Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+80\s+meter\s+antenna\s+comparison\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "StellarCAT" <RXDesign@ssvecnet.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:58:13 -0700
Anyone do a comparison either sequentially (owned one and then the other) or ideally simultaneously of a well placed 80 meter dipole vs. a 2el long(er) boom Hi-Q coil beam? I currently have a F12 Sig
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00539.html (6,961 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:56:55 EST
Same thing applies to a well built 4 sq vs. a 2 el beam. I can't tell you much about one el vs two el, but I can tell you about two el vs 4 square. Back around 2000 I played horse races several times
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00540.html (8,155 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:19:37 -0000
I have used a rotatable dipole and a beam on 40m and the beam is much better, in my opinion. I would expect the same results on 80m. You can read NQ4I's 80m four square vs. beam comparison in the arc
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00541.html (8,278 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:04:20 -0600
A couple years back I did a comparison between my 80 four square and 3 L wire beam at 100 ft at the same QTH. On the short DX I couldn't tell the difference, however on the long DX the four square wa
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00543.html (8,529 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:39:53 -0000
This is a tough comparison since you were much closer to the ocean than W4AN. Same thing applies to a well built 4 sq vs. a 2 el beam. I can't tell you much about one el vs two el, but I can tell you
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00544.html (8,027 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: VE6WZ_Steve <ve6wz@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:03:13 -0700
Hi Gary: For two years I ran the Force 12 EF-180B rotatable dipole at about 100' I switched out to my homebrew 2-el coil loaded Yagi in 2002 and it has been an outstanding DX performer. A direct answ
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00545.html (10,036 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: n8de@thepoint.net
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:20:59 -0500
Steve, Nowhere on your website can I find the MOST important detail of your 80m yagi: HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND. Don N8DE Quoting VE6WZ_Steve <ve6wz@shaw.ca>: ______________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00546.html (10,341 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Hearn" <dhearn@air-pipe.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:53:25 -0800
It is 105 ft. See Photos and the one of the tower base. 73, Dan, N5AR --Original Message-- From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of n8de@thepoint.n
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00554.html (11,307 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@mail.ee>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:29:16 +0200
I have right now on 80 meters 3 element coil loaded Optibeam Yagi at 36m height on rotating tower and also full size 4 Square with 64 ground mounted 1/4wl radials per each tube vertical using Comtek
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00559.html (13,747 bytes)

10. [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "StellarCAT" <RXDesign@ssvecnet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:08:53 -0700
Interesting.... however using EZNEC and their provided 4 SQ model I see different results then what your suggesting here... a DIPOLE at 136' (what I have) out performs a 4 SQ for all angles down to a
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00566.html (8,623 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:08:21 -0600
Tonno, Thank you for this excellent objective comparison. Doug I have right now on 80 meters 3 element coil loaded Optibeam Yagi at 36m height on rotating tower and also full size 4 Square with 64 gr
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00567.html (9,906 bytes)

12. [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "StellarCAT" <RXDesign@ssvecnet.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:19:14 -0700
a couple more comments: first off I believe all would agree when you say that the yagi beats the 4 SQ by 3 db to as much as 2 S-units - this is a great deal! Even 3 db as we all know is non-trivial!
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00570.html (8,473 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:26:33 -0800
EZNEC certainly doesn't model my QTH correctly. For DX, a dipole at 115 feet is interchangeable with a single 1/4 wave vertical in terms of transmitted signal strength. For lower dipoles, the vertica
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00572.html (8,187 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:43:48 -0700
Hi, Gary. The 4-Square model ("4square" for 40m) that came with my copy of EZNEC has simply a connection to average ground for each vertical ... no radials of any sort. The EZNEC model also shows sta
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00573.html (7,812 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "Jim Brown" <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:31:34 -0800
I think broad generalizations like this are dangerous. I have a 160/80/40 dipole at about 105 ft, and a top-loaded 86 ft vertical for 160 and 80. Which is "better" for any given path will depend STRO
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00574.html (8,807 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: K4SAV <RadioIR@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:49:47 -0600
The model included with EZNEC contains no wire losses, no transmission line losses, and no near field ground losses, and assumes average flat ground. Jerry, K4SAV ____________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00579.html (9,740 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] 80 meter antenna comparison (score: 1)
Author: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:17:56 -0800 (PST)
What I said was not meant to be a generalization. It applies on 80 meters only, at my QTH only, and on short path only, and on transmit only. I thought I made that clear in my posting. FYI, my QTH is
/archives//html/Towertalk/2008-01/msg00580.html (9,348 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu