can I combine or use a switch to go from one ant to another or will combining with a splitter cause loss, I have a yagi for 1 system and a allband ant for other freqs, should I switch back and forth or use just one ant with each system?
combining antennas
- Thread starter KD8CES
- Start date
- Status
scannerdweeb,
A switch box would be best. This way you can select the anntena that you would like to use on a particular band.
Here is one cheap .. http://www.thomas-distributing.com/wo-cx3.htm
A switch box would be best. This way you can select the anntena that you would like to use on a particular band.
Here is one cheap .. http://www.thomas-distributing.com/wo-cx3.htm
JamesO
Member
You really do not want to use a combiner for multiple antennas; you need a "diplexer" device. Typically referred to as a duplexer or a triplexer depending on how many ports/bands are filtered. This will filter specific bands without much insertion loss.
Costs a few bucks, but can be very useful in certain antenna configurations.
See the web link for an example.
JamesO
Diplexer/triplexers
Costs a few bucks, but can be very useful in certain antenna configurations.
See the web link for an example.
JamesO
Diplexer/triplexers
naaaa .. JamesO .. I have to respectfully disagree. 
In scannerdweeb's particular situation running a yagi and an *allband antenna* .. a plexer would be messy. The switchbox does not care about insertion loss nor does it need to be tuned for a particular band.
In scannerdweeb's particular situation running a yagi and an *allband antenna* .. a plexer would be messy. The switchbox does not care about insertion loss nor does it need to be tuned for a particular band.
JamesO
Member
Depends on how he wants to use his radio!
If he "monitors" and if he can live with the switch and be limited to the specific antenna, then this would be cheap and easy.
If he "scans" and wants to use both antennas at the same time without his involvement, then the diplexer arrangement might be a better solution!
JamesO
If he "monitors" and if he can live with the switch and be limited to the specific antenna, then this would be cheap and easy.
If he "scans" and wants to use both antennas at the same time without his involvement, then the diplexer arrangement might be a better solution!
JamesO
I agree, 100%.
However, it has been my understanding that a plexer's goal is to combine different *band specific* antenna's to one radio and vice versa. Wouldn't there be isolation problems hooking an allband antenna into a plexer that is also accepting a feed from a yagi?
In my mind .. I see extra traps and bandpass filters being added to the setup ..
JamesO
Member
Yes the diplexer is either to combine multiple different band radios to a single antenna or they can typically be used to combine multiple antennas to a single radio.
Now the tricky part, most antennas, even band specific perform well outside the intended operating band. The radiation patterns and efficiency degrades quickly.
Most diplexers do filter (usually 40 dB or more) and typically filter enough that you could use an "all band" antenna and band specific antenna, on different ports, without the additional filters.
JamesO
Now the tricky part, most antennas, even band specific perform well outside the intended operating band. The radiation patterns and efficiency degrades quickly.
Most diplexers do filter (usually 40 dB or more) and typically filter enough that you could use an "all band" antenna and band specific antenna, on different ports, without the additional filters.
JamesO
scanfan03
Member
You can get a bnc splitter that will go right into your scanner. I can't remember the website but i will try to find it for you. They are very cheap like 20 bucks i think. I would emagine you would loose some gain though.
scanfan03
Member
Go to bncantenna.com and click on hardware. I lied, they are only about 5 bucks a piece.
JamesO said:
You don't want a diplexer, as a diplexer separates two frequency bands (read: will NOT work with an all band antenna - one band segment - the one the yagi uses - will be attenuated by design).
You want a multicoupler. Instead of connecting the ANT port to the antenna, connect it to the scanner. Connect one each RX port to each antenna. You will have a little loss, and don't get one with a built-in preamp, as it would be 'amping' in the wrong direction. You want a passive multicoupler.
However, you would most likely be better off with a switch if you don't mind switching it manually. There are two reasons. First, any time you connect two antennas without preamps on each, you will have about 3dB loss on each This may negate much or all of your yagi's gain. Second, the switch will have a little loss - espeically on higher frequencies - but will not have as much as combining the antennas via a multicoupler.
Update: I was just browsing and saw this. This is exactly what you want if you don't want to use a switch. Again, keep in mind that you would lose 3dB on each antenna.
http://www.eham.net/classifieds/detail/124507
Joe M.
JamesO
Member
Joe M (Voyager), based on your response to my suggestion of using a diplexer type of device for a multi antenna configuration, it appears you may not have a very comprehensive background and understanding of RF energy. The specific area of concern when combining multiple antennas has to do with multipath or phase interference/cancellation.
The suggestion to use a multicoupler/splitter for the 2 drastically different antennas is most likely prone to unusual and unexpected degradation in performance, not to mention the insertion loss of the device. Multiple antennas can be combined, however, these are usually configured under specific conditions to create co-phased or multi-phase antenna arrays.
It is not clear what bands the original poster was interested in, however, I am assuming the Yagi “band” would be connected to the appropriate band pass input port, while the “all band” antenna would be connected to the other input port. I was also assuming a 2-port device with the appropriate frequency bands for this application exists. This configuration would not attenuate the Yagi performance other than the diplexers minimal insertion loss. The “all band” antenna would then cover the other portion of the band that the diplexer did not block out, again with minimal insertion loss.
There is some concern about using an “all band” antenna and a diplexer. A diplexer is really a filter that will limit the frequency band any antenna feeds into the common port of the diplexer, so this does not eliminate the use of an “all band” antenna. It really does not matter if a wideband or frequency specific antenna is used with a diplexer. Ideally, an antenna that is optimized for the specific band and application should be considered.
It is debatable if a true “all band antenna” actually exists. Most antennas exhibits some form of “wideband” performance, however, the efficiency and radiation pattern beyond the design limits might vary a great deal. Some antennas, like the Austin Ferret, are specifically designed to be optimized over different band segments, however, it performance will vary with frequency.
The so-called “all band” antennas for around $50 are usually a basic compromise in performance. They do work over a wide frequency range; however, they may not be the best solution for the application. In certain situations, you may find that a well-tuned 800 MHz antenna covers the VHF and UHF bands quite well for your area. This would more likely be due to the high signal level of the VHF and UHF systems and less likely due to the wideband performance of the 800 MHz antenna.
Depending on the type of monitoring a person does, there are different antenna configurations that might be suggested. I split radio listening into the follow two groups:
1.“Signal Monitoring, Searching and Hunting”: usually an operator interactively and decisively looks for signals in a specific band segment. For this style of monitoring a coaxial switch or manually connecting different antenna feeds is probably acceptable.
2. “Scanning”: usually an operator has the radio following a preset group of frequencies, that may cover many bands, and the radio is operating without direct user involvement. This usually requires a single coax feed with the signals that the operator is attempting to capture. Use of a diplexer would allow multiple antennas for specific bands to be combined without much signal loss or concern about multipath phase interference/cancellation.
JamesO
The suggestion to use a multicoupler/splitter for the 2 drastically different antennas is most likely prone to unusual and unexpected degradation in performance, not to mention the insertion loss of the device. Multiple antennas can be combined, however, these are usually configured under specific conditions to create co-phased or multi-phase antenna arrays.
It is not clear what bands the original poster was interested in, however, I am assuming the Yagi “band” would be connected to the appropriate band pass input port, while the “all band” antenna would be connected to the other input port. I was also assuming a 2-port device with the appropriate frequency bands for this application exists. This configuration would not attenuate the Yagi performance other than the diplexers minimal insertion loss. The “all band” antenna would then cover the other portion of the band that the diplexer did not block out, again with minimal insertion loss.
There is some concern about using an “all band” antenna and a diplexer. A diplexer is really a filter that will limit the frequency band any antenna feeds into the common port of the diplexer, so this does not eliminate the use of an “all band” antenna. It really does not matter if a wideband or frequency specific antenna is used with a diplexer. Ideally, an antenna that is optimized for the specific band and application should be considered.
It is debatable if a true “all band antenna” actually exists. Most antennas exhibits some form of “wideband” performance, however, the efficiency and radiation pattern beyond the design limits might vary a great deal. Some antennas, like the Austin Ferret, are specifically designed to be optimized over different band segments, however, it performance will vary with frequency.
The so-called “all band” antennas for around $50 are usually a basic compromise in performance. They do work over a wide frequency range; however, they may not be the best solution for the application. In certain situations, you may find that a well-tuned 800 MHz antenna covers the VHF and UHF bands quite well for your area. This would more likely be due to the high signal level of the VHF and UHF systems and less likely due to the wideband performance of the 800 MHz antenna.
Depending on the type of monitoring a person does, there are different antenna configurations that might be suggested. I split radio listening into the follow two groups:
1.“Signal Monitoring, Searching and Hunting”: usually an operator interactively and decisively looks for signals in a specific band segment. For this style of monitoring a coaxial switch or manually connecting different antenna feeds is probably acceptable.
2. “Scanning”: usually an operator has the radio following a preset group of frequencies, that may cover many bands, and the radio is operating without direct user involvement. This usually requires a single coax feed with the signals that the operator is attempting to capture. Use of a diplexer would allow multiple antennas for specific bands to be combined without much signal loss or concern about multipath phase interference/cancellation.
JamesO
JamesO said:
Diplexers only work on two frequency bands - and even then in a very narrow range. They will not work for one wideband antenna and one narrowband one. It appears I'm not the one lacking backround in RF energy.
I've made many (hundreds) of diplexers for use with low band wide band mobiles (usually 33 and 46 MHz). I know what they do and how VERY well.
The insertion loss will be 3dB. I SAID that before. Yes, with two drastically different antennas, the results could be unpredictable, but not enough to make it useless. You know the loss on each (3 dB). You know the gain of the yagi and the wide band antenna. The only tthing you don't know is how far apart the antennas are. This will be the only factor determining phase cancellation, and will be in different directions depending on the RX frequency.
The 'band pass input port'? Well, a simple splitter has no such port, nor does a diplexer. It sounds like you're talking about a DUPLEXER - MUCH different than a DIPLEXER.
NOBODY - REPEAT - NOBODY makes a diplexer that covers a wide frequency range. It's just not possible due to the way a diplexer works. Basically, a diplexer nulls out a narrow frequency range so the antenna on one leg is non-existant to RF on the opposite frequency. And it's not possible on a duplexer to make one that is wideband on one port, and frequency range specific on the other. If you do, it's a simple splitter (like the one I posted a link for) with a bandpass cavity on one leg.
Again, it sounds like you are talking about a DUPLEXER, not a DIplexer. A duplexer, for the most part, is a high pass - low pass filter that separates two (or more: 3=TRIplexer, Etc) frequency ranges - typically with a crossover of 500 kHz to 3 MHz. A DIplexer, on the other hand, is a device that, usually using a specific length of coax cut based on the tuned frequency of the opposite antenna, notches out the frequency range of the 'opposite' antenna. This can also be done using notch cavities, but in either case, the notch must be tuned to a single frequency or narrow frequency range.
It is a fact that any antenna designed for a more narrow frequency range will have more efficiency on that range as opposed to an antenna designed to cover many frequency ranges.
A diplexer will work on TWO antennas, and ONLY two. Since the feedline on the 'opposite' antenna is cut based on the frequency of the other, it is not possible to cut it to two frequencies. Same with a notch filter - it's limited to notching ONE frequency.
I'll give you another example. Give me the dimension (singular) of a quarter wave antenna that will operate correctly on 150 and 300 MHz. If you can do that without changing the laws of physics, I'll accept everything you say as gospel.
No matter what - when you conbine two antennas, you will lose 3dB on each. The ONLY way to avoid this is by using a duplexer (or triplexer, or quadraplexer, Etc) that makes EACH antenna invisible to the others through the use of bandpass filters, such as those made by Comet or Diamond. However, note that these are NOT diplexer units. They merely separate frequency bands.
Joe M.
LarrySC
Member
Short answer: Start with TV/VCR type splitter and AB or ABC switch. Convert all connections to "F". This is the most popular setup if you are in a modest to strong signal area. Loss is not noticed. Works for me and many others.
Tweekerbob
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 614
DUPLEXER vs. DIPLEXER
Voyager, you are totally INCORRECT. First, you will need to re-examine the definitions of DUPLEXER and DIPLEXER. You have them hopelessly confused.
A DUPLEXER is a device that provides the narrow and deep null (or notch) that you referenced and allows a transmitter and receiver ON THE SAME BAND (usually less then 5MHz apart in operating frequencies) to utilize the same antenna simultaneously. These are used almost exclusively for repeaters and most, if not all, scanner listeners will have no use for such a device.
A DIPLEXER is a combination of low pass and high pass filters. By their very nature, they are COMMONLY wide banded. They can be made to be somewhat narrowbanded, but this means they would need an extra set of high and low pass filters (basically, two BAND pass filters overall).
