Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+monobanders\s+vs\.\s+multibanders\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+monobanders\s+vs\.\s+multibanders\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] monobanders vs. multibanders (score: 1): Author: Jim Jarvis <jimjarvis@optonline.net>; Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:25:17 -0400; To this day I doubt if any multiband yagi is as good as monobanders on equal boom lengths. Something is missing with the computer analysis in the losses, interaction or both. Carl KM1H -0- I think th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00386.html (8,193 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] monobanders vs. multibanders (score: 1): Author: "Mark Beckwith" <n5ot@n5ot.com>; Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:41:49 -0500; Remember too that at whatever height you put a multiband yagi, it may (probably will) only be optimal for one of the bands it's built for. Mark, N5OT _______________________________________________ _; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00387.html (7,105 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] monobanders vs. multibanders (score: 1): Author: "jeremy-ca" <km1h@jeremy.mv.com>; Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:11:33 -0400; Very true but I was referring to the classic Christmas Tree stack. With total exposed mast of 15' or so there is minimal angle difference especially in an inverted config. Carl KM1H _________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00393.html (8,494 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] monobanders vs. multibanders (score: 1): Author: <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 19:32:56 -0400; The interlaced beam suffer from interaction from the elements of other bands. When you are on 15m the 20m directors look a little like a reflector. So, the gain is less for this type of tribander on; /archives//html/Towertalk/2007-07/msg00415.html (7,938 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]