Return-Path: Received: from rly-me09.mx.aol.com (rly-me09.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.43]) by air-me06.mail.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILINME063-9db4970873c376; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:10:35 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me09.mx.aol.com (v121_r4.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME097-9db4970873c376; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:10:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1LNoSp-0007J8-9a for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:10:19 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1LNoSK-0006xt-BE for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:09:48 +0000 Received: from smtp-out-4.talktalk.net ([62.24.128.234] helo=smtp.talktalk.net) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LNVCh-0006xO-ID for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:36:29 +0000 X-Path: TTSMTP X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMGAAr0bklZ8Tob/2dsb2JhbACCQi2BZoZfBsRjhW4 Received: from unknown (HELO mal769a60aa920) ([89.241.58.27]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP; 15 Jan 2009 16:35:16 +0000 Message-ID: <00f501c9772f$3f44ede0$0301a8c0@mal769a60aa920> From: "mal hamilton" To: "rsgb" Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:35:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.015,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: LF: ant diversity Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C9772F.3EF631A0" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_50_60,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 ------=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C9772F.3EF631A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MF Testing two antennas in diversity on signals around EU seem to give the same= results. Both antennas producing virtually the same results, no one any bet= ter than the other, this is probably because with these antennas the signals= are strong and fade barely noticeable. This is just a comparison test and not scientific, therefore no measurements= have been made. The object of the exercise is to maximise the signal presen= tation on received signals for QSO purposes. There is some fade noticeable a= t times but only minimal and signals are perfectly readable both visual and=20= audible all the time.=20 I have to check the system on long haul where fade is noticeable especially=20= the USA stns. One other point is antenna separation, my antennas are not far= enough apart, although they are clear from one another.=20 Maybe two small dissimilar antennas, spaced well apart would give discernabl= e differences in diversity reception, a small loop orientated towards the ta= rgetg signal and a small vertical or probe type. I have been watching SK6RUD and DI2AM most of today and each has been strong= throughout the day with virtually no noticeable fade observed on either ant= enna. Antennas tested are :- 190 metre loop, 40 metre loop and a 1/4 wave inv L full size on 500 khz. The= 1/4 wave is more lively than the loops, noise increases but so does the sig= nal, so its all relative. General noise level at this qth is low, mostly atm= ospheric noise.=20 As described before I am using two RX's and both audio ouputs displayed sepa= rately to compare signal intensity. I briefly tried one RX and two antennas=20= but that did not look as good and was difficult to balance each antenna, bea= ring in mind that cancellation could be a problem if not engineered properly= . I have seen this method used in the past with a properly designed front end=20= mixer pre RX and each antenna's performance visible on a meter.=20 This was on HF and was very impressive watching the signal on one antenna p= eak while the other hardly produced any signal and vice versa. This was using two dissimilar hf antennas spaced apart but only a 100 metres= or so. 73 de mal/g3kev 73 de mal/g3kev ------=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C9772F.3EF631A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MF
Testing two antennas in diversity on signal= s around=20 EU seem to give the same results. Both antennas producing virtually the same= =20 results, no one any better than the other, this is probably because with the= se=20 antennas the signals are strong and fade barely noticeable.
This is just a comparison test and not scie= ntific,=20 therefore no measurements have been made. The object of the exercise is=20 to maximise the signal presentation on received signals for QSO purpose= s.=20 There is some fade noticeable at times but only minimal and signals are=20 perfectly readable both visual and audible all the time.
I have to check the system on long haul whe= re fade=20 is noticeable especially the USA stns. One other point is antenna separation= , my=20 antennas are not far enough apart, although they are clear from one=20 another.
Maybe two small dissimilar antennas, s= paced=20 well apart would give discernable differences in diversity reception, a smal= l=20 loop orientated towards the targetg signal and a small vertical or probe=20 type.
I have been watching SK6RUD and DI2AM most=20= of today=20 and each has been strong throughout the day with virtually no noticeable fad= e=20 observed on either antenna.
 
Antennas tested are :-
190 metre loop, 40 metre loop and a 1/4 wav= e inv L=20 full size on 500 khz. The 1/4 wave is more lively than the loops, noise=20 increases but so does the signal, so its all relative. General noise level a= t=20 this qth is low, mostly atmospheric noise.
 
As described before I am using two RX's and= both=20 audio ouputs displayed separately to compare signal intensity. I briefly tri= ed=20 one RX and two antennas but that did not look as good and was difficult to=20 balance each antenna, bearing in mind that cancellation could be a problem i= f=20 not engineered properly.
I have seen this method used in the past wi= th a=20 properly designed front end mixer pre RX and each antenna's performance= =20 visible on a meter.
This was on HF and was very impressive watc= hing the=20 signal on one  antenna peak while the other hardly produced any signal=20= and=20 vice versa.
This was using two dissimilar hf antennas s= paced=20 apart but only a 100 metres or so.
 
73 de mal/g3kev
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
73 de mal/g3kev
 
------=_NextPart_000_00F2_01C9772F.3EF631A0--