Few hams have the resources to collect their data in any
other terms, Tom. I am not sure what to do about that. >>>
Almost any ham has the ability to provide useful data. All
he has to do is:
1.) Use a step attenuator to calibrate the dB change in his
particular S meter.
2.) Drive out away from poles, and record noise levels or
weakest readable signal levels
3.) Go into the BPL area, and note the change and provide it
in dB for a given receiver bandwidth.
S-units are useless.
<<One one hand, gathering some information about the level
of pre- and post-BPL noise is important, and if all we can
get is S meter readings, then that is better than no data at
all. Although the S meter has not been adopted world-wide
as a standard, IARU Region 1 has adopted an S meter standard
that uses 50 uV for S9, 6 dB per S unit, so those readings
to have some standards-based traceability.>>>>
Because the IARU in region 1 says "all S-meters equal X at
S-9, and are X dB per S unit it suddenly means S meters are
useful? I don't think so. It's pretty well established most
S meters are way out of whack for anything meaningful.
Not only that, no one has any idea what the antenna loss is
in the mobile.
The problems would largely disappear and the data would be
useful if people just followed a three simple steps. They
can record the data in useless S-units, but give the
results in meaningful terms like "the BPL system increased
background noise 22dB at 9 meters from the line using a
typical mobile station with XYZ for equipment and antennas".
Presenting data in S-units using a system with unknown
antenna efficiency, unknown absolute levels, and unknown
change per S unit makes us look pretty foolish.
Why don't we tell everyone how to do a calibration chart, or
find people to offer those services for free for anyone
wanting to present data?
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|