Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+C31XR\s+versus\s+SteppIR\s*$/: 43 ]

Total 43 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: Peter Dougherty <w2irt@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:17:53 -0400
I originally wanted to go with a 4-element SteppIR for aesthetics, but what convinced me ultimately had nothing to do with an antenna at all. It was CQWW-SSB a few years ago. Saturday night, 40m; the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00146.html (8,264 bytes)

2. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: WD0M <wd0m@centurytel.net>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:32:53 -0600
Dang - I've just realized that complexity is evil! I'm gonna sell my C5 Corvette - I found out it has 5 computers in it at the least! Progress sucks. 73, Joe WD&Oslash;M (4L SteppIR owner for almost
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00147.html (8,994 bytes)

3. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Fatchett" <mike@mallardcove.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:46:56 -0600
Blow the balun on the F12 and you are out of action too. The separate feedlines is an advantage if you need that kind of flexibility. I have to wonder what all those extra elements do to the pattern.
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00148.html (10,906 bytes)

4. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:41:21 -0400
But that means little when compairing antennas. Contesting results are almost invariably due to skill rather than hardware. Hardware helps, but it's trumped nearly every time by technique/skill. Und
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00154.html (7,934 bytes)

5. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Bill Parry" <BPARRY@RGV.RR.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:23:41 -0500
Come on guys, calm down. I knew the second that someone mentioned the C31 and the Steppir in the same e-mail, we were going to war AGAIN! Both of these antennas are fine. Buy what you want. This emot
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00155.html (9,923 bytes)

6. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: WD0M <wd0m@centurytel.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:00:15 -0600
Au contrarire, mon ami - have you not heard about SWR? Should what you postulate actually happen, the end result would be an elevated SWR. Nice try..... ______________________________________________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00157.html (7,840 bytes)

7. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Fatchett" <mike@mallardcove.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:56:19 -0600
Switch to 180 degree mode and you will quickly figure out if you have a reflector or not. Next someone is going to tell us that traps are wonderful things too. I guess they are if you like loss. The
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00160.html (10,310 bytes)

8. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:32:00 -0400
As an outside observer on this one: There haven't been any attacks on SteppIR antennas; there have been dissenting opinions that SteppIRs are perfect and attempts to convince the dissenters that the
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00164.html (8,869 bytes)

9. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Mike Fatchett" <mike@mallardcove.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:24:58 -0600
Ford............ Better being very subjective to the contester or dxer in general. Most of the SteppIR owners I know don't believe they are perfect. As an outside observer on this one: There haven't
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00167.html (9,863 bytes)

10. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: Bill Turner <dezrat@copper.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:46:17 -0700
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: -- REPLY FOLLOWS -- Complexity is not evil unless it is combined with dubious reliability. Mechanical contrivances are always suspect until proven otherwise. The SteppIR has a good
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00176.html (8,531 bytes)

11. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov <r_bakalov@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Interestingly, nobody has included OptiBeam in the discussion. Their stated gain is higher than F12 and therefore closer to SteppIR. Rudy N2WQ _______________________________________________ ________
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00179.html (8,318 bytes)

12. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Dan Zimmerman N3OX" <n3ox@n3ox.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:09:29 -0400
Look, I like complexity. I use motorized switched matching networks on my antennas so I don't have to use a regular tuner... The issue that I would be considering with something like a SteppIR is mor
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00181.html (8,874 bytes)

13. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: Hector Garcia XE2K <j_hector_garcia@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
my opinion: America is not the Optibeam's market in this order WORDL: fixed elements OPTIBEAM M2? ????????? F12 STEPIR is another technology with Plus and disadvantages - user will provide the last w
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00186.html (9,252 bytes)

14. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Chet Moore" <ChetMoore@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:19:04 -0400
Hi Gang, I didn't take the comments so far anyway as attacks on the STEPPIR or the C31. I have the C31XR at 90 feet. In March I apparently had the boom to boom to element clamp come loose on mine whi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00189.html (12,569 bytes)

15. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: bob finger <finger@goeaston.net>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 15:24:26 -0400
Hector: Perhaps not, but those of us who have them think the world of OptiBeam. Better it be kept a secret though....I don't want all the competition. I own 6 OptiBeam antennas and while very expensi
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00190.html (8,789 bytes)

16. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Stone, Gary R." <Gary.Stone@va.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:45:55 -0500
Greetings, I had been silent and won't say much but my Optibeam got sold. The sale cost me lots of lost dollars. Mine was simply too big and needed some better building in my view. The new owner will
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00191.html (10,948 bytes)

17. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: K7LXC@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:09:23 EDT
stated gain is higher than F12 and therefore closer to SteppIR. Aye, and there's the rub. The reason that N0AX and myself embarked on our antenna comparison tests was that YOU CAN'T BELIEVE ANTENNA M
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00197.html (8,874 bytes)

18. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:51:12 +0200
Those figures are EZNEC simulated 73 Peter Currently Force 12 and SteppIR are the only manufacturers that use our protocol to produce useful comparable performance figures. If Optibeam figures were p
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00202.html (8,262 bytes)

19. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: <john@kk9a.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 21:30:52 -0400
I was going to ask the very same question Jay did, what is the protocol that OptiBeam does not conform to? I own one OptiBeam - an OB2-40 40m antenna and it is very well made and the customer service
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00215.html (13,271 bytes)

20. Re: [TowerTalk] C31XR versus SteppIR (score: 1)
Author: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 22:23:18 EDT
. It is more difficult to stack multiband antennas and maintain the desired ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It most certainly is. That is a real plus for us
/archives//html/Towertalk/2007-05/msg00217.html (8,531 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu