If only the Tesla Radio Club guys in New York, had a critical mass of dedicated
antenna construction crew to build and maintain antennas at their saltwater
site, I would say that they could have, by far the most capable ham HF station
on the planet, if they built their site to its potential:
I think verticals here on 160 might even out perform the incredible, wonderful,
monster 160 meter yagi by the Finns recently shown.
Low band phased verticals, 4 squares, here would work killer, along with some
rhombics..
Some of which already exist, in some form.
Actually ANY HF antenna would work like a dream here:
If a dedicated contester or two were retiring and looking for a contest QTH, I
would think they
would consider seriously moving to the teslaradio neighborhood and
build/develop the ultimate contest station there.
http://www.teslaradio.org/images/hightide.jpg
http://www.teslaradio.org/images/marsh1.jpg
http://www.teslaradio.org/images/rhombicsE.jpg
http://www.teslaradio.org/images/Discone.jpg
http://www.teslaradio.org/images/disconebase.jpg
http://www.teslaradio.org/images/lptowers.jpg
All the Best,
Happy New year, Pat Barthelow,
AA6EG aa6eg@k6bj.org Skype: sparky599
Jamesburg Moon Bounce Team
http://www.jamesburgdish.org
"The most exciting phrase to hear in Science, the one that heralds
new discoveries, is not "Eureka, I have found it!" but:"That's funny..."
----Isaac Asimov
> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:57:09 +0000
> From: K1TTT@ARRL.NET
> To: towertalk@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 40-m. 4-Square vs. 40-m. Yagi - Update
>
> I had the opportunity to compare a 40-2cd against a 40m 4-square over
> several years with the 40-2cd at different heights. With the 40-2cd at 120'
> the 4-square was sometimes better into asia and deep into Europe, its big
> advantage of course was rapid direction switches to grab multipliers to the
> south or west while running Europe. When the 40-2cd was at 180' it was
> pretty rare for the 4-square to be better, but we still kept it for quick
> switches... of course now that both yagi's are broke it will be the
> workhorse for the winter contests again.
>
>
> David Robbins K1TTT
> e-mail: mailto:k1ttt@arrl.net
> web: http://www.k1ttt.net
> AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Parry [mailto:bparry@rgv.rr.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:57
> > To: RLVZ@aol.com; towertalk@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 40-m. 4-Square vs. 40-m. Yagi - Update
> >
> > I am really surprised to hear that your vertical does better than your XM.
> > I
> > cannot actually state that I have done any comparisons of the Cushcraft to
> > a
> > 40 M vertical or 4 square, but I have always felt that my "short-forty"
> > was
> > sorta magic. Mine is at 1 wavelength or about 135 feet and it really works
> > extremely well. I frequently get remarks that I am the loudest signal on
> > the band from EU and JA. I usually get through pileups on the first call.
> > We
> > used to use the same configuration at 6D2X and generated massive pileups
> > into EU and JA and was in fact it was our "bread and butter" band.
> >
> > As you know, those kind of reports do not take the place of real
> > comparisons
> > like you have done but I would be suspicious of the results that you have
> > gotten. I had a problem with my XM 420 this summer. After a lightning
> > strike
> > it acted like something wasn't right but the SWR was still fine. I took it
> > down and the Reflector coils were "fried". Maybe there is a problem with
> > your reflector.
> >
> > Incidentally, I have noticed that some have complained that the antenna is
> > not broad banded enough. Mine covers from 7.0 to 7.2 with SWR under 2.0 to
> > 1.0. This seems to be pretty reasonable for this antenna, and the antenna
> > still works fine above 7.2.
> >
> > I would use whatever works the best, though!
> >
> > Happy New Year
> >
> > Bill W5VX
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of RLVZ@aol.com
> > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 12:24 AM
> > To: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Subject: [TowerTalk] 40-m. 4-Square vs. 40-m. Yagi - Update
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > Thank You for the quick replies that stated the "Shorty-Forty should be
> > doing
> > much better". That's what I originally thought too or I wouldn't have put
> > up
> > the antenna.
> >
> > Some asked "what type of Shorty-Forty"? It's a new Cushcraft XM-240 that
> > was
> > cut for Mid-Band. The resonant frequency turned out to be 20khz higher
> > than
> >
> > the chart. (1.2 to 1 SWR).
> > Tomorrow I will take a look at the Shorty-Forty with a AIM 4170 antenna
> > analyzer.
> >
> > Since several people indicated that the Forty-Shorty should be working
> > much
> > better than it is I need to back track and clarify the ground system of
> > the
> > 1/4
> > wave vertical. I didn't tell the whole story about the 1/4 wave vertical:
> > it's mounted 30' out in a saltwater river that has a pretty clear
> > saltwater
> > path
> > to Europe, Africa, and South America. (I'm about 2 miles from the
> > Atlantic
> > Ocean and there are numerous small barrier Islands in between... but it's
> > mostly saltwater river) The reason I listed "average ground conductivity
> > and a
> > reasonable radial system" is because the vertical has no radials and just
> > a
> > single corroded ground strap going down into the salt water... and I've
> > been
> > told
> > that isn't sufficient to connect to the saltwater.
> >
> > Perhaps the vertical is making better connection with the saltwater than
> > expected? If so, would that be the reason the simple 1/4 wave vertical
> > with
> > no
> > radials is equal in performance to the Shorty-Forty at 90' on DX qso's...
> > or
> > do
> > you still think I have a problem with the Shorty-Forty?
> >
> > One more thing, to the West where the vertical does not have a saltwater
> > path, the Shorty-Forty is 10-15db better. But since the vertical has no
> > radials
> > and no saltwater to the West I'd expect at least that much difference.
> >
> > 73,
> > Dick- K9OM
In a message dated 12/31/08 11:13:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > RLVZ@aol.com
> > writes:
I'm not impressed with the performance of a 2-el. Forty-Shorty at 90' on
> > DX
> > >
> > > qso's. While it's great for 1,000 mi. or less... my single 1/4 wave
> > > vertical
> > > is just as good on the average DX contact. (since the Shorty-Forty at
> > 90'
> >
> > > doesn't have any gain at low radiation angles... I guessed I should have
> > > expected
> > > as much)
> > >
> > > Question: Considering flat terrain, average ground conductivity, and a
> > > reasonable radial system: do you predict that a 40-m. 4-Square would
> > > outperform the
> > > 90' Shorty-Forty by 3-5dB on the average DX qso?
> > >
> > > 73.
> > > Dick- K9OM
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|
