| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
April 15th 05, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
antenna matching ??
I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a
better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. -- 73 Hank WD5JFR |
|
#2
April 15th 05, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message m... I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. -- 73 Hank WD5JFR Your sanity's fine Hank. But why hurt the Balun manufacturer's business for the sake of an argument to no good purpose? Just tell this fellow that Radio Works (Portsmouth Va) will be happy to ship him a well made 4:1 Balun on the day of or day following his order. That helps keep a good company in business and it won't hurt your fellow's reception any. Jack |
|
#3
April 15th 05, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:48:15 GMT, "Henry Kolesnik"
wrote: I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. Generally true if the external noise dominates the internally generated receiver noise. This is the usual case in the hf region. At vhf it is normally not so. Improvements in antenna gain (directivity) and matching and reduction of transmission line loss all can improve vhf SNR. A balun *might* improve SNR at hf if the "feedline antenna" is more susceptible to locally generated noise than the "real antenna" is. |
|
#4
April 15th 05, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hank, WD5JFR wrote:
"Now if he was yto get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction." A balun which reduces pickup ftom a nondirectional transmission line may reduce noise too. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
|
#5
April 15th 05, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Henry Kolesnik wrote:
I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. I ran a test at my QTH with my horizontal dipole fed with vertical ladder-line. I removed the balun-choke at the coax to ladder-line junction. The noise level went up by almost one S-unit. I suspect the culprit is localized vertically polarized power line noise that has thwarted my every attempt to use a vertical on 40m at my QTH. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#6
April 15th 05, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wes Stewart wrote:
A balun *might* improve SNR at hf if the "feedline antenna" is more susceptible to locally generated noise than the "real antenna" is. That's apparently the case at my QTH, Wes. The localized vertically polarized power line noise was about two S-units on my 40m vertical attempt which rendered it useless for weak signal DX purposes. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#7
April 15th 05, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cecil
Did the noise go up one S unit and the desired signal stay the same? -- 73 Hank WD5JFR "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Henry Kolesnik wrote: I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. I ran a test at my QTH with my horizontal dipole fed with vertical ladder-line. I removed the balun-choke at the coax to ladder-line junction. The noise level went up by almost one S-unit. I suspect the culprit is localized vertically polarized power line noise that has thwarted my every attempt to use a vertical on 40m at my QTH. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#8
April 15th 05, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Henry Kolesnik wrote:
Did the noise go up one S unit and the desired signal stay the same? There was no signal present when I tried it. I'll perform it again with a signal present. I don't know what it will show if the signal is S-6 and the noise level goes from S-3 to S-4. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
#9
April 15th 05, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I could be mistaken, however, I think the radiation patten (and receive
patten) would, at least, be slightly affected by a mis-match... whether this would justify going to extreme means of correction is debatable... Regards, John "Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message m... I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. -- 73 Hank WD5JFR |
|
#10
April 15th 05, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How does a mismatch affect the radiation pattern?
tnx -- 73 Hank WD5JFR "John Smith" wrote in message news  I could be mistaken, however, I think the radiation patten (and receive patten) would, at least, be slightly affected by a mis-match... whether this would justify going to extreme means of correction is debatable... Regards, John "Henry Kolesnik" wrote in message m... I need a sanity check. I fellow told me he was getting a balun to get a better match between his receiver and antenna to get a better signal to noise ratio. I told him he was wasting his time and money because a better match increases transfer of both signal and noise. But since he already can hear the signal he doesn't need any more. Now if he was to get a more directional antenna he would get a reduction in noise from the undesired direction. -- 73 Hank WD5JFR |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
