A 4 square RX array is hardly small - for 160m it requires a minimum of a
54' square. Pennants and the K9AY look should work at a reduced size (their
size and shape is not critical) and it's likely better than no RX antennas.
I've had good results on top band using a pennant.
John KK9A / P40A
To: "'K3VX'" <k3vx@verizon.net>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Reduced size receiving antennas
From: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 08:23:22 -0700
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I use the 4sq rcv array from DX Engineering and they work great. They use
shortened whips for the verticals. I do not have a full sized 4sq to
compare.
I have used other small loops in the past. What I have found is something
is usually better than nothing.
Mike W0MU
CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1
W0MU.NET or 67.40.148.194
"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may
never get over." Ben Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of K3VX
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:19 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Reduced size receiving antennas
TTers,
Has anyone built a reduced size version of the K9AY terminated loop(s)?
If so what are the consequences (besides the obvious reduction in capture
area).
Same question for pennants and flags.
The reason for the question is a very long and skinny backyard.
TIA and 73
Larry K3VX
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|