[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 138, Issue 48
Chuck Smallhouse
w7cs at theriver.com
Mon Jun 23 16:56:12 EDT 2014
Gentlemen, and I do mean it as a compliment !
I greatly appreciate your prompt answers to my questions regarding
the B & W Dipole.
Now for the rest of the story. Several years ago I purchased a new
MIL Spec one of these, at almost a give away price, at a hamfest flea
market, It's wire elements were of stainless steel and the overall
length was about 90'. I installed it at my QTH over quite hilly
terrain, the average height was > 40' above the average mean
elevation, BTW, I live on the N facing slope of a 9K' mountain range
at 5000 feet, with a negative horizon from about 280 degrees around
through N to about 120 degrees. The B & W runs about due E and W.
I tried using it on 160 and was not too impressed, on 80 M it seemed
to perform quite well. Since I had plenty of acreage, I decided to
extend it to 180 ', which the instructions that I received with it,
indicated that was the length of one commercial type available
model. Fortunately I was able to find the exact same diameter SS
stranded cable at a local wire cable distributor. In doing the
extension I was able to move the average height up another 5 + feet
and supported the center on my 6M antenna tower. The Amateur version
uses stranded copper cable, however my version was intended for
Military (and probably Embassy deployments) so probably the SS
stranded cable was specified and supplied (at a higher cost) for it's
durability and longer life in extreme environments ?
I've noticed a definite improvement on all bands and especially on
160M, However, I'm now exchanging my IC PW-1, for a QRO+
PA, and am concerned about the B & W's power handling capabilities
. I've misplaced the original instructions, I think that they
indicated that the max power should be < 1 KW (600 W ?). Also, as I
recall, the Balun/impedance transformer is a 16:1 ratio and the
center terminating (impedance/SWR leveling) resistance was about 800
ohms ? Are there any acknowledgements to my recollections, but more
importantly any solutions ? I've even considered elimination of the
resistance and the balun, and replacing it with short length of open
wire line to a remote balanced auto ATU, an expensive solution, which
would also make the conversion to my 50 ohm 7/8" Heliax feed line.
There are always various, sometimes very biased, opinions about
different types of antennas, which make for quite interesting reading
and food for thought. However there are many that are not based on
real life measurements and or based on interesting and questionable
mathematical equations and formula. Some even on "known computer
programs and analyses", so at times a bit of 'tongue in cheek' is
required. The B & W resistive termination does not set a
precedence, in antenna design and implementation, as evidenced by the
ever admired and revered Rhombic. These were especially effective
when being used by our military communicators, in overseas locations
- WWII and Korea.
Maybe due to my location and installation, but I seem to experience,
better signal reports than most equally high or higher, full sized,
mono-band wire dipoles. Here again a non-objective opinion ! I've
not really seriously tried it much above 20M, as I have a M2 KT36 for
the higher bands.
Again thanks, es 73,
Chuck, W7CS
At 03:43 AM 6/23/2014, towertalk-request at contesting.com wrote:
>Send TowerTalk mailing list submissions to
> towertalk at contesting.com
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> towertalk-request at contesting.com
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> towertalk-owner at contesting.com
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of TowerTalk digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Comments by K9YC (Dan Hearn)
> 2. Re: Comments by K9YC (Joe Subich, W4TV)
> 3. B & W Folded Dipole (Chuck Smallhouse)
> 4. Re: Comments by K9YC (Steve Hunt)
> 5. Re: B & W Folded Dipole (Jim Lux)
> 6. Re: B & W Folded Dipole (w5gn at mxg.com)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 20:28:40 -0700
>From: Dan Hearn <n5ardxcc at gmail.com>
>To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
>Cc: towertalk reflector <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Comments by K9YC
>Message-ID:
> <CAHU7KER2eVc1o+5uz2Pr_Leu2OFoMxacMJ9FZeWEebkoo=asAw at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>Thanks for your comments guys. I am very confused. There have been a number
>of things in QST saying that the current from the center conductor goes
>into one half of the dipole DE and the remaining current goes partiallly
>into the other half of the dipole and some of it goes down the outside
>shield surface. I have never questioned that. There are commercial antennas
>which use a quarter wave line with the top near the DE and the bottom
>connected to the feedline outer shield a quarter wave down the feed line.
