On Friday 29 September 2006 20:55, David Bengtson wrote:
> > Might be worth writing a Python version for GNU Radio - it would be
> > pretty simple I think.
>
> How about going old school and using a calculator? No memory footprint
> on the computer at all.
Yeah, funny thing about computers, they w
Brian Padalino wrote:
I am really surprised on how you guys are so anti-spreadsheets.
A lot of the RF engineers where I work like using them when designing
their receive and transmit chains for calculating tolerances and all
sorts of noise figures.
One even modeled the front end amplifier gain
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:21, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
things: 3dB doubles the power, and 10dB is 10 times the power, and from
that you can SWAG just about anything.
A guy at work wrote a hand
On Friday 29 September 2006 12:33, Brian Padalino wrote:
> I am really surprised on how you guys are so anti-spreadsheets.
>
> A lot of the RF engineers where I work like using them when designing
> their receive and transmit chains for calculating tolerances and all
> sorts of noise figures.
>
> O
I am really surprised on how you guys are so anti-spreadsheets.
A lot of the RF engineers where I work like using them when designing
their receive and transmit chains for calculating tolerances and all
sorts of noise figures.
One even modeled the front end amplifier gain stages for which DAC
va
On Friday 29 September 2006 12:03, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Friday 29 September 2006 11:49, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > BTW: I do these calculations in my head - pretty much primary school
> > stuff really.
>
> Yeah, depends what level of accuracy you need though :)
How accurate do you need it
On Friday 29 September 2006 11:49, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> BTW: I do these calculations in my head - pretty much primary school stuff
> really.
Yeah, depends what level of accuracy you need though :)
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.
On Friday 29 September 2006 11:33, Brian Padalino wrote:
> You could open Google Spreadsheets in the web browser you've probably
> already got open. Not only that, but you can share it with your
> buddies for collaborative editing so everyone can use it!
Or write it in javascript..
> Or you coul
I guess this is the difference big between RF engineers and academics -
applied versus theory. Spreadsheets can help in doing conversion/calculations
but doesn't stop people from using these values out of context as for this
you need to know what you're doing.
BTW: I do these calculations in my
You could open Google Spreadsheets in the web browser you've probably
already got open. Not only that, but you can share it with your
buddies for collaborative editing so everyone can use it!
Or you could just write a bc script to to handle it. That uses much
less memory, I am sure.
Or we coul
On Friday 29 September 2006 10:13, Brian Padalino wrote:
> A spreadsheet could work just the same without all the Tcl/Tk
> silliness or input verification problems.
Yeah, a spreadsheet, so lightweight compared to a memory hungry Tcl/Tk
application.
12623 radar 1 1030 11972K 6068K se
A spreadsheet could work just the same without all the Tcl/Tk
silliness or input verification problems.
On 9/28/06, Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:21, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
>
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:21, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
> things: 3dB doubles the power, and 10dB is 10 times the power, and from
> that you can SWAG just about anything.
A guy at work wrote a handy program in Tcl/Tk f
I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
things: 3dB doubles the power, and 10dB is 10 times the power, and from
that you can SWAG just about anything.
John
Berndt Josef Wulf said the following on 09/28/2006 07:26 PM:
> It don't see how this makes the calculati
It don't see how this makes the calculation of RF power any easier, to the
contrary it confuses the issue.
cheerio Berndt
On Thursday 28 September 2006 17:50, John Gilmore wrote:
> > transmit power converted to dBm (1 dBm == 1 mW) minus the attenuator
> > loss = output power in dBm.
> >
> > E.g
> transmit power converted to dBm (1 dBm == 1 mW) minus the attenuator
> loss = output power in dBm.
>
> E.g.
> 100 mW -> 20dBm
> 20dBm - 15 db att = 5 dBm
> 5 dBm -> 3.2 mW
Actually, I think 0 dBm = 1 mW.
dB's are a royal pain in the butt. They eluded me for years because
they required a
16 matches
Mail list logo
