[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] IP3 controversy

To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] IP3 controversy
From: Sinisa Hristov <shristov@ptt.yu>
Reply-to: tentec@contesting.com
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 08:17:04 -0500
List-post: <mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
KD7EFQ@aol.com wrote:

> He responded that anybody can raise there IP3 number simply by turning on
> their attenuator on any rig and so it wasn't that important to him.


> I vaguely remember reading Doug Smith's Article on receiver performance,
> where he stated that dynamic range numbers alone did not tell the whole story 
> on
> receiver performance, and you had to consider IP3 numbers to get an accurate
> picture.

Dynamic range cannot be fully described by a single number.
Two independent numbers are needed to fully define
both ends of the range (just like any other range).

IP3 or dynamic range alone, or both of them together, are not sufficient.
One of them plus sensitivity (MDS, or noise figure + noise bandwidth)
must be given.


Sinisa  YT1NT, VE3EA
TenTec mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>