guys just wanted your opinion on this. in the past i ran a 4 element cubical quad and am getting ready to get back on the air again. what do you think of the choice of this for a beam for mainly talking dx? i had a 5 element JoGunn star series prior to that and the quad beat that to pieces. so what do you folks think?
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
what is the best beam for dx?
- Thread starter 20poundhammer
- Start date
If You still have the Quad, I would put it back up.........
Other than that....the longest boom you can get in the Air
Quads are hard to beat as far as performance go`s.
73
Jeff
Other than that....the longest boom you can get in the Air
Quads are hard to beat as far as performance go`s.
73
Jeff
8 over 8 is doing very well
Owner can work DX long time after others quit calling because of low propagation
Mike
Owner can work DX long time after others quit calling because of low propagation
Mike
imho the quad is great for dx ..possiblely the best
second would be a flatsided yagi
problem with the jogunn ya tried is most of
thier beams the boom is too short boomlenth=gain
fyi jogunns V beams might be decent on skip
second would be a flatsided yagi
problem with the jogunn ya tried is most of
thier beams the boom is too short boomlenth=gain
fyi jogunns V beams might be decent on skip
8 over 8 is doing very well
Owner can work DX long time after others quit calling because of low propagation
Mike
Very nice!!! Love my single 5 element. Im sure you have a blast with that monster. How high are they ?
back when i was dxing i ran the quad 99% of the time on horizontal for dxing. it didnt seem to make a lot of difference most of the time but horizontal would usualy allow me to get a lil stronger signal transmitting and recieving.
Can someone show me irrefutable proof that one polarity is better than the other for DX? I ask this because I ran a dual polarity beam for many,many years and at NO time was one polarity consistently better than the other. The incoming signal shifts polarity as it propagates and in most cases bears no resemblance to the original polarity that was transmitted therefore any receive antenna would be equally prone to be being of the "wrong" polarity. On almost all contacts I made on that antenna, and there were thousands all over the world, the polarity would shift and I would have to switch to compensate. Sometimes I would have to switch polarity several times in a ten minute contact. It is of my belief that one polarity really does NOT have an advantage over the other in the slightest when working DX. It seems the only people that believe it does are those with no experiance using a dual polarity antenna system where they can instantly switch polarities to make a comparision.
No, but the consensus that you will hear is that a horizontal beam has a lower TOA at the same height than a vertical beam, that's why I was poking this along.
I don't know if you remember, but I pushed this on the CBRadioForum a few years ago to the point of probably being annoying. No matter who I read, or who I asked, I could always find a contradiction.
I finally came to the conclusion that the height of any particular antenna was more critical than polarization. IOW, an antenna mounted in a way that gives good surface saturation, and talks good local, would also do DX well.
In fact, I could never find proof that a quad is better than a yagi either.
EDIT_______
I bought the quad anyway.
Last edited:
CK and 359 both good points.
I will chime in my 2cents.
Height does play a factor in TAO, that is a given, does not matter if it is horizontal or vertical polarized for take off angle, to a point.
The point being what freq are you working. 20 meters and above the height does make a huge difference on vertical and horizontal.
30 meters is a toss up.
40 meters and below a ground mounted vertical works well due to the length of the wave length. If you want the same TAO on a 40 meter dipole you would need to get it at least 1/2 wl in the air, that is do able for most ops, but try to get an 80 meter dipole 1/2 wl in the air. Gets expensive with all that tower unless you just happen to have a redwood tree in the back yard.
So going with a ground mounted vert on 40 and below is a cost related answer vs a dipole at 1/2 wl height. The ground mounted verts do work well.
I have a vert installed above my ta-33 at 75 feet to the feed point. Depending on what area of the world I am trying to work sometimes the vert does better than the beam, even though the beam does have some gain on rx and tx, the angle of the arriving signal dictates which is better vert or horizontal due to the distance of the DX station worked. I am not talking within the continent, this is comparing the Middle East and Asia on 15 meters.
I ran a two element quad hor pol for a while last year. I compared it to the Mosley TH67B on ten meters. without a doubt that two element quad provided consistently better receive than the TH67B, installed same height at 45 feet.
