Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Amps\]\s+Antenna\s+vs\.\s+amp\s+\(was\:\s+al\-1200\s+question\)\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: rakefet@rakefet.com (Vic Rosenthal)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 08:31:19 -0800
I don't disagree with this. I was trying to explain intuitively why a directive antenna has a better s/n ratio than a non-directive one. I was assuming that the noise was evenly distributed. Then I r
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00212.html (10,456 bytes)

2. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: garyschafer@attbi.com (Gary Schafer)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:12:25 -0500
The only thing to remember is that you can not have gain in an antenna unless you have directivity. Gain in a particular direction comes from reducing it in other directions. 73 Gary K4FMX
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00214.html (11,147 bytes)

3. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:11:26 -0500
It depends on what the reference antenna is. An isotropic radiator has several dB gain over a GAP vertical on 80 meters, even though it is less directional. Gain is a function of efficiency and dire
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00220.html (8,775 bytes)

4. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: garyschafer@attbi.com (Gary Schafer)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:53:53 -0500
Good points Tom. I was thinking more of the difference between 2 antennas of similar efficiencies. Dipole verses a multi element beam for instance. 73 Gary K4FMX
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00222.html (9,041 bytes)

5. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: Peter.Chadwick@zarlink.com (Peter Chadwick)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 08:42:41 -0000
One point about receive antenna directivity is the Murphy factor - the peak noise source is always in the same direction and polarisation as the wanted signal. 73 Peter G3RZP
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00223.html (7,897 bytes)

6. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:52:59 -0000
--Original Message-- From: Vic Rosenthal <rakefet@rakefet.com> To: W8JI@contesting.com <W8JI@contesting.com>; Amps reflector <amps@contesting.com> To: <amps@contesting.com> Date: 11 March 2002 09:23
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00227.html (11,288 bytes)

7. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: rakefet@rakefet.com (Vic Rosenthal)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:46:01 -0800
This implies that what Tom called the average gain of the antenna is not great enough to override the rx generated noise. A low-noise preamp would boost both signal and noise from the antenna and sol
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00235.html (8,779 bytes)

8. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:40:32 -0000
yagi great both Rx noise figure measured 1.5-1.8dB. you I wouldn't expect the average gain, integrated over a sphere to be higher than the 2x9. If anything, there's more potential sources of loss. ou
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00237.html (9,631 bytes)

9. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: wy6k@yahoo.com (WYsixK)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 08:55:01 -0800 (PST)
Steve, Virtually every object emits background RF radiation that can be heard with a good antenna, although I'd be a bit puzzled that you could hear it on a freq as low as 144 mhz with a single yagi.
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00242.html (11,517 bytes)

10. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:41:37 -0000
a good antenna, 144 mhz with a single antenna system. Point you hear sun noise. explanation that fits antenna will certainly on all azimuth objects - will prove or This was my original thinking, it w
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00244.html (9,765 bytes)

11. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:27:31 -0500
Please don't attribute any statement noise should be the same regardless of directive pattern to me! That doesn't mean anything definitive. It might be sufficient, it might not be. When one receiver
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00275.html (9,208 bytes)

12. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: g8gsq@qsl.net (Steve Thompson)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:05:56 -0000
I'm very sorry if I've misunderstood and/or misrepresented you. As a final clarification (and I'll shut up on the subject after this) - if I have two antennas with different directional characteristi
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00276.html (9,418 bytes)

13. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: garyschafer@attbi.com (Gary Schafer)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:27:58 -0500
To: <amps@contesting.com> Steve, If both antennas have the same gain they will have the same directional properties. One could have a sharper vertical pattern and the other a sharper horizontal patte
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00277.html (10,649 bytes)

14. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:59:15 -0500
No, that is not true. The antennas can and often do have vastly different directional properties even with the same gain. 73, Tom W8JI W8JI@contesting.com
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00285.html (8,344 bytes)

15. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: garyschafer@attbi.com (Gary Schafer)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:19:54 -0500
I guess I should have qualified that a little better. I did say that one may have a sharper vertical pattern and the other a sharper horizontal pattern. What I meant by that over simplification was t
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00305.html (9,690 bytes)

16. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: bjk@ihug.co.nz (Barry Kirkwood)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:54:01 -0000
True, but the converse is not true, You can have directivity independent of gain as witness loop and other directional receiving antennas. Or yagis with lossy elements... 73 end Barry Kirkwood PhD ZL
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00315.html (11,097 bytes)

17. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: mdurham@AetherSystems.com (Marty Durham)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:50:34 -0500
I think it really boils down to 'what is the definition of directivity'? Witness Vertical antennsa used in the commerical world...they may have 10-15db of gain...as a so called OMNI directional anten
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00316.html (11,744 bytes)

18. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: garyschafer@attbi.com (Gary Schafer)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:05:39 -0500
My point exactly. In this antenna the radiation is suppressed in the vertical plane to be put into the horizontal. This antenna is very directional in the vertical plane though it is omni in the hori
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00317.html (12,951 bytes)

19. [Amps] Antenna vs. amp (was: al-1200 question) (score: 1)
Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:02:50 -0500
I know what you are trying to say, but that still is not true. Efficiency can be different and/or considerable power can go into spurious lobes on one and not the other. For example, Rhombics have v
/archives//html/Amps/2002-03/msg00337.html (9,021 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu