[Milsurplus] LO radiation

[J. Forster]

Hue Miller wrote:

> Yes, but.....Scott Co. boasted of their "safe" receivers in numerous magazine
> ads. I think they really believed it. I do NOT think this was some kind of
> "disinformation campaign"

Perhaps, but advertising has never been known for truthfulness. Look at some of the
ads from the 30's... they sold 'drip pans' for your grid leak resistors. Cigarettes
were advertised as healthy... Smoke stacks pouring out black clouds were touted as
signs of 'industry' rather than polluters.

It has not ended today. Just listen carefully to ads on TV. The wording is
purposefully deceptive. Autos are advertised as best in their class.... often a class
of 1.  BS then and BS now.

As to disinformation campaigns, governments have always done it. Some were (and are)
more skillful than others. Others are just brute force liars.

I challenge someone to actually do the link calculation, using typical LO levels,
isolation from the antenna, path loss, and receiver noise floor. This is an issue
that can be analyzed.

Here is the outline:

LO Power
-  isolation to antenna
+ antenna gain
- path loss
+ receiver antenna gain

Gives you the power at the DF Rx input terminal.

BTW, most WW II allied DF systems use nulls, rather than peaks, because the null is
sharper and phase sensitive, so DFing weak signals is not all that easy.

-John