Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Optibeam\s+OBLY14\-5\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Optibeam\s+OBLY14\-5\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: "W3YY" <w3yy@cox.net>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:11:31 -0500; I'm considering the Optibeam OBLY14-5 for a new antenna. Anyone have experience with or comments about this antenna? My goals are: 5 Band - 20, 17, 15, 12, 10M performance with performance equal to a; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00131.html (6,590 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 13:41:54 -0500; I have no experience with that antenna model but log periodic antennas in general with a hot boom require special attention to avoid feed line radiation. OptiBeam has great designs and service so hop; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00132.html (7,091 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: Craig Miller <dcm@stanford.edu>; Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 22:31:35 -0800; Kurt Andress, K7NV, who knows more about antennas and towers than all of the rest of us combined, warns that the Optibeam antennas have reliability/durability problems because they use Turkish alumin; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00134.html (8,873 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: David Gilbert <xdavid@cis-broadband.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:38:00 -0700; That doesn't fit my experience at all. I have two Optibeam antennas, an OB16-3 and an OB2-40, that have been up since 2008 with zero problems in spite of outrageously high wind gusts here at my QTH.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00135.html (9,534 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 01:03:55 -0800; Hi Dave, I know Kurt Andress well enough to know that he does not deal in unsubstantiated rumors. He is, among other things, a superb Mech Eng'r, and he runs a first rate biz installing antennas. Tha; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00136.html (8,791 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: <kstover@ac0h.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 05:54:45 -0600; I'm about to make a decision between the 4 el SteppIR 20-6m and the 16 el version of the Optibeam Log-Yagi. Whichever way I go that antenna with the JK402T I'm going to stack above it will be turned; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00137.html (10,016 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:53:00 -0500; My OptiBeam experience mimics AB7E. I had a 40m beam in Aruba where the wind almost never stops plus I have a couple 40m beams at my NC residence. I had no mechanical failures and the 40m elements ar; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00138.html (10,096 bytes)
8. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:53:53 -0800; On 11/15/18 5:53 AM, john@kk9a.com wrote: My OptiBeam experience mimics AB7E. I had a 40m beam in Aruba where the wind almost never stops plus I have a couple 40m beams at my NC residence. I had no m; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00142.html (12,401 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:18:48 -0800; I have FAR less experience than Kurt on this, but as of a year or so ago, consider the SteppIR trombones an immature design based on the experience of local friends who own them. The issue I've heard; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00144.html (9,429 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:42:45 -0800; I bought a used OptiBeam 11-3. Your post probably explains why the previous owner replaced all of the original elements with DX Engineering tubing. Kurt has noted -- and I've seen -- some wear issues; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00145.html (8,538 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:54:46 -0800; A 4L SteppIR 20>6 has no trombones. My 4L has been up 8 years without an issue with the 6m kit. I just put up a DB36 to add capability (30m) and it replaced a W6NL 40m Moxon which is in about the s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00146.html (12,748 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:03:50 -0800; These guys could machine the 80m beam from billet. https://www.mmsonline.com/blog/post/aluminum-material-removal-rate-new-world-record (in 7075) All it takes is spinning the 63mm carbide cutter at 18; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00147.html (9,524 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: "W3YY" <w3yy@cox.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:17:45 -0500; AC0H - I'll be very interested in how you like the 16-EL Optibeam. My 4 el SteppIR 20-6M gave me great service for 14 years but has now reached the end of its useful life. So am considering the Optib; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00150.html (11,639 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:36:07 -0800; <I bought a used OptiBeam 11-3. Your post probably explains why the <previous owner replaced all of the original elements with DX <Engineering tubing. <Kurt has noted -- and I've seen -- some wear is; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00160.html (12,528 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: Bob K6UJ <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:00:06 +0000 (UTC); Jim, I agree on using AL channel for heavy duty el to boom attachment. My three el 40M yagi from JK antennas uses aluminum channel for attaching the elements to the boom. Very good mechanical const; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00161.html (14,491 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>; Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:44:44 -0800; It's straightforward to show that a square boom is inferior to a round boom. A fair comparison is 2.25-in round boom vs. 2.0-in square boom because they have the same cross-sectional area. Bending is; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00172.html (9,106 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 06:32:27 -0800; <It's straightforward to show that a square boom is <inferior to a round boom. <A fair comparison is 2.25-in round boom vs. 2.0-in <square boom because they have the same cross-sectional <area. Bendi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00188.html (9,530 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Optibeam OBLY14-5 (score: 1): Author: JVarney <jvarn359@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 21:54:28 -0800; I ran a finite element model with two 15-foot booms, one made of 2.25 inch round, the other with 2.0 square. One end was fixed and the other end was left free, exposed to gravity in the Z axis and an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2018-11/msg00193.html (8,937 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 18
Page: [1]