[CQ-Contest] A3S or TH3JR or....a QUAD!

Jukka Klemola jukka.klemola at elisanet.fi
Wed Aug 29 02:04:29 EDT 2007

Gallup results so far:
Some people write about tuning the antenna.
Some write about antenna tuners with a quad.
Some suggestion regarding mechanics would not tolerate Alaskan latitudes
so in practise I should just forget about a quad.
Some noise without any answer towards the direction of solving the
original question or the added part but keeping on the subject,
elaborating people's thinking.

Only one answer with a set of measures, and the measures look pretty
The answer was such I almost believe that is the truth about quad
measures .. anyhow, I will test the measures I got in that answer next

Remembering the original question, it was about selecting between two
yagis that serve more than one band.

Review of this Quad thread:
The original question was simple. Then Quad was added.
Quad part of the thread did not add value to the original question at
all as there simply does not seem to be established design for a quad.
I do not believe a Quad is magic but it is art and obviously would need
some pruning at the site.

At least the Quad is much more complex to build than a pre-assembled 3
el triband yagi.

So, as my answer to the original thread is I would stick with the yagi.

My two euro cents is:
A3S weighs more.
A3S accepts more power without feature of generating smoke.
A3S is likely more expensive.
A3S likely is better as an antenna - gain difference maybe at or below
3dB on 20m. 3dB you cannot really notice.

So there you go: it is a compromise.

In case traveller's weight budget is limited, that feature has more
In case you absolutely want to maximise your signal, the power handling
& gain becomes the deciding factor.
In case budget is the single important issue, there is no question.

Whatever one chooses, is a compromise.
Just realise the compromising features and make the selection.
There may be more compromising features like expected assembly time or
required tools to assy just to mention two that come into my mind.

For audience:
It is very rich to read comments to more or less anything that do not
really address the original question at all.
I personally like this about our contesting reflector.
By elaborating and contributing ideas we will gain more as a bunch of
people all around the world making this contesting hobby more exciting.

Thanks to all for the comments.

Jukka OH6LI

-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: Jukka Klemola
Please let me know the right measures for a 2 el three band 10-15-20

Jukka OH6LI

> Van K7VS
>I have been using a quad since 1967.  And never looked back!  The first
>was a two element quad made by Gotham (Anyone remember that company?)
And >a snowstorm took that one down the weekend of the ARRL DX cw
contest in >1968. 
>Since then, have used a Gem Quad with great sucess in the contests over
>years.    Only need FR/G to be on "top of the honor roll."  Have a
>element in the air now and have a four element Gem quad in the rafters
>our garage.  Only thing I have every done is use coax matching xfmrs on
>the three driven elements with a remote heathkit antenna swtich.  73 es
>dx.  Van, K7VS in Medford, Oregon
>> I helped K0XN construct a 
>> two element Quad and then we spent a lot of time tuning it. When ARRL

>> version was first published, I found to my surprise that their
>> generated dimensions were within 1% of the dimensions that we had
>> experimentally. I'm currently using the same antenna at 55 feet and
>> been very happy with it's performance. One note of caution
>> published dimensions are for bare wire. If you use insulated wire (to

>> protect against polutants, salt, etc.) be aware that insulated wire
has a 
>> slower velocity factor than bare wire. The effect is on the order of
>> 73 Steve K0SR

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list