Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 17, 12:53 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:27 am, Jim Lux wrote: Richard Harrison wrote: Art wrote: "I have an on order a tilting system for my antenna to probe the polarisation of incoming signals for maximum audio clarity and gain." That may be interesting but do you ever recall cross polarization of an incoming ionosphere reflected signal being unreadable because polarization was wrong? So many different and quickly changing path variations exist in the ionosphere that the best antenna to use is based on probability. Or, use diversity combining. Several researchers in France have done work with this, and discovered there's very little correlation between the ordinary and extraordinary rays, so diversity combining is extremely effective on HF skywave paths. They used physically co-located antennas that had different polarization sensitivities (a loop and a whip, as I recall). E.A. Laporte says on page 215 of "Radio Antenna Engineering": "To make best use of this effect (randomness of ionospheric waves) it is desirable to employ complimentary antennas for transmitting and receiving." Most commercial HF circuits I`ve experienced and seen use horizontal polarization. It is because much severe man made interference arriving at a receiving antenna is vertically polarized. Interference polarization is not necessarily the case. (I believe there are measurements that show it is essentially random). More what it is has to do with the antenna pattern of horizontal and vertical antennas for sources at ground level and reasonably close. For example, A horizontal antenna not too high over a ground plane has a null right at zero elevation. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Jim' My 160M antenna is totaly at 70 feet. Not below or above. With the tilting and pan mechanism and a couple of relays it is possible to automate it so that every so often it will cycle thru all modes using the single antenna. When a louder signal arises then it is simple to stay on that polarisation . This combiation thus is a reduction of land space required for two or more separate antennas. I was just curious as to what other hams were doing and it appears to be nothing in this area. Regards Art Jim, Allow mw to share my thoughts with you on my antenna design and where my experimental trail is leading. I say experimental because the trail cannot be pursued in the mind only unless one is absolutely sure one knows everything and thus cannot be faultedn I constantly experiment to prove that my mind is correct or corrected if experimentation proves it to be in error which thus require re evalution and redirection. without experimentaion you have nothing but a talking head sitting on a couch. My antenna is actually several antennas rolled up into one. As a contra wound helix on top of each other we have a ambidextrious antenna that with tilting provides horizontal and vertical polarisation because the windings and counter windings cancel each other out. If one circular sign al is dominant I expected the cancellation remainder will be added to the horizontal and vertical polarisation signal. At the same time eithe of the cancelled polarities can be issollated from all otheres by shorting it out. I also wanted purity of polarisation to which I have referred to in the past where signals are not at 90 degrees to earth but tipped 10 degrees plus. Hopefully this will all work out as I have solve the combination polarisation problem while keeping the readiator small enough for three degree movement. I have to do all this to first confirm that the direction that I am taking so I can move on to arrays using tilted radiators fashhioned in a a array in equilibrium where two degrees of freedom with respect to volume which is forcasted by the combination of Gauss with Maxwell. Obviously every structure has to have the ability of many experiments as possible to flush out any errors in my analysis as possible in the early stages. Fortunately my single radiator pursuit with respect to size came out o.k. and thus with the incoming mechanism for tilt and scan operation can now procede without the huge mechanical difficulties imposed by planar and large radiators. This comming portion of the experimental trail is of utmost im portance to ensure that the comming arrays are truly in equilibrium such that the spacings of the individual small radiators can be reduceded over those of planar arrays. In my work with the small signal radiator I have found it possible to make them directive such that it may well render the idea of small arrays as moot when considering the advances made by zeroing on the signal polarity and pursuing a delay phase addition circuit with what I have at present. A long trail that was started years ago which I find very rewarding where I can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. Best regards Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG (uk) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Problems with ARRL Incoming buro? | Dx | |||
Incoming signal elevation question | Antenna | |||
ARRL's Incoming QSL Burro! | Policy | |||
ARRL's Incoming QSL Burro! | General | |||
Incoming radiation angles | Antenna |