Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16079 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 12:49:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO murphys-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.225) by excalibur.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 12:49:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 28950 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2001 12:43:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by murphys with SMTP; 1 Feb 2001 12:43:57 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14OIxD-0002sa-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:35:11 +0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: from jaws.cisco.com ([198.135.0.150] helo=cisco.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14OIxC-0002sT-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:35:10 +0000 Received: from virgin.net (uxb-dhcp-198-135-1-193.cisco.com [198.135.1.193]) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29726 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:34:23 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <3A7957BB.A55B2BFF@virgin.net> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:34:03 +0000 From: "Stewart Bryant" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: S-meter standard References: <003201c0197e$a4955e40$57d725c3@194.95.193.10.fen.baynet.de> <003701c02a05$847f1d20$aa14b28f@w8k3f0> <3A774FE6.CF537646@virgin.net> <000601c08c19$9d9a9ac0$53ad7ad5@dave> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Dave Sergeant wrote: > >From Dave G3YMC > > Stewart Bryant wrote: > >Why do the manufacturers still bother with S units. Why don't receivers > just > >measure dBuV or dBm at the antenna? > > This may be fine for technical specs etc but most of us would far rather > send 599 in a qso than 'your are 1.34dBuV'. The s meter scale is an > admirable shorthand and should be maintained. > > 73s Dave > dsergeant@btinternet.com > dsergeant@iee.org > http://www.btinternet.com/~dsergeant I though that this was a technical hobby! Didn't we sort of get used to the idea that power was recorded in dBW? I suspect the main problem would be that the manufacturers would loose plausible deniability with regard to receiver spec tollerances. 73 Stewart G3YSX