I'm looking for a source for a second Winegard HD-6065P antenna that I can stack with my existing one to increase the FM gain. At the moment I can pull in most Mt Wilson stations in San Diego, but only in mono. I realize an amplifier would likely do the job easier, but I think this would be a cool thing to do.

Cheers!
Paul Pomes, DVM

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:07:45 -0800 (PST), Paul Pomes
wrote:

I'm looking for a source for a second Winegard HD-6065P antenna that I can stack with my existing one to increase the FM gain. At the moment I can pull in most Mt Wilson stations in San Diego, but only in mono. I realize an amplifier would likely do the job easier, but I think this would be a cool thing to do.

Cheers!
Paul Pomes, DVM

If you have lots of lossy coax cable and a typically insensitive
consumer grade receiver, an amplifier might give you 10dB of gain.
A second stacked antenna will give you exactly 3dB gain.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I will agree with Jeff to a point, the pre amplifiers only job is to compensate for line loss.
On 88 - 108 MHz there is not a lot of loss - hence there is not a lot to be gained by using a preamplifier.
Winegard maintains a web site which can be accessed via internet - what you need is a antenna with better rejection and more forward gain.

Because you did not post a physical address, there is no way for sure for me to give you accurate information - because my crystal ball is broken...

Go to FM Fool.com and post your address and you will get a beam heading and distance to the transmitters.
It will also show a graph with what is between the transmit and the receive antenna's...

FM works on the principal of capture effect - hence it will receive the strongest signals and reject all others.
Your problem might be that you have another station on the same frequency or close by that is stronger then the signal you desire...

The Winegard 7694 - 7698P antenna's are a very good source for better reception. You might also want to incorporate a good antenna rotor...

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 4:07:45 PM UTC-6, Paul Pomes wrote:
I'm looking for a source for a second Winegard HD-6065P antenna that I can stack with my existing one to increase the FM gain. At the moment I can pull in most Mt Wilson stations in San Diego, but only in mono. I realize an amplifier would likely do the job easier, but I think this would be a cool thing to do.



Cheers!

Paul Pomes, DVM

Oh, he

Dear John,

Stacking 2 HD6065P antennas in the same direction for gain you would mount
them 72" apart vertically from boom to boom. The phasing line will be 52"
long each +/- 1/8" of each other in length. The phasing lines will feed a
CC-7870 coupler to combine the signals. Your single output is now you
signal.

Cordially,
Hans Rabong
Tech. Service Manager.
Winegard Company

wrote in message
...
Dear John,

Stacking 2 HD6065P antennas in the same direction for gain you would mount
them 72" apart vertically from boom to boom. The phasing line will be 52"
long each +/- 1/8" of each other in length. The phasing lines will feed a
CC-7870 coupler to combine the signals. Your single output is now you
signal.

Cordially,
Hans Rabong
Tech. Service Manager.
Winegard Company

Unless I am missing something, seems like a waste of antenna and money.

I looked for the coupler and found this:

"You have the CC-7870 hooked up properly. However this coupler is just like
a 2-way splitter hooked up in reverse; in that it will reduce the signal
from each antenna by about 30%. "

If it is just a 2 way splitter in reverse, there is usually a 3 db loss and
all you get with 2 antennas is a gain of 3 db, so you gain nothing over a
single antenna with this coupler.

To get close to 3 db of gain you need to have a combiner of near zero loss.
This is often done by using an odd number of wavelenghts of feedline of a
differant impedance and hooking them in parallel to keep the impedance the
same. I doubt it would work very well over the while FM band,but may for a
small portion of it.

I don't know how big the antenna is, but you would be beter off with a
single larger antenna, or possiably an amplifier.
Maybe an even beter feedline.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:14:23 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


Unless I am missing something, seems like a waste of antenna and money.

Nope. Stacking antennas works.

