Something new -- Quad installation and Maintenance made easy.
Pictures of a 3 el 5 band quad built and installed from the ground here:
http://www.nn4zz.com/QuadLockCustomerPix.html#Tom_/_W1QU
More information about QuadLocks here:
http://www.nn4zz.com/quadlock.htm
Note to list owner -- I hope is it okay to mention my QuadLock product on
the list and apologize if this is not appropriate. I usually just follow
the list and rarely post.
Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com
-----Original Message-----
From: John Langdon
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:17 PM
To: 'Bill Parry' ; 'Herbert Schoenbohm' ; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 10 throu 20 beam traps or no traps
IMHO quads very good antennas - they are very cost effective, they do hear a
little better and are a little quieter, but, you should live in an area with
no icing issues and have a tilt over crank up tower in a location that
allows you easy standing access to make repairs, because they will be
required! That said, the last time I had a quad was 1969! :)
73 John N5CQ
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Parry
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 10:43 AM
To: 'Herbert Schoenbohm'; towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 10 throu 20 beam traps or no traps
Herb,
Joe is exactly right. I have used quads extensively. I have had two
different 2 element quads and one 4 element quads. I will grant you that
they may hear a little better but they are WAY TOO MUCH TROUBLE. I finally
gave up the ship and moved to antennas that go up easily and stay up. I
admire you for sticking with them for so long.
Bill W5VX
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Herbert Schoenbohm
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 9:50 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 10 throu 20 beam traps or no traps
Perhaps your right Joe....but tri-band quads deserve better consideration as
I think they are getting a bad rap. Below in bold italics is my rejoinder.
On 6/20/2014 9:13 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
Why not many serious DX-ers and contesters consider Tri-band or even
Five-band quads is a mystery to me.
1) survivability - quads are much more fragile than yagis with regard
to icing./*(Certainly not a problem here in the tropics*//*)*/
2) survivability - wire flexing tends to cause premature failure in
windy environments /*(Good wire less problem and in 75 MPH winds no
breakage yet after 3 years with stranded #14 high quality.)*/
3) difficult to handle - a flexible three dimensional structure is
difficult to get on to a tower, particularly a guyed tower. /*(With a
two wire 45 degree boom tram and leaving the center element out it is
very easy keeping the wire away from the guys while erecting the
antenna. I string the center element(s) on the tower by spinning the
inside hub and using precut wire.)*/
4) poor performer - the structural/survivability problems make very
long boom quads particularly problematic rendering quads uncompetitive
against very long boom yagis. /*(A three element quad with fiberglass
spreaders withstand impact and wind gusting that crack off aluminum
elements and if ever broken very easy to repair with a splint and some
FG repair compound.) Performance of a three element quad on a 20' boom
is equal or better than a 4 element mono bander*//*on even an optimum
boom.*//*Plus it has better band coverage which is a real concern for
some amps that just trip out at 2:1 VSWR.
*/
The added dimension also makes it difficult to stack quads. /*(Who
would ever want to?*//*)*//*Again super monster beams and stack are in
a totally different category. i thought we were looking for a good
subsitute for trap antennas and the problems they present and the lack
of performance they are stuck with?) *//**/ All that aside, a two or
three element quad can be an effective alternative to a basic trapped
tribander if the user has an unguyed tower and lives in a benign
environment (most don't <G>).
73,
... Joe, W4TV
/*Please also consider the lower Q Quad with less static build up with
passing TS or even snow static that occurs just when that new country is
peaking. Where the quad hears what the yagi doesn't. Some claim that like
all loops the random noise is less. This seems to be the case here but
admittedly could be wishful thinking. I must admit that my low quality mast
cracked and the quad fell as far as the top guys during a wind storm. (I was
using fencing for the mast...my bad.) Yet the wires snared the quad and
after the first calm day the quad was taken apart on the tower and
reassemble on the ground with new wire. This time I used insulated wire and
the quad immediately stopped working well. (I never took in consideration
the Velocity Factor of the two different wires.) Also many aluminum beams
that would take such a hit may be be toast with a bunch of bent aluminum
tubing.*//*
Herb, KV4FZ
*/
/**/
On 2014-06-20 8:17 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:
Three bands no traps and great performance the three element Cubex
Quad wins hands down especially for price and wind load. Plus with
proper matching 75 ohm stubs on 10 and 15 I get both CW and SSB
coverage below
1.5 to 1 over the range. Why not many serious DX-ers and contesters
consider Tri-band or even Five-band quads is a mystery to me.
Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|