30-12-2018, 10:05 AM
Best as I can measure by the use of a RF coupler plus switchable RF attenuator in-line method plus a sign gen for cross calibration :
10140 Ref : 10001 @ -63dBc, 10096 @ -60dBc, 10191 @ -59dBc, 10280 @ > 65dBc
14095 Ref : 14046 @ -64dBc, 14144 @ -64dBc, 14190 @ -69dBc
18106 Ref : 18153 @ -64dBc (no others measured, all weaker)
50293 Ref ** : 50103 @ -55dBc, 50150 @ -55dBc, 50198 @ -54dBc, 50245 @ -52dBc, 50340 @ -52dBc, 50389 @ -54dBc, 50484 @ > -55dBc
** Approximate values only as significant direct signal pickup bypassing the attenuator occurring, actual values probably significantly better. The receiver shielding is undoubtedly the issue with this measurement : same coaxes used, same receiver port, but in-line attenuator had to be set 10dB lower to try to overcome direct pickup effects.
All values should be correct +/- a few dB, maybe.
10140 Ref : 10001 @ -63dBc, 10096 @ -60dBc, 10191 @ -59dBc, 10280 @ > 65dBc
14095 Ref : 14046 @ -64dBc, 14144 @ -64dBc, 14190 @ -69dBc
18106 Ref : 18153 @ -64dBc (no others measured, all weaker)
50293 Ref ** : 50103 @ -55dBc, 50150 @ -55dBc, 50198 @ -54dBc, 50245 @ -52dBc, 50340 @ -52dBc, 50389 @ -54dBc, 50484 @ > -55dBc
** Approximate values only as significant direct signal pickup bypassing the attenuator occurring, actual values probably significantly better. The receiver shielding is undoubtedly the issue with this measurement : same coaxes used, same receiver port, but in-line attenuator had to be set 10dB lower to try to overcome direct pickup effects.
All values should be correct +/- a few dB, maybe.
Doug VK4ADC @ QG62LG51
http://www.vk4adc.com
This Forum is only going to be as interesting as the posts it contains.
If you have a comment or question, post it as it may trigger or answer the query in someone else's mind.
http://www.vk4adc.com
This Forum is only going to be as interesting as the posts it contains.
If you have a comment or question, post it as it may trigger or answer the query in someone else's mind.