Do a Google search for yourself, it's the first result that comes up.  The
DB-228 is the same way, it about 44 feet long overall.
 
Paul
 

   _____  

From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 12:26 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: antenna question - Dip It and Scotch
Kote and Kry



Paul Finch wrote:
> Actually I looked up the Super Stationmaster and and they have one 
> that's rated at 9 DB at VHF.

dBi or dBd? Very important. "DB" is a useless number without that 
third letter when rating antennas. (GRIN)

I'd say generally that what you're describing is not physically 
possible. (Unless the thing is enormous.)

The Sinclair SD-218 is 40' long, and rated at 11.5 dBd and has 8 
folded-dipole bays. The antenna is taller than my 2 story house.

<HYPERLINK
"http://www.sinclairtechnologies.com/catalog/product.aspx?id=1693"http://www
.sinclair-technologies.-com/catalog/-product.aspx?-id=1693>

(They also work great. Two of them stacked on an 85' tower with a whole 
whopping 5' of vertical separation -- ha -- makes for one hell of a 
combined TX / shared RX system for multiple VHF machines at one of our 
sites.)

So... there's no way a Super Stationmaster even comes close. The 
physics just don't work out.

The much more commonly-seen SD-214 is 20' long and is 8.5 dBd.
<HYPERLINK
"http://www.sinclairtechnologies.com/catalog/product.aspx?id=42"http://www.s
inclair-technologies.-com/catalog/-product.aspx?-id=42>

Note: You lose 1 dB (dBd) if you get the Heavy-Duty/Low--PIM option.
<HYPERLINK
"http://www.sinclairtechnologies.com/catalog/product.aspx?id=2055"http://www
.sinclair-technologies.-com/catalog/-product.aspx?-id=2055>

Nate WY0X


 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.11/1422 - Release Date: 5/8/2008
5:24 PM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.11/1422 - Release Date: 5/8/2008
5:24 PM
 

Reply via email to