Quote:
Originally Posted by divxhacker
It's all elementary, my dear GartFargunkel. Basically, the length of the element is directly prportional to the power of the frequency itself. VHF frequencies, being weaker have the best reception on larger elements, especially telescoping ones. They don't call 'em "rabbit ears" for nothing.
|
The length of the element is inversely proportional to the frequency. The higher the frequency the shorter the antenna elements, having no correlation to power. VHF has the best reception on larger elements because it's wavelength is longer, taking a longer element for resonant reception, not because they are weaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by divxhacker
UHF signals are stronger, sharper, and have the best reception on small elements, the basic shape is the short bar, bowtie or loop. Some inexpensive antennas have UHF shape attachments suspended over the VHF elements.
|
UHF is actually a weaker signal and why the stations on UHF have always run a lot more power then VHF to make up for the fact. UHF penetrates indoors which makes it appear more powerful. (Divx I don't want to totally pick this apart but trying to keep some basic RF and antenna facts straight. ) That said TV signals are for the most part sine waves and sharp doesn't apply to reception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by divxhacker
The more elements an antenna has, the better the reception. For tough to receive signals, it's best to have separate UHF and VHF antennas, so there's no interference crossing between the two signal bands. So if you have the space to put it, build or buy a good big one.
|
Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by divxhacker
For building your own, pant-stretchers make a great base, especially when you're planning to go on a diet. Put large VHF elements on one, and small UHF elements on the other. If you only have the target signals in the UHF band, the VHF sections may be omitted.
|
Ok, this is just my curiosity. Who is building antennas our of pant-stretchers?