>This should develop a high Z at the spillover point if there is one, Hi.
>Here is what G0ksc says about it and he is a highly respected antenna
>modeler
>http://www.g0ksc.co.uk/creatingabalun.html
> Frankly, I do not know what to believe. I have a rf current clamp on
>meter which I may use to explore this further.
>
>73, Dan, N5AR
>
>
>On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 2014-06-22 10:12 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> >
> >> The coax saw many places on the 3 bands where the feed point
> >> impedance was not 52 ohms. That will result in spill over of current
> >> from the inside of the shield to the outside at the attachment point
> >> and ultimately radiation which screws up the beam pattern and sends
> >> rf into your shack.
> >>
> >
> > The fact that the feedline is not working into a matched load does *not*
> > create common mode current. Common mode on a feedline is created *only*
> > when the impedance to ground is different on each leg of the antenna.
> > If the impedance is the same - even if it does not match the feedline
> > impedance - the current into each leg of the antenna is the same, the
> > antenna is balanced and there can be no common mode current.
> >
> > Mosley used to connect one side of the driven element to the boom with
> > a strap. Grounding one half of the driven element and connecting the
> > shield of the coax to the junction of the half-element and strap is
> > guaranteed to seriously unbalance the antenna, causing beam skew, feed-
> > line radiation, and common mode current. In addition, if the boom plus
> > end elements happened to be a multiple of a half wave, the 1/4 wave
> > each side of the feed point along the boom could easily cause all kinds
> > of strange behavior.
> >
> > It is unbalance *not SWR* that causes common mode current to flow in
> > a feedline. In a properly balanced system, the currents on the center
> > conductor and inside the coax are equal and opposite regardless of
> > their level or their phase relationship to the voltage and no current
> > appears on the *outside* of the shield.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2014-06-22 10:12 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> >
> >> I recently sent the following to towertalk reflector. It appears that K9YC
> >> does not understand it.
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> On 6/21/2014 3:23 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> >>
> >> It is interesting to note that the Mosley claimed gain is about 2db
> >>> greater than other tri band beams. They use dbd reference instead of dbi
> >>> while I think their claims would be about right if they used dbi
> >>> reference.
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >> Maybe I should have used a few more words to explain. In the fine Yagi
> >> tests described by K7LXC and N0AX in their book on tri band Yagis. each
> >> companies reference for their gain ratings is given. Mosley gave dbd as
> >> their reference. That implies that they have about 2db greater gain than
> >> other companies who use dbi. People who do antenna modeling get their gain
> >> answers referred to dbi, an isotropic model. If this is confusing, You can
> >> go to our clubs web page, www.sdxa.org and look under Articals to find a
> >> clear discussion of dbi,dbd, and db gains.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >> K9YC comment.
> >>
> >> "Exactly the opposite. The peak gain of a dipole is 2.2 dBi. So a gain
> >> specification of 4 dBd is equivalent to 6.2 dBi."
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >> This is true but I fail to see what it has to do with my note.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> My second comment
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I suspect if you used a good line choke at the coax feed point and
> >>> subtract
> >>> 2.1db from their claimed gain you would have a typical triband beam.
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't agree with that logic or that statement. A simple common mode
> >> choke
> >> simply reduces common mode current, which mostly prevents RF received on
> >> the feedline from filling in the nulls in the pattern.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------------------------------------------
> >> Here I do not believe Jim understands the problem. The choke will do what
> >> he says ON RECEIVING but that is not the problem we are trying to solve
> >> with understanding the lousy test results for the Mosley tri bander. They
> >> connected the coax directly to the driven element as Mosley said. The coax
> >> saw many places on the 3 bands where the feed point impedance was not 52
> >> ohms. That will result in spill over of current from the inside of the
> >> shield to the outside at the attachment point and ultimately radiation
> >> which screws up the beam pattern and sends rf into your shack. That is why
> >> you need a good line choke at the coax attachment point.
> >>
> >> I have a lot of respect for Jim and his work on line chokes and other
> >> things. I have built and measured many of his designs with excellent
> >> results. I do not understand why he went on such a rampage over my post.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> In his book, "Array of Light," N6BT shows optimized designs of 2-element,
> >> 3-element, and 4-element MONOBAND Yagis. He put these IDEAL gain figures
> >> in
> >> a table with the CLAIMED gains of a dozen or so competing products. In
> >> nearly all cases, the advertised gains were 2-3 dB better than the best
> >> monoband beam. In other words, they claimed impossible gains. After the
> >> first edition of "Array of Light" was published, nearly all of those
> >> manufacturers revised their gain claimed downward by several dB.
> >>
> >> 73, Jim K9YC
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Dan Hearn
>N5AR
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 00:03:27 -0400
>From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists at subich.com>
>To: Dan Hearn <n5ardxcc at gmail.com>
>Cc: towertalk reflector <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Comments by K9YC
>Message-ID: <53A7A70F.2050506 at subich.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
> > There are commercial antennas which use a quarter wave line with the
> > top near the DE and the bottom connected to the feedline outer shield
> > a quarter wave down the feed line. This should develop a high Z at
> > the spillover point if there is one, Hi.
>
>Yes, the quarter wave stub (Pawsley stub) raises the impedance seen
>by the "grounded" side of the antenna. It does not change the SWR
>on the antenna or effect any mismatch between the impedance of the
>feedline and the antenna. The only thing it does is reduce the shunt
>impedance from the outside of the coax shield.
>
>The shield of the coax is directly analogous to the grounding strap
>Mosley used on one side of its antennas - it's just a little longer.
>If one were to correctly model a dipole fed with coax, one would
>include *a third wire* the length of the feedline running from one
>side of the feedpoint to ground. With that third wire, one no longer
>has a *balanced* antenna.
>
>In fact, get EZNEC or another modeling program that will show you the
>currents in each segment. Then play with the length of that third
>wire to see what happens to those currents at various lengths of
>wire ... what happens to "feedline radiation" and how beam patterns
>can become corrupted/skewed. It's quite interesting and educational.
>
>73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>On 2014-06-22 11:28 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> > Thanks for your comments guys. I am very confused. There have been a number
> > of things in QST saying that the current from the center conductor goes
> > into one half of the dipole DE and the remaining current goes partiallly
> > into the other half of the dipole and some of it goes down the outside
> > shield surface. I have never questioned that. There are commercial antennas
> > which use a quarter wave line with the top near the DE and the bottom
> > connected to the feedline outer shield a quarter wave down the feed line.
> > This should develop a high Z at the spillover point if there is one, Hi.
> > Here is what G0ksc says about it and he is a highly respected antenna
> > modeler
> > http://www.g0ksc.co.uk/creatingabalun.html
> > Frankly, I do not know what to believe. I have a rf current clamp on
> > meter which I may use to explore this further.
> >
> > 73, Dan, N5AR
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV <lists at subich.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 2014-06-22 10:12 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> >>
> >>> The coax saw many places on the 3 bands where the feed point
> >>> impedance was not 52 ohms. That will result in spill over of current
> >>> from the inside of the shield to the outside at the attachment point
> >>> and ultimately radiation which screws up the beam pattern and sends
> >>> rf into your shack.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The fact that the feedline is not working into a matched load does *not*
> >> create common mode current. Common mode on a feedline is created *only*
> >> when the impedance to ground is different on each leg of the antenna.
> >> If the impedance is the same - even if it does not match the feedline
> >> impedance - the current into each leg of the antenna is the same, the
> >> antenna is balanced and there can be no common mode current.
> >>
> >> Mosley used to connect one side of the driven element to the boom with
> >> a strap. Grounding one half of the driven element and connecting the
> >> shield of the coax to the junction of the half-element and strap is
> >> guaranteed to seriously unbalance the antenna, causing beam skew, feed-
> >> line radiation, and common mode current. In addition, if the boom plus
> >> end elements happened to be a multiple of a half wave, the 1/4 wave
> >> each side of the feed point along the boom could easily cause all kinds
> >> of strange behavior.
> >>
> >> It is unbalance *not SWR* that causes common mode current to flow in
> >> a feedline. In a properly balanced system, the currents on the center
> >> conductor and inside the coax are equal and opposite regardless of
> >> their level or their phase relationship to the voltage and no current
> >> appears on the *outside* of the shield.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> ... Joe, W4TV
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2014-06-22 10:12 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> >>
> >>> I recently sent the following to towertalk reflector. It
> appears that K9YC
> >>> does not understand it.
> >>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>> On 6/21/2014 3:23 PM, Dan Hearn wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It is interesting to note that the Mosley claimed gain is about 2db
> >>>> greater than other tri band beams. They use dbd reference instead of dbi
> >>>> while I think their claims would be about right if they used dbi
> >>>> reference.
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -------------------------------------------------
> >>> Maybe I should have used a few more words to explain. In the fine Yagi
> >>> tests described by K7LXC and N0AX in their book on tri band Yagis. each
> >>> companies reference for their gain ratings is given. Mosley gave dbd as
> >>> their reference. That implies that they have about 2db greater gain than
> >>> other companies who use dbi. People who do antenna modeling get
> their gain
> >>> answers referred to dbi, an isotropic model. If this is
> confusing, You can
> >>> go to our clubs web page, www.sdxa.org and look under Articals to find a
> >>> clear discussion of dbi,dbd, and db gains.
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -------------------------------------------------
> >>> K9YC comment.
> >>>
> >>> "Exactly the opposite. The peak gain of a dipole is 2.2 dBi. So a gain
> >>> specification of 4 dBd is equivalent to 6.2 dBi."
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ----------------------------------------------
> >>> This is true but I fail to see what it has to do with my note.
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -----------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> My second comment
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I suspect if you used a good line choke at the coax feed point and
> >>>> subtract
> >>>> 2.1db from their claimed gain you would have a typical triband beam.
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree with that logic or that statement. A simple common mode
> >>> choke
> >>> simply reduces common mode current, which mostly prevents RF received on
> >>> the feedline from filling in the nulls in the pattern.
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -----------------------------------------------
> >>> Here I do not believe Jim understands the problem. The choke will do what
> >>> he says ON RECEIVING but that is not the problem we are trying to solve
> >>> with understanding the lousy test results for the Mosley tri bander. They
> >>> connected the coax directly to the driven element as Mosley
> said. The coax
> >>> saw many places on the 3 bands where the feed point impedance was not 52
> >>> ohms. That will result in spill over of current from the inside of the
> >>> shield to the outside at the attachment point and ultimately radiation
> >>> which screws up the beam pattern and sends rf into your shack.
> That is why
> >>> you need a good line choke at the coax attachment point.
> >>>
> >>> I have a lot of respect for Jim and his work on line chokes and other
> >>> things. I have built and measured many of his designs with excellent
> >>> results. I do not understand why he went on such a rampage over my post.
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ----------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In his book, "Array of Light," N6BT shows optimized designs of 2-element,
> >>> 3-element, and 4-element MONOBAND Yagis. He put these IDEAL gain figures
> >>> in
> >>> a table with the CLAIMED gains of a dozen or so competing products. In
> >>> nearly all cases, the advertised gains were 2-3 dB better than the best
> >>> monoband beam. In other words, they claimed impossible gains. After the
> >>> first edition of "Array of Light" was published, nearly all of those
> >>> manufacturers revised their gain claimed downward by several dB.
> >>>
> >>> 73, Jim K9YC
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> TowerTalk mailing list
> >> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 00:32:59 -0700
>From: Chuck Smallhouse <w7cs at theriver.com>
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: [TowerTalk] B & W Folded Dipole
>Message-ID: <20140623004903.B81DF507 at sj1-dm103.mta.everyone.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>Recently I saw an ad, in maybe QST, by a company selling a dipole
>that looked like the B & W one. Maybe they bought the rights from B
>& W ? Does anyone recall the ad and where I saw it ? I've looked
>through two or three recent QSTs and can't seem to find it .
>
>Also two or three years ago someone wrote a not too complimentary
>article, in QST, about the B & W folded dipole . Does anyone recall
>what issue that was ?
>
>Thanks & 73,
>
>Chuck, W7CS
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:18:26 +0100
>From: Steve Hunt <steve at karinya.net>
>Cc: towertalk reflector <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Comments by K9YC
>Message-ID: <53A7F0E2.1040408 at karinya.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>You can then try inserting a choke at the feedpoint in the EZNEC model
>and see how it does indeed change the SWR on the feedline!
>
>The SWR is bound to change under those conditions. If you have a low CM
>impedance back along the coax braid outer surface, which is shunting one
>side of the antenna to ground, the impedance "seen" at the end of the
>feedline is bound to change when you then use a choke to make that shunt
>CM path a much higher impedance.
