Mike,
Option #3 can be executed slightly differently and it is what I am pursuing.
You don't need 9 HP BPFs, only 3. The sequence of devices, starting from the
tribander and going to the shack is:
1) 3 x Tribanders with single feed line each
2) Each feed line goes into a triplexers and you get separate lines for 20,15,
and 10. In total, you get 3 x 20, 3 x 15, and 3 x 10
3) You take all the individual band lines and stack them using 3 stack matches
4) Now you have 3 feed lines again- for 20, 15, and 10
5) Install HP BPFs on each feed line, for a total of 3 BPFs
Haven't built it yet. It's a summer project, along with expanding the remote
SO2R switch.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 8:50 PM, Mike DeChristopher <mfdechristopher@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I know some of you are using (or have used) a triplexer with your
> tribander. Having very limited experience with triplexers and
> tribanders, I'm hoping you can assist with a thought experiment we're
> working through.
>
> For the purposes of this discussion, we'll ignore the pitfalls of
> stacking tribanders themselves, at least where it comes to pattern,
> elevation, separation, etc. -- let's assume we have that all worked
> out.
>
> Phase 1: Take a three -high stack of identical tribanders, each single
> feed. We want to do the reasonable thing and use a stack match of some
> sort. This probably works OK.
>
> Phase 2: Now we want to host a multiop. We'll need to separate the
> feeds with a triplexer (BPF's included) between the stack match and
> the shack. Now we have three feeds coming in and a shared stack for
> 10, 15, and 20. The obvious downfall is that three operators are
> chained to the same stack configuration; for example, the 10m op wants
> to use only the top beam while the 20m op wants to run EU
> simultaneously on the full stack -- fisticuffs break out as operators
> fight for the stack control box.
>
> Phase 3: The next logical step is to put a triplexer and the BPF's per
> tribander. So we now have three feeds per antenna, which can then be
> run into three stack matches (one each for 10, 15, and 20). At this
> point, we'd truly have three independently-controlled stacks. The only
> shared controls would be rotors.
>
> [Given the cost of nine HP BPF's, three triplexers, three stack
> matches, other assorted hardware, the nearly-logical suggestion might
> be "build another tower and use monobanders" -- but that's why this is
> a thought experiment, after all.]
>
>
> Question 1: Has anyone done this (Phase 3 above)?
>
> Question 2: If one used tribanders with separate feeds for each band,
> could one forego the triplexers and simply use BPF's between each
> feedpoint and the stack match?
>
> 73,
> Mike N1TA
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|