Re: dBs

On Sun, 26 May 2024 21:48:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 5/26/24 19:58, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sun, 26 May 2024 19:25:41 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
 

On 5/26/24 19:09, Cursitor Doom wrote:

I'm feeling cognitively-declined today, probably as a consequence of
my vast age and general ignorance of matters mathematical and
everything else in fact, with the sole exception of "fatuous
conspiracy theories."
Can some kind soul assist?
If my RF power meter is reading -13dbm when there's a 20dB attenuator
in line, what is the true power level, please?
I've got an exhaustive App Note from Rhode & Schwartz which claims to
cover everything about decibels, but, er, doesn't.
>
CD.

>
That would be -13 + 20 = +7dBm, provided that impedances are matched
everywhere.

 
I was under the impression that one couldn't simply just add dBs to
dBms?

 
You can. That's what decibels were invented for.
 
Let's spell it out then. You know 0 dBm is 1 mW. So -13 dBm is
10^(-13/10) times 1 mW, or 50 uW.
 
A 20dB attenuator divides power by a factor of 10^(20/10), that is, a
factor of 100. So before the attenuator, you had 5 mW.
 
5mW is 10*log(5) is +7 dBm.
 
Jeroen Belleman

Oh I know you're figures are correct, Jeroen. But to check them I had to
use look-up tables off the net:

-13dBm = 0.05mW
20dB = 100X
0.05X100 = 5mW
5mW = =7dBm

Sometimes you can just straight add-up dBs and other times you can't and I
can never remember when it's appropriate and when it's not. To be safe, I
revert to the method I showed above. It's longer, but at least I know I
can rely on the result. Whoever invent dBs "to make things simpler" needs
to have their grave desecrated and their name effaced from history IMO.