Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:48:48 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Steve;
That antenna certainly brings back memories. I didn't have much luck reading
the swr chart. How is the bandwidth on 20? Do they still have that double
dip to improve band width?
Our friends at butternut say that their beams needs to be at least 15
fifteen feet above the roof to perform. Ideally that would be nice but how
high is yours?
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Forst" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: mini-quad
> Hi rich,
>
> The way I heard the story is that the fellow from Erie PA who made them
> in the '70's and 80's died and his widow sold the design to Tom VE3
> something in Ontario. The construction is supposed to be vastly improved
> over the earlier ones.
>
> The plastic parts are supposed to be Lexan. The tubing is good quality
> and
> not lawn chair aluminum like some antennas. The copper wire in the
> reflector is flex-weave. I don't know if the tuning spokes are done
> differntly than before, but I have not had any problems in 13 months
> including ice, snow, and some serious winds.
>
> Here is the link. The prices are in Canadian dollars. This is not the
> antenna I want to spend the rest of my life using, but at this time it
> fits
> my needs just fine.
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/tgmc/
> Also a number of reviews for the various TGM antennas and the Butternut
> are
> on eham.
> 73 Steve KW3A
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Fiorello" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 3:05 PM
> Subject: mini-quad
>
>
>> Hi Steve;
>> I had one too in the late 80's and seem to remember there were lots of
>> problems but much has happened since then. As for the mini-quad, is this
>> the same old mini-quad that was out in the mid 1980's or something new
>> and
>> improved? I had the old miniquad and any good storm and you could count
> on
>> losing one little tuning spike which made at least one band useless.
>> I'm curious as to details.
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
|
|
|