You stated, and then to magnify your error, repeated your statement that NO ONE MAKES A WIDE BAND DIPLEXER. I think it may be time to crawl out from under the rock and check out your local Sat TV shop. For about 3 bucks, you too can own your very own WIDEBAND diplexer. What this baby does is combine (or split) two very large bands, one being the TV broadcast band (about 40-750 MHz) and also the SAT TV band from 950-1450 MHz (is that wideband enough for ya?) so that you can run just one piece of coax down to your sat receiver and TV, where you would have another diplexer to split the sat signal to your receiver and the tv signals to your tv. Good thing you didn't bet money on that, huh? Why don't you try a little experiment (besides using your brain)? Do a Google search for "satellite diplexer" and you will readily see what I am referring to. Also, you will undoubtedly notice the CORRECT usage of the term DIPLEXER by ALL of these manufacturers. Hmm...maybe they make these for a living and might just know what they are talking about...If all of these people can use the term correctly, just what is your problem?
Onto the other errors. Please don't go around telling people to buy an $80 piece of equipment just to use it for things it was not intended for. You don't mow your lawn with a hedge trimmer do you? They both cut, but obviously they were designed for different operations. Using a multi-coupler for the purpose of combining two antennas is simply wasteful. Spend the $78 left over from the purchase of a T connector, on beer so that your crappy antenna perfomance won't be noticed as much. The mulit-coupler as mentioned by someone who KNOWS what he is talking about (JAMES0), does not have the proper filtering to isolate the two antennas and prevent interaction between the two. As I just stated, a $2 T connector would accomplish the same thing. Even more interesting, is
that a T connector and an inappropriately used multi-coupler both have the same amount of loss, 3dB. For most of us, 3dB of intentional loss is just not justified. How about .2dB for a diplexer? And the benefits of getting the most out of each antenna without any noticeable interaction.
You also mentioned specific lengths of coax being used to null signals. These are called 1/4 wavelength (or odd multiples) coaxial stubs. They are commonly used to null intermod interference from nearby transmitters. They are very effective at doing so. However, you won't find too many DUPLEXERS utilizing this technique. The notch needs to be a little deeper than these stubs can commonly provide. In relation to your post, the mention of these is completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the initial question of combining and summarily splitting signals.
Scannerdweeb, I second James0's recommendations between a switch and a diplexer. In summary, if you only need to listen to one band at a time, an antenna switch will suffice. However, if you want to listen to mulitple bands, in the act of scanning, a diplexer would be your best bet.
If you are like me and running a seperate antenna for 50-500 and then a 850 yagi, good luck finding a suitable diplexer. The satellite diplexers I mentioned above are not a good match for this application. You will receive no signal on 850. I had to build my own diplexer, but it is working like a champ. There is one company in the UK (I'll get back to you with their website, that sells a diplexer for this particular set-up). Being British, they have funky connectors.
Bottom line, you have two choices, a switch or a diplexer. If you can live with absolutely horrible performance, try the Y or T connector. I don't personally endorse the last option, because I have spent too much money and time trying to get everything as best as it CAN be. I think most of us out there want the best reception possible. That involves doing things the right way. IF you buy a multi-coupler, that's ok. They are great devices for their intended use, e.g. connecting multiple scanners to one antenna (or at least one coax), but for heaven's sake, don't spend $80 thinking that this will combine your two antennas satisfactorily. It won't.
Voyager, please take a "voyage" to your local library and bone up on some of this stuff before you disect and distort the post of someone who knows what he is talking about, and most importantly, before you misinform too many people.
Ryan
Voyager, you are totally INCORRECT. First, you will need to re-examine the definitions of DUPLEXER and DIPLEXER. You have them hopelessly confused.
A DUPLEXER is a device that provides the narrow and deep null (or notch) that you referenced and allows a transmitter and receiver ON THE SAME BAND (usually less then 5MHz apart in operating frequencies) to utilize the same antenna simultaneously. These are used almost exclusively for repeaters and most, if not all, scanner listeners will have no use for such a device.
A DIPLEXER is a combination of low pass and high pass filters. By their very nature, they are COMMONLY wide banded. They can be made to be somewhat narrowbanded, but this means they would need an extra set of high and low pass filters (basically, two BAND pass filters overall).
