View Single Post
Old 18-Apr-2017, 8:35 PM   #9
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by ADTech View Post
The UHF is going to get stripped of by the UVSJ anyway so it's a non-issue. To achieve narrow beamwidth requires a lot of metal up in the air, generally an array of elements that cause it to have a more focused reception pattern. Typically, that means more real estate that the antenna's elements must occupy in some dimension.
Yes, that VHF Yagi w. reflector (?) is huge. But there is plenty of room up there, nothing but birds anyway. I'm not one to get too concerned over antenna aesthetics, if it works it's beautiful.

Originally Posted by ADTech View Post
See post #7 in this thread from last week. I just happened to have provided that data.
Good data, thanks! UHF loss is more than VHF of course, although still less than a dB. Extra credit if you post the input and output match plots, S11 and S22

Right now I'm pulling in a 10dB noise margin station without preamp on the XG91 UHF antenna, so not a lot of room for added loss. If I run separate 20' runs of RG6 into the attic and do the diplexing there it is an easy experiment vs. separate tuners without UVSJ loss. Whether the long cable runs before the UVSJ degrade the signal or not really depends on the match between the antennae and the UVJS I believe. Experimenting with the UVJS up on the pole fed by short <3' RG6 runs is a lot more work.
lifespeed is offline   Reply With Quote