I think the point being made here is not that the equipment is questionable
(the attenuator could be accurate to +/- 10^-13 dB) but that other things,
none of which are contrary to what we currently know about HF propagation,
were going on to confound your interpretation of the data that was collected.
Kim Elmore, N5OP
At 10:02 AM 2/8/2005, you wrote:
On Feb 8, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Ian White G3SEK wrote:
R. Measures wrote:
When measurements don't fit in with everything we already know, real
scientists and engineers are trained to ask themselves:
"Is this something really new - am I really another Einstein? Or did I
simply get it wrong?"
The question is simply: Is my HP-355 step-attenuator set intermittently
off by 3db?
If you still cannot see that the potential sources of error in your
"propagation experiment" were *vastly* more numerous and complicated than
that, then this horse is dead.
NBS traceable step-attenuator A-B measurement is the gold standard of gain
and loss determinations.
--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
Richard L. Measures, AG6K, 805.386.3734. www.somis.org
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
Kim Elmore, Ph.D.
University of Oklahoma
Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
"All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The
greatest of these is Maybe" The original Latin appears to be garbled.
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|