>
>Steve G3TXQ
>
>
>
>On 23/06/2014 05:03, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> >
> > In fact, get EZNEC or another modeling program that will show you the
> > currents in each segment. Then play with the length of that third
> > wire to see what happens to those currents at various lengths of
> > wire ... what happens to "feedline radiation" and how beam patterns
> > can become corrupted/skewed. It's quite interesting and educational.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > ... Joe, W4TV
> >
> >
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 11:24:55 +0100
>From: Jim Lux <jimlux at earthlink.net>
>To: Chuck Smallhouse <w7cs at theriver.com>
>Cc: "towertalk at contesting.com" <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] B & W Folded Dipole
>Message-ID: <B46602FC-827A-40A1-84F9-2BC2E8D8845E at earthlink.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>I doubt the B&W design is patented (or that the patent is in force)
>
>Anyone can make and sell a terminated folded dipole
>
>It's not inherently a bad design, although not popular for amateur
>radio, which tends to put a premium on radiation efficiency, and
>which doesn't do fast frequency changes and uses narrow band
>signals. However, if you've got power to burn, and don't want to
>fool with tuners, etc( e.g. You're doing ALE at an embassy or NGO or
>doing millisecond frequency hopping) it works fairly well.
>
>One can probably do as well with a 3 - 6 dB pad at the feed point of
>a standard dipole of similar length.
>
>73, Jim
>
>On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:32, Chuck Smallhouse <w7cs at theriver.com> wrote:
>
> > Recently I saw an ad, in maybe QST, by a company selling a dipole
> that looked like the B & W one. Maybe they bought the rights from
> B & W ? Does anyone recall the ad and where I saw it ? I've
> looked through two or three recent QSTs and can't seem to find it .
> >
> > Also two or three years ago someone wrote a not too complimentary
> article, in QST, about the B & W folded dipole . Does anyone
> recall what issue that was ?
> >
> > Thanks & 73,
> >
> > Chuck, W7CS
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:43:25 -0500
>From: <w5gn at mxg.com>
>To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Cc: 'Jim Lux' <jimlux at earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] B & W Folded Dipole
>Message-ID: <002b01cf8ecf$f803b240$e80b16c0$@mxg.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>I didn't write the QST article, but I did post some years ago,
>probably on the Contest ListServer, about my NEGATIVE experience
>when I tested the antenna on 80 meters in an NAQP Contest,
>and incrementally increased my power to find that I could only
>make marginal QSOs at 700 watts, but that at 1200 watts I was
>getting the same success as I had with 100 watts to a 135 foot
>longwire at the same elevation.
>
>(I remember a subsequent posting about my exceeding the 100 watt
>power limit in the NAQP, and I pointed out that only applied
>if I had submitted my log for score - I submitted as a CheckLog.)
>
>73
>
>Barry, EI/W5GN
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lux
>Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 5:25 AM
>To: Chuck Smallhouse
>Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] B & W Folded Dipole
>
>I doubt the B&W design is patented (or that the patent is in force)
>
>Anyone can make and sell a terminated folded dipole
>
>It's not inherently a bad design, although not popular for amateur
>radio, which tends to put a premium on radiation efficiency, and
>which doesn't do fast frequency changes and uses narrow band
>signals. However, if you've got power to burn, and don't want to
>fool with tuners, etc( e.g. You're doing ALE at an embassy or NGO or
>doing millisecond frequency hopping) it works fairly well.
>
>One can probably do as well with a 3 - 6 dB pad at the feed point of
>a standard dipole of similar length.
>
>73, Jim
>
>On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:32, Chuck Smallhouse <w7cs at theriver.com> wrote:
>
> > Recently I saw an ad, in maybe QST, by a company selling a dipole
> that looked like the B & W one. Maybe they bought the rights from
> B & W ? Does anyone recall the ad and where I saw it ? I've
> looked through two or three recent QSTs and can't seem to find it .
> >
> > Also two or three years ago someone wrote a not too complimentary
> article, in QST, about the B & W folded dipole . Does anyone
> recall what issue that was ?
> >
> > Thanks & 73,
> >
> > Chuck, W7CS
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 138, Issue 48
>******************************************
More information about the TowerTalk
mailing list