"Sun Tzu" schreef in bericht
...
Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:

Reading the schematics it is possible that the ANC-4 does not
fully cover the 360 degrees phase shift, just like the MFJ-1025.
But it is also possible that you experience more than one noise
source on 75 mtrs. A noise canceller (with two inputs/antennas)
can cancel only one noise source.

I have written about noise cancelling on my site, e.g.:
http://www.pa0sim.nl/Phaser%2080%20-%2010%20meters.htm
May be it can help.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


Nice website, have you considered modifying the existing units (MFJ &
ANC)
to do what you have shown? Your idea would make either of these 2 units
much
better.

By the way, I took the sense antenna which is a short dipole and I made
one
leg vertical and the other horizontal. Now I have almost no noise on 75
meters. I haqve been playing around with this for awhile and it was either
all vertical or all horizontal. Now with this configuration the weak
signals can be heard.


Stan
AH6JR


Hi Stan,
I have considered it, but sometimes it is easier and better to start fresh.
First question is always: what phaser/noise canceller do you really want?
What do you expect from it?
Looking at the design of the MFJ-1025, it would take to much mods to
realize my needs.

When one of the antennas doesn´t hear the noise source, you don´t need
a phaser. But of course that antenna still has to hear your wanted signals.
Using a small loop antenna it is sometimes possible to null the noise
source.
I think playing with a short dipole, as you did, is the same as nulling with
small loops.

73 de Jan PA0SIM

Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:


"Sun Tzu" schreef in bericht
...
Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:

Reading the schematics it is possible that the ANC-4 does not
fully cover the 360 degrees phase shift, just like the MFJ-1025.
But it is also possible that you experience more than one noise
source on 75 mtrs. A noise canceller (with two inputs/antennas)
can cancel only one noise source.

I have written about noise cancelling on my site, e.g.:
http://www.pa0sim.nl/Phaser%2080%20-%2010%20meters.htm
May be it can help.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


Nice website, have you considered modifying the existing units (MFJ &
ANC)
to do what you have shown? Your idea would make either of these 2 units
much
better.

By the way, I took the sense antenna which is a short dipole and I made
one
leg vertical and the other horizontal. Now I have almost no noise on 75
meters. I haqve been playing around with this for awhile and it was
either all vertical or all horizontal. Now with this configuration the
weak signals can be heard.


Stan
AH6JR


Hi Stan,
I have considered it, but sometimes it is easier and better to start
fresh. First question is always: what phaser/noise canceller do you really
want? What do you expect from it?
Looking at the design of the MFJ-1025, it would take to much mods to
realize my needs.

When one of the antennas doesn´t hear the noise source, you don´t need
a phaser. But of course that antenna still has to hear your wanted
signals. Using a small loop antenna it is sometimes possible to null the
noise source.
I think playing with a short dipole, as you did, is the same as nulling
with small loops.

73 de Jan PA0SIM


I have the ANC-4 which works well. This new sense antenna is really good, as
I can hear signals down to S-2 on 75 meters. I guess if I had to do it I
would prefer to modify the ANC-4 as its a quality unit, not perfect but it
is built well.

If you would have any ideas as to modifying the ANC-4 I would'nt mind
working with you on this project. But I will leave that one up to you.

Hopefully I will be able to hear you in the contest this weekend on 75
meters!

Good Luck in the contest my friend!

"Sun Tzu" schreef in bericht
news:ruCdnermL6SEDd_YnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net...
Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:


"Sun Tzu" schreef in bericht
...
Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:

Reading the schematics it is possible that the ANC-4 does not
fully cover the 360 degrees phase shift, just like the MFJ-1025.
But it is also possible that you experience more than one noise
source on 75 mtrs. A noise canceller (with two inputs/antennas)
can cancel only one noise source.

I have written about noise cancelling on my site, e.g.:
http://www.pa0sim.nl/Phaser%2080%20-%2010%20meters.htm
May be it can help.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


Nice website, have you considered modifying the existing units (MFJ &
ANC)
to do what you have shown? Your idea would make either of these 2 units
much
better.

