But, an isotropic antenna picks up all signals from all directions . . .
<:}
Do these comparisons account for the differences in overall gain - antenna
terminals to speaker output - among the different types? I suppose so if
the d-c receivers can achieve a 10 dB S+N/N ratio with a 0.1 uvolt signal
at the antenna terminals and 2 watts of well-distorted (!) audio at the
speaker . . .
Curious . . .
What I have read so far accounts for the output noise level in the absence
of an antenna connection only in terms of faults or deficiencies in the
multi-conversion receivers. Is this true?
What *advantages* does multi-conversion architecture convey that are
missing in the simpler radios? Like all engineering, receiver design is a
trade-off. So, I think that we have to balance the gains in performance
with the potential losses - more noise? - when we compare.
73/72/oo, George W5YR - the Yellow Rose of Texas
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE of Dallas in Collin county EM13qe
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 56th year and it just keeps getting better!
QRP-L 1373 NETXQRP 6 SOC 262 COG 8 FPQRP 404 TEN-X 11771 I-LINK 11735
Icom IC-756PRO #02121 Kachina 505 DSP #91900556 Icom IC-765 #02437
All outgoing email virus-checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2002
n4lq@iglou.com wrote:
> Listening to a direct conversion receiver is like having your brain
> directly connected to an isotropic antenna.
|