Return-Path: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>
Received: (qmail 7844 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 22:04:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.servers.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by 10.226.25.101 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 22:04:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 27021 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 22:08:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 22:08:07 -0000
Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14O5JW-0007CT-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:01:18 +0000
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Received: from mail.sci.fi ([195.197.53.226] helo=vasta.saunalahti.fi) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 14O5JV-0007CO-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:01:17 +0000
Received: from pmk2 (CMXCVIII.hdyn.saunalahti.fi [195.197.6.98]) by vasta.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f0VM1d824075 for <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:01:40 +0200 (EET)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
From: "Paul Keinanen" <keinanen@sci.fi>
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: S-meter standard
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:01:05 +0200
Message-ID: <t11h7tclj3obsc56a5g49ovspmtihkm2ko@4ax.com>
References: <003201c0197e$a4955e40$57d725c3@194.95.193.10.fen.baynet.de> <003701c02a05$847f1d20$aa14b28f@w8k3f0> <3A774FE6.CF537646@virgin.net>
In-reply-to: <3A774FE6.CF537646@virgin.net>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by vasta.saunalahti.fi id f0VM1d824075
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:36:06 +0000, Stewart Bryant
<stewart.bryant@virgin.net> wrote:
>Why do the manufacturers still bother with S units.
>Why don't receivers just measure dBuV or dBm at the antenna?
While it certainly would be nice to have a dependable dB scale on the
meter, I do not see the point of calibrating the scale to some antenna
terminal reference level on LF. On UHF/microwave, dbuV or dBm scales
make some sence, since these values could be related to the internal
noise temperature of the receiver.
In order to give some usable information (e.g. in the report
exchange), the reported value should be derived from the actual field
strength [V/m] or power density [W/m²] around the receiving antenna.
If this is not possible, I do not see much advantage of promoting dBuV
over S-units, provided that the S unit scale is linear (e.g. 6 dB / S-
unit).
Paul OH3LWR
>
>73
>
>Strewart
>
>Dick Rollema wrote:
>
>> To All from PA0SE Walter, DJ2LF, wrote: But nevertheless -
>> what about S9 on LF is 500uV? I would prefer to stick to S9
>> is 50µV over 50 ohms (or better S9 means -73dBm, to make it
>> independent of receiver input impedance) and one S-point
>> is 6dB. These are values recommended by IARU and therefore
>> can be considered as a "standard" that has been accepted
>> internationally (except by the receiver manufacturers). I
>> don't think IARU has stated a lower frequency limit, only
>> that it should be used below 30MHz. Using a new "standard"
>> for LF would add to the confusion which is already big
>> enough. If it is nevertheless felt that S9 is 500µV would be
>> better for LF then this should be made a proposal to be
>> presented at the next IARU conferences in the three
>> regions. 73, Dick, PA0SE
>>