Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message . .. 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. Theory say infinate, but in practice it won't hapen. Just too many reflections, especially on the low bands where the signal reflects many times over a long distance. Here are some numbers if there are no reflections to upset theory. deg differance in dB 20 54 30 1.25 45 3 60 6 70 9.32 80 15.2 90 infinity This also holds up for right hand and left hand circular. There is another modification if the antennas are seperated vertically or horizontal. You usually get lots more isolation if the antennas are mounted one above the other instead of horizontal. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com |
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 |