Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+4\-square\s+vs\s+40\-2CD\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Towertalk\]\s+4\-square\s+vs\s+40\-2CD\s*$/: 11 ]

Total 11 documents matching your query.

1. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: dick.green@valley.net (Dick Green); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:51:15 -0400; And the winner is... I just had the rare opportunity to compare two very different 40m antennas "side-by-side" and thought the results would be of interest. I've had a 40m 4-square with 60 buried rad; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00196.html (11,816 bytes)
2. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 18:30:09 +0100; 1-2 S-units louder than the 4-square. This should be no surprise. Even a dipole up 1/2 wavelength will beat a 4-square. I recall a dipole's gain is in the order of 2-3 dB over a vertical for equivale; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00198.html (8,124 bytes)
3. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 18:45:30 +0100; for equivalent grounds. I meant to say 2-3 dB over a 4-square...not a single vertical. 73, Bill W4ZV; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00200.html (7,964 bytes)
4. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (n4kg@juno.com); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:26:22 -0600; Hello Dick, I'm not surprised, although the 6 dB per S unit estimate may be 'optimistic'. MOST receivers I've measured are 'generous' below S9, sometimes being only 1 to 3 dB per S unit. This can be; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00206.html (14,695 bytes)
5. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: k4oj@tampabay.rr.com (Jim White); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 18:36:29 -0400; Dick, More is better in one facet of life I participate in - antennas! I never cease to be amazed at how antennas HEAR differently...as such current efforts at my station are to increase diversity of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00208.html (14,541 bytes)
6. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: jerry@rchco.com (Jerry Heron); Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 16:19:37 -0700; Hi Bill Those were good reference articles attached to the email... all I can add is my pair of phased HV2 verts are happy as a clam and play great on the salt water beach here on Puget Sound! Loud d; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00211.html (7,896 bytes)
7. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:10:37 -0400; Remember that a 4 square is only a 2 el vertical array with the ability to put out a uni-directional pattern in different directions. A vertical is down 2 or 3 DB from a half wave dipole at one half; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00215.html (8,862 bytes)
8. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: k2av@contesting.com (Guy Olinger, K2AV); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:20:35 -0400; Much betterer... vertical. http://www.mscomputer.com take an additional 5 percent off; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00217.html (8,980 bytes)
9. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: W8JI@contesting.com (Tom Rauch); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:04:16 -0400; A four square actually functions as a three-element in-line array, not as a two element array. The "center" two elements fed in-phase act as one element, giving the proper 1:2:1 current distribution; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00218.html (10,061 bytes)
10. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: richard@karlquist.com (Richard Karlquist); Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:01:57 -0700; I'll believe your test, but a better test is a simple dipole against a simple vertical. That way, implementation problems of the 4-square and Yagi don't confuse the results. This must vary with locat; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00220.html (10,075 bytes)
11. [Towertalk] 4-square vs 40-2CD (score: 1): Author: sm2ekm@telia.com (Jan Erik Holm); Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 18:32:57 +0200; This is correct but the dipole has to be at least half a lambda up in the air. Forexample, 4SQ gives approx 5.5 dBi and with losses in near field lets say 4.5 dBi, a dipole at 1/2 wl gives approx 7 d; /archives//html/Towertalk/2002-07/msg00226.html (9,371 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 11
Page: [1]