Posts by Peon

  • 5G vs. C-band

    Hi femi,

    My long-term tests with different depolarizers clearly speak in favor of an ordinary depolarizing plate of the right thickness, length and material. The best location is directly at the mouth of the waveguide. Then there is no inclination of the polarization plane depending on the frequency. Even the original depolarizer from the antenna manufacturer, located in the middle of the waveguide, did not reach the parameters - separation of polarization planes, tilt of the polarization plane. With the depolarizing plate in the mouth of the waveguide, I achieved suppression of the opposite polarity up to 22dB. :73: The original depolarizer reached only 12-15dB. :25:

    If you used AVCOMM and Zinwell LNB, you changed the linear polarization to circular, therefore you have the same TP in both frequencies. But you surely know that.

  • 5G vs. C-band

    Thank you for your response SaTom. :70:
    I understand your questions, but it is useless to deal with system noise when the interfering signal is twice as strong as the signal from the satellite. I personally receive satellites from orbit from 53 west to 98 east. The band from 3.4 to 3.7GHz is mainly used by satellites located in the east. In the western positions, they are gradually turning off the transponders in the disturbed band. Reception outside the disturbed band is problem-free.

  • 5G vs. C-band

    Greetings SaTom.
    You are right about something, but if there is a strong transmitter on the relevant frequencies that is close to your receiving device - antenna, then you have a problem with reception. You are probably lucky that the mentioned frequencies are not used in your location. Unfortunately, with us, it is occupied from 3400MHz to 3800MHz. I am attaching tables of assigned frequencies.

    Partial help is in the relevant antenna, but even that is not a 100% solution. The interference is suppressed, but the useful signal is still partially damaged. :25: RE: 5G vs. C-band

  • IQmonitor tool

    Sorry Lambda,

    but I rotate my antennas with homemade positioners, because commercial positioners (DISEqC) are not able to control such large antennas. That's why I don't use rotation using the IQ monitor. :25:

  • IQmonitor tool

    Hi Yuri, :70:

    I like your scan speed result. :73:

    I used a step of 1MHz and you used 15MHz and that is a significant difference. That's why you have a shorter scanning time. I prefer thoroughness, especially on satellites that do not have permanently switched on transponders, and then I also use a step of 100kHz. Or HR Spectrum. But that is always an individual case. :68:

  • IQmonitor tool

    Hello Yuri. :70:
    I rescanned these satellites and saved the images using IQmonitor. For comparison, I also add a scan of 19.2e, which is the strongest in my geolocation. Here you can see the fully rendered window with the transponders. Therefore, I used such a spectrum setting as the basic one. The difference in levels can be clearly seen on weaker satellites, compared to the strongest one. Of course, everything can be set according to your requirements, but I like this one. IQmonitor gives different setting options, so I use them. :91:

    Scan with TBS5925 and same setup with TBS6983.

    TBS5925:

    TBS6983:

  • IQmonitor tool

    Quote from strannik

    Peon

    First, the derivation range is poorly chosen for all spectra. Most of the tablet is unused, and the lower part of it is overloaded with transponder bodies that overlap the signatures of their parameters. Try checking the Auto checkbox

    Hello Yuri, :70:
    I counted on your reservations. Yes, when using "Auto" the spectrum is according to your wishes, but the graphic difference between the levels of transponders on different satellites is lost. I will also list the spectra with TBS6983 here on the forum as you wish. Just a little later, I'm quite busy. :94: