Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
Joel, Thank you very much for your kind reply. Do you have a preferred model of 8 element array that will perform well on 160M and 80M? Yes, I'd love to read the article. Of course, I belong to the ARRL. Vy 73, Mack W4AX Mack On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Joel Harrison wrote: > Mack, > > My actual on-the-air test and experience at my QTH in Arkansas has > revealed the 8 vertical array systems outperform beverages. I wrote an > article with graphs showing the signal performance difference over one low > band season that I can direct you to if you are interested and also > provide some additional info on my experience. > > I still have nine Beverages operational but this will most likely be the > last year I have them, retiring them in favor of the two vertical arrays > that I run. > > Beverages are great low band RX antennas and I have been very successful > with them, as well as learning a heck of a lot about them over the years, > so do not take my response as being negative toward Bev's. At my QTH the > vertical arrays are better performers. > > 73 Joel W5ZN > > > > Friends, > > > > I need to really increase my country count on 160M so I've decided to > > installed dedicated receiving antennas. My home is on a 6 acre > rectangular > > lot so I have room for a couple of 800 ft beverages at 90 degree angles > or > > an 8 element circular array. > > > > I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various > 8 > > element arrays and beverages. > > > > *I "believe" the consensus is that a set of bi-directional beverages will > > generally perform better than any 8 element circular array. Am I correct? > > I'm specifically speaking about working countries on 160M and 80M.* > > > > I also "believe" the bi-directional antenna choices come down to two > > flavors. > > > > The DXEngineering ladder line version or the BevFlex-4 that uses RG-6. > > *I'm > > leaning toward the BevFlex-4.* > > > > I would REALLY appreciate your views on the recommended receive antenna > > system if space and money are not big concerns. I'd like to do it > > correctly > > one time and the first time. > > > > Vy 73, > > > > Mack > > W4AX > > _ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > > > www.w5zn.org > > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
Mack, My actual on-the-air test and experience at my QTH in Arkansas has revealed the 8 vertical array systems outperform beverages. I wrote an article with graphs showing the signal performance difference over one low band season that I can direct you to if you are interested and also provide some additional info on my experience. I still have nine Beverages operational but this will most likely be the last year I have them, retiring them in favor of the two vertical arrays that I run. Beverages are great low band RX antennas and I have been very successful with them, as well as learning a heck of a lot about them over the years, so do not take my response as being negative toward Bev's. At my QTH the vertical arrays are better performers. 73 Joel W5ZN > Friends, > > I need to really increase my country count on 160M so I've decided to > installed dedicated receiving antennas. My home is on a 6 acre rectangular > lot so I have room for a couple of 800 ft beverages at 90 degree angles or > an 8 element circular array. > > I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various 8 > element arrays and beverages. > > *I "believe" the consensus is that a set of bi-directional beverages will > generally perform better than any 8 element circular array. Am I correct? > I'm specifically speaking about working countries on 160M and 80M.* > > I also "believe" the bi-directional antenna choices come down to two > flavors. > > The DXEngineering ladder line version or the BevFlex-4 that uses RG-6. > *I'm > leaning toward the BevFlex-4.* > > I would REALLY appreciate your views on the recommended receive antenna > system if space and money are not big concerns. I'd like to do it > correctly > one time and the first time. > > Vy 73, > > Mack > W4AX > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > www.w5zn.org _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
On 12/21/2014 7:58 AM, JC wrote: This long answer is to validate your observation, resonant dipoles does not provide any difference in receiver performance than your vertical or TX antenna. I didn't say that. I said that there was no difference between a dipole at 30 feet and a dipole at 60 feet. There is often a big improvement in receive on my low dipole vs a vertical, and not just at sun rise. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: 8 circle: DXE vs Hi-Z
The HI-Z was erected quite aways from anything else which involved bushwhacking and clearing the entire circle, trenching almost 1200 feet of feedline etc so there was a lot of sweat work done on that project. But on 160 and 80 where I have the tx antennas to use as a comparison, the specialized rx stuff just doesn't hear the weaker stuff. And it's not that I have a pristine "can hear a pin drop low noise qth", esp on 160 - plenty of flare stack ingitors plus the usual powerline and smps junk. It's especially frustrating to hear all the glowing success stories of these rx arrays and how they make the dx just jump out of the noise and into your log... The proper test is, during the quietest time, to replace the antenna system elements with loads of the same impedance and see if the noise floor drops significantly. If the noise does not drop significantly (at least 8-10 dB), you will lose weak signals. Another test that *sometimes* works on lower bands is to measure and observe the noise floor from midday to night. If you observe a significant noise increase in the "hissing" background noise, your site and antennas are limited by propagated noise. This does not work with local or power line noise dominated systems. The difference here between day and night on quiet winter nights is about 20 dB or more on 40 meters, and sometimes almost the same on 160. If the ionosphere is sucking up signals, the increase can be less. That noise level is different for different directions. That ratio tells me what sidelobe levels are acceptable. I can have antennas with higher directivity that work consistently worse because side lobes don't adequately attenuate noise from unwanted directions. I'm sure the ideal case for a station looking out over the cold ocean without thunderstorms is much different than the case of a system looking out over thousands of miles of noise generators. My NE direction, because the path is over densely populated land for several hundred miles, is noticeably noisier with background "hiss" than the more easterly paths or southeast paths that reach the ocean in a few hundred miles. I don't necessarily assign the same pattern priorities (like side lobe levels) to NE as I do other directions. NW here is actually pretty quiet because population is so low on that path, which means I have to be fussier about different things. I'm sure this is the case for everyone, and why we can't really use calculated RDF (directivity) for everything. It was just intended as a better guideline than other things being used, not as a perfect answer. 73 Tom _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
When talking about a low dipole, the question comes up as to why it must be low to work. Actually we don't know that it must be low to work. Very few of us are in a position to put up a "high" dipole, so the question is basically moot. However, in an attempt to gauge the influence of height, I A/B'ed two full size dipoles at 30 and 60 foot heights over a period of 6 months. The one not in use was floating to avoid interaction with the active one. I never noticed any difference in receiving performance. What seems to happen is that the signals are a few dB higher on the 60 foot wire, but the noise is commensurately higher. Low is always in wavelengths, feet are too general. :) Your results are expected, because anything below 1/8th wave has little difference in pattern (except for loss of efficiency at low heights). On receive, only the pattern (and polarization) matters until you get into system internal noise floor limitations. The idea a really low dipole is quieter or has better high angle signal is a big problem with NVIS antennas and emergency services. People park 80 meter dipoles at a few feet and they are no quieter except for loss of efficiency (and in some poor installation cases less feedline radiation at low height). I had dipoles at ~300, maybe around 130-150, and 60 feet on 160, as well as non-resonant low dipoles. Once below ~150 ft, they all pretty much work the same except for gain reduction with reduced height. That gain reduction can be somewhat mitigated with a ground screen of some type, until the antenna gets too close to the screen. During the rare times the any dipoles were working very well, they all pretty much "worked". The high dipole was closer to the vertical than the low dipoles at other times. Of course inside a few hundred miles was different. The high dipole, like the verticals, were dogs. Any dipole below ~150 ft was pretty much the same in close on sky wave. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
