Impedance matching, directionality, and gain
Quote:
My theory of why I got better reception is that the radiation pattern across the smaller antenna was more uniform than across the larger antenna. According to the reciprocity theorem, the multipath signals received creates a very complex signal that is not matched to the transmission line thereby causing reflection which is loss. The losses must have been greater than the 3 dB increase in gain. The received signal from the smaller antenna better matched the transmission line resulting in less loss. Sorry for being long winded. Your comments or thoughts are welcomed. |
Quote:
John, I believe I understand what you're thinking. However, that's a lot more metal in the air than necessary. Better to have additional elements cut to the appropriate, i.e. smaller, wavelengths. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You've challenged me to rethink things through carefully. Let me begin with what I believe are the facts involved and go from there.
1) even though we can use complex numbers to represent them, what we're ultimately dealing with are modulated sine waves. 2) the impedance of the antenna does vary by frequency, but for a single frequency it remains the same no matter the direction the signal comes from. 3) therefore, the ratio of power delivered into the transmission line remains the same no matter the arrival angle. 4) signals that take different paths to the receive antenna are no longer in time, or phase, sync. A phase delay has been added. Additionally, indirect paths have increased variability in phase and polarity. My view of what is happening is the multiplicity of signals out of phase with each other march down the coax until they hit a detector. It is the mixing of these signals in the detector that causes the problem. As an example, when the skywave and ground wave signals of an AM station are both present at a receiver, the effect of the delay between the two is a slow selective fade. A notch filter runs across the passband, and when it hits the carrier, distortion like over modulation results. I'll have to brush up on the modulation scheme used in ATSC to comment on why a spectrum that has non-uniform amplitude is a bad thing. Reciprocity holds here only in the sense that if I turn around and transmit a single signal, it will arrive back at the transmitter in a hodge-podge from scattering and multiple-path. You can't steer a frequency by changing its properties. You have to add delay across the antenna. |
Per Wikipedia, an imaginary number is: "... a number that gives a negative result when squared..."
I'm quite comfortable using the term "imaginary" in the context of the math... but I'm not aware of current, voltage or magnetic flux being described as imaginary. I'm also comfortable with the idea that many wave fronts can arrive at an antenna though there is only one source. There can be many paths of various lengths and may have fixed or variable attenuation in addition to still other signal effecting factors. My understanding is that all of the magnetic flux, from all sources, impinging on a conductor at one moment, may be summed algebraically to then determine the change vs time that will induce current in the conductor. Even though many magnetic fields may be influencing the conductor, only one current is induced. This would be reasonable given that energy has changed state, from a magnetic field to an electrical current. I see multipath beginning at the transmitter and ending at the antenna, not the junction of the antenna and transmission line or later in the tuner. But yes, the tuner will have to deal with the effects of multipath because it will have possibly modified every measurable attribute of the signal. Multipath can be viewed as an interfering source of modulation. It will obviously alter the amplitude. Doppler shift can result from reflection off of moving objects, and phase shift would result as well. Perhaps CW would be the least likely modulation. Yes the gears are slowly squeaking in this old head... Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I need to think about what Mr. Loudin said. I have been challenged, too. |
A Fourier analysis will probably not help too much in analyzing multipath since you'd be looking at the frequency domain instead of the time domain. Multipath is primarily a time domain problem.
You can actually get the same effects as multipath within the coax itself if you have dangling ends (unterminated) or impedance mismatches that create reflections inside the coax network. In real-world multipath, the line-of-sight signal (even if severely attenuated by trees and buildings) is always the first to arrive at the antenna (shortest distance between two points). All multipath reflections arrive later than that since they travel a longer distance. From the point of view of the receiver, it all looks like delayed copies of the same signal interfering with itself. There is one aspect of multipath that is frequency dependent, and that is when it comes to frequency selective fading. If you happen to have two strong signal paths of nearly equal strength reaching your antenna and they happen to be 1/2 lambda out of phase, then the signals will cancel each other out to some degree. This kind of fading is very sensitive to the relative path lengths, so moving the antenna a few feet is often enough to get out of a fading situation. To some degree, digital tuners are actually able to "undo" some of the damage caused by multipath. As it turns out, multipath is related to one of the problems faced by distributed transmitter (DTx) systems that some broadcasters have been experimenting with. Sorry for the long read, but a more in-depth discussion of this is available in this thread: http://forum.tvfool.com/showthread.php?t=101 Also, just to get even more thought gears churning, multipath can even be useful in some situations. In the world of WiFi, in particular 802.11n and MIMO technologies, multipath is actually a good thing because they can take advantage of that spatial diversity. When you have multiple antenna elements and multiple digital receivers (a mini "array" of antennas), you can use signal processing to separate each of the multipath components and treat each "spatial channel" as an independent data stream. |
Thank you all for your thoughts and comments on my original post on why my CM4228 (8 bay antenna) did not give me better results than the CM4221 (4 bay antenna).
I was directed to HDTVPrimer hosted by Ken Nist and I think I found the answers to my question. There are two reasons for degradation. Ken said that if two colocated antennas are not in a uniform field than you would not get the expected 3 dB gain when combined. Some of the stronger signal from one antenna will be reradiated out of the other. The problem is in the combiner and an explanation of why this happens is provided by Ken Nist. The second source of loss is that a larger antenna with its narrower beamwidth will only see one multipath signal thereby losing the hot spot advantage. He said hot spots are good for reception since the hot spot signal could be up to 6 dB stronger. You lose some of this 6 dB if the antenna only sees one multipath signal. My CM4228 antenna is composed of two colocated CM4221s mounted side-by-side with a combiner so it must be behaving in the manner Ken describes. That is my understanding and I am satisfied with his explanation. Thanks again to Dave for directing me to Ken Nist's website. |
Quote:
|
If you are talking about the newer CM4228HD (horizontal rods as reflector), then Ken has a separate page describing how the phasing lines between the two halves of the antenna ruin its performance: http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/TemporaryPage.html
The old 4228 (wire mesh as reflector) was actually better than the 4221, but that's no longer the case now that the design has been changed. |
Quote:
In most multipath situations, the dominant paths are not equal strength. It's even less likely that multiple channels will have this effect at the same time. The reflection/absorption of RF energy varies by frequency, so the behavior of multipath is often different from one channel to the next. Quote:
If there equal-strength multipath components creating the "hot" and "cold" spots, then yes, it's possible for a larger antenna to not-quite hit the "hot" spot, but as stated above, equal-strength multipath components are generally not that common. Even if you had a hypothetical situation where you had say the line-of-sight path (to many co-located transmitters) plus a giant perfectly reflecting wall off to one side creating near equal-strength reflections across all of your channels. In such a situation, the "hot" and "cold" spots would occur for each channel at a slightly different location (as your hypothesis was suggesting). In that situation, you could use the higher gain antenna (with narrower beam width) to point at just one of the signal paths (i.e., the line-of-sight path), thus reducing the cancellation effect of the other signal path. This would make reception more uniform across all of the channels. Some of the channels will no longer perfectly capture the "hot" spots (possibly 3 dB worse than before), but by the converse analogy, none of the channels will perfectly hit the "cold" spots either. In the majority of cases, it's better to have a tight antenna pattern to focus on the strongest clean signal path. By doing so, the system becomes less sensitive to the channel-by-channel multipath-induced fading variations that can occur. This doesn't work if you have transmitter clusters in two different directions and need a wide antenna pattern to capture signals spread in multiple directions. Quote:
Were you using the new 4228 or the old one? Do you have transmitters spread in multiple directions? |
@mtownsend,
Do you know what is causing multipath in your area (tall buildings, trees, hills)? My multipath signals are coming from a ridgeline that is blocking my LOS to Mt. Wilson in Los Angeles. Were you using the new 4228 or the old one? I am using the old one. Do you have transmitters spread in multiple directions? All signals are coming from the same direction. |
Quote:
I'm familiar with the Los Angeles area. If you are blocked by mountains, then you are probably better off with an Antennas Direct 91XG for UHF and a Winegard YA-1713 for high-VHF (KABC, KCAL, KTTV, and KCOP). The 91XG mounting bracket allows for the antenna to pointed nose-up toward the ridge line. This puts the heart of the antenna pattern up where the signal is really emanating from. The high-VHF antenna usually does not need to be tilted because 1) VHF signals can diffract over mountains better, and 2) the vertical beam pattern of these Yagis is very tall so you wouldn't notice much of a change anyway. The two antennas should be combined through a Pico Macom UVSJ to prevent any mutual interference between them. |
Quote:
http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wr...8d17d4624564ff Thank you for your suggestions. I am using my CM4221 with a Y5-7-13 VHF antenna. They both have 300 ohms outputs so I am using a preamplifier with separate 300 ohms inputs to combine them. I have a signal meter on my TV and when I was using the CM4228, the meter would typically show around 2/3 full scale. With the CM4221, it is almost full scale. I would guess the CM4221 sees more multipath signals thus I get the bonus of hot spot boosts. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © TV Fool, LLC