Mike B's Sensitity Testing Part II HERE!

[ahmadr]

Is there a way to test the RX65 and 9500i from the GOL test?
Needless to say, it would allow us to compare chamber sensitivity results with real-life performance (a first?)

[Veri]

Hey folks,

Happya$$ passed along a few numbers from Michael's testing - I've added them to the previous table/graph. New entries are designated by (GOL) on the end of the label, or where at the top of the group for the same detector (such as the four Valentines above the three old ones).

There are a few things not mentioned on the graphs that are noteworthy: for the Valentines, testing in "L" instead of "A" reduced X band sensitivity significantly (109 instead of 116 for the 3.813 V1, and 110 instead of 118 for the 3.858 V1).

The 3.858 V1 was seen in the last GOL test.

Also, when testing with rotated polarity, Ka sensitivity at 34, 34.3, 34.7, and 35.5 GHz dropped across the board, averaging roughly a 13 dB drop (and more in many cases).

And finally, on the 3.858 V1, testing in "U" changed K sensitivity to 123 instead of 122 and Ka-34.0 to 116 instead of 112. Further, testing in "u" changed Ka-33.8 to 116 instead of 115, Ka-34.0 to 117 instead of 112, and Ka-34.3 to 117 instead of 115.

That said, here's the current information, ordered alphabetically (the remaining spaces on the table will be filled as soon as I receive the data):

-----

NB: #2 is the STi that stealthJamal had GOL-tested in October 2006; this one was not tested in the more recent Arizona review.

Table:



Graph:



last updated Monday, June 11, 2007 -- 5:07pm CDT

[ahmadr]

Emm...
Why is the average for (the one) x50 different than the x50?

Edit: removed "And what happened to the 980?" - that wasn't Mikes tests.

[happya$$]

Emm...
Why is the average for (the one) x50 different than the x50?
And what happened to the 980?

He took off any data that did not come from the same lab conducted by the same person. We want to compare apples to apples

[Veri]

Emm...
Why is the average for (the one) x50 different than the x50?

Edit: removed "And what happened to the 980?" - that wasn't Mikes tests.

Whoops, formula ****up when I was moving things around - numbers have been corrected.

[mikered30]

What version of the Rx-65 was tested?

[AirMoore]

What version of the Rx-65 was tested?

I believe it was the latest versions for all detectors (from Belscort) and V1 is as noted (revs are noted).

[happya$$]

What version of the Rx-65 was tested?

I believe it was the latest versions for all detectors (from Belscort) and V1 is as noted (revs are noted).

I would love to see your V1 tested since you are supposed to have one of their best as they told you (VR)

[carboncopy]

Hmm no real surprises huh? Looking at the numbers from Michael and the numbers on blacksnake, it looks like the Bel 980 was a hot detector in it's day. Thanks for the data Michael!!!

CC

[happya$$]

Hmm no real surprises huh? Looking at the numbers from Michael and the numbers on blacksnake, it looks like the Bel 980 was a hot detector in it's day. Thanks for the data Michael!!!

CC

You can not compare sensitivity numbers from different labs, different people conducting them, etc