[PVRCNC] Jan/Feb NCJ

[wlbaber at bellsouth.net]

May I add to Howie's comments?  I asked the same question, Brian, because I have the trees to put up wire beams, say at 50 or 60 feet (too low for 80m, marginal for 40m).   Instead, I put up an 80 meter 4 square using the first guy ring of my 114 foot tower, at 90 feet.   

It is the K1KI description of a 4 square, using four radials elevated 7-10 feet,  loaded wires, and ropes to hold the vertical wires in place.   It works well up to about 3.625Mhz.
  
I'm sure my 4 square  works better than a wire beam would because my 40 meter beam is at 55 feet and I work into Europe more easily on 80M, when the low angles come in, than I  can on 40 meters.   I'm thinking about phasing two vertical for 40 meters to work low angles into Europe on 40 meters.

Here is what I'm wondering now:  Is a 40 meter beam at 100 feet worth the trouble compared to 70-80 feet?   A 40 meter beam at 70-80 feet would favor 30 degree angles but much higher than 80 feet--well wouldn't  you see too much rf going straight up until  you approach 1 wave length on 40 meters?  

I have just enough room for one more 100 footer, but it would be far easier to phase two wire veritcals for 40 meters off the two towers I have now, the other tower at 62 feet, and NE between 'em.    I use Dunestar bandpass filters,  ok for low power only.

73, Will, wj9b, dit dit 





> From: Howie Hoyt <n4af at touchnc.net>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed AM 08:57:51 EST
> To: pvrcnc at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [PVRCNC] Jan/Feb NCJ
> 
> Hi Brian -
> 
> Well, my personal  belief is the S40 would beat out the 4sq [on 40M].
> 
> Having said that, I have a 4L fixed yagi on 80M that I can compare to a 
> 80m 4sq.
> The 4L beats it but not by a lot (in terms of signal heard)-hey, we are 
> REALLY into diminishing returns ;-).
> 
> Comparing a 4sq to a low 2L on 80M, I would prefer the 4SQ:
> 1) High Q of the wire yagi keeps it usable only 3500-3550 whereas 4sq 
> easily goes 3.5 thru 3.6
> 2) 4SQ steerable whereas 2L wire is fixed.
> I would also be skeptical the 2L fixed would typically outperform the 
> 4sq in its' favored DX direction. Admittedly this becomes largely a 
> function of 2L height. A half wave on 80 or 160 is pretty high whereas 
> not such a challenge on 40M.
> (I have had excellent luck over the years using 2L fixed quad on 40M 
> using a boom fixed on the tower up 85' or more).
> 
> Altho we use ice419 & w3nqn filters, I think qtr wave stubs probably 
> give a good accounting.
> 
> 73, Howie N4AF
> 
> alsopb wrote:
> > Guys,
> > 
> > Anybody out there get this issue.
> > 
> > According to the contest rate sheet posting there are some articles of 
> > real interest in there.
> > 
> > 1) Comparison of 40 meter 4 square with 2el "shorty 40".
> > For years, I've wondered if a four square could compete with such. Also 
> > what would be the implications for 80M.  I've always held that the 
> > reason 4 squares are so "great" is that they are compared to inferior 
> > antennas -- e.g. dipoles on 80 at 0.25 wavelength up.  Back of the 
> > envelope calcs (mostly confirmed by EZNEC) here indicate that the "gain" 
> > of a 4 square at best approximately equals that of a high dipole-which 
> > gets ground reflection gain.  The benefit of the 4 square is all in the 
> > angle of radiation.  However, the 4 square designs I've seen had 
> > relatively few radials. My gut feeling is that all that launch angle 
> > benefit is lost at low angles due to ground losses.  I wonder what the 
> > article has to say.  I've tentatively concluded that a fixed relatively 
> > low 2 el 80M wire yagi would outperform a 4 square to EU --given typical 
> > installations of the 4 square with its ground losses.
> > 
> > 2) Easy way to solve interaction in SO2R.  Quarter wave stubs?  Short in 
> > the coax of one xcvr?
> > 
> > 73 de Brian/K3KO
> > _______________________________________________
> > PVRCNC mailing list
> > PVRCNC at mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> PVRCNC mailing list
> PVRCNC at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc
>