| |
G0FTD > TECH 10.01.05 05:36l 36 Lines 1244 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 969236G0FTD
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Stacking, Baying or Boxing Ant
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<DB0RES<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<HG8LXL<I0TVL<ED1ZAC<GB7YKS<
GB7PZT<GB7YFS<GB7CIP<GB7SXE
Sent: 050109/2302Z @:GB7SXE.#38.GBR.EU #:18715 [Hastings] FBB7.00i $:969236G0FT
From: G0FTD@GB7SXE.#38.GBR.EU
To : TECH@WW
G8MNY wrote:-
> AERIAL CAPTURE AREAS ______ / \
> ______ / \ ³ ³
> BAD OVER / \ ³ ³ ³ ³ WASTEFUL
> LAPPING ³ _ _ _ ³ ³ ³ \______/ MAST
> ³/ \³ \______/ IDEAL SPACING
> GAIN ³\_ _ _ /³ / \ NO ______ NO
> LOSS ³ ³ ³ ³ GAIN / \ GAIN
> \______/ ³ ³ LOSS ³ ³ LOSS
> \______/ ³ ³
> \______/
I agree with the above.
It all comes down to the effective aperture I.E doubling the area of
"signal capture".
A narrower beamwidth means a closer spacing for bother stacking AND
baying of antennas.
In theory an exact doubling of aperture will mean 3db of gain.
In practice the additional splitter PLUS and cable losses will mean
slightly less real gain.
In typical amteur work that usually means an optimum cost versus metal
in the sky equates to 4 beam - e.g 4 antennas = 2 stacked plus 2 bayed
antennas before you start spending loadsa money on achieving the
ultimate in gain.
- Andy -
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
