Gzmeuh
Newbie level 2
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Messages
- 2
- Helped
- 0
- Reputation
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
- Trophy points
- 1
- Activity points
- 17
Hello.
Let's imagine that you have a signal with it's associated noise of at least kTB is amplified (by 8 for example). The signal to noise ratio is still the same (OK, I don't take into account the noise of the amplifier) but your amount of noise is now higher than kTB. If you go through the attenuator after that (by 2 for example), the noise of the attenuator itself will be smaller the the attenuated noise from the input and NF should be close to 0.
Where am I wrong ?
I'm sure that the NF of a passive is equal to its attenuation but I agree with dd2001 that it appears most of the time like an axiom.
Thank you,
Gzmeuh.
Let's imagine that you have a signal with it's associated noise of at least kTB is amplified (by 8 for example). The signal to noise ratio is still the same (OK, I don't take into account the noise of the amplifier) but your amount of noise is now higher than kTB. If you go through the attenuator after that (by 2 for example), the noise of the attenuator itself will be smaller the the attenuated noise from the input and NF should be close to 0.
Where am I wrong ?
I'm sure that the NF of a passive is equal to its attenuation but I agree with dd2001 that it appears most of the time like an axiom.
Thank you,
Gzmeuh.
Last edited by a moderator: