Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+receiving\s+antennas\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+receiving\s+antennas\s*$/: 23 ]

Total 23 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ji@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:27:50 -0400; On receiving, within the limits of internal noise of a system, gain does not matter. Neither does efficiency. If two antennas are compared on the basis of gain, or take-off angle, the result is basic; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00108.html (9,561 bytes)
2. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:48:09 +0100; Actually I think this may already exist. I do not have K6STI's AO (Antenna Optimizer) program but I do have his Yagi Optimizer 7.0. The following is from YO7 documentation: "-- F/B AND F/R -- YO uses; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00109.html (10,347 bytes)
3. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: K0FF@ARRL.NET (K0FF); Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:03:44 -0500; I agree with Tom, and two practical examples come to mind. First the Pennant, which has a stated gain of MINUS 30 dBi, and the shielded loop (SLOOP) which is also a loser gain wise. Fact is the noise; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00110.html (7,967 bytes)
4. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: phutter@sarnoff.com (PETER HUTTER); Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:29:15 -0400; Make sure the plots are normalized before each comparison. This will remove the gain factor for determining the directivity of a receiving antenna system. Compare each set of plots at various azimuth; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00115.html (7,981 bytes)
5. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:20:58 +0100; W8JI: W4ZV: K6STI is indeed your hero Tom! The following is from his AO documentation and indicates a similar F/R optimization algorithm to YO7 which I posted previously. I don't have AO and have nev; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00120.html (10,829 bytes)
6. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: bogus@does.not.exist.com (); Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:02:18 -0700; "The person would could figure out how to use the pattern tables that are exported by Eznec in a spreadsheet to determine S/N ratio would be a top-band hero, because the data would express the effect; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00134.html (9,857 bytes)
7. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: k0ha@navix.net (Bill Hohnstein); Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:12:22 -0500; Comparing the root-sum-square radiation figures is a common procedure for comparing radiation/reception from multiple directions. My figure used the lobe maximum azimuth/elevation as the basis of com; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00137.html (11,693 bytes)
8. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: w8ji@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 08:23:50 -0400; Eznec exports a pattern table that may somehow be able to be imported into a spreadsheet, but don't ask me how to do that. One problem with Eznec is it doesn't plot groundwave. That means low angle; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00139.html (8,564 bytes)
9. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: john_w1fv@telocity.com (John Kaufmann); Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:19:36 -0400; The EZNEC-PRO version of EZNEC does compute groundwave response. Interestingly the groundwave pattern for some antennas is quite different from the far-field free-space patterns. 73, John W1FV -- FAQ; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00140.html (7,994 bytes)
10. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: k0ha@navix.net (Bill Hohnstein); Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:21:43 -0500; My number isn't a good one to use for reducing a point source of noise. Due to surrounding objects, the exact depth and azimuth of a particular null (to minimize a point source noise) can be inexact; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00141.html (8,780 bytes)
11. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: k0ha@navix.net (Bill Hohnstein); Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 14:43:15 -0500; Knowing the limitations of my number, I tried to come up with something better. Consider the following noise situations: from radiated lines that results in 45º arrival azimuth How does one numb; /archives//html/Topband/2000-10/msg00148.html (9,635 bytes)
12. Topband: Receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: paab@gte.net (Paul and Abbi Elliott); Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 12:07:13 -0800; Hi Tom A little over a year ago you answered some questions I had about feeding untuned loops (you had previously mentioned the good results you had with arrays of untuned loops). Below is a short ex; /archives//html/Topband/2000-01/msg00013.html (8,175 bytes)
13. TopBand: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: stans@netos.com (Stan Seiffert); Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:49:30 -0800; Merry Christmas After reading all the interesting posts on beverages vs. transmitting arrays I am wondering whether anyone else has had my experience? and if perhaps if qth or transmitting antenna he; /archives//html/Topband/1997-12/msg00296.html (7,536 bytes)
14. TopBand: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: nx1g@top.monad.net (Craig Clark); Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:29:54 -0500; The current thread of EWE's, Beverages and other receiving antennes has neglected one important point. If you have the room to use a Beverage, do it. If you have to compromise, the loop, EWE's or sho; /archives//html/Topband/1996-09/msg00118.html (8,284 bytes)
15. TopBand: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: W8JITom@aol.com (W8JITom@aol.com); Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:34:33 -0400; Actually a Beverage (or any other long wire array) supplies among the lowest directivity per acre of space of any array. The saving grace is that they are simple and easy to build, and more forgiving; /archives//html/Topband/1996-09/msg00120.html (8,212 bytes)
16. Topband: receiving antennas (score: 1): Author: Craig Clark <jcclark@wildblue.net>; Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 07:32:55 -0400; Rudy, This is really not an either or question. I asked a well known 3 land contester the same question and his answer was to have as many options as possible. As NI1N has stated, the ability to choo; /archives//html/Topband/2006-10/msg00161.html (6,561 bytes)
17. Topband: RECEIVING ANTENNAS (score: 1): Author: "Craig Clark" <jcclark@radiusnorth.net>; Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:31:36 -0400; There is no magic receiving antenna either in an off-the-shelf configuration or one that is home brewed. Every design has its compromises, limitations or deficiencies. I'm lucky, I have plenty of lan; /archives//html/Topband/2009-09/msg00106.html (7,705 bytes)
18. Topband: RECEIVING ANTENNAS (score: 1): Author: "Lee K7TJR" <k7tjr@msn.com>; Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:32:46 -0700; Every design has its compromises, limitations or deficiencies. I agree with the statement as its true. In addition every location for a receiving antenna has its compromises,limitations or deficienci; /archives//html/Topband/2009-09/msg00109.html (9,554 bytes)
19. Re: Topband: RECEIVING ANTENNAS (score: 1): Author: Mike Waters W0BTU <mrscience65704@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT); [snip] [snip] I read somewhere where you can prevent ice buildup on a Beverage by coating it with used motor oil before the ice storm with a paint roller. Can anyone verify this? 73 Mike ___________; /archives//html/Topband/2009-09/msg00113.html (7,671 bytes)
20. Re: Topband: RECEIVING ANTENNAS (score: 1): Author: "Edward Swynar" <gswynar@durham.net>; Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:52:21 -0400; Hi Mike, Perchance, that wasn't featured in an APRIL issue of QST magazine sometime ago, was it...?! :>) ~73~ Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ ** coating it with used motor oil before the ice storm with a paint r; /archives//html/Topband/2009-09/msg00121.html (8,729 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]