Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Diversity antennas
K1TTT wrote:
On Apr 28, 6:45 pm, Michael Coslo wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:11:51 -0700 (PDT), Bill wrote: how useful is the discussion to the average reader of r.r.a.a.? Hi Bill, Well, diversity antenna work is quite useful to the average reader - I suppose (they haven't actually clamored for the discussion or embroiled themselves in the topic, but you did couch this in terms of "readers"). Sure, at least in a practical sense. I make use of diversity receivers in wireless microphone work. While these are used at UHF frequencies rather than HF, our problems are more multipath, maybe picket fencing a bit. So while I know better than to get into the definitions of diversity antennas, given my meager abilities, my guess is that if one antenna worked better than two - or merely worked at all, we'd be using just one. Tom's pseudo stereo looks suspiciously like a wetware version of my wireless systems,only that they vote, whereas his signal levels are too low for that, so he does it in his head. Unfortunately, if we divorced the two authors who fail to offer what Diversity means, apart from what is already accepted in convention, then we remove the entertainment value and "readership" would likely decline. That is for certain. A paradox. One of my favorite words. if the pseudo stereo is derived from 2 different antennas then you have diversity reception where the separate antennas provide different signals that may fade at different times due to polarization changes or incident angle changes... that is what tom was driving at as a useful diversity system, albeit at the expense of more complex receiver hardware. Yeah, I think I agree with Tom's practical experience/experiment. I certainly do not think that one antenna is going to do this diversity, because if it would, it means that there is no need for any of the diversity systems we know about today, with double antennas, voting and/or dual receivers. Richard's concerns are for the definition, which I think in Art's case, is probably important. when you take a single rf signal and split it through different receive processors to shift the phase, or do different sidebands, or just run through different high/low pass audio filters, you don't really have diversity, you have some kind of a processing system that makes it easier for your brain or some other decoder to sort out the signal from the noise. I played with some simple ones years ago side foray here. Did you try binaural receivers? I've heard of them, never had a chance to listen to one. and they can provide interesting effects that can make sorting out signals in pileups easier, or maybe pulling signals out of the noise a bit easier, but none of them will really prevent the multipath, arrival angle, or polarization fading. that is where tom was trying to point out that any way you combine the rf from two antennas into one you lose the advantages of the diversity of the antennas. I agree. One of the important factors as far as I know is that the antennas have to be in two different spots, and although I haven't measured, (I will now that I'm really interested) I'll bet that the best performance comes at a distance that is well related to the wavelength. Which is to say the picket fencing I hear on a mobile two meter signal might allow me to determine his velocity by knowing the frequency of the picket, the frequency of the transmission, with a likely but small error via Doppler shift. But aside from that little foray, I have no doubt that the effects that call for diversity antennas/receivers also call for some physical separation of separate antennas. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HF Diversity reception ? | Antenna | |||
HF Diversity reception ? | Antenna | |||
MW HD time diversity | Shortwave | |||
diversity reception notes | Shortwave | |||
diversity reception notes | Shortwave |