Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote in
: This cross polarisation provided about 26dB protection against co-channel interference. That's a useful figure. I asked a few weeks ago about the prosects of wiring an external vertical dipole for FM VFH broadcasts, via a MAR6 based amplifier boosting by maybe 20dB, to an internal horizontal dipole to overcome local digital hash from nearby flats that gets in to degrade the signal from a portable radio with a telescopic whip. As it is the SNR rather than the raw strength which is an issue, an ideal situation would be to allow thwe whip to be in its resting horizontal, cotracted position, while still allowing clear use of radios carried around the flat while I work. Various possible problems have been discussed, and I haven't pushed for this with a trial, but if 26 or more dB are cut in the difference between antenna based on polarisation, and the amp boosts only by 20dB, it seems that feedback can be avoided, AND also the risk of interference to other FM VHF radios in other flats. (Which might even benefit, if my own would.) This is the first time anyone's mentioned a figure for isaolation (for want of a better word) between similar dipoles based on 90° difference in orientation, so I'm taking this moment to reopen the subject in passing... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed. | Antenna | |||
The philosophy of short antennae | Antenna | |||
Reductio ad absurdum - short antennae do not radiate well | Antenna | |||
Short Antennae | Antenna | |||
Coaxial Collinear... To short or not to short | Antenna |