On 2014-12-21, at 12:23 PM, Roger D Johnson wrote: > I just drafted a reply to Mack's question delineating the problem I've had > with my > vertical arrays. After I sent the e-mail, an idea popped into my head. I > wonder if > my problems have to do with ground conductivity? The soil here in New England > is poor (2 mS) and beverages are known to perform well over poor ground. Dave, > W0FLS, has had good results with his 8 circle but he has substantially better > ground in Iowa (15 mS). > > Could those of you who have had better results with your vertical arrays than > with > Beverages let me know what your local ground conductivity is? If there is a > correlation, > I might see if putting down some radials will improve the situation. > > Thanks, Roger N1RJ Hi Roger, Before the devastating ice storm of December 2013 here, I had a 1500' long Beverage aimed to South America, & a K9AY loop in the same direction: the loop would out-perform the wire 95% of the time, so I ended-up essentially listening on it, exclusively. ~73~ de Eddy VE3CUI - VE3XZ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
I just drafted a reply to Mack's question delineating the problem I've had with my vertical arrays. After I sent the e-mail, an idea popped into my head. I wonder if my problems have to do with ground conductivity? The soil here in New England is poor (2 mS) and beverages are known to perform well over poor ground. Dave, W0FLS, has had good results with his 8 circle but he has substantially better ground in Iowa (15 mS). Could those of you who have had better results with your vertical arrays than with Beverages let me know what your local ground conductivity is? If there is a correlation, I might see if putting down some radials will improve the situation. Thanks, Roger N1RJ _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas
Hi Dick "I never noticed any difference in receiving performance" That's exactly what we should expect using a resonant dipole, it interact with any other antenna because the fiscal length is resonant, does matter if the feed impedance, if it is only a straight wire resonant it is like a director or director. Distance also is something hard to manage on 160m. 120ft is only 1/4 or .25 wave , heavely interact with other resonant elements. A low dipole is like an inverted V, used to be called unidirectional, a high dipole is different because the vertical field change intensity far from the ground, however the feed line is hardtop choke and remove the vertical common mode noise. Ladder line has huge advantage here , but not worth the effort . The low dipole and inverted V is unidirectional only if you disregard the polarization, using EZENEC it is easy to demonstrate that, check Plot Type: 3D plot and select Desc Options Ver.Horiz.Total. When you plot the 2D Azimuth Slice or Elev Slice, the vertical field is the red line and the horizontal a green line. The inverted V or low dipole is horizontal only at broadside with a 8 patter and some RDF, along the wire the Inverted V and low dipole is vertical polarized. Bothe fields are high angle, it means low gain at low angles. Both antennas work like a very short beverage along the wire and does not perform at all. Broadside there is a huge deep null on vertical signals, as a result the manmade noise is also attenuated that direction, the horizontal signal sky wave 20 to 40 degree has less attenuation, that situation there is an increase in the signal to noise ratio. The lobe is very wide and the SNR is better at the center and at 45 degree each side the vertical field is the same as the horizontal field, that's why these antennas are unidirectional, with the two fields the same there is no improvement on SNR after 45 degree from the center The situation where these antennas outperform vertical arrays is because they receive horizontal sky wave signals or high angles vertical or horizontal signals. Any receiver antenna without directivity is works like the attenuator in your radio, just reduce the overall gain decrease the Noise figure of the RX system but increase the IP3 reducing intermodulation. Almost the same thing as reduce the RF gain and increase the audio gain does. Receiver antennas to perform must have good RDF, and keep no other resonant anything around, only one resonant wire will be part of the RX system and change the patter, is the wire works like a director or reflector it would increase the RDF , the odds are not that and most of the cases the interaction makes the RX antenna patter useless. This long answer is to validate your observation, resonant dipoles does not provide any difference in receiver performance than your vertical or TX antenna. 73's JC N4IS -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard Karlquist Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:49 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Non-resonant receive antennas On 2014-12-20 13:06, Richard Jaeger wrote: > I guess I should try a low dipole and see what happens. > > Dick, K4IQJ .. > When talking about a low dipole, the question comes up as to why it must be low to work. Actually we don't know that it must be low to work. Very few of us are in a position to put up a "high" dipole, so the question is basically moot. However, in an attempt to gauge the influence of height, I A/B'ed two full size dipoles at 30 and 60 foot heights over a period of 6 months. The one not in use was floating to avoid interaction with the active one. I never noticed any difference in receiving performance. What seems to happen is that the signals are a few dB higher on the 60 foot wire, but the noise is commensurately higher. 30 feet was chosen for the minimum so that the wires didn't look like beverages (and because I have a bunch of 30 foot lengths of pipe). Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
On Sun,12/21/2014 6:11 AM, Mack McCormick wrote: I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various 8 element arrays and beverages. I suggest that you study W3LPL's excellent presentation on 160M RX antennas from K3LR's Contest University at Dayton this past spring. The various systems each have their merits, which depend upon their surroundings. I have reversible Beverages using DXE hardware, and my property is not hospitable to arrays of verticals. If my property were different, I'd strongly consider one of the vertical arrays. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
Jim, Tim, and Tim, Thank you all for some really great advice. Perhaps I should look more closely at the 8 element receiving arrays. Are most of the 160M contest stations now using receiving array's vs. beverages? Since I'm moving to a new QTH I'd really like to have a best practice installation and not have to experiment a lot. Vy 73, Mack W4AX Mack On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Jim Garland <4cx2...@miamioh.edu> wrote: > Mack, I use two DXE bi-directional beverages, each 720 ft long, fed with a > single 300 ft length of direct burial quad shield RG6. The DXE transformers > and relay switching boxes use high quality weather-proof construction. That > said, the ladder line caused me nothing but continuing maintenace > headaches. > Furthermore, the little DXE plastic ladder line clamps are very flimsy and > broke within a few months. I finally gave up and replaced the ladder line > with parallel lengths of WD-1a field telephone wire (the twisted pair > version), supported on 4x4 posts with ceramic insulators. The electrical > performance appears to be the same as with ladder line, but it makes for a > much more robust installation and the field wire is much cheaper than > ladder > line. > 73, > Jim W8ZR > > > -Original Message- > > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mack > McCormick > > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:12 AM > > To: topband@contesting.com > > Subject: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving > > > > Friends, > > > > I need to really increase my country count on 160M so I've decided to > > installed dedicated receiving antennas. My home is on a 6 acre > rectangular > > lot so I have room for a couple of 800 ft beverages at 90 degree angles > or > > an 8 element circular array. > > > > I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various > 8 > > element arrays and beverages. > > > > *I "believe" the consensus is that a set of bi-directional beverages will > > generally perform better than any 8 element circular array. Am I correct? > > I'm specifically speaking about working countries on 160M and 80M.* > > > > I also "believe" the bi-directional antenna choices come down to two > > flavors. > > > > The DXEngineering ladder line version or the BevFlex-4 that uses RG-6. > *I'm > > leaning toward the BevFlex-4.* > > > > I would REALLY appreciate your views on the recommended receive antenna > > system if space and money are not big concerns. I'd like to do it > correctly > > one time and the first time. > > > > Vy 73, > > > > Mack > > W4AX > > _ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Confusion in ON4UN's Low Band DXing radiallengthcalculations.
