The C3 and C3S both had a very high performance to wind load ratio, and were
good for 20+ years with no maintenance required.
73 John N5CQ
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Herbert
Schoenbohm
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 7:57 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] JK Navassa-5
IMHO for a high performance well built antenna the Force 12 C3S was great for
the price, easy to assemble, and USPS shippable with 3 elements on 15 and 10.
With pre-drilled holes for the element lengths it was also great for
DX-Peditions.
Herb, KV4FZ
On 11/27/2014 6:37 PM, Ken Garg wrote:
> Yeah, I did not jump in to argue and also why would you spend $1000 for an
> antenna and use RG58!! We can definitely add on the website “RG213” of good
> quality used if it makes folks not get confused.
> The swr curves shown are for “reference” purposes only. An swr curve at QTH
> “A” will be be slightly different at QTH “B” depending on height above
> ground, surrounding structures, other antennas, etc etc.
> The analyzer is a RigExpert and it seems to be working fine. Maybe you should
> ask RigExpert why there seems to be a small drop at the measured edges. The
> image was taken from the Antscope software.
> If someone doesn’t like what data is presented, then they have a lovely
> choice, go buy another manufacturer’s products. There are many good choices
> out there. Its a healthy competition.
> I can only tell you that so far, I have not come to this forum even once to
> announce or talk about our antennas (i just signed up today to towertalk).
> Our customers come and buy and evangelize our antennas because they get
> exactly whats claimed as specs by us and also they love it because of the
> mechanical construction and high-quality parts used.
>
> Thanks for all the input. Happy Thanksgiving.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV<lists@subich.com> wrote:
>
>
>> There is not much significant difference
> It depends ... perhaps with quality RG-213 where loss is ~1 dB/100'
> at 30 MHz the difference is not significant. However, if you're using
> RG58 with nearly 3 dB/100' at 30 MHz even a non-resonant antenna
> begins to look good. Your web page does not specify the type of coax
> and loss thus "at the feedpoint" measurements are more appropriate.
>
> I do not trust the presented curves in any case - each band shows an
> anomalous drop in the last few measurement points. This behavior
> would indicate a faulty measurement device, inappropriate date
> manipulation (smoothing/averaging), or some potential loss/resonance in the
> system.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 2014-11-27 2:30 PM, Ken Garg wrote:
>> Joe,
>> All data is available at 50ft, 100ft etc. There is not much significant
>> difference thats smoke and mirrors. The reason to show 100ft was taking into
>> account an average ham shack with a coax run. Do you think there will be a
>> significant difference in swr between 100ft and 50ft? Ot do you think that
>> our coax has so much loss that we don’t see swr? Not sure of your point. If
>> measured swr at the feed point is 1.28:1, then the measured swr at 100ft
>> will be approx 1.2:1 using RG213 as a coax.
>> The goal was to show a freespace design vs actual measured for the average
>> ham on a simple page. If someone needs more details, they can always ask in
>> an email through the website.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ken
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV<lists@subich.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The swr curves for this antenna assembled out of the box at 36ft is
>>> presented here ..http://jkantennas.com/navassa-5-data.html
>> If the antenna is at 36 feet, why are you using 100 feet of coax for
>> the measurement? Why not use 50 feet or calibrate out the losses and
>> present true "at the antenna" measurements?
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 2014-11-27 12:34 PM, Ken Garg wrote:
>>> Happy Thanksgiving all !!
>>> A good friend alerted me to a posting by K9OM. His post starts as follows
>>> ..”Correct me if I’m wrong …”. Well, Dick you are WRONG.
>>> The JK Navassa-5 comes pre-drilled, pre-cuts tips from the factory.
>>> The user just needs to assemble the antenna. These antennas are made
>>> of the best quality hardware and rated heavy-duty. There are many
>>> other quality manufacturers in the Yagi antenna space and the Hams
>>> are left to some good choices. If you like the JK construction with
>>> machined saddles, and quality hardware, including the “mast plate"
>>> all available for $1185 compared to others, then you will buy this
>>> antenna. The JK construction and mechanical robustness speaks for
>>> itself and folks that have it will speak to it. The swr curves for
>>> this antenna assembled out of the box at 36ft is presented here
>>> ..http://jkantennas.com/navassa-5-data.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|