Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TenTec\]\s+STANDARDISATION\s+OF\s+S\-METER\s+READINGS\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: philip c anderson <flypca@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 11:05:01 -0500
I hope I do not over step the purpose of this site but after all of the dicussions about the isolation between Ant 1 and Ant 2 I thought that the enclosed info might help put some actual values to th
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00148.html (8,538 bytes)

2. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 21:15:51 -0600
Yes for years most companies have adopted the 6 dB per S unit and the 50 uV for S-9 on HF. Collins some years ago used the 100 uV for S-9. And then for some companies, a signal of some value caused t
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00158.html (9,696 bytes)

3. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown K9YC" <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:34:34 -0800
Really? I doubt it. I own two TS850s and two FT1000MPs. I haven't measured the sensitivity of S9 (I simply didn't pay attention), but I looked at the value of an S-unit. In general, S8 to S9 is usual
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00182.html (7,963 bytes)

4. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Tony Berg" <tony.w1ot@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:59:03 -0500
In the February 2008 issue of QST, on page 36, there is a reference to an internet article on this topic. The web address is not quite right. It should be (I hope I get this right): www.seed-solution
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00193.html (8,770 bytes)

5. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Merle Bone" <merlebone@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:38:28 -0600
The Orion's S-meter calibration certainly isn't anything to "write home about," but it is "representative" of the distant stations signal strength. Running V1.373b5 I get the following readings using
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00201.html (8,771 bytes)

6. [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Merle Bone" <merlebone@charter.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:19:49 -0600
Try without formating :-) The Orion's S-meter calibration certainly isn't anything to "write home about," but it is "representative" of the distant stations signal strength. Running V1.373b5 I get th
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00202.html (7,670 bytes)

7. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:38:53 -0600
Interesting. In looking at the data taken from my Omni VI Plus a couple of years ago I find that the S meter seemed quite accurate. Feeding the HP8656A generator to the input of the receiver, 50 uV e
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00203.html (11,000 bytes)

8. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: d.e.warnick@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:01:13 +0000
And, if you really want your s-meter readings to mean anything (you gotta be anal to do this), calculate your antenna gain, feedline loss, tuner loss, switch loss, etc. 599 into a 4-el beam may be th
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00204.html (12,374 bytes)

9. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Bob McGraw - K4TAX" <RMcGraw@Blomand.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:03:23 -0600
But the definition is "signal strength at the receiver input". These gains/losses, as you describe, generally apply equally to the transmitted signal as well as the received signal. 73 Bob K4TAX ____
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00206.html (13,458 bytes)

10. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "Ron Castro" <ronc@sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:46:52 -0800
Merle: That's far more accurate that the Orion II S-meters The difference may be caused by a different type of AGC implementation in the version 2 firmware. It would be interesting to get numbers fro
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00207.html (10,494 bytes)

11. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "K9MI" <k9mi@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:30:22 -0000
My favorite, often heard contest exchange.... "You're 59, what's your call?" Mike, K9MI _______________________________________________ TenTec mailing list TenTec@contesting.com http://lists.contesti
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00208.html (8,322 bytes)

12. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: "pfizenmayer" <pfizenmayer@qwest.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:26:33 -0700
Only slightly exceeded by the guys who send 599 even in normal operating - then double on top of the DX and then do not answer any queries ! Heard that AGAIN last night on 80 cw 73 de Hank K7HP I don
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00210.html (8,799 bytes)

13. Re: [TenTec] STANDARDISATION OF S-METER READINGS (score: 1)
Author: Steve Hunt <steve@karinya.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:54:44 +0000
Folks, Here are some figures measured on my Corsair II: 160m: S6 = -90dBm, S9 = -68dBm (89uV), S9+20 = -47dBm 80m: S6 = -90dBm, S9 = -70dBm (71uV), S9+20 = -49dBm 40m: S6 = -90dBm, S9 = -68dBm (89uV)
/archives//html/TenTec/2008-01/msg00211.html (9,070 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu