On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:38:40 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
Tebojockey wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:12:32 GMT, Drifter wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
************************

thanks to one and all for some great info.
i need to study on this. i found an old article
in the july/04, NASWA Journal. get my facts together
here, and move to there. would be fun to build when
i find the time. thanks again...
Drifter...


Now that the dust has settled a little bit and the belligerents are
hopefully being triaged.....

Not a chance! I have to give you a hard time.

You don't. One-upmanship has no place here.


Please read the spec sheets on the prospective splitter you intend on
using or, if rolling your own, look at the design. Many splitters
claim to have "only" a 3 or 5 dB loss, but that's only "best case."
Often times, the loss will vary greatly across the operating range of
the splitter (and sometimes the impedance!). For HF and MF, the
losses are usually not too bad.

Snip

There are passive and there are active splitters.

Passive can be transformer or resistive it does not matter. If the
splitter is one port to two ports then the power is going to divided in
half between the two output ports. It is that simple. Half the power is
3dB and half the voltage is 6 dB. That's all there is to it.

Active splitters can be anything because you can have any amount of
amplification to to make up for the division in power.

Same story with one to four ports where the power out is 1/4 the power
in. Same story with any other division splitter.

Now if you force me to I WILL resort to an analogy where you have this
bushel of apples you want to divide in half and...



You are arguing points that I did not even discuss. What you are
describing is the standard "Wilkinson" splitter or combiner. We could
also discuss 90 degree splitters and other variants, but that would be
beyond the ascope of what I was trying to impart to the person I was
trying to help.

Your assertion that they may be active or passive is correct. Loss
implies a passive splitter (be it resistive or reactive), while the
other part of my dissertation (as far as raising the noise floor,
etc.) implies an active splitter. Perhaps it was not clear to you,
but perhaps the person who it was posted for understood what I was
saying.

I should have also given him information on port to port isolation as
well as the effect upon his 3d order intercept points that active
splitters can cause, but I didn't feel it would benefit him.

My intent was to be as layman as possible to assist the person asking
the question.


Al in CNMI

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----