I have had a stack of two W6NL 40 meter two element Moxon's up for nine
years. They are converted from Cushcraft XM-240s. Mounted at 185 ft over 120
ft - both on Ring Rotors.
The modeled results that W8WWV provides in his summary document (URL
attached) shows the predicted parameters of the Moxon's at K3LR and they are
pretty much working as per Greg's analysis.
http://www.k3lr.com/engineering/
I continue to be amazed at how good the performance of the W6NL Moxon's is
when compared to a three high stack of full size four element OWAs that are
on another tower about 1000 feet away. Sure the big three high stack is
better - but the Moxon's sure hang tough.
We are also using a monoband stack switch (mounted at the center of the
array) to allow selection (and matching) of either Moxon, both in phase or
both out of phase.
73
Tim K3LR
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
StellarCAT
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 7:53 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Modeling the Moxon
Dave's original statement was "can someone model 2 40 meter yagis stacked?"
.... at the time the discussion was about stacks - then got in to the
relative performance of 40 meter stacks ... my intent was/is to do just that
... 2 x 2 element yagis will serve the purpose. If modeling the interaction
of the 40 on say a 15 (it won't interact noticeably with a 20) then I can
attempt a Moxon. Note I have modeled a Moxon before with results that seem
correct ...using NEC2.
Regarding 40 meter stacks ... when I model 2 x 2 element yagis at 140/70 the
increase in gain is only about 1.4db ... which was my original point that
there isn't a great deal gained from stacking on 40 meters other than the
change in angle (which again the lowest one will seldom be the better choice
over the stack) and if available having the ability to go 2 different
directions... extending that to 2 4 element antennas the increase in gain is
even less - less than 1 db. My original comment was you need to get 40's up
higher and further apart to start to get a bit more gain increase. (that
stated even with 20's stacked the increase in gain when stacked "properly"
is 'only' about 2.4 db or so).
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 8:00 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Modeling the Moxon
If you intend to model a Moxon, particularly the Leeson Moxon, you will
need software that uses the NEC4 engine.
NEC2, commonly used in amateur software because it is free, does not
handle right angle connections and tapered elements correctly.
Numerical corrections have been developed for the taper issues
(primarily by Leeson) but NEC2 still does not handle elements that
are not parallel very well.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 7/26/2017 6:28 PM, Dave Sublette wrote:
> I have spent a fair amount of time reading a few of the Moxon construction
> articles about the modified Moxon for 40 meters. I have a spare 6 element
> 20 meter Telrex monobander for 20 meters in my barn. Doing some
> scratching on paper, it looks like I could build two, two element Moxons
> for 40 using the material in that yagi. I would need to buy the tubing
> necessary to build the Tee sections on the end.
>
> Since all of the element diameters and taper schedules would be different,
> I should model it. I have the Antenna Model Software package. I haven't
> used it much. I haven't modeled antennas in over 15 years. I used to use
> K6STI software when I did and I loved it. Some of the articles I have
> read say good things about the Antenna Model program. I am wondering if
> that would be good enough to use on the Moxon.
>
> Now I know the Moxon doesn't model well. The W6NL version is the standard
> and the best advice is to build it like that. But I have all this
> beautiful aluminum that I don't want to waste. Plus, the 3 1/2 inch boom
> on the T-rex is really stout enough to handle this antenna. At least one
> article says they wish they had used a larger boom diameter.
>
> I suppose a good plan would be to model the W6NL and then my version on
> the same software and adjust my version until the results matched those
> obtained with the W6NL. The question is .. Is the Antenna Model package
> adequate for the job?
>
> A really good answer would be that someone has already modeled the W6NL on
> Antenna Model and would share the file with me. :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave, K4TO
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|