I would be interested to see how a real cband feedhorn and lnb work on this. the c/ku lnb's arent exactly known for their stellar performance.
Thanks for the entertainment Fred. This thread has been informative and satisfying, with lots of good and useful ideas. Although most of us know it's not practical to use such a small dish for C-Band, we also know it can get C-Band and it's fun to experiment with. It's even fun to read about it. Good job, and keep the fun coming. I'm now waiting for your next project. I'm sure it will be enjoyable, as they always are.
Thanks Fred..!!!
Yes, if I was trying to create the proper F/D ratio, but not easy to do with current support arms. I would need to move the scaler forward, and would have to build extenders on the scaler to allow room for the LNBf behind it without hitting the support arms.- shouldn't the scalar be flush or ahead of the leading edge of the LNBf? (closer to the dish
I don't see anything that would prevent testing that theory, ...
...and if you could pick up a few points on C- it'd be well worth it.
By all indications, a conical scaler would probably fit right in, and might gain a few points on C-Band. If someone has one they want to get rid of, or know where to purchase one, I would be interested.- there looks to be room to slide in a conical scalar without any hacksawing to it.
Reports from 2005, when this project was first tried, did indicate a noticeable improvement with one.
Again, a few more points on C-band is the goal, as you seem to have adequate if not outstanding Ku.
I think it is mostly due to size for the C-Band. The 84e does a great job on Ku.As for your success, it's hard to know what to credit it to.
I'm sure careful alignment played a big part! -
- it appears the 1m round dish may have an advantage on the elliptical 84e's
Perhaps we can chalk this one up to: Size does matter. - - ?
Or maybe the area?
As to which LNBf is better, I can't answer. I don't have a BSC-621 to try out.- over the years, I thought users found the BSC-621 at least adequate for C-band.
Is the CK-1 really better?
- over the years, I thought the BSC-621 had been lackluster for Ku, ...
...and poor at getting both C & Ku to focus at a common point.
Is the CK-1 really better?
You did have some pretty good success with the CK-1 on one of your Birdviews, last year.
Was that because the CK-1 is a better product, or just very careful tuning?
It was on the big (how big is it?) Birdview scalar?
From an earlier post in this thread edited for those who prefer location rather than satellite names:- do you still have a baseline set of signal/quality levels from Ku and the original 1m Primestar LNB?
That would tell a lot about how the dish/CK-1 combo was performing on Ku.
It's a shame ya don't have a duplicate dish, with the stock LNB . . . or any other Ku LNB, to compare.
I'd like to see how an Invacom or one of your Sky Mexico compare to the CK-1 on Ku.
I did a factory reset on my Fortec Star IR5400NA and am scanning in a few satellites now.- back on C-band, what about your receiver sensitivity? Using a Pansat 2500a?
Got anything more common so that other users can compare with ?
Perhaps a Visionsat IV-200 or a Coolsat 5000?
Or, whatever the 120cm C-band folks are using - -
I am just fighting for channels and signal period. I haven't scanned in enough C-Band channels to see, but I am sure there will be bleed-over.Last category:
- where is the adjacent-bird interference?
- or, are we just fighting for any signal at all?
The wrapping up is primarily for conclusions, further possibilities, and brain-storming. I am always open to further experiments, and if you or anyone else wants to send me a BSC-621, I'll give it a fair shot.Experiment conclusions
Too bad you've wrapped things up, I wanted to send you my BSC-621-2 for comparative purposes.
My prime focus dishes move across the sky at about the same speed as this dish lumbers.Did you give any thought to the speed at which one could change C-Band channels on a mini-BUD vs. a big 10' Prime Focus C-Band, lumbering, dish?
Thanks for the entertainment Fred. This thread has been informative and satisfying, with lots of good and useful ideas. Although most of us know it's not practical to use such a small dish for C-Band, we also know it can get C-Band and it's fun to experiment with. It's even fun to read about it. Good job, and keep the fun coming. I'm now waiting for your next project. I'm sure it will be enjoyable, as they always are.
Thanks Fred..!!!
Yes it does help greatly!also being in the center of the US does help on C-Band as that is the "sweet spot"
Here in MN I cant get as good of signals
no what I meant was signal strength wise you're in the sweet spot. If you look at Lyngsat and click on the "supposed" footprint in alot of cases you are in the sweet spot and need a smaller dish then me. Now some of those are goofy as I think one said I could get good signal witgh a 76cm dish but in alot of cases the signal would be stronger in St Louis![]()
thats why when folks post their quality readings they can be so different due to the satellite footprint![]()
I would be interested to see how a real cband feedhorn and lnb work on this. the c/ku lnb's arent exactly known for their stellar performance.
Linuxman-
Is it possible to make an array of small dishes with C Band LNBFs to improve weak signals, like NASA does when looking to ET radio freqs?
2 (or more) Dishes pointed at the same Sat feeding 1 receiver.
Looking through the old threads (back to 2005), I found measurements and dimensions of conical scalars which worked.Making your own conical scaler probably would be an option to increase signal on a sub marginal sized offset dish.
Limited time offer