Forums

Antenna Amplifier Noise Figure

Started by rickman June 26, 2015
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us:

>...and under his comb-over.
Full head of hair here. Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe.
In message <mmom3t$q59$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> writes
>On 27/06/2015 17:08, Ian Jackson wrote: >> In message <mmmd5e$2vg$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> writes >>> >>>> To me, NF refers to "noise floor". >>>> >>>> Lets see him go below that. >>>> >>>> GPS received signals are among the lowest "power" signals we >>>> currently >>>> grab. They sit just above the noise floor. >>>> >>> >>> It might to you, but in this context it means either Noise Factor or >>> Noise Figure. >>> >> But you have to be careful, as "noise factor" is a numerical ratio, and >> "noise figure" is in dB. >> >>> Of course you can go below the Noise Floor, and in some circumstances >>> and modes the signal is receivable and decodable. >>> >> In the analogue cable TV world, the noise figure (in dB) can be looked >> at as the amount of noise power that (say) a real-world amplifier >> notionally has at its input in excess of that which would be generated >> from a perfect resistor as its source impedance. >> >> As a rule-of-thumb, in a 4MHz vision bandwidth, a perfect 75 ohm >> resistor generates -59dBmV. [Subtract around 48dB if you want dBmW.] >> >> The output of a noiseless amplifier would be -59dBmV + G, where G is the >> gain in DB. >> >> The output of a real-world amplifier would be -59dBmV + NF + G, where N >> is the noise figure. >> >> One method of measuring the noise figure is first to feed the amplifier >> first from a resistive source, and measure the output noise level. Next, >> feed the amplifier from a source containing a known amount of noise, and >> note the increase of output noise. The noise figure can then be calculated. >> >> In practice, the noisy source is usually a calibrated noise meter*. The >> first reading is taken with the noise meter set at zero additional noise >> output, and then the noise output is increased until the amplifier >> output level rises by 3dB. This means that the noise meter is now >> contributing the same amount of noise as the amplifier, and the noise >> figure can be read directly from its output display. [This conveniently >> saves having to do any further calculations.] >> >> *Usually, a noise meter has a calibrated output meter or other display, >> and this indicates the level of its noise output in a stated bandwidth - >> both as an absolute level, and as the equivalent in dB with respect to >> the basic minimum absolute level. In the cable TV world, the minimum >> would be -59dBmV (probably shown in microvolts) in a 4MHz bandwidth, or >> 0dB. If, to increase the amplifier output level by 3dB, the noise meter >> output had to be turned up to -49dBmV / 10dB, its noise figure would, of >> course, be 10dB. >> > > >Great way if you have a R&S SKTU!!
Indeed it is. The '3dB rise' method is essentially a good dodge for engineers to avoid having to do any hard sums.
> >The normal way these days is the Y-factor method and uses a switchable >noise source with a fixed known and calibrated Excess Noise Ratio >(ENR). The noise power from the device is measured with the source on >and off and the NF calculated from that ratio. That is how Noise figure >test sets normally work. >
Which is sort-of what I said in the middle of my ramblings. It should be relatively easy to conjure-up your own noise measuring machine by using an old-fashioned, high-gain, rather noisy, wideband amplifier as the noise source, and follow it with a switched (or calibrated variable) attenuator. If you know the amplifier noise figure, and its gain, you know how much output noise it will produce - although it would help if you can get a friendly guru to check. For high noise levels and low attenuator settings, the noise is essentially inversely proportional to the attenuator setting, but if there's low noise and a lot of attenuation, the noise output becomes asymptotic to the basic noise floor of the noise generated in the attenuator itself (ie no matter how much attenuation you switch in, the noise doesn't get any lower). -- Ian
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: > >>...and under his comb-over. > > Full head of hair here.
That makes complete sense, furball for brains.
>Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe.
You're projecting again, Furball.
On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno > <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >> >>> ...and under his comb-over. >> >> Full head of hair here. > > That makes complete sense, furball for brains. > >> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. > > You're projecting again, Furball.
Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? -- Rick
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:55:04 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

>On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >>> >>>> ...and under his comb-over. >>> >>> Full head of hair here. >> >> That makes complete sense, furball for brains. >> >>> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. >> >> You're projecting again, Furball. > >Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why >don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker?
At least you didn't fucking blame me this time. That is an improvement. Here is another... http://www.lz1aq.signacor.com/docs/fa-eng/Weak_signals-mag_loop_engl.htm
On 6/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >>> >>>> ...and under his comb-over. >>> >>> Full head of hair here. >> >> That makes complete sense, furball for brains. >> >>> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. >> >> You're projecting again, Furball. > > Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why > don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? >
It was a nice, informative discussion until those two showed up. Too bad.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:39:57 -0500, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> Gave
us:

>On 6/28/2015 10:55 AM, rickman wrote: >> On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >>> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >>>> >>>>> ...and under his comb-over. >>>> >>>> Full head of hair here. >>> >>> That makes complete sense, furball for brains. >>> >>>> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. >>> >>> You're projecting again, Furball. >> >> Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why >> don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? >> > >It was a nice, informative discussion until those two showed up. Too bad.
Bullshit, child. Too bad you are fucking blind. The links I gave provided more clues than any of the antenna banter did.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:55:04 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >>> >>>> ...and under his comb-over. >>> >>> Full head of hair here. >> >> That makes complete sense, furball for brains. >> >>> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. >> >> You're projecting again, Furball. > >Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why >don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker?
No one is forcing you to read anything either of us write. If you don't like it, go away.
On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >>> >>>> ...and under his comb-over. >>> >>> Full head of hair here. >> >> That makes complete sense, furball for brains. >> >>> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. >> >> You're projecting again, Furball. > > Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why > don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? >
Pot->Kettle->Black -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0k jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:17 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> Gave us:

>On 6/28/2015 11:55 AM, rickman wrote: >> On 6/28/2015 11:36 AM, krw wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno >>> <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 06:48:13 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> Gave us: >>>> >>>>> ...and under his comb-over. >>>> >>>> Full head of hair here. >>> >>> That makes complete sense, furball for brains. >>> >>>> Sounds like you looked in the mirror, asswipe. >>> >>> You're projecting again, Furball. >> >> Can you two find another thread to post your silly insults in? Why >> don't you start a new thread all about how much you guys like to bicker? >> > Pot->Kettle->Black
Wrong, Stucklett. Rickman has attacked no one.