Look at the radial field as a FAT inductor. A fat tower has a lower Q and wider bandwidth, lower impedance at the top/far end. 73 Bruce-=k1fz. On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 10:10:32 -0500, w4...@aol.com wrote: GM BRIAN... I HAVE BEEN OFF TOP BAND FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW, AND NOT AS ACTIVE AT AGE 76 AS I ONCE WAS... GOING BACK TO MY OLD EE DAYS, IF Q=X/R, DOESN'T Q INCREASE IN VALUE AS R DECREASES IN VALUE? SEE YOUR COMMENT I HAVE UNDERLINED AND PLACED IN BOLD FONT BELOW... 73 DE GEORGE, W4BUW -Original Message- From: k1fz To: Topband Sent: Fri, Dec 19, 2014 3:56 pm Subject: Topband: Confusion in ON4UN's Low Band DXing radiallengthcalculations. The on/in ground wire- as RF advances toward the normal 1/4 wave high impedance (/high voltage point) finds itself tightly coupled to a +- 350 ohm typical ground resistance. 'Hogs the voltage right down' Many Shorter radials do not develop enough high voltage, not reaching 1/4 wave. Multiple radials divide the loss like resistors in parallel. lowering the Q, lower impedance, with lower voltage, being pulled down results in less voltage leakage at the far ends. 73 Bruce-K1FZ www.qsl.net/k1fz/beveragenotes.html On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:21:12 -0500, k8...@hughes.net wrote: I can’t agree with this “conventional” thinking. Why does a piece of wire magically lose it’s length just because you lay it on the ground? The electrical length changes because of Vf, and it’s resistance changes because of the lossy ground, but it’s still a piece of wire. I’m going to try to attach a posting I did back in 2006. If it doesn’t work, I will follow with a separate posting. > > Brian K8BHZ > > From: Tree > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 10:07 AM > To: Doug Turnbull > Cc: k8...@hughes.net ; 160 > Subject: Re: Topband: Confusion in ON4UN's Low Band DXing radial length calculations. > > Radials on the ground do not have a magic length. Worrying about resonance for them is not necessary. > > > If you tune a quarter wave wire up in the air - then lay it onto the ground - it couples to the ground and is no longer a distinct single piece of wire. Just make them an easy length to deal with and put as many of them down as you can. > > > Tree N6TR > > - End forwarded message - _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: RUSSIAN 160 METER CONTEST
Vlad, Your message finally received here. Thank you for responding. The situation you mention for the contest sponsors is a 'Catch 22' situation. They are never going to get more participation if they limit the contest time to such a short window. And they surely are never going to get participation from areas of the world where it is daylight during the contest hours. Plus the participation will not increase greatly until the contest becomes a known entity that everyone can play in. I believe the timing of the contest is great; 1/2 way between ARRL 160 and the SPDC. Having 3 great contests with different flavors on 160 during the month of December would be super. 73 and Merry Christmas to you and yours. Milt, N5IA, and also operator of N7GP -Original Message- From: R7LV Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 10:54 AM To: Milt -- N5IA Cc: topBand List Subject: Re: Topband: RUSSIAN 160 METER CONTEST HI guys, Of course, the sponsors understand that 4 hours contest is too short. Unfortunately, activity in the Contest is not that high (300 participants approx.), therefore the last hour is boring. Based on this year activity, the sponsors are ready to review the contest period in order to increase it for some 2-3 hours. 73! Vlad/R7LV P.S. : my 2nd ltr to Вы писали 18 декабря 2014 г., 18:10:46: Vlad, Although it is difficult to work Russian stations (UA0 excepted) from my location in southwest USA, I find it very strange that the hours of the contest operation do NOT include any night time hours at my location. The sun sets at 0010 UTC at my location this time of the year. Consequently there is absolutely no opportunity to effectively participate in this 'WORLDWIDE' CONTEST. My question is; If this is a contest inviting worldwide participation, why is there not at the minimum a full 24 hours of competition period? 73 de Milt, N5IA -- Also operator of N7GP == -Original Message- From: R7LV Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:23 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: RUSSIAN 160 METER CONTEST Dear friends, RUSSIAN 160 METER CONTEST will be held from 20.00 to 24.00 UTC, on the 19th December 2014. The Rules of the Contest are at http://www.radio.ru/cq/contest/rule-results/index2012.shtml Current Rules were approximated with RDXC Rules, and any RDXC software may be used in this contest. In previous years, various ideas were discussed, both negative and positive, but finally positive ideas predominated, - even from those who are against Rules changes. Operators from almost 50 Russian oblasts participated in the last Contest. Please note: THERE IS NO 10-minutes rule for club stations. Welcome to participate in RUSSIAN 160 METER CONTEST ! 73! -- С уважением, Vlad/ R7LV - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8767 - Release Date: 12/19/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8778 - Release Date: 12/21/14 _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
Mack, I use two DXE bi-directional beverages, each 720 ft long, fed with a single 300 ft length of direct burial quad shield RG6. The DXE transformers and relay switching boxes use high quality weather-proof construction. That said, the ladder line caused me nothing but continuing maintenace headaches. Furthermore, the little DXE plastic ladder line clamps are very flimsy and broke within a few months. I finally gave up and replaced the ladder line with parallel lengths of WD-1a field telephone wire (the twisted pair version), supported on 4x4 posts with ceramic insulators. The electrical performance appears to be the same as with ladder line, but it makes for a much more robust installation and the field wire is much cheaper than ladder line. 73, Jim W8ZR > -Original Message- > From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mack McCormick > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:12 AM > To: topband@contesting.com > Subject: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving > > Friends, > > I need to really increase my country count on 160M so I've decided to > installed dedicated receiving antennas. My home is on a 6 acre rectangular > lot so I have room for a couple of 800 ft beverages at 90 degree angles or > an 8 element circular array. > > I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various 8 > element arrays and beverages. > > *I "believe" the consensus is that a set of bi-directional beverages will > generally perform better than any 8 element circular array. Am I correct? > I'm specifically speaking about working countries on 160M and 80M.* > > I also "believe" the bi-directional antenna choices come down to two > flavors. > > The DXEngineering ladder line version or the BevFlex-4 that uses RG-6. *I'm > leaning toward the BevFlex-4.* > > I would REALLY appreciate your views on the recommended receive antenna > system if space and money are not big concerns. I'd like to do it correctly > one time and the first time. > > Vy 73, > > Mack > W4AX > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
Hello Mack My experience: I have operated 28 years on 160 meters from the same QTH. I started out with Beverages - which I thought worked great. The 880 foot one aimed at Europe was amazing. So I thought. 10 years ago I started experimenting with short vertical RX arrays. Passive elements at first. The comparison between short RX verticals vs. the Beverage antennas was encouraging. Four years ago I installed an 8 circle active RX array (23 ft elements) and never looked back. Two years ago I took down all the Beverages as they were never better than the 8 circle at this QTH. Last year I added a RX four square (same layout as the 8 circle, but just with 4 elements) that is broadside (500 ft spacing to EU) to the 8 circle. With both in phase - now achieving 15 dB of RDF. The RX is really good! One additional data point, Frank W3LPL is no longer using Beverages on 160 meters - just his passive BSEF short vertical arrays. There are many stations the have great RX results on the Topband with Beverages. 73, Tim K3LR -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mack McCormick Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:12 AM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving Friends, I need to really increase my country count on 160M so I've decided to installed dedicated receiving antennas. My home is on a 6 acre rectangular lot so I have room for a couple of 800 ft beverages at 90 degree angles or an 8 element circular array. I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various 8 element arrays and beverages. *I "believe" the consensus is that a set of bi-directional beverages will generally perform better than any 8 element circular array. Am I correct? I'm specifically speaking about working countries on 160M and 80M.* I also "believe" the bi-directional antenna choices come down to two flavors. The DXEngineering ladder line version or the BevFlex-4 that uses RG-6. *I'm leaning toward the BevFlex-4.* I would REALLY appreciate your views on the recommended receive antenna system if space and money are not big concerns. I'd like to do it correctly one time and the first time. Vy 73, Mack W4AX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Recommended Antennas for 160M/80M Receiving
Friends, I need to really increase my country count on 160M so I've decided to installed dedicated receiving antennas. My home is on a 6 acre rectangular lot so I have room for a couple of 800 ft beverages at 90 degree angles or an 8 element circular array. I've been carefully following the discussion about the merits of various 8 element arrays and beverages. *I "believe" the consensus is that a set of bi-directional beverages will generally perform better than any 8 element circular array. Am I correct? I'm specifically speaking about working countries on 160M and 80M.* I also "believe" the bi-directional antenna choices come down to two flavors. The DXEngineering ladder line version or the BevFlex-4 that uses RG-6. *I'm leaning toward the BevFlex-4.* I would REALLY appreciate your views on the recommended receive antenna system if space and money are not big concerns. I'd like to do it correctly one time and the first time. Vy 73, Mack W4AX _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
