Hi Since you are after timing off of the sat's, having antennas that move, either physically or electrically seems like a problem. Any shift in the effective antenna location as you tracked the satellite would be "exciting" to compensate for. There was an early paper published based on doing this (early 80's).
I did tear into a Thunderbolt. It certainly looks like there's a filter on the front end. It's roughly similar to the filters in the HP splitters. It might have the same sort of attenuation. Bob On Mar 7, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Chris Albertson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Bob Camp <li...@rtty.us> wrote: >> Hi >> >> In the case of a GPS, you really can't increase the aperture (gain = >> directivity) since you want to cover the entire sky. > > > No, in theory it need not be an omnidirectional antenna. One could use > a very high gain antenna if it were able to track each satellite. If > you had access to the GPS firmware one could build a phased array > antenna that was electronically steered. I think it could work but > it's not practical because of the very high cost and large size. > > Would it be possible to build a much simpler version that used a line > array phased to null the nearby tower. > > -- > ===== > Chris Albertson > Redondo Beach, California > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