By the way, I took the sense antenna which is a short dipole and I made
one
leg vertical and the other horizontal. Now I have almost no noise on 75
meters. I haqve been playing around with this for awhile and it was
either all vertical or all horizontal. Now with this configuration the
weak signals can be heard.


Stan
AH6JR


Hi Stan,
I have considered it, but sometimes it is easier and better to start
fresh. First question is always: what phaser/noise canceller do you
really
want? What do you expect from it?
Looking at the design of the MFJ-1025, it would take to much mods to
realize my needs.

When one of the antennas doesnt hear the noise source, you dont need
a phaser. But of course that antenna still has to hear your wanted
signals. Using a small loop antenna it is sometimes possible to null the
noise source.
I think playing with a short dipole, as you did, is the same as nulling
with small loops.

73 de Jan PA0SIM


I have the ANC-4 which works well. This new sense antenna is really good,
as
I can hear signals down to S-2 on 75 meters. I guess if I had to do it I
would prefer to modify the ANC-4 as its a quality unit, not perfect but it
is built well.

If you would have any ideas as to modifying the ANC-4 I would'nt mind
working with you on this project. But I will leave that one up to you.

Hopefully I will be able to hear you in the contest this weekend on 75
meters!

Good Luck in the contest my friend!

Sri, I prefer my Digital Signal Processing route with the two Elecraft K2
receivers.
DSP makes an ideal phaser. So no need here for a "better" analog one.
And DSP gives me a lot more tricks to reduce interference and noise.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM

Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:


"Sun Tzu" schreef in bericht
news:ruCdnermL6SEDd_YnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@hawaiiantel. net...
Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:


"Sun Tzu" schreef in bericht
...
Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:

Reading the schematics it is possible that the ANC-4 does not
fully cover the 360 degrees phase shift, just like the MFJ-1025.
But it is also possible that you experience more than one noise
source on 75 mtrs. A noise canceller (with two inputs/antennas)
can cancel only one noise source.

I have written about noise cancelling on my site, e.g.:
http://www.pa0sim.nl/Phaser%2080%20-%2010%20meters.htm
May be it can help.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


Nice website, have you considered modifying the existing units (MFJ &
ANC)
to do what you have shown? Your idea would make either of these 2 units
much
better.

By the way, I took the sense antenna which is a short dipole and I made
one
leg vertical and the other horizontal. Now I have almost no noise on 75
meters. I haqve been playing around with this for awhile and it was
either all vertical or all horizontal. Now with this configuration the
weak signals can be heard.


Stan
AH6JR


Hi Stan,
I have considered it, but sometimes it is easier and better to start
fresh. First question is always: what phaser/noise canceller do you
really
want? What do you expect from it?
Looking at the design of the MFJ-1025, it would take to much mods to
realize my needs.

When one of the antennas doesnt hear the noise source, you dont need
a phaser. But of course that antenna still has to hear your wanted
signals. Using a small loop antenna it is sometimes possible to null the
noise source.
I think playing with a short dipole, as you did, is the same as nulling
with small loops.

73 de Jan PA0SIM


I have the ANC-4 which works well. This new sense antenna is really good,
as
I can hear signals down to S-2 on 75 meters. I guess if I had to do it I
would prefer to modify the ANC-4 as its a quality unit, not perfect but
it is built well.

If you would have any ideas as to modifying the ANC-4 I would'nt mind
working with you on this project. But I will leave that one up to you.

Hopefully I will be able to hear you in the contest this weekend on 75
meters!

Good Luck in the contest my friend!

Sri, I prefer my Digital Signal Processing route with the two Elecraft K2
receivers.
DSP makes an ideal phaser. So no need here for a "better" analog one.
And DSP gives me a lot more tricks to reduce interference and noise.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


May I ask what the tricks are?

