At 18:22 11/8/2009, you wrote: >Nick Hall-Patch had his ALA-100 array at Grayland with myself and Bruce >Portzer Oct. 3 and 4. During that period, we compared it with a 1400' Beverage >at 320 degrees that was terminated via 3 six foot ground rods. A different >antenna than a 600' Beverage, to be sure. > >It was no contest at all according to Nick. The Beverage was in a league by >itself. Perhaps Nick can provide details if needed. > >The Beverage provided Chinese adio on at least 111 channels, and there are >some recordings still in the can that I have not checked. >
I might want to temper what Chuck has said, seeing that I am "on the record" now . First, the Wellbrook array could hear some things better than the big Beverage could. For example, no KFBK-1530 on the array at all except in reverse position. 1530 was effectively an Asian channel on the array, and I could hear Japanese trading places that were just garbage fighting under what was left of KFBK on the Beverage. A phased pair of Beverages would possibly (likely?) have levelled that playing field. If there was a distinct source of interference off the back end, the Wellbrook could deliver a better signal to splatter ratio. This did not always mean a better quality of DX however, because, sorry guys, size matters, at least in the antenna world; I won't venture into other worlds, but I'm sure the contents of your junk folder will tell you all you need to know. I don't really know the technical reasons for this, but it makes sense that a big antenna will deliver a more robust signal than a smaller one will. In the demodulation process, generally the more signal you have, especially in those AM sidebands, the better the readability you will have, even if there is relatively more interference as well (within limits). This is I believe the source of the difference Chuck alludes to. I've observed this locally, comparing a fine Flag antenna I have versus a more haphazard corner fed loop which has about twice the enclosed area. The Flag has observably better rejection off the back end (thereby nulling all my domestic interference with varying degrees of effectiveness), and is a quiet joy to listen with. But the corner fed loop, relatively extra splatter and all, often delivers more readable DX, as it is enclosing a larger portion of the incoming wave fronts, and delivering more raw signal which is demodulated better. It's crisper, less murky, i.e. more readable, and it looks good on the S-meter too. (and yes, bulking up the Flag's signal with a preamplifier to match the corner-fed's signal often doesn't seem to be enough) If it's a matter of real estate, the Wellbrook array wins every time however. 50m worth of a straight line will get you a darned nice antenna with, in this part of the world, rejection of pretty much all of North America's signals, leaving you with a great starting place to hear Asia and Oceania. 50m of wire will get you world class splatter in the same location, no matter how well you match it to your receiver. What is staggering about the Wellbrook array is that, according to John Bryant, it is competitive with a 600m wire, which is a Beverage antenna, at least above 1000kHz. With the price of land, that's a serious advantage. Having said all that, my feeling (and it is mostly a feeling) at this point is that if you have the opportunity to use a man-sized Beverage antenna, especially if you can enhance it with phasing as with Neil's BOGs, then you will still likely hear better DX than with the smaller and truly wonderful phased arrays. It's up to you to decide how many more years you will wait until retirement in order to be able to afford the land needed for a serious Beverage array at the seashore, hi. best wishes, Nick ***************************** Nick Hall-Patch Victoria, BC Canada _______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org To Post a message: [email protected]
