[TowerTalk] Gizmotchy's

[Steve Katz]

Actually, *all* inospherically refracted signals come down with circular polarization; that's been verified lots of times.  This is why when you have both horizontally and vertically polarized antennas, you can watch an ionospheric signal fade on one, switch quickly to the other and catch a peak until that fades, and then switch back to the first one and watch the signal gain strength again.

The ability to switch quickly can be an advantage, it depends on the period of the rotating signal.

WB2WIK/6

-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Michael Ryan
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 11:05 AM
To: 'Tower Talk'
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gizmotchy's


I remember reading a study back some years ago about the benefits or lack
there of, in using a vertically polarized antenna as oposed to a
horizontally polarized antenna for long distance work. It read that there is
little significant difference between the two at the recv end as the F2
layer influences ( for lack of a better word and my memory) change these
signals into primarily horizontally polarized signals anyway.  Does it make
sense? Anyone have thoughts on that?  -Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Wolf
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:43 PM
To: WA6RKN
Cc: Tower Talk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gizmotchy's

I operated one of these & learned polarization shift on DX signals.  
While on "horizontal" polarization, you'd see a dip in signal strength.  
If you switched to "vertical" polarization at the null, the signal 
strength would peak.

There is another similar antenna called the "Moonraker".  I operated one 
as well.  Gamma match fed only with 4 full elements horiz & 4 full 
elements vertical.  Same operation & same signal polarization 
switching.  The vertical would be used for ground wave & you could 
switch between horiz & vertical for DX.

73 de W7SG


WA6RKN wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Michael Goins" <wmgoins at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gizmotchy's
>
>
>   
>> Quite likely true, but then the TH antenna series wasn't designed for
>> illegal CB operation either, and this one is. The power rating and
>> user feedback state that clearly. The TH is a ham band antenna that
>> someone might use for CB (legally or otherwise - though I don't know
>> why they would as a monobander would work a lot better).
>>     
>
> For some silly reason, it is an tenna of choice for CB'ers.  Don't ask me 
> why!
>
>   
>> ANd there is no way anyone can be a ham for long and not know that
>> there are hams running way over legal power, but that wasn't a part of
>> the original email post or comment, so it is totally irrelevant.
>>     
>
> I believe someone made comment about the need for 5kw gamma on the antenna

> and the 6 meter antenna came to mind, coupled with high power amps.
>
>   
>> And, for the record, no where was I putting down CBers.
>>     
>
> Mike...sorry...I did not mean to imply that you were.  I should have
worded 
> my attempt at mild humor and fact differently.
>
> I apologize.
>
> Joe Wolfe
> WA6RKN
> Reno, Nevada
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>   

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

__________ NOD32 3994 (20090407) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com


_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk