Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:16:20 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <uv8rbq$1nod1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <c6hd1jdjimga6ifo7b0kv7bqfj9750lbk3@4ax.com>
 <uv6vav$16in8$1@dont-email.me> <ot1e1j91uq64os9624j71nnh6pu7odjcgv@4ax.com>
 <uv84nr$1irtl$1@dont-email.me> <jhnf1j98e4rlt0o2c05hs40vhmcasevh6c@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:16:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="80634d998e271a49ce6b3a27154f26ea";
	logging-data="1827233"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/S4JT2/1xVx+4IuEXnxjM2"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vv+o9r8xXKZ9J+ekp7PvJDausF0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <jhnf1j98e4rlt0o2c05hs40vhmcasevh6c@4ax.com>
Bytes: 2455

On 4/11/24 14:58, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:50:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/10/24 23:42, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:11:53 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/24 19:02, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an exam question that trips up even some of the best students.
>>>>> See what you make of it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Q: Is this statement correct: 'The signal level at the modem input
>>>>> increased by 2dBmV going from +3dBmV to +5dBmV.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Your pal, CD.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't we had a discussion about this already some four years ago?
>>>> Weren't you Don Kuenz then?
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>> I don't recall any such discussion and no, I'm not Don Kuenz either.
>>
>> Allright then. The statement is wrong. An increase is in dB, not
>> in dBmV.
>>
> 
> Nice, unequivocal answer there, Jeroen; many thanks.

If you really want to open a can of worms, consider what might
happen when you *add* a 2dBmV and a 3dBmV signal together.
Granted, dBs weren't invented for making that easy.

Jeroen Belleman