LF: Re: 136 khz LF

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	LF: Re: 136 khz LF
From:	"Alberto di Bene" <[email protected]>
Date:	Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:32:46 +0200
In-reply-to:	<000201c39639$a74dc560$c8e4fc3e@l8p8y6>
References:	<000c01c3957f$fbe6d4a0$47cdfc3e@l8p8y6> <000f01c395cc$88ece780$045bfea9@RSGB613192> <000201c39639$a74dc560$c8e4fc3e@l8p8y6>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	<[email protected]>
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

hamilton mal wrote:

Using speclab this is what was indicated. Nothing calibrated. Relative measurement signal above noise floor 55 db.

I expect to be really meaningful the system needs to be calibrated. Next time I will try the calibrated LEVEL METER

The signal was very strong, likwise M0BMU is also very strong. Large dog bones across the screen !!!!!!

Whatever sound card program you use, the indicated level is that of the audio signal reaching
the sound card, and as such is totally dependent from many factors unrelated to the real
field strength of the radio signal. If you change the volume setting of the radio, or the slider
level in the Windows mixer, what is indicated will change.

That dB (not dBm) indication is meant just for relative measurements.

73 Alberto I2PHD

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
LF: 136 khz LF, hamilton mal LF: Re: 136 khz LF, dj9dw LF: Re: 136 khz LF, Andy talbot LF: Re: Re: 136 khz LF, hamilton mal LF: Re: 136 khz LF, Alberto di Bene <= LF: Re: Re: 136 khz LF, hamilton mal

Previous by Date:	LF: Re: Antenna & Transmitter Testing., Ian Kyle
Next by Date:	LF: Re: Re: 136 acty, hamilton mal
Previous by Thread:	LF: Re: Re: 136 khz LF, hamilton mal
Next by Thread:	LF: Re: Re: 136 khz LF, hamilton mal
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]