Analysis of the HD-6066P antenna.
http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/hd6065p.htm

"You have the CC-7870 hooked up properly. However this coupler is just like
a 2-way splitter hooked up in reverse; in that it will reduce the signal
from each antenna by about 30%. "

Since when do we measure signal levels in percent? Decibels would be
nice.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=cc7870&d=winegard-cc-7870-2-way-tv-antenna-joiner-coupler-(cc7870)

If it is just a 2 way splitter in reverse, there is usually a 3 db loss and
all you get with 2 antennas is a gain of 3 db, so you gain nothing over a
single antenna with this coupler.

Nope. Let's pretend for a moment that there's no loss in the
splitter/coupler. If you feed a signal into the common (output) port,
the RF power is split equally between the other two (input) ports for
a -3dB loss per port.

However, if you feed a signal into either ONE of the two (input)
ports, all of the signal will appear on the common (output) port.
That's because there's about 20dB of isolation between the two (input)
ports so that no RF is lost going out the other (input) port.

If you have the same signal (in phase) going into both the two (input)
ports, they add, producing a combined signal 3dB higher.

However, reality requires that the combiner has some loss. Usually,
that's about -0.5dB per (input) port for a total loss of 1dB. So,
instead of 3dB gain with the stacking arrangement, you will see about
2dB gain. The -0.5dB loss varies across the band and tends to be
higher at the extreme frequencies, and less in the middle.

To get close to 3 db of gain you need to have a combiner of near zero loss.
This is often done by using an odd number of wavelenghts of feedline of a
differant impedance and hooking them in parallel to keep the impedance the
same. I doubt it would work very well over the while FM band,but may for a
small portion of it.

Yep. That's the problem. The splitter/combiner is a broadband
device, that will work over the entire TV band. 5-1000 MHz is common.
Not so if you remove the splitter/combiner and simply parallel the
phasing lines. That's a narrow band device that works over a narrow
frequency range determined by the length of the phasing lines. That's
not what you would want with a TV antenna.

However, the HD-6065P is a FM band only Yagi, which might work without
the splitter combiner, but as you mention, probably will not work over
the entire FM band.

I don't know how big the antenna is, but you would be beter off with a
single larger antenna, or possiably an amplifier.
Maybe an even beter feedline.

If you use a Yagi antenna, you would need to approximately double the
length of the boom in order to obtain an additional 3dB of gain. The
boom on the HD-6065P is 128 inches long. I would hate to see a
similar antenna with a boom twice as long.

Yagi antennas also tend to be more narrow band than Gray Hoverman
antennas for TV use. For FM band only, gain is more important, so a
Yagi is probably best. For TV, I prefer a Gray Hoverman.

Incidentally, for TV, you can compare the characteristics between both
types for real antennas at:
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/types.html
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/comparing.html
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/antennas/temporarypage.html


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:14:23 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


Unless I am missing something, seems like a waste of antenna and money.

Nope. Stacking antennas works.

Analysis of the HD-6066P antenna.
http://www.ham-radio.com/k6sti/hd6065p.htm

"You have the CC-7870 hooked up properly. However this coupler is just
like
a 2-way splitter hooked up in reverse; in that it will reduce the signal
from each antenna by about 30%. "

Since when do we measure signal levels in percent? Decibels would be
nice.
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=cc7870&d=winegard-cc-7870-2-way-tv-antenna-joiner-coupler-(cc7870)


I agree that stacking antennas works, the problem I have is the type of
combiner that is used.

The 30% was from another web site and I assume it was from someone at the
Winegard factory. Not sure why he would say 30% instead of db. Even so 30
% is nowhere near the 3.5 db listed in the ad. From the url you gave, the
spec is for 3.5 db which is around what I would think it could be if simple
resistors were used.

That combiner seems to be made not for stacking antennas for more gain, but
to combine several antennas either pointed at differant directions or so a
single feedline could be used for a TV and FM antenna or where you hae
seperate antennas on the same mast for UHF and VHF.

As the specs is for a 3.5 db loss, I assume that is if you hook up two
antennas to it, the antennas will have a gain of 3 db at the most, then you
go to the combiner and loose 3.5 db for an overall loss of .5 db.

