One of the take-aways from our St Louis tech-talks was that the D-Kaz has a wider bandwidth when it comes to suppression.
I've seen nice deep nulls with a Flag...on a specific frequency...but would have to re-null on other channels. Whereas the D-Kaz in my experience is a "set-and-forget" antenna when properly installed. Null for one frequency, and that same null-setting usually works for almost all the other frequencies. Cheers! Mark Durenberger -----Original Message----- From: IRCA <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Guy Atkins Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:37 AM To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [IRCA] KAZ versus Pennant/Flag Hi Nick, The best F/B of any phased antenna I've experienced at the coast was Dallas Lankford's Quad Delta Flag Array (QDFA). I know you're quite familiar with this, but some others on the IRCA list may not be. Here is an archived link to Dallas' article on this antenna: http://web.archive.org/web/20100921085637fw_/http://kongsfjord.no/dl/Antenna s/Phased%20Delta%20Flag%20Arrays%20rev%2010.pdf I worked with Dallas in 2009 to get his design tested and operational at Grayland. Once we got a few bugs out of this complicated design, the result was phenomenal. Check out the pattern on page 3 of the PDF and you'll see why domestic inland DX at sunrise was knocked down to a degree I'd never experienced before or since. This four loop, phased antenna system is NOT DXpedition friendly. Because of the complexity it's best for a permanent installation. I know that Bjarne Mjelde also installed a QDFA some years ago but I don't know if it's still operational. 73, Guy Atkins Puyallup, WA On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:42 AM Nick Hall-Patch <[email protected]> wrote: > For the coastal DXer, I think that the takeaway from the presentation > was that the really important thing is not so much the response from > the two quadrants facing out over the ocean, but rather, the two > quadrants facing the domestic interference. > > The DKaz has a narrower beam, but often the MW DXer wants to hear > whatever the conditions deliver, whether it be New Zealand or Siberia, > so > a narrow beam is not always an advantage. But > ideally, don't you really want zero signal from the two quadrants > facing inland? The DX is out there, but in a realistic situation, > often it is hard to (impossible?) to read due to domestic splatter. > > Where the DKaz really shines then is in those two quadrants facing > inland. It delivers less signal from those two quadrants than the > Flag does, so the DX is more readable. > > For an inland DXer, the narrower beam will be more an advantage, > because it will lessen interference in the forward direction, but > probably it is still better to place its back side to minimize the > overall interference level, because the beam width is still wide > enough to inhale a fair bit of DX, . Craig's 260 degree proposed > direction should be ideal for down under, and still hear Japan pretty > well with that > 100 degree beam width. Hopefully, it > incidentally nulls a lot of domestic interference as well. > > > Nick > _______________________________________________ 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] _______________________________________________ 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]
