[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] TA-36 vs. Classic 36

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] TA-36 vs. Classic 36
From: (Gary R. Hosler)
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 11:09:47 -0500
I stand corrected Pete.  I was referring to the Classic 33 (CL-33).  Sorry
for any confusion I may have caused.


Pete Smith <> on 06/02/98 10:26:17 AM

To:   Gary R. Hosler/MIPP/Imation
Subject:  Re: [TowerTalk] TA-36 vs. Classic 36

At 09:38 AM 6/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>CL was the "CLassic" feed system.  It consisted of two pieces of coax with
>the braid removed, each piece inserted inside one half of the driven
>element.  One piece of the coax was connected to the feed coax braid and
>the other to the center conductor.  In other words the RF was capacitive
>coupled to the driven element.  The beam is one of the better Mosley
>performers with relative wide spacing (18 foot boom) for a 3 element
>tribander.  The Classic feed system has at least one downside in that some
>of the antenna analysers out there don't generate enough signal to
>correctly couple to the driven element and will often give erroneous
>readings (but not necessarily on all bands which can really have you
>chasing your tail).
>de Gary  W0AW

Right, except that the C-36 had 6 elements on a 24-foot boom.  That feed
system was weird, though - never seen anyone else use it.  Ours worked
pretty well at W3DOS until it blew off the roof in a microburst.  The
aluminum tubing was a total loss, but all the traps and the hardware
(boom-to-mast and boom-to-element mounts) plus the feed system survived.

73,  Pete Smith N4ZR
In wild, wonderful, fairly rare WEST Virginia

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>