Karlquist
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:49 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
On 2014-12-20 13:06, Richard Jaeger wrote:
I guess I should try a low dipole and see what happens.
Dick, K4IQJ ..
When talking about a low dipole, the question comes up
When talking about a low dipole, the question comes up
as to why it must be low to work. Actually we don't
know that it must be low to work. Very few of us are
in a position to put up a high dipole, so the question
is basically moot. However, in an attempt to gauge the
influence of height, I
On 12/21/2014 7:58 AM, JC wrote:
This long answer is to validate your observation, resonant dipoles does not
provide any difference in receiver performance than your vertical or TX
antenna.
I didn't say that. I said that there was no difference between a dipole
at 30 feet and a dipole at
This is almost the way it worked here just at sunrise, both transmitting and
receiving, except after sunrise the vertical hung in longest here. The brief
and unpredictable window of horizontal superiority at this location is why I
eventually just let the horizontal antennas all fall apart.
John,
My experience mirrors your comments. In the mornings to JA and VK on 160M, the
signals are usually best on my end-fire loop arrays,
but around SR there is often a rapid shift to my inverted L transmitting
antenna. The signals may or may not hold up on the loops.
I guess I should try a
On 2014-12-20 13:06, Richard Jaeger wrote:
I guess I should try a low dipole and see what happens.
Dick, K4IQJ ..
When talking about a low dipole, the question comes up
as to why it must be low to work. Actually we don't
know that it must be low to work. Very few of us are
in a position
Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of John
Kaufmann
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:43 PM
To: 'Top Band Contesting'
Subject: Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
A few years ago, I put up a low, non-resonant dipole, about 150 feet long
and 10 feet high
On a 120' x 120' electrically noisy city lot in SE NM I am considering, for
receiving, attempting to maximize S/N ratio on DX signals by a method I have
not seen discussed.
As far as I can tell, the noise, while quite strong, is not coming from any
discrete source/sources. My ear, which
-Original Message-
From: JC [mailto:n...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 5:15 PM
To: 'John Kaufmann'; 'Top Band Contesting'
Subject: RE: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
Hi John
What is the orientation of you low dipole? I assume similar to XZ0A it is
broadside N-S. In 2010
I noticed JC's comment below about a low dipole as a receiving antenna.
Did I interpret that correctly? I've read of a Dipole on the ground as a low
noise receive antenna for 160 but.can a non resonant dipole installed
at low heights be better, as a receive antenna, than a vertical or
dipole at XZ0A, send me a
direct request.
73 de Milt, N5IA
-Original Message-
From: James Rodenkirch
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Top Band Contesting
Subject: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
I noticed JC's comment below about a low dipole as a receiving
dipole at XZ0A, send me a
direct request.
73 de Milt, N5IA
-Original Message-
From: James Rodenkirch
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:26 AM
To: Top Band Contesting
Subject: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
I noticed JC's comment below about a low dipole as a receiving antenna
Not wanting to distract from this thread too much, but I'd like to ask a
question of the group.
If one had the opportunity to install two receiving antennas (such as loops
EWE's etc.) for Topband in either a series or parallel configuration, which
would be preferred. Since Rick correctly stated
Since Rick correctly stated that RDF doesn't account
Jim
RDF is everything ! The RX antenna system is the only way to improve
signal to noise ratio. All electronic device is not perfect and introduce
noise and deteriorate the signal to noise ratio, including your radio too
RDF is one way
Thanks JC,
I agree that the RDF number is significant when evaluating a receive
antenna. I agree that no one antenna system will work all of the time.
Consider we have two scenarios: One RX antenna system that consists of two
parallel antennas (Broadside) , and the other is the same antenna
Since Rick correctly stated that RDF doesn't account
Jim
RDF is everything ! The RX antenna system is the only way to improve
signal to noise ratio. All electronic device is not perfect and introduce
noise and deteriorate the signal to noise ratio, including your radio too
RDF is one way
[mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of James
Wolf
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:30 AM
To: 'JC'; 'Top Band Contesting'
Subject: Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
Thanks JC,
I agree that the RDF number is significant when evaluating a receive
antenna. I agree that no one
other, hard to pick one.
73's
JC
N4IS
-Original Message-
From: James Wolf [mailto:jbw...@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:30 PM
To: 'JC'; 'Top Band Contesting'
Subject: RE: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
Thanks JC,
I agree that the RDF number is significant
A few years ago, I put up a low, non-resonant dipole, about 150 feet long
and 10 feet high for use as an auxiliary receiving antenna on 160. My main
receiving antenna was and still is an array of short verticals. What I
found at my W1 location after I installed the dipole is similar to what N5IA
19 matches
Mail list logo
