Page 267 of 267 FirstFirst ... 167217257265266267
Results 2,661 to 2,670 of 2670

Thread: best antenna

  1. #2661
    First officer
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Aldershot, Hampshire. UK
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooster View Post
    There is really little need for building (or buying) antennae with "gain"
    Aircraft fly in essentially a hemisphere over your head...
    Actually they don't fly in anything like a hemisphere, I can detect aircraft out to 300+nm in all directions other than straight up! I suspect that if they flew at that height the ISS would be considered a collision risk��
    Antenna don't require much gain straight up as the distance to an aircraft overhead is much less than one on the horizon, that is where you need the gain.
    FR24 F-EGLF1, Blitzortung station 878, OGN Aldersht2, PlanePlotter M7.

  2. #2662
    Flight attendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ESGG1
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooster View Post
    There is really little need for building (or buying) antennae with "gain" Aircraft fly in essentially a hemisphere over your head... so a 1/4 ground plane is the best for overall coverage IMHO - antennae with "gain" dont actually have ANY gain whatsoever...
    Completely untrue, all of it.

    The definition of antenna gain is passive re-distribution of radiation pattern. Every dB that can be won from a direction where you don't need it, is added link margin for detection of weak signals, or overcoming feeder loss.

    A 5dBi antenna is often optimal. It will outperform your 2dBi GP every time, and still have enough gain straight up not to lose a/c above your head.

    Gain is not amplification, but it's most definitely real, and beneficial.

    /M
    F-ESDF1, F-ESGG1, F-ESGP1, F-ESSL4, F-ESNK4, F-ESNV2, F-LFMN3
    P-ESGR, P-ESIA, P-ESIB, P-ESNV

  3. #2663
    Flight attendant
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ESGG1
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by rederikus View Post
    The antenna is vertical so there is no loss of signal anywhere in the hemisphere. There is an effect wheregenerally the more elements you introduce, the larger your hemisphere becomes at somewhat the expense of nearer signals. Thus an antenna of this type can pick up signals from further away than a simple ground plane antenna with just one receiving element. This is expressed as dBi (decibels relative to isotropic radiator). An isotropic radiator is (I think) considered here as a point source and I assume carries a value of 1. The multiple element signals are additive and, naturally since bigger numbers are easier to sell the marketing people tend toward using dB instead of dBi as a "gain" figure.
    It's not at the expense of nearer signals, it's compressing of the radiation that would otherwise go upwards and downwards. The more elements you add (if done optimally), the smaller opening angle towards the horizon you will get.

    An isotropic antenna is a theoretical point from where radiation goes exactly equal in a sphere. This is referenced as 0dBi.

    A 1/4-wave GP has 2dBi gain in it's sweet spot (normally towards horizon and slightly upwards), most of that is "taken" from what would have been the lower half of the spehere.
    A 1/2-wave dipole has 2.15 dBi gain, taken equally from top and bottom of the sphere.

    Collinears vary in gain depending on how they are built, but they all just compress the "sphere" further and further into a horizontal "disc".

    /M
    F-ESDF1, F-ESGG1, F-ESGP1, F-ESSL4, F-ESNK4, F-ESNV2, F-LFMN3
    P-ESGR, P-ESIA, P-ESIB, P-ESNV

  4. #2664
    Purser Rooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    142
    It's not at the expense of nearer signals, it's compressing of the radiation that would otherwise go upwards and downwards. The more elements you add (if done optimally), the smaller opening angle towards the horizon you will get.
    Exactly... at the expense of vertical signals !!!! Adding elements magnifies this effect...
    Point taken over the hemisphere - wasn't meant as an English experiment, I only used it as an example - 360 degrees around and some up ! lol

  5. #2665
    Captain abcd567's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Toronto CYYZ
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMac View Post
    It's not at the expense of nearer signals, it's compressing of the radiation that would otherwise go upwards and downwards. The more elements you add (if done optimally), the smaller opening angle towards the horizon you will get.

    An isotropic antenna is a theoretical point from where radiation goes exactly equal in a sphere. This is referenced as 0dBi.

    A 1/4-wave GP has 2dBi gain in it's sweet spot (normally towards horizon and slightly upwards), most of that is "taken" from what would have been the lower half of the spehere.
    A 1/2-wave dipole has 2.15 dBi gain, taken equally from top and bottom of the sphere.

    Collinears vary in gain depending on how they are built, but they all just compress the "sphere" further and further into a horizontal "disc".

    /M


    Quote Originally Posted by Rooster View Post
    Exactly... at the expense of vertical signals !!!! Adding elements magnifies this effect...
    Point taken over the hemisphere - wasn't meant as an English experiment, I only used it as an example - 360 degrees around and some up ! lol










  6. #2666
    Captain Anmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalBrian View Post
    Quick 1090 antenna question.
    Why not buy them and test for yourself? They're low cost and ship from the USA.
    Mike


    www.radarspotting.com

    Radarspotting since 2005

  7. #2667
    Captain Anmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalBrian View Post
    That wasn't the question and your answer wasn't very helpful to others.
    I thought it was a helpful suggestion. That's what I'd do for a small outlay of under $20. What they call a no brainer.
    Mike


    www.radarspotting.com

    Radarspotting since 2005

  8. #2668
    First officer
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Aldershot, Hampshire. UK
    Posts
    222
    Having looked at the postings, I personally wouldn't waste my money, they would probably be no better than the rubbish supplied with the dongle after it has been trimmed to the correct length.
    Save your money and build one of the ground plane antenna that abcd567 promotes all the time, it would save money and perform better.
    FR24 F-EGLF1, Blitzortung station 878, OGN Aldersht2, PlanePlotter M7.

  9. #2669
    Captain
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    FR24 Feeder
    Posts
    1,163

    Thumbs up

    Hi F-EGL1,
    Thank you very much for the on point answer.
    Yes abcd567 does great antenna testing. That's why I was asking

  10. #2670
    Captain abcd567's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Toronto CYYZ
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Anmer View Post
    Why not buy them and test for yourself? They're low cost and ship from the USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by F-EGLF1 View Post
    Having looked at the postings, I personally wouldn't waste my money, they would probably be no better than the rubbish supplied with the dongle after it has been trimmed to the correct length.
    Save your money and build one of the ground plane antenna that abcd567 promotes all the time, it would save money and perform better.
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalBrian View Post
    Hi F-EGL1,
    Thank you very much for the on point answer.
    Yes abcd567 does great antenna testing. That's why I was asking
    2016-05-22
    Trial Run Results for Three Types of Whip Antennas

    .

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •