On HF there is no need for an S-meter standard because it seems to be
the rule to give report 59. If you don't you soon have a bad
reputation of giving wrong reports

A signal doesn't have to be S9 to be heard 5 by 9.
I would usually tell the guy on the other end what
the S meter read, and also how readable he was.
When the band is quiet QRN wise, I could honestly
give a 59 report to someone hardly moving the meter.
OTOH with heavy QRM+QRN someone could be pumping
30db over and still be a rough copy.

"Ken Scharf" wrote in message
...
On HF there is no need for an S-meter standard because it seems to be
the rule to give report 59. If you don't you soon have a bad
reputation of giving wrong reports

A signal doesn't have to be S9 to be heard 5 by 9.
I would usually tell the guy on the other end what
the S meter read, and also how readable he was.
When the band is quiet QRN wise, I could honestly
give a 59 report to someone hardly moving the meter.
OTOH with heavy QRM+QRN someone could be pumping
30db over and still be a rough copy.

Then you are still passing out wrong signal reports. The first one would be
something like 5 x 2 or 5 x 3 and the second one would be 2 x 9 or 3 x 9.

The first number is how well you can understand what is being said and the
second is how strong the signal is.

Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Ken Scharf" wrote in message
...

On HF there is no need for an S-meter standard because it seems to be
the rule to give report 59. If you don't you soon have a bad
reputation of giving wrong reports


A signal doesn't have to be S9 to be heard 5 by 9.
I would usually tell the guy on the other end what
the S meter read, and also how readable he was.
When the band is quiet QRN wise, I could honestly
give a 59 report to someone hardly moving the meter.
OTOH with heavy QRM+QRN someone could be pumping
30db over and still be a rough copy.


Then you are still passing out wrong signal reports. The first one would be
something like 5 x 2 or 5 x 3 and the second one would be 2 x 9 or 3 x 9.

The first number is how well you can understand what is being said and the
second is how strong the signal is.


If you mean the actual strenth of the signal in uv at the antenna,
then you are correct. If you mean the strength of the signal in your
EARS that's another story. One is an actual measurement, the other
is subjective. (How would you measure signal strength if you
were using a receiver without an s meter, such as an old SW3?)

Then you are still passing out wrong signal reports. The first one
would be
something like 5 x 2 or 5 x 3 and the second one would be 2 x 9 or 3 x
9.

The first number is how well you can understand what is being said and
the
second is how strong the signal is.


If you mean the actual strenth of the signal in uv at the antenna,
then you are correct. If you mean the strength of the signal in your
EARS that's another story. One is an actual measurement, the other
is subjective. (How would you measure signal strength if you
were using a receiver without an s meter, such as an old SW3?)

I don't mean a thing. If you take some time and review the RS(T) system you
would see how it works. The first number is how well you understand what is
being said from just catching a few words to understanding everything. The
second is the strength of the signal. As the SW3 does not have an AVC
system you may be able to judge the strength by how far up you have to turn
the volume control for a certain loudness in your ears.

S-meters are nothing else but power (input) meters.

Amateurs and meter manufacturers long ago learned, that when giving signal
strength reports, it is more convenient to refer to meter indications in
terms of S-units rather than micro-watts or nano-watts.

At HF, when the meter reads S-9 the power entering the receiver is 50
pico-watts. There's a slight complication above S-9 when the meter scale
changes to decibels above S-9.

When the reading is S-9 plus 40 dB the meter is actually indicating about
S-16. It's just a matter of scale graduations and printing.

The S-meter does NOT measure or even indicate field strength. It indicates
nothing except that an increase in meter reading corresponds to an increase
in field strength. Which may be nice to know but by how much of an increase
is anybody's guess.

Measured field strength depends on the type of antenna, its efficiency,
ground losses, etc. It is possible, of course, to calculate field strength
in the vicinity of the antenna from S-meter readings provided the antenna,
its directivity, transmission line, tuner and ground characteristics are all
known numerically. Which in the amateur situation they are seldom not! Or
even in the professional situation.

You've all got one. To repeat - the S-meter is a power (input) meter.
----
Reg, G4FGQ