I have eight antennas combined in 7 ANC-4's.

If you use the two serious antenna approach, you simply steer a null
onto the noise source. Unless the desired signal is in the same
direction, it's not cancelled.

Depending on the separation and orientation of the array, it may even
be enhanced (in a peak of the pattern of the phased pair) while the
noise is eliminated (in a null of the pattern of the phased pair).

Generally a quarter wave of separation is good, giving you a peak
at one endfire while you have a null at the other endfire. In general
the null will be a V pattern that you sweep from one endfire, opening
up at broadside to a line, and closing at the other endfire, as you
tune the phasing and gain.

And more generally than noise sources, you can cancel out a local
broadcaster and listen to what's under it, by steering your null onto
him, though it can be a tricky adjustment, since you need an insanely
deep null, so you're dealing in fractions of a degree.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:32:40 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:

I have eight antennas combined in 7 ANC-4's.

If you use the two serious antenna approach, you simply steer a null
onto the noise source. Unless the desired signal is in the same
direction, it's not cancelled.

Depending on the separation and orientation of the array, it may even
be enhanced (in a peak of the pattern of the phased pair) while the
noise is eliminated (in a null of the pattern of the phased pair).

Generally a quarter wave of separation is good, giving you a peak
at one endfire while you have a null at the other endfire. In general
the null will be a V pattern that you sweep from one endfire, opening
up at broadside to a line, and closing at the other endfire, as you
tune the phasing and gain.

And more generally than noise sources, you can cancel out a local
broadcaster and listen to what's under it, by steering your null onto
him, though it can be a tricky adjustment, since you need an insanely
deep null, so you're dealing in fractions of a degree.


You should point out your antennas are active verticals of the Dymek
DA-100E type. It's not possible to steer an array of random wires
with any precision.

http://www.universal-radio.com/CATALOG/sw_ant/0328.html

David wrote:
You should point out your antennas are active verticals of the Dymek
DA-100E type. It's not possible to steer an array of random wires
with any precision.

http://www.universal-radio.com/CATALOG/sw_ant/0328.html

It doesn't matter. Precision doesn't come into it any more or less
with random wires.
--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:27:40 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:



It doesn't matter. Precision doesn't come into it any more or less
with random wires.

A random wire is already full of nulls and nodes. Much easier to
phase vertical omnis.

David wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:27:40 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:


It doesn't matter. Precision doesn't come into it any more or less
with random wires.

A random wire is already full of nulls and nodes. Much easier to
phase vertical omnis.

No, if one antenna isn't hearing the signal you want to eliminate, the
job is done for you. If it is hearing it, you phase it away with the
other antenna.

Nothing in the operation changes. You diddle the knobs the same way
in either case, and respond the same way.

The ANC-4 doesn't care where the signal comes from, just that it's
present.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:02:46 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:

David wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:27:40 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:


It doesn't matter. Precision doesn't come into it any more or less
with random wires.

A random wire is already full of nulls and nodes. Much easier to
phase vertical omnis.

No, if one antenna isn't hearing the signal you want to eliminate, the
job is done for you. If it is hearing it, you phase it away with the
other antenna.

Nothing in the operation changes. You diddle the knobs the same way
in either case, and respond the same way.

The ANC-4 doesn't care where the signal comes from, just that it's
present.

Very imprecise and technically minimalist.

David wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:02:46 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:

David wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:27:40 GMT, Ron Hardin
wrote:


It doesn't matter. Precision doesn't come into it any more or less
with random wires.

A random wire is already full of nulls and nodes. Much easier to
phase vertical omnis.

No, if one antenna isn't hearing the signal you want to eliminate, the
job is done for you. If it is hearing it, you phase it away with the
other antenna.

Nothing in the operation changes. You diddle the knobs the same way
in either case, and respond the same way.

The ANC-4 doesn't care where the signal comes from, just that it's
present.

Very imprecise and technically minimalist.

Yes, but it's also correct. I have the MFJ equivalent, and the
contraption works just as Ron describes. I have two antennas up thar,
one a random wire and the other a multiband dipole, and except for the
lower HF bands, where the random wire just isn't quite long enough, I
can cancel out most any *single* obnoxious local noise. For the MW
station nulling, by and large it works fine, despite the mismatched
antenna length...it will chew a big bite out of a pretty big local
signal and leave the weaker station 'neath intact.

It doesn't work worth a hoot for general band noise (no surprise), and
for things like distant lightning that theoretically should be
nullable, it is so tricky that it isn't really worth the trouble.

Bruce Jensen