receive polarity
 

On Feb 27, 11:34*pm, 328X1 wrote:
Art Unwin;699794 Wrote:

Has there ever been a study *that shows the relative consistency of
received signal polarity to see if it would be advantageous for multi
polarity receive antennas?

As I'm both a 'diehard scanner enthusiast' & an Amateur Radio Op, I've
found that you can use two cheap antenna rotators, with either an
ordinary TV antenna [for scanner hobby] or a 2/70cm antenna [normal
versus SSB]. *The idea, being to use one rotator to 'bore sight', in
azimuth, on the desired signal. With a suitably designed bracket, the
other rotator controls the vertical/horizontal antenna orientation.
Naturally, you only need 90 degrees for polarity change; and it goes
without saying, be sure your elements clear all parts of your antenna
and guywire supports. !!! *'Crunchy' sounds eminating for your antenna
location, usually means $$$.

--
328X1

Did you feel it was worthwhile to add the extra rotor to catch the
other signals that you couldn't hear before?

receive polarity
 

On Feb 24, 12:31*am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
tom wrote:

Jeff

I hate to support Art, but he did give the endpoint data in picture6. *I
modeled it with eznec+ 5 and the pattern and gain are reasonably close
to what he shows in the other "pictures". *Close considering he appears
to be using mininec and if he includes conductor loss and real ground
it's off a fair amount (I show 9.36 dBi gain). *I didn't run circular,
and doubt that it has much in the way of circularity, which is kind of
obvious from the elements. *Even though they are skewed in a way which
he probably patented.

tom
K0TAR

Picture6 data show equal horizontal and total gain, which means it's
purely horizontally polarized in the direction of the analysis. That's
also consistent with equal CW and CCW (or right and left hand) circular
components, which mean polarization (again in the direction of the
analysis) is purely linear.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I am a bit lost on the above response basically on the use of the term
purely linear.
Could you please explain your emphasis on purely linear in your
analysis.
Does it in any way point to an error in the model