You stated, and then to magnify your error, repeated your statement that NO ONE MAKES A WIDE BAND DIPLEXER. I think it may be time to crawl out from under the rock and check out your local Sat TV shop. For about 3 bucks, you too can own your very own WIDEBAND diplexer. What this baby does is combine (or split) two very large bands, one being the TV broadcast band (about 40-750 MHz) and also the SAT TV band from 950-1450 MHz (is that wideband enough for ya?) so that you can run just one piece of coax down to your sat receiver and TV, where you would have another diplexer to split the sat signal to your receiver and the tv signals to your tv. Good thing you didn't bet money on that, huh? Why don't you try a little experiment (besides using your brain)? Do a Google search for "satellite diplexer" and you will readily see what I am referring to. Also, you will undoubtedly notice the CORRECT usage of the term DIPLEXER by ALL of these manufacturers. Hmm...maybe they make these for a living and might just know what they are talking about...If all of these people can use the term correctly, just what is your problem?
Onto the other errors. Please don't go around telling people to buy an $80 piece of equipment just to use it for things it was not intended for. You don't mow your lawn with a hedge trimmer do you? They both cut, but obviously they were designed for different operations. Using a multi-coupler for the purpose of combining two antennas is simply wasteful. Spend the $78 left over from the purchase of a T connector, on beer so that your crappy antenna perfomance won't be noticed as much. The mulit-coupler as mentioned by someone who KNOWS what he is talking about (JAMES0), does not have the proper filtering to isolate the two antennas and prevent interaction between the two. As I just stated, a $2 T connector would accomplish the same thing. Even more interesting, is
that a T connector and an inappropriately used multi-coupler both have the same amount of loss, 3dB. For most of us, 3dB of intentional loss is just not justified. How about .2dB for a diplexer? And the benefits of getting the most out of each antenna without any noticeable interaction.
You also mentioned specific lengths of coax being used to null signals. These are called 1/4 wavelength (or odd multiples) coaxial stubs. They are commonly used to null intermod interference from nearby transmitters. They are very effective at doing so. However, you won't find too many DUPLEXERS utilizing this technique. The notch needs to be a little deeper than these stubs can commonly provide. In relation to your post, the mention of these is completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the initial question of combining and summarily splitting signals.
Scannerdweeb, I second James0's recommendations between a switch and a diplexer. In summary, if you only need to listen to one band at a time, an antenna switch will suffice. However, if you want to listen to mulitple bands, in the act of scanning, a diplexer would be your best bet.
If you are like me and running a seperate antenna for 50-500 and then a 850 yagi, good luck finding a suitable diplexer. The satellite diplexers I mentioned above are not a good match for this application. You will receive no signal on 850. I had to build my own diplexer, but it is working like a champ. There is one company in the UK (I'll get back to you with their website, that sells a diplexer for this particular set-up). Being British, they have funky connectors.
Bottom line, you have two choices, a switch or a diplexer. If you can live with absolutely horrible performance, try the Y or T connector. I don't personally endorse the last option, because I have spent too much money and time trying to get everything as best as it CAN be. I think most of us out there want the best reception possible. That involves doing things the right way. IF you buy a multi-coupler, that's ok. They are great devices for their intended use, e.g. connecting multiple scanners to one antenna (or at least one coax), but for heaven's sake, don't spend $80 thinking that this will combine your two antennas satisfactorily. It won't.
Voyager, please take a "voyage" to your local library and bone up on some of this stuff before you disect and distort the post of someone who knows what he is talking about, and most importantly, before you misinform too many people.
Ryan
Tweekerbob
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 614
Website for Diplexer
Here is the website for the 0-500MHz (low side) / 800-1300 MHz (high side) http://www.profilant.net/usr/profil...nForm&id=45E01C816593C308C1256DF4007C689E
Note that it uses FME connectors. Also, it only supplies 40 dB of isolation between the two bands. Optimally, you would want about 70 dB. The 40 dB is actually ok in this product, because you will notice in the chart, that the attenuation of for example 100-300 MHz on the HIGH side is actually better than 60 dB.
Most importantly, it is wide-banded.
Here is the website for the 0-500MHz (low side) / 800-1300 MHz (high side) http://www.profilant.net/usr/profil...nForm&id=45E01C816593C308C1256DF4007C689E
Note that it uses FME connectors. Also, it only supplies 40 dB of isolation between the two bands. Optimally, you would want about 70 dB. The 40 dB is actually ok in this product, because you will notice in the chart, that the attenuation of for example 100-300 MHz on the HIGH side is actually better than 60 dB.
