anybody out there have theses people antennas i was wondering how they performedi saw there prices witch wasnt bad so if you all can give me some input i would appreciate it
-
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.
wolf radio antennas
- Thread starter excavator701
- Start date
- Status
701,
I have the .64 Wave and it has performed great for me.
community.webshots.com/album/102491726UZhluQ
73's
Wayne C.
I have the .64 Wave and it has performed great for me.
community.webshots.com/album/102491726UZhluQ
73's
Wayne C.
EDUK8TR said:
i dont have one. but have heard and spoken with EDUK8TR in skip land many many times.
it looks like a nice antenna..
however Jay's Interceptor I-10K is Best
having Jays I-10K
i could never go back to a lesser antenna
Later
however Jay's Interceptor I-10K is Best
having Jays I-10K
i could never go back to a lesser antenna
Later
hello
i wasnt interested in there groundplanes i was talking about there beams!!! sorry i should of made that clear on my first post
i wasnt interested in there groundplanes i was talking about there beams!!! sorry i should of made that clear on my first post
701, a beam antenna has several tunable aspects to consider and depending on the choices and one’s ability to effectively incorporate those choices into the antenna will determine, to a large degree, how well it works. Therefore it depends upon the producers design goals as to exactly what you will get as to performance when following his setup procedures as to element length, spacing, and tuning.
As a general rule if one wishes the beam to produce optimum gain then the optimum rejection will likely suffer a bit. The reverse is also true. This can be an advantage to some and a disadvantage to others. So, it also depends on your own goals as to performance as well. Typically there is not as much gain to be made over improving the rejection of a beam antenna when optomizing. Plus it is very difficult to impossible for us to tell if we have really gained anything in real gain or not. On the other hand it is easy to perceive the rejection qualities on receive and if the characteristic is present or not.
I cannot tell you what Ed's design goals are, but if I were to guess it would be sort of in the middle. His beam construction will not be surpassed with the tubing used or the hardware supplied. The ability to modify the beam to some minimal optimized setup is also present if one has the skills to do that effectively. Wolf uses slotting techniques in the tapering of his tubing and Maco, the other big boy in yagi construction, no longer does this for their customers. This is an advantage for the longevity of any beam using tubing and allows for secure and easy assembly and future disassembly if necessary.
Personally I don’t think you can go wrong with Ed’s beams if you can get him to build you one. I am not saying I can tell his design goals by looking at his doc's, but I have never seen his documentation either. From what little I know about Wolf, I don’t believe he ventures off very much into the experimental area of optimized beam design, so you will probably get a good functional beam affect (called a compromise design) if you install and tune it correctly.
If this effort is your first experience with a beam antenna I would tend to advise a single polarity beam with no more than 4 elements, preferably maybe only three elements. Three will give you very good beam performance and the total investment in support structure and rotor requirements will be far more reasonable.
Be advised that beam ownership is a whole new ball of wax when compared to a vertical and I would suggest you keep a usable vertical in the air in addition to your beam. Doing so gives you a big advantage in real function for both local and long distance work.
Good luck.
As a general rule if one wishes the beam to produce optimum gain then the optimum rejection will likely suffer a bit. The reverse is also true. This can be an advantage to some and a disadvantage to others. So, it also depends on your own goals as to performance as well. Typically there is not as much gain to be made over improving the rejection of a beam antenna when optomizing. Plus it is very difficult to impossible for us to tell if we have really gained anything in real gain or not. On the other hand it is easy to perceive the rejection qualities on receive and if the characteristic is present or not.
I cannot tell you what Ed's design goals are, but if I were to guess it would be sort of in the middle. His beam construction will not be surpassed with the tubing used or the hardware supplied. The ability to modify the beam to some minimal optimized setup is also present if one has the skills to do that effectively. Wolf uses slotting techniques in the tapering of his tubing and Maco, the other big boy in yagi construction, no longer does this for their customers. This is an advantage for the longevity of any beam using tubing and allows for secure and easy assembly and future disassembly if necessary.
Personally I don’t think you can go wrong with Ed’s beams if you can get him to build you one. I am not saying I can tell his design goals by looking at his doc's, but I have never seen his documentation either. From what little I know about Wolf, I don’t believe he ventures off very much into the experimental area of optimized beam design, so you will probably get a good functional beam affect (called a compromise design) if you install and tune it correctly.