That is where I don't see stacking two antennas and using that combiner for
more signal strength.


I do agree that to get 3 db of gain from the antenna it would need to be
about twice as long. I did not look up to antenna to see that it was about
10 feet long already. A 20 foot long antenna would be large, but so would
two antennas 10 feet long and seperated by around 5 feet.

Maybe not too bad as I have several antennas on booms that are close to 15
feet long stacked about 5 feet apart. Not the best, but it was what I could
do for what I had to work with. You can see them on my QRZ.com page under
KU4PT.




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 1/4/2014 5:40 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:


snip

As the specs is for a 3.5 db loss, I assume that is if you hook up two
antennas to it, the antennas will have a gain of 3 db at the most, then you
go to the combiner and loose 3.5 db for an overall loss of .5 db.

That is where I don't see stacking two antennas and using that combiner for
more signal strength.


Jeff is correct. Your error is believing the combiner has 3.5db loss.

When splitting a signal, you do have about a 3.5db loss per output,
because the signal is halved plus a bit of additional loss. However,
when combining the signals, the signal is NOT halved, so you don't have
the 3db loss there. You only have about 0.5db loss (more or less,
depending on the quality of the combiner and other factors).

Let's take an example. Since a combiner is just a splitter turned
around, we'll start with the splitter end.

Let's feed 2mw to the input of the splitter. This means each output
gets 1mw (3db loss) (we could use voltage also, but since power is
E^2/R, it's not so straightforward).

So now each leg has 1mw on it.

Now let's turn the splitter around and make it a combiner and feed two
signals, 1mw ea., same frequency, to the inputs to the combiner. Since
this is a totally passive device, the effects are reversible. If the
signals are 180 degrees out of phase, of course the output is 0.
However, if the two signals are in phase with each other, the putout is 2mw.

Note there is no 3db loss in the combiner. But of course this assumed a
"perfect" combiner, with no losses. In reality, the combiner will have
a bit of loss (typically 0.5db as noted above), so the output from the
splitter will be slightly less than 1mw and the output from the combiner
will be slightly less than 2mw.

Does this help clarify things?

And yes, phasing harnesses work the same way. The can be either
splitters or combiners, depending on how they are used. The advantage
is they have less loss; the disadvantage, as noted, is they have a much
narrower effective bandwidth.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 17:40:20 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I agree that stacking antennas works, the problem I have is the type of
combiner that is used.

Well, one could always use an active combiner. For just the FM band,
that's quite easy.

The 30% was from another web site and I assume it was from someone at the
Winegard factory. Not sure why he would say 30% instead of db.

This may help explain the problem:
http://www.journalistunits.com
It doesn't include most electronic units of measure, but I think you
see the problem.

Even so 30
% is nowhere near the 3.5 db listed in the ad. From the url you gave, the
spec is for 3.5 db which is around what I would think it could be if simple
resistors were used.

Nope. A resistive combiner/splitter is -6dB.
http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/resistive_splitters.cfm
"Resistive power dividers are easy to understand, can be made
very compact, and are naturally wideband, working down to
zero frequency (DC). Their down side is that a two-way resistive
splitter suffers 10xlog(1/2) or 3.0103 dB of real resistive loss,
as opposed to a lossless splitter like a hybrid. Accounting for
3.0103 dB real loss and 3.0103 dB power split, the net power
transfer loss you will observe from input to one of two outputs
is 6.0206 dB for a two-way resistive splitter, so they are often
called 6 dB splitters. Dig?"

That combiner seems to be made not for stacking antennas for more gain, but
to combine several antennas either pointed at differant directions or so a
single feedline could be used for a TV and FM antenna or where you hae
seperate antennas on the same mast for UHF and VHF.

When one combines two different band antennas, the usual method is a
diplexer. Since the receiver only sees one antenna on each band, the
impedance is constant. A low pass filter can also be made very low
loss if you don't care much about rolloff and ripple. However, if
we're down to the point where small fractions of a dB produce a
noticeable difference, I suspect that additional gain (tower mounted
pre-amp) or less loss (better coax cable) will be more important.
Something like this:
http://www.solidsignal.com/pview.asp?p=uvsj
0.5 dB insertion loss. Oh well.

As the specs is for a 3.5 db loss, I assume that is if you hook up two
antennas to it, the antennas will have a gain of 3 db at the most, then you
go to the combiner and loose 3.5 db for an overall loss of .5 db.

Please re-read what I wrote. From each of the (input) ports to the
receiver port (output), there is only 0.5dB of loss. If two antennas
provide an additional 3dB of gain, and each port gobbles 0.5dB, then
the combined gain is 2dB.

That is where I don't see stacking two antennas and using that combiner for
more signal strength.

Would you rather make the yagi twice as long? Once we get to very
large antennas, 3dB of additional gain can easily become a mechanical
challenge.

I do agree that to get 3 db of gain from the antenna it would need to be
about twice as long. I did not look up to antenna to see that it was about
10 feet long already. A 20 foot long antenna would be large, but so would
two antennas 10 feet long and seperated by around 5 feet.

Note that FM broadcast stations with directional antennas use various
vertically mounted antennas, not Yagis. They're interested in
survivability as well as gain and pattern. A 20ft long antenna is
possible, but I don't think anyone wants to climb the tower and drop
the antenna to fix a broken element. That's much easier with a side
mounted barbeque grill type antenna, stacked dipoles, crossed dipoles,
horizontal loops, etc.

Maybe not too bad as I have several antennas on booms that are close to 15
feet long stacked about 5 feet apart. Not the best, but it was what I could
do for what I had to work with. You can see them on my QRZ.com page under
KU4PT.

You probably don't have overweight birds sitting on your yagi
elements. Yes, it can be made to work but it's so much easier and
neater to do it with a combiner.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In message , Ralph
Mowery writes

wrote in message
...
Dear John,

Stacking 2 HD6065P antennas in the same direction for gain you would mount
them 72" apart vertically from boom to boom. The phasing line will be 52"
long each +/- 1/8" of each other in length. The phasing lines will feed a
CC-7870 coupler to combine the signals. Your single output is now you
signal.

Cordially,
Hans Rabong
Tech. Service Manager.
Winegard Company

Unless I am missing something, seems like a waste of antenna and money.

I looked for the coupler and found this:

"You have the CC-7870 hooked up properly. However this coupler is just like
a 2-way splitter hooked up in reverse; in that it will reduce the signal
from each antenna by about 30%. "

If it is just a 2 way splitter in reverse, there is usually a 3 db loss and
all you get with 2 antennas is a gain of 3 db, so you gain nothing over a
single antenna with this coupler.

To get close to 3 db of gain you need to have a combiner of near zero loss.
This is often done by using an odd number of wavelenghts of feedline of a
differant impedance and hooking them in parallel to keep the impedance the
same. I doubt it would work very well over the while FM band,but may for a
small portion of it.

I don't know how big the antenna is, but you would be beter off with a
single larger antenna, or possiably an amplifier.
Maybe an even beter feedline.

Strange as it may seem, if you use (for example) a TV 2-way '3dB'
splitter to combine two identical in-phase signals, you DON'T lose 3dB.
Apart from the unavoidable slight inherent losses of the two
transformers the circuit uses (a total of around 0.5dB at low VHF,
increasing to 1dB at high UHF), the splitter is lossless. Ignoring the
transformer loss, the 3dB loss occurs simply because the power at each
output port is half of that at the input. You haven't actually lost
anything.

If the splitter is now turned around to become a combiner, it doesn't
suddenly become more lossy. If you again ignore the transformer losses,
the two identical in-phase signals you feed into the 'output' ports are
added, and the result is a signal 3dB higher.

An interesting experiment would be to cascade two splitters - the first
used as a splitter, and the second used to combine the two split signals
(via identical lengths of coax). The loss (because of the transformers)
should be only 1dB (low VHF) to around 2dB (high UHF), and not 7 to 8dB.
--
Ian