Most importantly, it is wide-banded.
Hopefully this won't devolve into flammage :3
Anyways, I've been reading this thread, partly because I'm looking for advice on the best way to set up antennas for a scanning system. :3
Mostly I'm interested in public safety and ham bands, some interest in railfanning/ships monitoring; the specific application I'm looking at is something useful in a portable environment with a handheld.
I presently have three (homebrew) 1/4-wave whips for VHF-Hi (including railfan frequencies) that is potentially usable for airscanning; UHF (and this whip is potentially usable as a half-wave whip for 800), and 800MHz. Yes, these are tuned to the centre frequencies on these bands.
I also have a secondary, mag-mounted homebrew whip adjustable for VHF-Lo and 6m.
What I'd *like* to be able to do is set up an "array", so to speak, where these three tuned antennas can be fed into one receiver source, preferably with highpass/lowpass filters for the various bands. (The specific idea I've had is with inputs for VHF-Lo, VHF-Hi, and UHF (seeing as the UHF whip could be used for 800).
I've played around a bit with some programs for creating one's own bandpass filters without so much luck (among other things, I *am* sort of new at actually making the bandpasses and when I can get a reasonable "standard" capacitor value I end up with occasionally *odd* values for the inductors, especially in the UHF end of things).
Am I actually indulging in a fool's errand and would be better off with some other antenna setup? (Again, keep in mind this needs to be portable--this would be used in an area I can't put a permanent antenna up in at all, being an RV on the road)
Anyways, I've been reading this thread, partly because I'm looking for advice on the best way to set up antennas for a scanning system. :3
Mostly I'm interested in public safety and ham bands, some interest in railfanning/ships monitoring; the specific application I'm looking at is something useful in a portable environment with a handheld.
I presently have three (homebrew) 1/4-wave whips for VHF-Hi (including railfan frequencies) that is potentially usable for airscanning; UHF (and this whip is potentially usable as a half-wave whip for 800), and 800MHz. Yes, these are tuned to the centre frequencies on these bands.
I also have a secondary, mag-mounted homebrew whip adjustable for VHF-Lo and 6m.
What I'd *like* to be able to do is set up an "array", so to speak, where these three tuned antennas can be fed into one receiver source, preferably with highpass/lowpass filters for the various bands. (The specific idea I've had is with inputs for VHF-Lo, VHF-Hi, and UHF (seeing as the UHF whip could be used for 800).
I've played around a bit with some programs for creating one's own bandpass filters without so much luck (among other things, I *am* sort of new at actually making the bandpasses and when I can get a reasonable "standard" capacitor value I end up with occasionally *odd* values for the inductors, especially in the UHF end of things).
Am I actually indulging in a fool's errand and would be better off with some other antenna setup? (Again, keep in mind this needs to be portable--this would be used in an area I can't put a permanent antenna up in at all, being an RV on the road)
N
N_Jay
Guest
JamesO said:
Hu?????
Do they perform well?
Or does teh pattern and efficiancy degrade quickly?
:? :roll: :? :roll:
windigofer said:
They make three band Triplexers. They are common, in fact. Check Comet and Diamond as manufacturers. They may even have quadriplexers (four bands), but I don't recall seeing any offhand.
What you want is a 6M/2M/440 Triplexer. The quadriplexer would be 6M/2M/440/900 if they make it. Both of these would cover your bands of interest well.
Joe M.
N
N_Jay
Guest
windigofer said:
The simple way to do this would be to get a three way splitter (CATV Type or similar) and combine the antennas. You will introduce some loss, and you may find some cancelation at specific frequencies, but it should be acceptable.
A second way would be to combine all the antennas at a single connect ion point. Use a piece of cable that is 1/2 wavelength at the tuned frequency of each band to connect he antenna to that point.
Its not a perfect solution, but should work as well as the above, and maybe better.
The right way to do this would be to build a filter network (diplexer/triplexer) that uses a set of bandpass filters between each antenna and the common trasnmission line.
Maybe some one knows of where to get one with off the self specifications that match your needs.
As for all the confusion in this tread, it lookes like there are several people with the right ideas, expaining it in a way that confuses the others.
Hence the proverbial "pissing contest"!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
