[Elecraft] dynamic range bandwidth

[Wes Stewart]

I understood what you wrote perfectly.  I don't know what the fuss was about and don't think an apology was necessary.

--- On Wed, 9/16/09, William Carver <bcarver at safelink.net> wrote:

From: William Carver <bcarver at safelink.net>
Subject: [Elecraft]  dynamic range bandwidth
To: Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2009, 7:49 AM

After reading Bills (W4ZV) response to my comment(s) on the dynamic
range presentation I think I understand the issue taken with what I
said. Bandwidth is a terrible thing to waste but hopefully the
misunderstanding can be fixed.

I made a tongue-in-cheek comment that I could fool the guys in my ham
club by measuring MDS of the K3 with a 50 Hz bandwidth and show it has
an even better dynamic range. I concluded that paragraph with "of course
that would be a little deceitful...". I should have added "on my part"
so there would be no misunderstanding. I didn't mean that Eric had
cooked the number, I just got too cute describing the influence of
bandwidth on the MDS and dynamic range numbers. 

As I composed a private response to Bill Tippett I suddenly saw how what
I wrote could be interpreted as implying Elecraft had done something
underhanded. That was not what I was saying at all but I can see how it
could be interpreted that way. And in seeing that possible
interpretation realized I better make one more post to the list, then
I'll shut up.

So let me be perfectly clear: I was saying that including measurement
bandwidth on that page of the presentation reinforces, stresses, the
validity of comparing of the numbers.

I was NOT saying that Elecraft cooks numbers or cheats to make nice
looking specifications. I've personally verified some obscure numbers
like noise figure on 6 meters with the preamp and found that there was
no fudging. I didn't own a K3 then, but I do now. My apologies for
writing in an unclear fashion.

Bill - W7AAZ