If this effort is your first experience with a beam antenna I would tend to advise a single polarity beam with no more than 4 elements, preferably maybe only three elements. Three will give you very good beam performance and the total investment in support structure and rotor requirements will be far more reasonable.
Be advised that beam ownership is a whole new ball of wax when compared to a vertical and I would suggest you keep a usable vertical in the air in addition to your beam. Doing so gives you a big advantage in real function for both local and long distance work.
Good luck.
KingCobra_CDX882 said:
Please explain how the I-10K is better than the Wolf .64 wave. Lets see some math to prove this ???
What a joke....You could swap antenna's and an operator on the other end would never see a difference.
Back up the above statement please.smalltiredart said:
The WOLF .64 wave uses a gamma match. Jay's antenna does not. Since we already know that the magic of the I-10K is in the feedpoint, that it has been tested against multiple antennas using various matching networks (feedpoints) and found to be the most efficient to date! More signal that makes it into the antenna, the more signal you get out. Also, the Wolf .64 breaks up the main radiator with 2 coils. I've seen this done to phase multiple half waves together, but not to load a 5/8 radiator. I'll say I have my reservations about this part of the design.
The Wolf .64 is rated for 1KW out of the box, upgradeable to 5KW. The I-10K is rated at...well...10KW right out of the box.
Mechanically speaking, there is no comparison. Have you seen an I-10K? The I-10K is bolted together and does not use clamps that can crush the lower tube (user error). Using clamps is acceptable, but not preferred in this application.
So, is the I-10K better? Yes. Is the Wolf .64 a bad antenna? No. Is the I-10K more expensive? Yes. Do you get what you pay for? Usually, and in this case, YES. Should this stop anyone from ever buying or enjoying a Wolf .64? No.
d
I've got an Interceptor 10k up in the air. In the exact same location as the replaced Spectrum 1600 - no change in tx or rx.
Very well constructed though with top notch materials. Like I said, no noticeable difference in rx or tx in the two antennas. But far surperior materials and construction with the Interceptor 10k.
Just my experience, LoneWolf TN
I've got an Interceptor 10k up in the air. In the exact same location as the replaced Spectrum 1600 - no change in tx or rx.
Very well constructed though with top notch materials. Like I said, no noticeable difference in rx or tx in the two antennas. But far surperior materials and construction with the Interceptor 10k.
Just my experience, LoneWolf TN
I have never used either antenna but I know a local who runs ones and it is a great antenna. What I want to know is how will a I10k take a lightning strike? The wolf antennas are warranted to take them which is still shocking to me. That is one great quality in my opinion. I do not how ever know what antenna is better on TX. Im guessing there close so I wont say either. Someone needs to do a test with theese antennas and post the results. Lets not get in a pissing match about unproven things now! :roll:
Master Chief said:
I do not believe that the slight difference in the design of the feed point would ever be seen on the recieve end of the average Joe Cb'er's "S" meter.
The I-10K is a nice antenna, however it's overpriced..Plain and simple.
If you want to talk about build quality, sure the 10K is strong, but if you think the Wolf is not, you must have never seen one in person. It will take Huricane wind and lighting.
Just like any other antenna.Cheech said:
The I-10K is DC grounded (as is the Wolf .64) and provides a path to ground if the user installed it correctly. The feedpoint does not provide an air gap as a gamma match (Wolf .64) provides.
My guess, lightning is going to go where ever it wants.
so marconi..
I already know how the Interceptor I-10K performs..
I have heard good things conserning the Wolfpoint .64 wave..
if you have both..
what is your opinion..
i am not looking to trash one or the other..
wolf's looks like a good antenna..
but there is noguessing if one has tried both..
i am a bit surprised Jay never used the .64 in his testing of other antennas..
therefore what antenna do you perfer and why
thanks
I already know how the Interceptor I-10K performs..
I have heard good things conserning the Wolfpoint .64 wave..
if you have both..
what is your opinion..
i am not looking to trash one or the other..
wolf's looks like a good antenna..
but there is noguessing if one has tried both..
i am a bit surprised Jay never used the .64 in his testing of other antennas..
therefore what antenna do you perfer and why
thanks
- Status