Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+steppIR\s+Gain\-\-test\s+method\s*$/: 16 ]

Total 16 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Jarvis" <jimjarvis@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:27:45 -0500
TT: If I recall correctly, Mike and Jim have their own range, with the unit under test on one tower, and an HP spectrum analyser connected to a dipole on another tower, many wavelengths distant. Towe
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00406.html (7,609 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:08:26 -0500
Well, the many wavelengths distant is already a problem. Measurements would be much more accurate just out of the near field. I don't know why anyone would measure an antenna in the null of the patt
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00410.html (9,106 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "W7TMT" <w7tmt@dayshaw.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:21:13 -0800
Here is how the testing is described on the SteppIR site... (http://www.steppir.com/, click the Field Test button) -- "We started by placing a reference dipole at one end of an antenna range and a re
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00412.html (11,002 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:36:17 -0500
Not even a step attenuater in the circuit. On top of that using the log scale on a 141T spectrum analyzer! Lucky to get within a couple of db with that setup alone. I am not saying their gain figures
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00414.html (13,089 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:56:08 -0800 (PST)
I believe someone else said they used a step attenuator. Secondly, they were doing differential measurements between a dipole and a SteppIR, not absolute measurements of power. In any event, the 141
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00417.html (14,913 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:42:55 -0500
know The problem is people measure something and then several hours, weeks, or days later measure something else without having a reference standard. Worse yet they compared what they measure to som
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00421.html (10,412 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: Jim Lux <jimlux@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:49:59 -0800
I agree with Rick here. They were doing a classic substitution measurement, and the required dynamic range was around 10dB (i.e. the difference in gain between the reference dipole and the AUT), at l
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00422.html (12,063 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:08:40 -0500
I was looking at the picture and drawing of the test setup on the web site. They do not show any type attenuator in the drawing. Even making a differential measurement, trying to read to 1db on a log
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00425.html (18,118 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:43:38 -0500
I agree with Tom here. Splitting hairs over a db or two is not realistic. You have no way of really knowing. And the manufacturer probably doesn't either. I have always looked at boom length. If they
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00426.html (9,228 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:32:32 -0600
This thread about SteppIR gain has been enlightening for gain figures published by antenna manufacturers. I especially enjoyed reading the enlightening posts from Tom Rauch. I considered buying Stepp
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00429.html (10,722 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:07:13 -0800 (PST)
You don't use 10dB/div. You use 1 or 2 dB/div. You don't use the vernier attenuator at all. The 141 is a red herring. Unknown antenna range effects are the real issue. Rick N6RK (who owns three 141
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00442.html (9,119 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: Gary Schafer <garyschafer@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:35:20 -0500
Hi Rick, Exactly my point, you need more resolution than the 10 db. Not to start another argument but I also have a 141 it is a 141A but has I presume the same IF unit, the 8552a. It does not have a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00445.html (9,503 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Tyler Stewart" <k3mm@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:14:42 -0500
Yes, except that as someone else aptly pointed out, they dont have to compromise gain for bandwidth. The other thing that could happen is since all the elements are variable, they COULD have one set
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00446.html (11,137 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:16:41 -0500
dont have to elements are variable, another for F/R. But Ty, the point is: 1.) the difference between the two is so minor no one should really care anyway 2.) at maximum gain losses in the connectio
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00451.html (10,182 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: k2qmf@juno.com
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:00:07 -0500
How can there be no difference between a 3 element SteppIR and a "2" element C3???? Seems to me that the 3 element will win every time over a 2 element antenna...... 73, Ted K2QMF ___________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00461.html (12,598 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] steppIR Gain--test method (score: 1)
Author: "Keith Dutson" <kjdutson@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:17:31 -0600
I didn't measure the gain, only observed S-meter when receiving from each located at same station. Keith NM5G How can there be no difference between a 3 element SteppIR and a "2" element C3???? Seems
/archives//html/Towertalk/2005-03/msg00462.html (13,020 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu