Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+S\-meter\s+standard\s*$/>

Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+S\-meter\s+standard\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "Paul Keinanen" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:01:05 +0200; 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; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-01/msg00002.html (10,370 bytes)
2. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "M.J.Powell" <[email protected]>; Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:33:19 +0000; Why do the manufacturers still bother with S units. Why don't receivers just measure dBuV or dBm at the antenna? Because that would mean equalising the gain exactly over the whole range. Expensive. T; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-01/msg00004.html (9,000 bytes)
3. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "Stewart Bryant" <[email protected]>; Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 23:36:06 +0000; I know that this is a rather old thread that I have just come across when cleaning up my mail whilst waiting to fly through an ice storm to Boston. Why do the manufacturers still bother with S units.; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-01/msg00018.html (9,432 bytes)
4. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "M.J.Powell" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:34:04 +0000; The RC411 did. 73 de John Rabson G3PAI Actually in these modern microprocessor days it does not mean equalising the gain, it means adding an S meter correction table to the software, and running the; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00617.html (10,211 bytes)
5. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "Stewart Bryant" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:34:03 +0000; just 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 Da; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00628.html (9,342 bytes)
6. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "Stewart Bryant" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:37:30 +0000; The RC411 did. 73 de John Rabson G3PAI Actually in these modern microprocessor days it does not mean equalising the gain, it means adding an S meter correction table to the software, and running the; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00629.html (9,548 bytes)
7. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "John Rabson" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:49:41 +0100; Because that would mean equalising the gain exactly over the whole range. Expensive. The WJ1000 does though. The RC411 did. 73 de John Rabson G3PAI; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00637.html (9,331 bytes)
8. Re: LF: S-meter standard (score: 1): Author: "Dave Sergeant" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:43:27 +0100; 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 mos; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2001-02/msg00639.html (9,277 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]