TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Receiver S meter values

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Receiver S meter values
From: "Robert Mcgraw" <rmcgraw@blomand.net>
Reply-to: rmcgraw@blomand.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:45:41 -0500 (CDT)
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Only measurement with an accurate signal source and measurement technique
will tell.

73
Bob, K4TAX

>
> Bob,
> I sure do think my Orion II s meter is way off after S-9 especially...is
> that normal for them?
> Maybe I should actually see what it is with the 8640B sig gen.
> 73,
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob McGraw - K4TAX <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
> Sent: Mon, May 21, 2012 8:13 am
> Subject: [TenTec] Receiver S meter values
>
>
> I seem to believe that most companies accept  50 uV or -73 dBm at the
> eceiver input as the referenced signal strength for an S 9 meter
> ndication.  Moving up or down the scale, again most seem to agree that
> one
>  unit is equal to a 6 dB change in signal strength.  Some earlier
> thoughts,
> ollins for example, used 100 uV for S 9 in many of their receivers.
> Starting with S -0  {what ever that might be}  we find that 0.10 uV or
> -127
> Bm is a starting point.  Then S 1 would be 0.20 uV or -121 dBm being 6 dB
> reater.  The scale moves up accordingly.  Do note that these are
> electrical
> alues and your S meter indication may be different.
> 73
> ob, K4TAX
>
>
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> rom: "GARY HUBER" <glhuber@msn.com>
> o: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
> ent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 8:17 PM
> ubject: Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters
>
>  Bob,
>
>  You probably have the correct S-meter reading calculations..... I used
> to
>  work with the commercial radio technicians and engineers (I was neither)
>  who
>  did all their signal level (power) calculations referenced to a
> milli-watt
>  (0.001 W). I found that it was pretty easy calculate path losses or
> signal
>  power levels once I understood the formula.
>
>  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm  dBm (sometimes dBmW) is an
>  abbreviation for the power ratio in decibels (dB) of the measured power
>  referenced to one milliwatt (mW).
>
>
>  73 ES DX,
>  Gary -- AB9M
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Bob McGraw - K4TAX
>  Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:18 PM
>  To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
>  Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters
>
>  If I did the math correct, Gary's reference to dBm would be, for -30 dBm
>  is
>  about S-9 +43 dB, and for -10 dBM would be S-9 +60 dB or so.  Nice
> strong
>  signals I'd say.
>
>  73
>  Bob, K4TAX
>
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: "GARY HUBER" <glhuber@msn.com>
>  To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
>  Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:13 PM
>  Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni VII Filters
>
>
>> The OMNI-VII disadvantage MAY have a lot to do with the RF gain setting
>> of
>> the OMNI-VII and the PAs and transmitted signals of TX A, B, C, ....
>> Our local club has for years had many and often heated discussions over
>> the
>> CW, SSB, or Digital station being heard by the others on different
>> bands.
>> The one exception was the year we ran three OMNI-VI+ for FD.
>>
>> With my OMNI-VII, I have both the 300 and 500 Hz filters installed and
>> seldom notice my neighbors AC9S and AA9LC unless they are within the
>> OMNI-VII's passband. AC9S is very active in both DXing and Contesting
>> with
>> an ORION-II, Alpha amp and SteppIR beam. We both typically run our
>> TenTec
>> transceivers with minimum RF gain and have found we can co-exist on the
>> same
>> band and mode as long as we avoid transmitting within 3 KHz of each
>> other.
>> Typical signal levels received on my OMNI-VII (and Flex-1500 sub-rx)
>> from
>> AC9S are -30 to -10 dBm depending on the frequency and the antenna
>> used.
>>
>> 73 ES DX,
>> Gary -- AB9M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richards
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:14 PM
>> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment  of each Subject: Re: [TenTec] Omni
>> VII
>> Filters
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/2012 8:58 AM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
>>
>>> The one place where the OM7 will be at a disadvantage is if you are
>>> trying
>>> to use it at a multi-multi station where you have at least 6 max legal
>>> power
>>> stations on the air simultaneously from a location the size of a
>>> football
>>> field,
>>
>>
>> I disagree based on experience.    We run  2
>> Omni VIIs, an Orion II, an Omni VI, all in the same
>> room, and it is someone using a K3s that complain !
>> For some contests, the phone guys are in one place,
>> and the CW guys are 300 yards away on a big hill
>> in a field and the guys with the Elecraft gear complain
>> about intermod, not the TT guys.   (I hope this does NOT
>> start a sub-thread about TT v Elecraft...)
>>
>> Of course you gotta use passband filters, and stay off
>> the same antenna ...    ;-)   ...  but I have NEVER
>> had intermod, interference, of any RF on my anything
>> under such extreme conditions.
>>
>> Shoot, Rick... it might be better than you think !   ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Don't tell anyone I said this, but I even like it a wee bit better
>>> than
>>> my
>>> Eagle, but the Eagle has other advantages - size, weight, and
>>> simplicity.
>>
>>
>> YES - The design team at TenTec obviously thought
>> about what to put on the Eagle and what not to ...
>> trying not to obsolete any of the other products in
>> the line.  I prefer the Omni VII over the Eagle because
>> it has more stuff on it... such as a receive only
>> antenna jack,  two transceive antenna jacks, etc.,
>> but the Eagle presents a high performance option,
>> at a lower price for guys who don't want all that
>> extra jazz.
>>
>> I have considered using an Eagle as a "second receiver"
>> for the Omni VII, and letting Carl's N4PY Pegasus
>> control program integrate the two as one - so I could
>> use the band scope display for the Eagle to work as
>> a panadatper for the Omni VII - click on it scope, and
>> both rigs tune to the same frequency.   Cool.   I use
>> a TT RX-320D for that now, but the Eagle would be
>> way better I think.
>>
>>
>> One of our Lunch Bunch guys is older than the sun,
>> and sometimes talks about getting out of ham radio
>> because it seems to be getting too complicated for
>> him -- so I keep recommending the Eagle because I
>> think it would be a huge performer, but a much
>> easier rig to run than the rest of the crop.  He could
>> easily take it to Florida when he goes down for the
>> Winter.   Stubborn old coot... but he is a great guy!
>>     ;-)
>>
>>
>>> *The exception would only be a top notch 160m operator with great
>>> antennas
>>> in a 160m contest.  The rest of the time, the rest of the contests,
>>> the
>>> operator makes far more difference that the tiny bit of difference in
>>> the
>>> radios.
>>
>>
>> We used an Omni VII to work the CQ WW
>> contest... and came in 1st in Michigan... 1st in
>> Section 8...  Fifth in US... 7th in North America...
>> and the only guys to beat us were all on the East
>> Coast with a slightly better shot at EU multipliers.
>> So, I am not worried about using the Omni VII in
>> a 160 meter contest.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In my books, the Omni VII is the best all-around radio on the planet
>>> today
>>> for 98% of all hams.
>>
>>
>> That might be a slight exaggeration... the real
>> figures is closer to 95% of all hams...       ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> ======================  JHR  =======================
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  TenTec mailing list
>  TenTec@contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  TenTec mailing list
>  TenTec@contesting.com
>  http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> enTec mailing list
> enTec@contesting.com
> ttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>


_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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