Correct.
But to define it; because along the way, the previous parts are never re-tested in the new test "jig" so no fair comparisons can be made and is why the Myth and Legend are now what we are dealing with - a Rumor Mill of sorts.
The original test circuit was replaced, but the parts of the original are not used in it for comparison.
So we are told to "upgrade" the RF amp with a new 2SC2999 (or thereabouts) because the customer wants it done. The radio we are to put this in, is not the same radio the part is in, we are doing this conversion to another platform.
If it doesn't work - the customer is not satisfied and we lose a sale.
What did we do wrong? We replaced the part - and in this radio - it didn't make any difference to the customers' point of view.
We are getting blamed for something externally that can't truly be applied to the current platform - we have to MODIFY that platform to accommodate the new part and it's support.
However, if we MODIFY - we no longer have a Brand X radio - we have a Hybridized radio using another circuit to obtain the new performance - if any.
This is why this is more subjective than applicable - nothing can be made definite because what was once considered a template has now changed and no longer a standardized platform for all the manufacturers' to follow.
There used to be SAE and Metric argument - now we have ISO standards, but it seems they are not applying it (ISO or any standard) equally amongst all parties involved in the manufacturing process.
So wild claims are made and I'm trying to demonstrate the use of one part using a set design yet it is installed in another platform idealized using a different set of performance parts based on another design that can be discerned as not one used in a normal parameter for the expected level of operation and performance.
...We put this mouse in this Hamster cage because the original squirrel retired...
Pretty much sums it up...
:+> Andy <+:
