I think, though, that it's definitely something to look into for the future. We've had decades of work to develop tools and techniques for optimizing conventional multielement beams, starting with es
At the risk of making a foolish suggestion, why couldn't you build a 4-square made up of conical monopoles, wherein each antenna would cover both 160 and 80? The antennas would be spaced 1/4-waveleng
I am doing a similar thing with my 7-hex arrays. The 80 meter array will also be used on 160. The spacing will be 3/8 wl on 80 and 3/16 wl on 160. The verticals will be 90 ft top loaded verticals on
Hi Arlis, That would work, but he wants to use two bands at one time. It would wind up being pretty complex, but workable. 73, Tom W8JI you build antenna would 1/4-wavelength separate phasing Towers"
Actually, this is probably the best way to solve the dual band 4 square expressed yet.. You don't get quite the performance from 1/8 spacing that you would from 1/4, but, on low bands, anyway, the lo
Complex yes, but probably less complex than two sets of elements and trying to deal with the interactions. Essentially, you'd wind up with a big multipole relay to switch between two sets of tuning n
elements and trying with a big networks. Does he a bit trickier, in fact) than a A duplexer allows simultaneous reception and transmission with one receiver and one transmitter at the same time, a d
good isolation. I qualitatively dealing with the radios Two arrays (one inside the other and **both being used at the same time**) is by far the simplest system, but is complex enough to dissuade al
I guess the answer is to have the kind of room that K4JA has. His 80M 4-sqr is in the "80M field" and the 160 is in the "160M field". sigh... 73, Stew K3ND ___________________________________________