Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Noise\s+and\s+reception\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+Noise\s+and\s+reception\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k4kyv@hotmail.com (Donald Chester); Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 21:59:15; Thank you to all who have commented on the electronic noise cancellers by Timewave and MFJ. I'm still browsing the archives. My tx antenna is a full size quarter wave vertical with base insulator and; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00043.html (9,765 bytes)
2. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:59:18 -0500; I have been using the K6STI horizontal loop design described here for several years now. I am very happy with mine, built switchable to cover 75, 80, and 160. STI comments that the output will be low; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00046.html (10,670 bytes)
3. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: gmguerin@voyager.net (George & Marijke Guerin); Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:28:25 +0000; Thanks to all who made note of the K6STI loop. The K3KY website shows the loop fed with 450 ohm ladderline. The original article is much more detailed. I urge anyone who has questions to get the Sept; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00049.html (8,360 bytes)
4. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:51:58 -0500; Hi, George I make precisely that point in my text, and that comment has always been there. It takes a lot of carefull re-reading of the two articles to gain a full grasp of the antennas properties an; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00053.html (10,754 bytes)
5. Fw: Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: gmguerin@voyager.net (George & Marijke Guerin); Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:46:04 -0500; K3KY, et. al., Here is the matching info from W7LR for the 50 foot square receiving loop he tried in '95. 73 George K8GG old be (an 4turns of; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00064.html (8,839 bytes)
6. Fw: Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:30:54 -0500; Wow! Thanks a million, George. This is an example of what makes the Topband group such a joy. I will add those comments to my webpage writeup of the K6STI loop. Those who read the articles will end u; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00067.html (10,074 bytes)
7. Fw: Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k4kyv@hotmail.com (Donald Chester); Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 01:56:19; ...I will add those comments to my I read the articles in Sept 95 QST, but I don't recall anything magic about 450 ohm line impedance. They did say that 300 ohm line would work only with small loops; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00077.html (10,294 bytes)
8. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:19:24 -0500; I believe the K6STI loop and even the Flag/Pennant family are getting unfairly slammed in the informal ham 'press' such as the Topband group. While the temptation to compare them is absolutely irresi; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00085.html (11,393 bytes)
9. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: sire@iinet.net.au (Steve Ireland); Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:52:39 +0800; G'day Don, A couple of other simple ideas you might like to try as a low noise rx antenna, as you seem to have plenty of real estate, is to try a couple of low full-size horizontally polarised antenn; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00090.html (9,161 bytes)
10. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: W2pm@aol.com (W2pm@aol.com); Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 07:28:40 EST; David - Re your post on (ill considered)critical comments of various antennas and the need to attract more low band ops, etc. I think what Tom, W8JI often says should be taken into serious considerat; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00091.html (9,015 bytes)
11. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 02:01:48 -0500; I don't think so Dave. I think it reasonable to point out as antennas are made smaller and smaller, they generally become more and more critical to build. It is also reasonable to point out that the; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00098.html (10,658 bytes)
12. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 05:26:10 -0500; Hi, TomFrankly, I have zero emotional investment in whether the loop receives any horizontally polarized signal or not. The fact remains that I am seeing real, usable improvement in S/N over my 80 an; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00100.html (14,161 bytes)
13. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 06:08:51 -0500; Hi, TomIt does not bother me that the horizontally-polarized *ground wave* does not exist/ is not supported by the earth. I am trying to receive horizontally-polarized *skywave* signals, and to the m; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00101.html (11,897 bytes)
14. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 10:04:21 -0500; Hi David, Most DX signals, if not nearly all signals at a modest or greater distances, are vertically polarized when near earth. That is why our "noise" is substantially vertically polarized, and sig; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00103.html (14,949 bytes)
15. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: k3ky@erols.com (k3ky@erols.com); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:38:53 -0500; Hi, TomI think we may be reaching your frustration limit in this thread. A couple of general comments- I just want to be sure you know where I am coming from in this discussion... I don't think you h; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00106.html (12,118 bytes)
16. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: W4EF@dellroy.com (Mike); Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 18:25:03 -0800; Tom, Are you suggesting that signals arriving from the ionosphere at moderate to low elevation angles are predominatly vertically polarized? I was always led to believe that they were basically rand; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00107.html (9,185 bytes)
17. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 06:35:39 -0500; Hi Mike, That is my understanding also, although without an airplane or balloon I don't how to confirm it at very high heights. I can understand how the earth modifies the I guess it is like the para; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00110.html (9,743 bytes)
18. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: sire@iinet.net.au (Steve Ireland); Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:04:40 +0000; W8JI replied: G'day Tom and all, This is an interesting one. Tom's point about horizontal polarised antennas discriminating from noise at a distance is the key one - if the noise source is relatively; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00141.html (10,608 bytes)
19. Topband: Noise and reception (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:37:38 -0500; Hi Steve, Atmospheric noise is just like skywave signals. It is random in polarization. It can only be reliably discriminated against with antenna directivity in azimuth or elevation response without; /archives//html/Topband/2002-02/msg00148.html (8,370 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]