Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+JK\s+402\s+versus\s+CC\s+XM\-240\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+JK\s+402\s+versus\s+CC\s+XM\-240\s*$/: 29 ]

Total 29 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 23:02:05 -0800; On 2/26/2019 8:03 PM, Tim Duffy wrote: With a good ground radial system (very important) here at K3LR - the full size 4 square holds its own - almost 6 dB of gain over ground - compared to a stack of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00160.html (10,666 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:24:20 +0800; Jim I don't think that Tim is saying the 4sq is 6 dB better than his beams. I read that as a 4sq is around 6dB of gain on a model. Maybe I'm reading that wrong. Pretty sure if it was 6 dB better t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00163.html (11,307 bytes)
23. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: john@kk9a.com; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:45:54 -0500; Nice summary Jeff. Gainwise there is no difference between the Moxon and the coil loaded 2el. As I stated below, it is hard to get a lot of gain on 40m with a single antenna. Even if you compare the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00164.html (9,541 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: Tom Georgens <tomgeorgens15@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 10:50:42 -0400; As Grant indicates, I use two W6NL Moxons at 8P5A. They are on different towers and are not phased. Overall, I could not be happier with them. While I do not have an antenna testing range, they seem; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00168.html (12,763 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: john@kk9a.com; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:22:57 -0500; There is no question that the 40m Moxon is a great design however it is not a small 40m beam and as you mentioned it can be difficult to install. Side mounting them might be a real challenge. I wonde; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00172.html (9,371 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:55:25 -0800; A 27 MHz modest dip is real. At one time I considered other antennas on the same mast and modeling showed little interaction. Mine was 11' below a 86' Tornado tuned 80m dipole (EF180C reworked) eleme; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00173.html (10,830 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: "Edward Sawyer" <sawyered@earthlink.net>; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:46:05 -0500; I use the M2 3 el beam on 40M. I have it centered on 7080 and that gives me a 2:1 SWR BW from 7000 - 7200. It rises steeply from 7150 so by the time you are at 7275 the SWR is at 3:1. But inside the; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00174.html (9,169 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:28:08 -0800; Jeff, Your understanding is the same as mine, and your earlier post about vertical pattern is also right on. I'm simply observing the critical importance of soil quality on the gain (and vertical pat; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00177.html (10,383 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] JK 402 versus CC XM-240 (score: 1): Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>; Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 22:03:13 -0500; Hi John, We know that gain is relative as well as absolute patterns differ between antennas at the same height so unless you have the identical antennas pointed in the exact same direction right at t; /archives//html/Towertalk/2019-02/msg00185.html (12,112 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 29
Page: [1] [2]