A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

Can they be used to plot the setting up of Xtal ladder filters, which would
mean the
ability to control the frequency sweep to as little as a few kHz?

I ask because the Hameg speccy that I have, although good for harmonic
checks,
has a minimum sweep of 1 MHz.

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Can they be used to plot the setting up of Xtal ladder filters, which
would mean the
ability to control the frequency sweep to as little as a few kHz?

I ask because the Hameg speccy that I have, although good for harmonic
checks,
has a minimum sweep of 1 MHz.




that should read Mc/s OM ....

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Can they be used to plot the setting up of Xtal ladder filters, which
would mean the
ability to control the frequency sweep to as little as a few kHz?

I ask because the Hameg speccy that I have, although good for harmonic
checks,
has a minimum sweep of 1 MHz.

that should read Mc/s OM ....

That depends on the age of the equipment!

Condensers and Mc/s before 1960

Capacitors and MHz post 1960

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

In message , gareth
writes

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Can they be used to plot the setting up of Xtal ladder filters, which
would mean the
ability to control the frequency sweep to as little as a few kHz?

I ask because the Hameg speccy that I have, although good for harmonic
checks,
has a minimum sweep of 1 MHz.

that should read Mc/s OM ....

That depends on the age of the equipment!

Condensers and Mc/s before 1960

Capacitors and MHz post 1960

The Germans were using MHz much earlier (almost for ever).

The UK started in the latter 60s, and at first it was supposed to be
only an electrical unit.

With any sweep equipment, in addition to the sweep width you also need
to know the sweep speed. The first is in MHz (or Mc/s), and the second
is in MHz/s (or Mc/s/s).



--
Ian

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...

With any sweep equipment, in addition to the sweep width you also need to
know the sweep speed. The first is in MHz (or Mc/s), and the second is in
MHz/s (or Mc/s/s).


I'd have to dig out the manual to answer that!

I believe that I have the option to contrive smaller sweep speeds but by
driving the
instrument on a frequency-by-frequency basis via the USB port.

However, as a profeesional softy emeritus, I've never yet mixed up my job
and my pastimes!

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , gareth
writes

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...

"gareth" wrote in message
...
Can they be used to plot the setting up of Xtal ladder filters, which
would mean the
ability to control the frequency sweep to as little as a few kHz?

I ask because the Hameg speccy that I have, although good for harmonic
checks,
has a minimum sweep of 1 MHz.

that should read Mc/s OM ....

That depends on the age of the equipment!

Condensers and Mc/s before 1960

Capacitors and MHz post 1960

The Germans were using MHz much earlier (almost for ever).

The UK started in the latter 60s, and at first it was supposed to be only
an electrical unit.

With any sweep equipment, in addition to the sweep width you also need to
know the sweep speed. The first is in MHz (or Mc/s), and the second is in
MHz/s (or Mc/s/s).


but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

In message , Jeff writes

With any sweep equipment, in addition to the sweep width you also need
to know the sweep speed. The first is in MHz (or Mc/s), and the second
is in MHz/s (or Mc/s/s).

Mc/s/s.... isn't that an acceleration? (:-))

Jeff

Only if your sweep timebase is non-linear - in which case the
acceleration could be either positive or negative.

--
Ian

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

Whereas Ampere means ions per second

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.


You missed the point, for, in your argument, think for yourself as to what
is
a Coulomb, also named after a person.

I chose ions specifically and not electrons because of the flow in the
electrolyte
of lead acid cells, and in the electrolyte of electroplating tanks,

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

On 20/01/2016 10:43, Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote

but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

Whereas Ampere means ions per second

Charge (Coulombs) per second.

One Amp is one Coulomb per second.

Since the Ampere and the second are fundamental units in the SI system,
and the Coulomb is a unit derived from them and therefore is not a
fundamental unit, then one should say that

1 Coulomb = 1 Ampere-second

Read up on 'SI fundamental units'.

HTH

--
Spike

"They thought that because they had power, they had wisdom"

- with apologies to Stephen Vincent Benet

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second
...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
You missed the point, for, in your argument, think for yourself as to
what
is
a Coulomb, also named after a person.

I chose ions specifically and not electrons because of the flow in the
electrolyte
of lead acid cells, and in the electrolyte of electroplating tanks,
Read my post again. You will note I did not mention electrons.
The Amp is the flow of one Coulomb of charge, equivalent to 6.2 x 10^18
(or
so) elemental charges.
Feel free to check a basic physics text book, I appreciate not everyone
knows the basics.
Strange isn't it, people claim standards in schools are slipping but I
know
this is taught today, or at least was until I recently retired.


