Social Feed

Stuart Sweet
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Pub Member / Supporter Cutting Edge
· posted in The Solid Signal Blog
If one antenna is good, aren't two better? That's the idea behind stacking antennas. Put one antenna next to or on top of another and you'll get better reception. It's actually the basis behind antennas like our Xtreme Signal HDB8X, which is really just four smaller antennas put together in a way that makes sense.

Stacking works, but you need to be aware of some simple guidelines.

You don't get double the gain.


It would be great if you could take two antennas with a gain of 3dB and combine them into one antenna with a gain of 6dB. In a perfect world, you could. But there are a lot of factors that go into stacking antennas that introduce some loss of signal. There are additional cables, combiners, and some small degree of interference between the antennas. You should figure on losing up to 4dB when combining antennas, so two 4dB antennas stacked together may actually not have any better performance than a single 4dB antenna. If you're combining, it's best to combine antennas that already have fairly high gain so that the loss you get while combining doesn't completely suck up any improvements you'll get.

You need to mind a minimum distance.


Because of the way signals are actually received, you need to make sure the two antennas are a certain distance apart from each other. The guideline I was always taught was, at least the wavelength of the channel you want to get. In most cases, the longest wavelength you'll try to receive is on VHF channel 7, which is a little more than six feet. So with a UHF/VHF antenna, you must have at least six feet of separation. With a UHF-only antenna, that number drops to a little over two feet, and remember we're talking about the distance between the receiving elements (often the bow-tie or X-shaped parts of the antenna) not the reflectors (often the tallest, widest part of the antenna.) So if you're putting together a stacked array of UHF antennas, they can be quite close and still work.

You need to make sure your cables are the same length and same construction.


This is an important part of the plan. If your cables going into the combiner are not the same length, then the signals from those antennas won't reach the combiner at the same time. The difference may be tiny, but it may be enough to create phasing problems. When the two signals get to the combiner at two different times (here's a simple illustration)

220px-Phase_shift.svg.png


they don't result in one stronger signal but instead a weaker, less useful signal. In extreme cases if the signals are exactly 180 degrees out of phase they actually cancel each other out and you get nothing at all.

A lot of people talk about keeping the cables the same length but don't talk about making sure that you use two basically identical cables. If the cable types are different, or if the connectors are different, you can have the same phasing problems.

Make sure you're using the right kind of combiner.


A lot of people will choose the wrong combiner and end up with one that combines ONLY UHF on one side and ONLY VHF on the other, which isn't going to help you when combining antennas. A combiner like that is just going to give you the same signal strength as a single antenna. It's also worth pointing out that the Televes SmartKom, while it does allow multiple antenna inputs, isn't a combiner. It picks the strongest signal and disregards the weaker ones.

I like this Winegard combiner which is designed specifically for the purpose but I'll be honest with you, in most cases a very simple splitter, turned upside down, is all you will need. The cheaper the splitter, the more likely it is to be a good combiner, because it won't have fancy features designed to prevent its use as a combiner. Personally I'd start with the less expensive one and move up to the more expensive one if you're having problems.

But at the end of the day, should you combine antennas?


Sometimes two smaller antennas can work better than one large one if you are in an area where the signal is bouncing off a lot of buildings. However, most people are going to want to stack antennas to try to get reception past 100 miles, and in cases like that they usually don't work. The signal is so weak by the time it gets to you, and there is so much noise, that it would take a miracle to get those signals to you, unless you are willing to put the antennas as high as possible, to eliminate any obstructions like trees and buildings.

If you're looking for a combiner, an antenna, or anything else to live your best digital life, check out Solid Signal! We're here for you at SolidSignal.com, and if you need extra help, just call our customer service staff at 888-233-7563. If it's after business hours, just fill out the form below. We'll get right back to you!


The post Does antenna stacking really work? appeared first on The Solid Signal Blog.

Continue reading...
0 Replies · 423 views
  • Like
Reactions: c-spand
Scott Greczkowski
Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!

So let the game continue!

The last song was added by Bobby who posted...

One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters

CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!

Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game

Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.

Example:

Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow

Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio

Another example:

Ride the Lightning -- Metallica

Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne


Get it?