.........
If you would have any ideas as to modifying the ANC-4 I would'nt mind
working with you on this project. But I will leave that one up to you.
.........

Sri, I prefer my Digital Signal Processing route with the two Elecraft K2
receivers.
DSP makes an ideal phaser. So no need here for a "better" analog one.
And DSP gives me a lot more tricks to reduce interference and noise.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


May I ask what the tricks are?

Of course:

1) With only one receiver and one antenna:
- Noise Reduction and Noise Blanker tricks as you see now implemented
in the new DSP transceivers like the Orion and the SDR1000 (all the DSP
must be in the AGC loop!).
- In DSP it is possible to make very small bandwidth CW filters.
- For better CW readability one can use binaural or panoramic reception.
- DSP makes multi notch filtering possible (SSB)
- In DSP it is possible to realize almost every AGC you can think of.
(a better AGC can improve weak signal reception)

2) with two (or more) antennas and two phase coherent receivers
- In DSP it is possible to realize the ideal phaser.
- An alternative is "effective directivity" by frequency component selection
see: http://home.plex.nl/~jmsi/Effective%...20by%20DSP.htm
(the audio samples show what is possible with it)
- True Diversity Reception, because both receivers can be made identical.
- Enhanced Stereo Reception can improve readability for CW/SSB signals.

3) and the tricks I dont know yet. I am not a DSP guru.
For example: (Blind) Source Seperation?
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_separation
Rather complex stuff HI.

Don´t forget that not all DSP in the new tranceivers is well implemented.
Important is to recognize that DSP has a bright future for us.

73 de Jan PA0SIM

Jan Simons PA0SIM wrote:

.........
If you would have any ideas as to modifying the ANC-4 I would'nt mind
working with you on this project. But I will leave that one up to you.
.........

Sri, I prefer my Digital Signal Processing route with the two Elecraft
K2 receivers.
DSP makes an ideal phaser. So no need here for a "better" analog one.
And DSP gives me a lot more tricks to reduce interference and noise.

73 es gl de Jan PA0SIM


May I ask what the tricks are?

Of course:

1) With only one receiver and one antenna:
- Noise Reduction and Noise Blanker tricks as you see now implemented
in the new DSP transceivers like the Orion and the SDR1000 (all the DSP
must be in the AGC loop!).
- In DSP it is possible to make very small bandwidth CW filters.
- For better CW readability one can use binaural or panoramic reception.
- DSP makes multi notch filtering possible (SSB)
- In DSP it is possible to realize almost every AGC you can think of.
(a better AGC can improve weak signal reception)

2) with two (or more) antennas and two phase coherent receivers
- In DSP it is possible to realize the ideal phaser.
- An alternative is "effective directivity" by frequency component
selection
see: http://home.plex.nl/~jmsi/Effective%...20by%20DSP.htm
(the audio samples show what is possible with it)
- True Diversity Reception, because both receivers can be made identical.
- Enhanced Stereo Reception can improve readability for CW/SSB signals.

3) and the tricks I dont know yet. I am not a DSP guru.
For example: (Blind) Source Seperation?
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_separation
Rather complex stuff HI.

Don´t forget that not all DSP in the new tranceivers is well implemented.
Important is to recognize that DSP has a bright future for us.

73 de Jan PA0SIM


I have an SDR-1000, not really excited with the way it works. Especially the
noise blankers. Not sure if its the latest SVN or what but the noise
blankers just dont seem to do the job.
I agree with the filtering though. Its better than many rigs I have heard.
I recently added a roofing filter to an "old" Kenwood 930 and it did make a
difference. I noticed the difference in the CQWW contest that just
completed. One night I used the 930 the other the SDR 1000. Both receivers
seemed to work as well as the other. All was going well until the antenna
quit on me. This my friend is a whole other story. Shortened verticals are
not the answer.
Guess I will call Force 12 in the morning and see what they can offer me for
a 75/80 meter antenna.