Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Quad\s+VS\s+Yagi\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Quad\s+VS\s+Yagi\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. quad vs yagi (score: 1): Author: breeze@primary.matnet.com (Jim McDermott); Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:50:53 -0900; Hi there, Just thought that I might make a comment on the lightingbolt quads.. everyone that I have ever talked to has been more thatn happy with the lightingbolt. I personally had a 5 band 2 element; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00147.html (8,138 bytes)
2. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: at949@detroit.freenet.org (Ron St. Laurent); Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:09:19 -0500; Hi Bob, Go with the Quad. I have owned both a KLM KT34 and the Lightning Bolt Quad. I enjoyed the way both played. When I owned the yagi I did not have anyone nearby with a quad to perform comparison; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00468.html (8,325 bytes)
3. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: ke5fi@wt.net (Chuck Dietz); Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 15:40:57 -0800; I believe that, if you tune quad elements, you will get as much front to back as any triband yagi. (There may be some reduction on the "inside" elements (15 and WARC), but I have heard of 20 db being; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00477.html (7,755 bytes)
4. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: seay@alaska.net (Jan & Del Seay); Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:50:57 -0900 (AKST); Chuck: Quads are capable of a much better F/B than equivelant boomed yagis. A 2 el quad can obtain in excess of 30 dB f/b. The problem is, very few spend the time (And it is a lot of time) tuning. Af; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00478.html (8,716 bytes)
5. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: cdent@tenet.edu (Cathy Elizabeth D'Entremont); Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:30:34 -0600 (CST); Chuck (et al): I was always taught that you stub-tuned the reflector(s) for max F/B, using sliders on the stubs and measuring with a FS meter, with 20dB being very achieveable. CU @ next TXDXS meetin; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00479.html (7,501 bytes)
6. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: w7ni@teleport.com (Stan Griffiths); Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 11:42:58 -0800 (PST); My God! You mean its quad vs Yagi time again? My advice would be to go with the advice you get from the guy with the best performance record in CONTESTS (not DX). If you are contesting (as opposed to; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00487.html (7,737 bytes)
7. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: ED-AB4PY@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (Ed Privette); Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 22:41:45 +0000; I have really tried not to jump in here but can't restrain myself any longer. Additionally let me add my remarks are totally biased and are in no way objective! I have been using quads for 42 years; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00493.html (9,898 bytes)
8. Quad VS Yagi (score: 1): Author: wrt@eskimo.com (Bill Turner); Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:19:11 GMT; Two posts have mentioned the 1004/F formula for element length, but = neither specified which element (driven, presumably) and the correction factors = for director/reflector. Can you please clarify?; /archives//html/Towertalk/1996-12/msg00504.html (7,328 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]