An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
68657 Replies · 2680161 views
  • Like
Reactions: c-spand
sdfntx
I Care About Detroit - Smokey Robinson & the Miracles
dishstaller
I Wanna Talk About Me - Toby Keith
Bobby
98.6 - Keith
harshness
I'm Easy - Keith Carridine
gms49ers
It's Easy - Boston
R
Last reply · posted in Computers and Gadgets
Lately my eight year old Dell laptop has been shutting off even when I have a full battery. I have had to keep it plugged up all the time to keep this from happening. Any idea what is causing this? I replaced the battery about three years ago.
2 Replies · 39 views
arlo
A recalibration might be needed. Even if it shows full, the individual cells may have become unbalaced. And the BMS chip in the battery reports false information to the pc.
Try this. Start it up in the bios/uefi and leave it there until the battery dies and it shuts off.
It might just keep running longer than in Windows. Or run for a short while and shut off.
If it's the first case. Probably just needs a balancing. If the latter, the pack might just be dead.
Not throwing stones but perhaps just a cheaply constructed battery with substandard cells. Could be.

Patience. Keep restarting it in bios/uefi until it won't fire up anymore.
Then plug the charger in and let it complete a full charge. And see what happens. If it's better.
Do the same thing one more time. Run it until it dies dead-dead. Then just let it charge, pc shut off.
When charged, it might be better. It might not be.

There are bench jigs that read the actual BMS and override it to let a tech manually monitor and charge the separate packs. They can also reset any "time bombs" in it that cause an otherwise good pack to show bad.
Maybe Santa will be good to me some year.

You might just need a new battery. Maybe the PC power management chip is going. A Dell common thing.
Leaving a laptop plugged in with a full battery is known to reduce the life. Asus for one recommends that you don't leave the charger plugged in all of the time even when shut down. And setting Windows to charge the battery to 85% instead of 100% increases life.
That's all I got.
dishstaller
That's all I got.
That was quite enough....I definitely learned something from your post. Thanks
TRG
TRG
Pub Member / Supporter
Last reply · posted in Computers and Gadgets
I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
5 Replies · 278 views
b4pjoe
I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
If you can't get into the router to reserve an IP address just don't use DHCP on the device that needs connected and assign it to a specific IP address in the network settings.
  • Like
Reactions: harshness
HipKat
I set up a music server for my brother a few years ago. It's basically a small headless computer but it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
They are not. Your best bet is to set up a third-party router, attached to the Starlink for your server, that you can get into, like a Linksys, etc
  • Like
Reactions: Foxbat
Foxbat
…it needs to have a DHCP IP address reserved for it in the router settings. This was easy to do in his DSL router. He's switching to Starlink now and I was wondering if these setting are easily accessible in the Starlink router. I'm pretty sure he will be getting the latest V5 router.
The Starlink V5 Install Kit I just got comes with the Mini Router. It is pretty limited in what it can do. For example, it can provide only one IP subnet at a time, no Guest Network, but it does support the pass-thru to a third-party Router. You can also split the Wi-Fi into separate 5 GHz & 2.4 GHz SSIDs to help some IoT devices that don't support 5 GHz bands to work.

The larger Starlink Router that still comes with the V4 Kit does support a Guest Network with separate IPv4 Subnet, but it's $120 from Starlink. And it still won't do DHCP Reservations.
harshness
If you can restrict the DHCP address space to assign addresses to one end of the subnet (i.e. x.x.x.50+), you can manually assign the IP address on pretty much any operating system. This is a default behavior on several popular routers. As the Router Mini only supports 235 devices, I expect that's already done.

Another option is to use a router that supports PoE to power the antenna. This article discusses that option (under PoE Power heading):

  • Like
Reactions: Foxbat
Foxbat
Now that I've had the v5 kit with the Mini Router, it's not as bad as I first thought. Yes, no DHCP reservations, but you can set up multiple SSIDs that have separate IPv4 subnets, and like the big brother, you can select from 192.168.x.0/24 or 10.x.0.0/16 (where "x" is 1-4).

You can also split a subnet and have different SSIDs for the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz channels to handle some IoT devices. I haven't discovered what subnet the 2nd NIC on the router assigns, I'm guessing it's the first subnet.
dishstaller
Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
2 Replies · 47 views
dishstaller
Sorry for posting the wrong link. Just corrected it.
dishstaller
Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter
Last reply · posted in The Chit Chat Club
Terrible tragedy. You would think that they would have safe guards in place that would prevent something like this from happening. I guess if you are going to ride in a passenger train it might be best to get a car near the rear.

2 Replies · 51 views
  • Sad
Reactions: Jimbo
Jimbo
Terrible tragedy. You would think that they would have safe guards in place that would prevent something like this from happening. I guess if you are going to ride in a passenger train it might be best to get a car near the rear.

They will have to look at the switching sections to determine WHY 2 trains were on the same track ... at the same time.
dishstaller
Thought this article might be of interest to some of you who might travel via train.