Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
....point you web browser to:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=3077597082 It's model CA-815. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard wrote:
...point you web browser to: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=3077597082 It's model CA-815. Yes, it's a ground plane type, but what band/frequency usage? |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Richard
writes Richard wrote: ...point you web browser to: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=3077597082 It's model CA-815. Yes, it's a ground plane type, but what band/frequency usage? The description of the item gives it away a bit. It says... "Outdoor FM Radio Antenna". Possibly 88-108MHz? 0/10 for observation ![]() Andrew Williamson GI0NWG / AC6WI Homepage = http://www.gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk/ One of the ZL9CI gang http://www.qsl.net/zl9ci/ |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "andrew" wrote in message ... In article , Richard writes Richard wrote: ...point you web browser to: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=3077597082 It's model CA-815. Yes, it's a ground plane type, but what band/frequency usage? The description of the item gives it away a bit. It says... "Outdoor FM Radio Antenna". Possibly 88-108MHz? 0/10 for observation ![]() Hehe, but the guy who is selling does not know if the description is correct. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:19:05 -0000, "Richard"
wrote: "Outdoor FM Radio Antenna". Possibly 88-108MHz? Hehe, but the guy who is selling does not know if the description is correct. Hi Richard, Consider, if you could accumulate half a dozen of these you could then build your own phased array to take care of your interference (some). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:19:05 -0000, "Richard" wrote: "Outdoor FM Radio Antenna". Possibly 88-108MHz? Hehe, but the guy who is selling does not know if the description is correct. Hi Richard, Consider, if you could accumulate half a dozen of these you could then build your own phased array to take care of your interference (some). Yea! :c) No, what I decided was that I needed to use phase nullinhg/cancelation, I mean adjusting the phase and amplitude of the undesired local signal (got from a dipole or omnidirectional antenna) and combining it with the intefering signal from a directional beam. Which is a different tack than nulling out using nulls in antenna lobe patterns. I could so with an FM omnidirectional antenna, but the one that is on ebay, I don't think it is an FM antenna, despite the description. Looks possibly a scanner type. But, I don't know. Rich. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:49:12 -0000, "Richard"
wrote: Consider, if you could accumulate half a dozen of these you could then build your own phased array to take care of your interference (some). Yea! :c) No, what I decided was that I needed to use phase nullinhg/cancelation, I mean adjusting the phase and amplitude of the undesired local signal (got from a dipole or omnidirectional antenna) and combining it with the intefering signal from a directional beam. Which is a different tack than nulling out using nulls in antenna lobe patterns. I could so with an FM omnidirectional antenna, but the one that is on ebay, I don't think it is an FM antenna, despite the description. Looks possibly a scanner type. But, I don't know. Rich. Hi Richard, My suggestion is the classic approach and more aggressive than the one you describe (which uses the same logic). Basically you set up the several many different antennas and combine them at one point. Difference is, that before you combine them, you introduce a delay in each. The delay selected then combines with the others to perform the cancellation (or addition, depends wholly on the delays involved). In some, fixed designs, it is simply a matter of where the many antennas are located (their physical distance imparts some portion of delay) and the length of their transmission lines to the combining point. Delay is simply a matter of wavelength. For the FM band we are talking about 3M representing a total of 360 degrees of delay. If two antennas are separated by 1.5M and combined, they add with 180 degrees of difference iff their transmission lines are the same length. They would cancel. If two antennas are separated by 3M and combined, they add with 360 degrees of delay and add (again, iff their lines are equal length). Now, if we took two antennas separated by 3M and combined them through lines that themselves show 180 degrees different length, then their combined signals would cancel. So, through the manipulation of line length with fixed antennas, you can either add or negate signals by choice (phase cancellation through line length). The boxes for sale you describe are simply virtual lines that can be changed electrically instead of physically. This allows you to combine any two antennas with any line lengths and eventually cobble together enough delay to accomplish the job. So, delay can be obtained through physical separation of antennas, AND/OR varying the length of their lines, AND/OR inserting variable tuning components before the combination point. If you invest in more actual antennas you also boost your flexibility (and complexity) and deepen the null, or enhance the gain. If you get particularly good at this through the use of electronic tuning of the delay, you can then construct a "steerable beam" antenna. Hence my oblique comment on garnering several many of these antennas (far cheaper to build them from brazing rod and SO-238 chassis connectors). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:49:12 -0000, "Richard" wrote: Consider, if you could accumulate half a dozen of these you could then build your own phased array to take care of your interference (some). Yea! :c) No, what I decided was that I needed to use phase nullinhg/cancelation, I mean adjusting the phase and amplitude of the undesired local signal (got from a dipole or omnidirectional antenna) and combining it with the intefering signal from a directional beam. Which is a different tack than nulling out using nulls in antenna lobe patterns. I could so with an FM omnidirectional antenna, but the one that is on ebay, I don't think it is an FM antenna, despite the description. Looks possibly a scanner type. But, I don't know. Rich. Hi Richard, My suggestion is the classic approach and more aggressive than the one you describe (which uses the same logic). Basically you set up the several many different antennas and combine them at one point. Difference is, that before you combine them, you introduce a delay in each. The delay selected then combines with the others to perform the cancellation (or addition, depends wholly on the delays involved). In some, fixed designs, it is simply a matter of where the many antennas are located (their physical distance imparts some portion of delay) and the length of their transmission lines to the combining point. Delay is simply a matter of wavelength. For the FM band we are talking about 3M representing a total of 360 degrees of delay. If two antennas are separated by 1.5M and combined, they add with 180 degrees of difference iff their transmission lines are the same length. They would cancel. If two antennas are separated by 3M and combined, they add with 360 degrees of delay and add (again, iff their lines are equal length). Now, if we took two antennas separated by 3M and combined them through lines that themselves show 180 degrees different length, then their combined signals would cancel. So, through the manipulation of line length with fixed antennas, you can either add or negate signals by choice (phase cancellation through line length). The boxes for sale you describe are simply virtual lines that can be changed electrically instead of physically. This allows you to combine any two antennas with any line lengths and eventually cobble together enough delay to accomplish the job. So, delay can be obtained through physical separation of antennas, AND/OR varying the length of their lines, AND/OR inserting variable tuning components before the combination point. If you invest in more actual antennas you also boost your flexibility (and complexity) and deepen the null, or enhance the gain. If you get particularly good at this through the use of electronic tuning of the delay, you can then construct a "steerable beam" antenna. Hence my oblique comment on garnering several many of these antennas (far cheaper to build them from brazing rod and SO-238 chassis connectors). Understood. What do you think about the antenna on ebay? I've not yet had anyone say what they think it is, which I'm finding curious. The seller does not know what it is depite the description, because I've talked to him. He just put it down as an FM antenna, but I have my doubts. But if it is not, maybe I could modify. What does it look like to you, a scanner antenna, a CB antennna, a marine antenna, a 2 meter antenna? Model is CA-815, but you will not find a match on Google. Rich. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:50:59 -0000, "Richard"
wrote: Understood. Kewel. What do you think about the antenna on ebay? I've not yet had anyone say what they think it is, which I'm finding curious. The seller does not know what it is depite the description, because I've talked to him. He just put it down as an FM antenna, but I have my doubts. But if it is not, maybe I could modify. What does it look like to you, a scanner antenna, a CB antennna, a marine antenna, a 2 meter antenna? Model is CA-815, but you will not find a match on Google. Rich. FM can mean Marine or 440 or 2M FM as easily as broadcast FM. Either way, having an exact size antenna for receive is not particularly essential. It is more meaningful for those of us who transmit, but that is not your concern. At this scale, there are far more, cheaper alternatives available to constructing in an hour or two (such as my suggestion of rods and connector). Having one antenna is not very useful to your problem of interference and the greater complexity is actually in the method of combination. Here too you can roll-your-own equipment, but this will enlarge the project. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard" wrote in message ... ...point you web browser to: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=3077597082 It's model CA-815. Well, I'm off to bed. I'm hoping that when I awake in 7 or 8 hours time someone will have posted their opinion on what band(s) the antenna might reasonably cover. The seller does not really know if it's an FM (87.5 - 108Mhz) antenna. See ya!! I'm going to the land of nod. Rich G8VOQ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna | |||
Are fractal antennas being used in cellphones? | Antenna |