Hello, Interesting approach but a few errors are slip in your comments who jeopardize the creditability, on purpose or not, of alternate solutions. Criticism is easy, I prefer on this subject constructively.
I understand when you are directly involved and have financial interests with and due to the existing rules, the best possibility remaining to you is to support the rules and to discredit opponents. OK, I'll understand your position but that's it. [email protected] wrote: > None of these receivers are ready for conducted tests (0.15 - 30 MHz). I maintain my statement, in Europe the frequency range for the AR8000 is from 100Khz to 1950 MHz without any gap, and it works. > The handheld scanners offer a bar-graph signal strength display which seems > of limited use. I have noted scales of from 2 to 8 dB per division depending on the scanner. A unit such as the AOR AR8000 may offer a digital signal strength readout which will probably be more accurate than that. Yes on the AR8000 the signal strength (and all other control commands) can be controlled from a PC. The S meter reading (64 steps) is good and a conversion table to dB is not so difficult. Range sensitivity differences can be handled the same way by the PC. Better, you have complete spectrum analyzer capability, controlled by PC or not, for near field research of problem causing interference frequency's. Those can be recorded and used for OATL (or other means) frequency measurements avoiding complete spectrum analyzer wasted time. > However, none of these receivers are designed with the amplitude headroom > needed for a precision measuring system. Since they do not use tuned preselectors... By the way, the AR8000 ,and others also, have input preselector filters. I agree they don't have tracking filters. Sorry, but major manufacturers propose also, for pre-compliance tests, receivers to they're customers without tracking filters. Are they useless? Do I have to mention to you who? > These radios also have something lacking on spectrum analyzers, a BFO. This > is surprisingly useful for probing and identifying sources of emissions. Never heard about USB, LSB and CW? >.... I will say that so far I > have not seen any such radio suitable to be relied upon as a sole means of > measurement even for engineering purposes I hope you where able to discredit the whole subject, good job, but I disagree once more with you. Try harder, maybe someday you succeed. See my comment at the beginning. OTHER SUBJECT. I received from the author of the spark generator (using a gaslight igniter) the confirmation, it works fine and gives good results for initial testing. regards Paul Rampelbergh Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium) -------------------------