Grow up Brian.

Your attempt to stir things up in order to bandy about insults fails again.

You have failed again because the discussion was that things should not be
named
after people and you slipped on a banana skin with your own mention of the
Coulomb.

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2016 10:43, Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
Since the Ampere and the second are fundamental units in the SI system,
and the Coulomb is a unit derived from them and therefore is not a
fundamental unit, then one should say that
1 Coulomb = 1 Ampere-second
Read up on 'SI fundamental units'.

(The SI is but one in a number of arbitrary systems of units)

ISTR that the SI system is based upon things that can actually be measured
experimentally and not upon some theoretical bases that cannot be measured.

But how does one fashion a pair of infinitely long parallel wires in order
to be able
to measure an ampere has yet to be revealed :-)

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second
...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
You missed the point, for, in your argument, think for yourself as to
what
is
a Coulomb, also named after a person.

I chose ions specifically and not electrons because of the flow in the
electrolyte
of lead acid cells, and in the electrolyte of electroplating tanks,
Read my post again. You will note I did not mention electrons.
The Amp is the flow of one Coulomb of charge, equivalent to 6.2 x 10^18
(or
so) elemental charges.
Feel free to check a basic physics text book, I appreciate not everyone
knows the basics.
Strange isn't it, people claim standards in schools are slipping but I
know
this is taught today, or at least was until I recently retired.
Grow up Brian.
Your attempt to stir things up in order to bandy about insults fails
again.
You have failed again because the discussion was that things should not be
named
after people and you slipped on a banana skin with your own mention of the
Coulomb.

PS 10^18? ISTR 10^19

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"gareth" wrote in news:n7nmq8$irn$1@dont-
email.me:

"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote in message
...
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...

Whereas Ampere means ions per second

A meaningless comparison, since ions don't all carry the same amount of
charge.

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

You seem to be confusing two methods. One based on charge per second
another based on force between conductors. That is the danger of trying
to
impress by using Google.


Grow up, Brian.

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Or dear, one of your typical responses when corrected. No wonder you have
failed to improve your knowledge if you always react this way.


Grow up, Brian.

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

Brian Reay wrote:

gareth wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2016 10:43, Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second ...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
Since the Ampere and the second are fundamental units in the SI system,
and the Coulomb is a unit derived from them and therefore is not a
fundamental unit, then one should say that
1 Coulomb = 1 Ampere-second
Read up on 'SI fundamental units'.

(The SI is but one in a number of arbitrary systems of units)

ISTR that the SI system is based upon things that can actually be measured
experimentally and not upon some theoretical bases that cannot be measured.

But how does one fashion a pair of infinitely long parallel wires in order
to be able
to measure an ampere has yet to be revealed :-)



You seem to be confusing two methods. One based on charge per second
another based on force between conductors. That is the danger of trying to
impress by using Google.


On this occcasion you are mistaken. Currently the Ampere is defined in
terms of magnetic force between infinite parallel conductors, and units
of charge are defived from it. This of course has no effect on the
usefullness of given practical methods of measuring current.


--

Roger Hayter

A further question on the VNWA from SDR-kits
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
The Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 20/01/2016 10:43, Brian Reay wrote:
gareth wrote:
"Jim GM4DHJ ..." wrote
but hertz means NOTHING whereas c/s describes cycles per second
...much
better ...
Whereas Ampere means ions per second
Charge (Coulombs) per second.
One Amp is one Coulomb per second.
Since the Ampere and the second are fundamental units in the SI
system,
and the Coulomb is a unit derived from them and therefore is not a
fundamental unit, then one should say that
1 Coulomb = 1 Ampere-second
Read up on 'SI fundamental units'.
(The SI is but one in a number of arbitrary systems of units)
ISTR that the SI system is based upon things that can actually be
measured
experimentally and not upon some theoretical bases that cannot be
measured.
But how does one fashion a pair of infinitely long parallel wires in
order
to be able
to measure an ampere has yet to be revealed :-)
You seem to be confusing two methods. One based on charge per second
another based on force between conductors. That is the danger of trying
to
impress by using Google.
On this occcasion you are mistaken. Currently the Ampere is defined in
terms of magnetic force between infinite parallel conductors, and units
of charge are defived from it. This of course has no effect on the
usefullness of given practical methods of measuring current.
You have jumped in with both feet. I suggest you repeat YOUR Google
research and read what I posted.

You should find nothing I have posted conflicts with your post.

So, despite your unnecessary and rather childish jibe it is YOU who googled,
for
I spoke off the cuff without reference to anything else.

You've been caught with your trousers down, OM.