than smoke. errr writing than talking....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim - NN7K wrote:
This discussion kinda reminds me of a tome I read (and once actually
thought possible), from a CQ article by one "Dr. Shorza Gitchigoomie"
(if i spelled that right), progonosticating on the magnicifiant
effects of negative resistance!

Did your read the one about DED's? (Dark Emitting Diodes)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

wrote:
Richard,
you have responded to my post but frankly I miss the point or points
you are trying to make.

Join the club, Art.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

A 1 dB change in loudness is about the smallest level of change which is
fairly easily perceived by the human ear. BUT ONLY WITH AN INSTANTANEOUS, X
versus Y, CHANGE IN LOUDNESS.

To attempt to judge the difference, with a precision of 1 S-unit, between
the loudnesses of a G5RV and a 1/2-wave dipole fed by an open-wire line,
with a time lag of months, a change in the number of sunspots, on different
bands, with a different receiver, is futility in the extreme.

Yet some people appear to have no difficulty in making the comparison.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:12 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

|On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:46:52 GMT, "
wrote:
|So I consider the statement that 1db is insignificant
|a bit over the top when one is working with antennas and what one can
|achieve what others can't.
|
|Hi all,
|
|This "over the top" and other straining to get a "louder" signal begs
|a real number - like 1dB. Such testimonials (negative or positive)
|are emotional comparisons.


One of the biggest thrills I've had in my amateur radio career was
pressing the key and 2.5 seconds later hearing my signal returning
from the moon. I will confess, this was an emotional response [g].
One dB does make a difference. One dB difference in transmission line
loss or antenna gain makes a hell of a difference.

I also got emotional when VU4RBI barely came up out of the noise and I
worked her a few days before the great flood or last night when 3G0YM
gave me a 59 report on 20M and not being able to tell him he was S0, I
fibbed and gave him a 53.

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:59:20 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:

I also got emotional when VU4RBI barely came up out of the noise and I
worked her a few days before the great flood or last night when 3G0YM
gave me a 59 report on 20M and not being able to tell him he was S0, I
fibbed and gave him a 53.

Hi Wes,

I've heard emotional reports befo
"I've got you here five by nine!
Could you repeat, Could, you, re-peat?"

The emotion was humor.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC