I see phillystrand is still being hawked as the best overall solution for guying where antennas will be along the length of the tower... but I still prefer good old fashioned steel. The reasons - muc
gentlemen that I have forgotten his name - in essence: for a dipole to add gain one material in the plane, at the right distance, the guy wires are not in the plane in most cases, a long distance aw
In a message dated 9/21/05 4:19:05 PM Greenwich Standard Time, RXDesign@ssvecnet.com writes: The reasons - much less stretch (see K7NV's very nice analysis of same using both EHS and philly - no comp
I will see if I can find it again - I may well have done him an injustice to quote without the reference. I would however respectfully disagree with your assessment - about being dead wrong. The poin
I would not use the stretch factor of Phillystran as an argument to not use it. The amount of stretch in an amateur installation is negligible. If you are going to keep using steel and plan for multi
As Tom points out, you can do a lot of stuff and not change the forward gain or the beam squint all that much, however, the placement and depth of nulls is another story. So the question becomes how
Which is it?? Intentionally cut them to be non-resonant.... assessment - to be antennas insignificant. or... The second one sounds like we have to plan to create a problem. Gain is one thing. It take