"JB" wrote:

Actually the 2016 has some advantages. Although the other will have higher
UHF gain, it has no gain and no protection against multipath on the VHF
frequencies. The 2016 will be flatter with a cleaner front to back pattern
(although lower gain). If you have no hills or tall buildings and the
source is on a single tower, then the other may be better.

Yeah I'm kinda leaning towards the 2016. But can you
explain why the 1080 has no protection from multi-path?
Are you saying that the 2016 is far more "directional"
than the 1080?

Depending on your terrain. If there are hills or tall buildings you will
want a sharper, higher gain antenna then add attenuators or tilt
compensation to reduce the reflections. Saving $20 or $40 can wind up a
waste of money.

Yes I do have on bi brick two story building right in
front of me in direction antenna must be pointed.
sigh

Anyway, its all just commercial liberal commie brainwashing and
propaganda. What channel has the Rifleman and Andy Griffith still?

Aint THAT the truth!!

I've seriously thought abt giving up broadcast TV and
just watching everything off the Internet such as
hulu.com. Serious!!

At least on hulu.com I can still watch Andy Griffith,
twilight zone, etc!!

Actually the 2016 has some advantages. Although the other will have
higher
UHF gain, it has no gain and no protection against multipath on the VHF
frequencies. The 2016 will be flatter with a cleaner front to back
pattern
(although lower gain). If you have no hills or tall buildings and the
source is on a single tower, then the other may be better.

Yeah I'm kinda leaning towards the 2016. But can you
explain why the 1080 has no protection from multi-path?
Are you saying that the 2016 is far more "directional"
than the 1080?

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from behind
and around you.. Sweeping the elements has the effect of allowing the
elements to be better matched at odd multiples. The 2016 will have a broad
front lobe (less directional) have good bandwidth, and signals from behind
will be blockedfor UHF and VHF. It's drawback will be ice and wind loading.
Still I would have really liked a 1080 with a few (like 2 or 3) more dipoles
out behind for a better protection against reflections . I scratch my head
to see a 15 db corner reflector UHF and 0db VHF dipole together. As if the
VHF were so strong it was an afterthought. I have a wee bit more than that
(same UHF but with 7 VHF dipoles) with some elevation looking at a mountain
site about 75 miles away. My elevation just barely allows the signal to
clear a pass 10 miles away and I have perfect Anolog reception while
neighbors who are one stop closer struggle for signal.

In fact, I have used the antenna for 2m SSB with 10 watts.


Don't forget about good quality RG-6 for your feedline, and keep it as short
as possible (but it is better to get the antenna higher to clear the next
door building). This is more critical for UHF stations (perhaps why 1080
went that way).

Depending on your terrain. If there are hills or tall buildings you will
want a sharper, higher gain antenna then add attenuators or tilt
compensation to reduce the reflections. Saving $20 or $40 can wind up a
waste of money.

Yes I do have on bi brick two story building right in
front of me in direction antenna must be pointed.
sigh

That is a complication but not if your antenna can just see across the roof
of the other building, then it can actually help. If the main signal source
is reduced, reflections will be more pronounced. The problem with digital,
all you have is a bar graph. Reception problems are totally masked. The
reception problems that degrade Analog still degrade Digital, you just can't
see it. I have seen situations where there is lots of signal on the bar
graph, but the picture still breaks up because of distortion of the signal.
So while Analog is still there, get your antenna aligned and locked down and
hope no one builds another building.

Sometiimes pointing the antenna at a tall building or mountain will give a
better signal because all stations are bouncing from that building..

If you can stand on your roof with binocculars and see the broadcasting
site, and there are no 12-100 story buildings or mountains around, put your
antenna there and be done with it. Keep in mind that if you find yourself
running 75 feet of coax, it would be like putting up an $80 antenna just to
shorten the coax to 35 feet.



Anyway, its all just commercial liberal commie brainwashing and
propaganda. What channel has the Rifleman and Andy Griffith still?

Aint THAT the truth!!

I've seriously thought abt giving up broadcast TV and
just watching everything off the Internet such as
hulu.com. Serious!!

At least on hulu.com I can still watch Andy Griffith,
twilight zone, etc!!

JB wrote:

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from behind
and around you.. Sweeping the elements has the effect of allowing the
elements to be better matched at odd multiples. . .

What the bending of elements does is to align the lobes broadside at the
frequencies at which the elements are approximately 3/2 wavelengths long
(that is, at about three times the fundamental half wavelength
frequency). Without bending, a 3/2 wave element has lobes which aren't
broadside. Bending it brings these to point broadside, resulting in a an
approximately bidirectional pattern. It's the shortest "vee beam" type
antenna, which extends this idea by decreasing the angle to maintain
alignment as the dipoles get longer.

The bending used in TV antennas has little effect on the impedance match.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"JB" wrote:

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from behind
and around you.. Sweeping the elements has the effect of allowing the
elements to be better matched at odd multiples. The 2016 will have a broad
front lobe (less directional) have good bandwidth, and signals from behind
will be blockedfor UHF and VHF. It's drawback will be ice and wind loading.
Still I would have really liked a 1080 with a few (like 2 or 3) more dipoles
out behind for a better protection against reflections . I scratch my head
to see a 15 db corner reflector UHF and 0db VHF dipole together. As if the
VHF were so strong it was an afterthought. I have a wee bit more than that
(same UHF but with 7 VHF dipoles) with some elevation looking at a mountain
site about 75 miles away. My elevation just barely allows the signal to
clear a pass 10 miles away and I have perfect Anolog reception while
neighbors who are one stop closer struggle for signal.

Ok thanks for that explanation! I am in fact a general
class ham but haven't operated for years....no equip
either. And am def not an antenna expert. So its nice
to get some "science" on why one antenna is better than
another when it comes to DTV! Thanks!

Don't forget about good quality RG-6 for your feedline, and keep it as short
as possible (but it is better to get the antenna higher to clear the next
door building). This is more critical for UHF stations (perhaps why 1080
went that way).

For sure! Matter of fact I see some good prices on
Philips RG6 at local Walmart

Now I just gotta find a J mount for a sat dish as that
is how I'm mounting the CM 2016 when I get one. I will
install on the SIDE of a roof peak.... the fascia....
just like you would a sat dish

Gotta figure some way to get up there tho as no ladders
big enough. Guess I can borrow one from a friend

"JB" wrote:

That is a complication but not if your antenna can just see across the roof
of the other building, then it can actually help. If the main signal source
is reduced, reflections will be more pronounced. The problem with digital,
all you have is a bar graph. Reception problems are totally masked. The
reception problems that degrade Analog still degrade Digital, you just can't
see it. I have seen situations where there is lots of signal on the bar
graph, but the picture still breaks up because of distortion of the signal.
So while Analog is still there, get your antenna aligned and locked down and
hope no one builds another building.

Well you have sure opened my eyes up to the importance
of a DIRECTIONAL antenna when it comes to DTV!! I'm
lucky in that all stations locally are broadcast from
same towers in same location..... so only one direction
to worry abt. Again my zip is 63401

Seems like the more directional the antenna the better
as it will be "blind" to multi-path. Yes?

Sometiimes pointing the antenna at a tall building or mountain will give a
better signal because all stations are bouncing from that building..

If you can stand on your roof with binocculars and see the broadcasting
site, and there are no 12-100 story buildings or mountains around, put your
antenna there and be done with it. Keep in mind that if you find yourself
running 75 feet of coax, it would be like putting up an $80 antenna just to
shorten the coax to 35 feet.

Well I cant see the towers but they are there

wrote:
"JB" wrote:

That is a complication but not if your antenna can just see across the roof
of the other building, then it can actually help. If the main signal source
is reduced, reflections will be more pronounced. The problem with digital,
all you have is a bar graph. Reception problems are totally masked. The
reception problems that degrade Analog still degrade Digital, you just can't
see it. I have seen situations where there is lots of signal on the bar
graph, but the picture still breaks up because of distortion of the signal.
So while Analog is still there, get your antenna aligned and locked down and
hope no one builds another building.

Well you have sure opened my eyes up to the importance
of a DIRECTIONAL antenna when it comes to DTV!! I'm
lucky in that all stations locally are broadcast from
same towers in same location..... so only one direction
to worry abt. Again my zip is 63401

Seems like the more directional the antenna the better
as it will be "blind" to multi-path. Yes?


Except that some receivers actually use the multipath signals to enhance
the overall SNR, by essentially delaying and recombining them in an
adaptive equalizer. So directivity, if it comes at the expense of gain,
might not be what you want.

"JB" wrote:

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from behind
and around you..

I'm a bit confused on your remark above.

Looks to me like the 1080 is perfectly flat antenna.
Where do you see any bending or sweeping of elements?

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:15:50 -0500, wrote:

"JB" wrote:

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from behind
and around you..

I'm a bit confused on your remark above.

Looks to me like the 1080 is perfectly flat antenna.
Where do you see any bending or sweeping of elements?

It would be even more informing if the "gain" attributed to it (not to
speak of lobe characteristics) were revealed through a link, as
certainly the vendor is wholly lacking in those substantives.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I am looking at a 1080. It is being used in the computer room. All of the
elements are in two, parallel planes that are each normal to earth. In
other words, flat. On high-VHF (channel 12, here) there is little F/B
ratio, but that has not been a problem. The chances of needing to reject a
high-VHF station (at 180 degrees) on the same frequency is slim. The
antenna is a stout, little, two-bay broadside array with reflector mostly
effective on UHF.

I provided a detailed set of measurements in another message. 73, Mac
N8TT

--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:
wrote in message
news
"JB" wrote:

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from
behind
and around you..

I'm a bit confused on your remark above.

Looks to me like the 1080 is perfectly flat antenna.
Where do you see any bending or sweeping of elements?

Sorry about that. I did get them mixed up not having the photos in front of
me when writing. Roy is also correct. All that is in the ARRL Antenna
Handbook. I believe impedance is lowered though at the dipole elements
apex. to some extent. The dipole vs. Inverted V comes to mind, but the
feedpoint impedance of a LPDA is really about the spacing of the feeders and
matching system. .

I'll shut up now

"J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message
.. .
I am looking at a 1080. It is being used in the computer room. All of
the
elements are in two, parallel planes that are each normal to earth. In
other words, flat. On high-VHF (channel 12, here) there is little F/B
ratio, but that has not been a problem. The chances of needing to reject
a
high-VHF station (at 180 degrees) on the same frequency is slim. The
antenna is a stout, little, two-bay broadside array with reflector mostly
effective on UHF.

I provided a detailed set of measurements in another message. 73, Mac
N8TT

--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:
wrote in message
news
"JB" wrote:

While the 1080 UHF is fairly sharp with some potential gain, the VHF
elements seem to be little more than "rabbit ears" - In fact it is a
swept
dipole, so will be bi-directional and easily pick up reflections from
behind
and around you..

I'm a bit confused on your remark above.

Looks to me like the 1080 is perfectly flat antenna.
Where do you see any bending or sweeping of elements?