A Complex Metaphysical Conundrum

I'm afraid that's not exactly the question, though. Here's what was asked again:

Q: Is this statement correct: 'The signal level at the modem input increased by 2dBmV going from +3dBmV to +5dBmV.'

You've already nailed your colours to the mast with your opinion that the statement is correct. Are you happy with that or would you like to change your mind?

I'll be posting 'the answer' in about 5 hours' time for those who have yet to stick their heads above the parapet and might be tempted to participate. It's been a bit deafeningly quiet so far. ;-)

Reply to
Cursitor Doom
Loading thread data ...

Nice, unequivocal answer there, Jeroen; many thanks.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

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

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

It's not a complex metaphysical conundrum - it is the kind of pedantic exam question set by the sort of lecturer who has a bee in his bonnet about getting the units right. If you sat through his course you'd know what his idea of what the right answer would be.

The rest of us don't have to worry because it doesn't actually matter.

Reply to
Bill Sloman
<snip>

Assuming in-phase, that's 8.535dBmV. Wrong tool for the job.

Reply to
Clive Arthur

Yes, that's one way of doing it. There are more.

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

The sum could be 1 dBmV.

Reply to
John Larkin

If out of phase, or

If taught by the Nu Mathematics.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

It is a logarithmic scale. Increasing by 2dBmV is correctly interpreted as multiplication.

Groetjes Albert

Reply to
albert

What is -2 volts in dBmV?

Reply to
John Larkin

It could...

Jeroen Belleman

Reply to
Jeroen Belleman

What's wrong with the mind I already have?

My opinion is in my first reply to you.

Do the students who take this exam do any practical work or just sit in class?

Reply to
Edward Rawde

Probably unhandled exception in log function or something like that :)

Reply to
Edward Rawde

They're students so of course they don't do anything useful.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Okay, here's the answer you've been waiting for from some guy on the internet in this record-low participation quiz. This URL takes you directly to the relevant section to save time:

formatting link
So it turns out that John, Edward and myself were all wrong and only Jason and Jeroen were right! And the proof is right there in the video.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Is that because you don't teach them how to do anything useful or because they don't want to be taught how do anything useful?

Reply to
Edward Rawde

Silly nonsense. RF people tend to do that. By his reasoning, the actual question is wrong and the increase is impossible.

The question is fuzzy, basicly designed to generate chatter.

I still believe that 3+2=5.

Reply to
john larkin

I don't see any proof of anything in the section of the video you posted. I didn't watch the entire video. Maybe you should post the proof for this example in text and ask why a 30 minute video is needed if a few lines of text is enough. DOCSIS isn't my field but I would have thought that the average cable modem could report whether or not it's happy with the signal levels. The ISP/Cable company I use ripped the cable and phone lines out and put fibre to the home into the small town I live in about a year ago. So DOCSIS is history here.

Reply to
Edward Rawde

Sorry, you're new here so you don't know who's who yet. I'm not a professor - far from it! And these are hypothetical students.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Sorry, sarcasm doesn't come across very well at all via this medium! John knows what I mean as we're both veterans here. I actually agree with you. The question itself is just plain stupid if the answer suggests that two absolute quantities added together cannot make an absolute total.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.