Message-ID: <3B8F8E79.79A75B2F@usa.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:17:45 +0200
From: "Alberto di Bene" <dibene@usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: LF: Re: Receiver
References: <003e01c130d4$30973360$7798fea9@host.telepac.pt> <3B8E1787.4FB4EC0D@usa.net> <00a601c1316f$0791a180$d3331997@KOSOVEUALESSANDRO> <3.0.1.16.20010831084215.29cf65f4@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Rik Strobbe wrote:

> Hello Alberto and Alessandro,
>
> The fact that a RX has a 'lazy' S-meter doesn't mean that it is a poor RX.
> A correct S-meter is nice to give exact reports, but what really counts is
> the sensitivity and good IM behaviour of a receiver.

Hi Rik,
   yes, of course, you are quite right. But lacking on my side a direct experience
of that rig, I used the available data to try to formulate a thumb-estimate.
Ideally, a good S-meter should occasionally flicker on the noise produced by a
50 ohm resistor at room temperature placed across the antenna input. The AGC
action should however enter into play only after a given threshold.
But this would be to ask too much to a receiver. After all, they aren't measurement
instrumentation... I think the only calibration the manufactures do is to set the
S-meter indication at S9 with 50 uV input at 14 MHz. Any other reading is
totally unreliable.

73  Alberto  I2PHD