I had more fading on the TH67B than I did on the Quad, there was not an S unit difference in rx signal strength, but the Quad was able to maintain the rx signal with less fading than the TH67B. Why? some say it is the capture area of the full wave vertically installed loop providing both HOR and VERT, I can not prove that just share the results I seen in real world comparisons.
Does this prove the Quad is better? I dunno, just results I had at this qth. Will I do it again? No, that quad is a beast to build, install and maintain, It is not a question of "IF" the quad will get damaged in high winds or storms, it is a question of when.
If the quad is constructed to be mechanically strong then it weighs a ton, building constructing a quad is an exercise in mechanical engineering starting with the tower base and going up from there.
researching Quad VS yagi, an optimized three element yagi is the same as a two element quad, that is proven in field tests, I forgot the site but I believe LB Cebik has some comparisons on that site.
I will chime in my 2cents.
Height does play a factor in TAO, that is a given, does not matter if it is horizontal or vertical polarized for take off angle, to a point.
The point being what freq are you working. 20 meters and above the height does make a huge difference on vertical and horizontal.
30 meters is a toss up.
40 meters and below a ground mounted vertical works well due to the length of the wave length. If you want the same TAO on a 40 meter dipole you would need to get it at least 1/2 wl in the air, that is do able for most ops, but try to get an 80 meter dipole 1/2 wl in the air. Gets expensive with all that tower unless you just happen to have a redwood tree in the back yard.
So going with a ground mounted vert on 40 and below is a cost related answer vs a dipole at 1/2 wl height. The ground mounted verts do work well.
I have a vert installed above my ta-33 at 75 feet to the feed point. Depending on what area of the world I am trying to work sometimes the vert does better than the beam, even though the beam does have some gain on rx and tx, the angle of the arriving signal dictates which is better vert or horizontal due to the distance of the DX station worked. I am not talking within the continent, this is comparing the Middle East and Asia on 15 meters.
I ran a two element quad hor pol for a while last year. I compared it to the Mosley TH67B on ten meters. without a doubt that two element quad provided consistently better receive than the TH67B, installed same height at 45 feet.
I had more fading on the TH67B than I did on the Quad, there was not an S unit difference in rx signal strength, but the Quad was able to maintain the rx signal with less fading than the TH67B. Why? some say it is the capture area of the full wave vertically installed loop providing both HOR and VERT, I can not prove that just share the results I seen in real world comparisons.
Does this prove the Quad is better? I dunno, just results I had at this qth. Will I do it again? No, that quad is a beast to build, install and maintain, It is not a question of "IF" the quad will get damaged in high winds or storms, it is a question of when.
If the quad is constructed to be mechanically strong then it weighs a ton, building constructing a quad is an exercise in mechanical engineering starting with the tower base and going up from there.
researching Quad VS yagi, an optimized three element yagi is the same as a two element quad, that is proven in field tests, I forgot the site but I believe LB Cebik has some comparisons on that site.
Hello,
Im not that wise but i do know a guy who probarbly is.
I asked a "aquintance" who predicts prop for a couple radio world services in EU and for our military.
What i asked him is there a flavourable polarisation for dx?
quote:
If the HF signal penetrates the ionosphere then the signal is devided in 3 parts.
1 the ordinary, 2 the extraordinary and 3 the Z component.
Due to the earth magneticfield each part gets a ciculair polarisation.
The stronger the earth magneticfield the stronger a signal will rotate.
(for example in the near of the North/south pole).
It has absolute no use to concentrate on either the vertical or horizontal component.
If someone gets the idea the the horizontal or vertical antenna is better for DX then there is either a big difference in gain or in TAO of the antennas.
The biggest loss in each situation is the angle between propagation an the TOA of the antenna.
So, if your close to the equator the rotation of the signals aint so bad.
If your near the magnetic poles it is not.
More information can be found using wikipedia :Faraday rotation, or if you know your Math:
"the propagation of radio waves by KG Budden (book).
End of "quot"
Thanks to Norbert Izereef.
ofcourse if more questions rise, i can ask more but have to be a bit carefull not to be "irritating"
as such guys have the knowledge and dont deal that often with us "cb/ham-guys" They dont walk around promoting themself as we do on forums lol..., not that he is from another world...but it is difficult to find a source who knows more and knows why and how..
Kind regards,
Henry
11 meter Dx antenna systemx
Last edited: