On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Leigh L Klotz, Jr. wrote:
I wholly and completely disagree.
Interesting. It seems to me that we are saying the same thing.
1. S Meter standardization is a failed effort. S meters are
"marketing" numbers. dBuV or dBmW is the measure to use. If you
are filing interference reports with the FCC and cannot figure out
how to convert your signal strength readings to dB relative units,
you need to make better measurements.
Precisely.
2. If Elecraft chooses to allow end-users to calibrate and set
their S Meter readings to have a known intercept (50uV at S9) and
slope (4dB, 6dB, 3dB), so much the better, as it helps number one.
That Elecraft allows it to be set to a standard and that it will be
consistent from day-to-day and band-to-band is fantastic. It means it
CAN be used for measurement. The only question is what the
calibration will be. Since we have been taught that one S-unit
represents a 6dB change, new kit should adhere to that. When I sit
down at your radio and see a 1 S-unit change, I should be able to
know what that means without having to ask you, "Hey Leigh, what are
your S-meter calibration coefficients?" I don't have to do that with
a wattmeter or a voltmeter, do I?
3. And, although I would not hold MSFT responsible for pushing
forward UI design, I certainly don't think they offer the best
options in terms of user configurability!
I think Microsoft has their head up their ... uh ... well, they are
pretty clueless when it comes to coming up with a good UI. Their
options su... are supremely suboptimal.
So, seems you are agreeing with me and I with you.
73 de Brian, WB6RQN
Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [email protected]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
