What about old SWR meters that had sampling lines and a few diodes and resistors and a 50 microAmp meter?
Everything is getting complicated.
Everything is getting complicated.
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
-
Retevis is giving away Radios for the New Year and Every Member is Eligible. Click Here to see the details!
dosy watts vs bird watts
- Thread starter Mr.5150cbrn
- Start date
- Status
I don't have any use for a Bird watt meter. I don't need the only benefit in having a 'Bird meter. That 'benefit' is it's calibration standard. I can't/won't afford either the meter or that calibration (which has to be re-done periodically to maintain that accuracy).
I am not particularly impressed by those who use a Bird meter, and the claims of some of those users are just ridiculous. It's a 'status symbol' for most users, and if they need that 'status' for some reason I wish them well. (Yeah, I've been through that 'stage' and found out just how important it really was. It wears off in time.)
If you have a legitimate reason for the accuracy of a Bird meter, if it will be a benefit for whatever you are doing, then by all means use one. Just be prepared for the expense of maintaining that accuracy.
Does a typical CB'er/ham have a use for such accuracy? Sorry, no.
Have fun.
- 'Doc
I am not particularly impressed by those who use a Bird meter, and the claims of some of those users are just ridiculous. It's a 'status symbol' for most users, and if they need that 'status' for some reason I wish them well. (Yeah, I've been through that 'stage' and found out just how important it really was. It wears off in time.)
If you have a legitimate reason for the accuracy of a Bird meter, if it will be a benefit for whatever you are doing, then by all means use one. Just be prepared for the expense of maintaining that accuracy.
Does a typical CB'er/ham have a use for such accuracy? Sorry, no.
Have fun.
- 'Doc
I bought a Bird 43P in 1996 with a 50H and 1000H elements. I don't know why this "Calibration" is necessary, mine is as accurate as ever after 16 years. I don't know a soul who ever needed to have a Bird element calibrated, unless it was dropped or someone just had to monkey with it.
I may rarely use mine, but selling it is never an option.
Many of the 43s I serviced and calibrated for the Navy a lifetime ago didn't need to be repaired every six months, but the manufacturer (not the Navy or anyone else) specifies the length of time between calibrations. It was six months back in the 1960s; might be longer now. The manufacturer also specifies just how much error they ascribe to their instrument.
I've mentioned this before, but ... each Bird 43 the Navy uses/used had specific slugs, identified TO the parent meter. Each slug and its meter had to be calibrated together as parts of a system. Different slugs used with the same meter could change the reading by 2-3%. Perfectly normal.
"Calibration" is simply comparing one instrument (the "test instrument" or "TI") with another of higher accuracy to determine whether the TI's maximum error is within limits specified by the manufacturer. It doesn't guarantee perfection.
53% to 46%? What happened to the other 1%.......maybe stuck in county jail, until they dry out.
Two words pretty much sums it up. those words are "certified accuracy" with the word "certified" being the most important. For anyone doing service work for anyone other than them self cannot in any way truthfully state that the meter reading is accurate without that meter having the proper calibration as stated by the manufacturer. Do what you want for yourself and make all the claims you want too but just don't take someone's money and then make unfounded claims about what the gear will do under test unless it has been certified.
That is all the calibration standard is for basically.
i beg to disagree, you obviously have never dealt with the zetagi concept of the watt, 2 zetagi watts = approx .7 of a James watt. i'm willing to bet Dosy and Bird watts lie somewhere inbetween the two.
i'm pretty certain the other 1% (here that would be about 25%) is intercepted and puffed by crooked law enforcement.
Dosy is calibrated to the same standard as Bird...
Circuit design differences and variability in production will cause all of these meters to read off by a percentage, wheter it'd be a Dosy or a Bird.
Circuit design differences and variability in production will cause all of these meters to read off by a percentage, wheter it'd be a Dosy or a Bird.
i think you missed my sarcasm, i'm well aware many things affect the accuracy/performance of ALL electrical equipment.
the biggest problem isn't the accuracy of meters, its the lack of understanding of what power actually is/does and lack of understanding of how meters sample the power and the effect many things outside of the meter, not least the purity of the signal being measured affect these readings.
but the biggest problem of all is human expectation of how far they can stretch a dollar,pound or euro. you only get what you pay for.
while i posted this thread in search of seeing how far the abilities of everyone dragging out the obvious answer ?
one is no better than the other
a watt is a watt
a meter is only as good as a reference point and totally irrelevant as a bird may be the standard that meters are calibrated to
but to what standard are birds calibrated too?
and to what standard does the standard measure too?
redundancy of standards
all a meter indicates is a perceived measurement to give reference to
as a dosy or any other brand of meter, will give similar results as all and each will have a (+) or (-) in accuracy . yes one may be calibrated , but
the question is what if the percieved measurement and standard isnt right, does it really matter as all a meter does is give a reference point to make further measurements off of a baseline to make further measurements from
change one meter for the other or to a different of the same meter and all measurements will be inconclusive as the baseline measurement will be lost
one is no better than the other
a watt is a watt
a meter is only as good as a reference point and totally irrelevant as a bird may be the standard that meters are calibrated to
but to what standard are birds calibrated too?
and to what standard does the standard measure too?
redundancy of standards
all a meter indicates is a perceived measurement to give reference to
as a dosy or any other brand of meter, will give similar results as all and each will have a (+) or (-) in accuracy . yes one may be calibrated , but
the question is what if the percieved measurement and standard isnt right, does it really matter as all a meter does is give a reference point to make further measurements off of a baseline to make further measurements from
change one meter for the other or to a different of the same meter and all measurements will be inconclusive as the baseline measurement will be lost
B
BOOTY MONSTER
Guest
on your forum you seemed to be in support of the claim that tube watts are louder than solid-state watts .
so i guess even the all mighty bird meter is not capable of telling the audio differences between those two types of amplified watts ?
A Bird shouldn't be used as a calibration "standard" unless the manufacturer of the instrument being calibrated (the Test Instrument, or "TI") specifies some really high permissible error limits - like ± 30%. Then, a properly calibrated and certified Bird would probably be adequate.
To what standard are the Bird meters calibrated? Typically the ratio between the TI and the reference standard is around 10x, meaning that the Bird 43, rated by the manufacturer at ±5% would need a reference standard rated by its manufacturer at ±0.5%. Most good measuring instruments are shipped with a copy of the initial calibration certificate, which indicates exactly what standards were used for that calibration, by manufacturer, model number and serial number. Follow-up calibrations can use the same standards with no trouble.
That ±0.5% standard itself requires calibration against a standard with an even narrower error - in this case, ±0.05%. And about this time, things start to get less pragmatic and more theoretical. I've worked in Secondary Standards Labs and Primary Standard Labs as well.
There's a reason why the military uses Bird equipment and very little Dosy.
- Status
- No one is chatting at the moment.
