Yes but that sounds sort of risky in that the lowest noise
figure of an LNA
is not necessarily achieved at optimum match.
Agreed, and most are tuned for lowest NF and not necessarily maximum gain
nor ideal match.
My previous comments relating to LNAs may also apply to the
JFET mixers
At 09:33 AM 2/9/06, you wrote:
Sounds like a nice piece of test equipment to have around: a 50 dB
non-directional coupler.
Have two, both hamfest items. One is celwave, and the other is a
bird slug. Spec on the bird slug is -50 at 25-1000 MHz. Seems to be
a pretty rare slug.
Kevin proved
At 2/9/2006 09:14 AM, you wrote:
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb disagree with Jeff,
perhaps for the
first time ever.
That's OK, we'll still let you hang around our tent and drink our beer at
Dayton :-) Are you going again this year Bob?.
Not this year unfortunately; maybe '07.
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb disagree with Jeff,
perhaps for the
first time ever.
That's OK, we'll still let you hang around our tent and drink our beer at
Dayton :-) Are you going again this year Bob?.
My conclusion is that if
whatever you're
using to measure amplitude is
I thought consistent and optimum performance were pretty
much the same animal?
Only under lab conditions :-)
Using a vague definition, I'm thinking consistent = best operation over the
long term, optimum = best short-term. I've accidentally made a 75 watt
Micor UHF PA crank out 200 watts
So, if you lack test equipment and have no choice but to use high-
level
signals for tuning the pass, you should still be tuning for minimum
reflected power.
So bird inbetween TX and cans, tuning on a source like an HT?
Yes. To take it one step further, a 6 dB pad (with suitable power
At 2/8/2006 10:38, you wrote:
I'll take most of what you said as being sarcastic, but your point
is taken.
I guess so, just pointing out the apparent absurdity.
If so, great, you're done. If not, fix it.
In the end though, the function of the pass adjustments is simply to
transfer energy
7 matches
Mail list logo
