[TowerTalk] 80 4-square inside a 160 4-square? Pros andConsplease!

[Jim Lux]

Actually, this is probably the best way to solve the dual band 4 square
expressed yet..

You don't get quite the performance from 1/8 spacing that you would from
1/4, but, on low bands, anyway, the loss in "capture area" is probably not a
big deal, since atmospheric noise dominates over receiver noise.

Could one perhaps use trapped verticals?

The 80m elements would be close to each other, and mutual Z would make
designing the feed network a bit trickier (you couldn't use a 90 degree
hybrid for instance)... bandwidth might also be narrow, but, if you made the
elements "cage like" that might help, although the drive networks would also
potentially be narrow band.

----- Original Message -----
From: "w7xu" <w7xu at iw.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 80 4-square inside a 160 4-square? Pros
andConsplease!


> At the risk of making a foolish suggestion, why couldn't you build
> a 4-square made up of conical monopoles, wherein each antenna would
> cover both 160 and 80?  The antennas would be spaced 1/4-wavelength
> on 80 and 1/8-wavelength on 160.  Then switch in/out separate phasing
> lines for the 2 bands.
>
> 73 and awaiting replies from the educated,
>
> Arliss  W7XU
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk