I stand corrected Pete. I was referring to the Classic 33 (CL-33). Sorry
for any confusion I may have caused.
Gary
Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> on 06/02/98 10:26:17 AM
To: Gary R. Hosler/MIPP/Imation
cc:
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TA-36 vs. Classic 36
At 09:38 AM 6/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>CL was the "CLassic" feed system. It consisted of two pieces of coax with
>the braid removed, each piece inserted inside one half of the driven
>element. One piece of the coax was connected to the feed coax braid and
>the other to the center conductor. In other words the RF was capacitive
>coupled to the driven element. The beam is one of the better Mosley
>performers with relative wide spacing (18 foot boom) for a 3 element
>tribander. The Classic feed system has at least one downside in that some
>of the antenna analysers out there don't generate enough signal to
>correctly couple to the driven element and will often give erroneous
>readings (but not necessarily on all bands which can really have you
>chasing your tail).
>
>de Gary W0AW
Right, except that the C-36 had 6 elements on a 24-foot boom. That feed
system was weird, though - never seen anyone else use it. Ours worked
pretty well at W3DOS until it blew off the roof in a microburst. The
aluminum tubing was a total loss, but all the traps and the hardware
(boom-to-mast and boom-to-element mounts) plus the feed system survived.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
In wild, wonderful, fairly rare WEST Virginia
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|