Understood Chuck. Depends on the circumstances. I know of a couple of ham groups that have traded antenna space for tower space. The tower owner gave them free space provided he could multi-couple to that antenna. The new systems at the site would be responsible for filtering. It was a win-win and the ham guys paid nothing for a PRIME location. If you own the tower and never plan to expand then it's not an issue. My only reason for bring it up was to encourage everyone to consider all the options and ensure that they will not regret the model chosen. As I am sure you are aware, attaching a big antenna to a high tower is tons of work and not something that any of us would want to repeat unless necessary.
lh On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Chuck Kelsey <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Larry is correct. > > My own personal hope and desire is that there will NOT be other users. Call > me greedy, I suppose, but the less RF at the site, the better. > > However, the guy that posted the original question certainly needs to > consider the possibilities. (Sorry, don't remember his name - short memory.) > > Chuck > WB2EDV > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Larry Horlick <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:00 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed! > > Do you expect to EVER allow other, non-ham users, to multi-couple to this > antenna? Plan carefully. > If you anticipate to share, then the bandwidth become very important. For > example, a Sinclair 210C Series > antenna has a 36 mHz, 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth, essentially covering the whole > VHF high band. A Sinclair > 222/224 Series has a 10 mHz 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth. A Sinclair 229 has a 6 > mHz, 1.5:1 VSWR bandwidth. > UHF follows a similar set of numbers. If you expect to never allow other > users on the antenna, then my comments > are irrelevant. > > lh > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Chuck Kelsey <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> I'm assuming you mean the section of the particular band that a particular >> model will cover. 'Most' folded dipole arrays and collinear fiberglass >> manufacturers have models that cover the entire ham band in question, and >> then some. >> >> Chuck >> WB2EDV >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Larry Horlick <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 23, 2010 9:17 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Antenna Experience Needed! >> >> Keep in mind the bandwidth of the antenna. >> >> lh >> >> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Sid <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> My choice would be the DB-224 type. Sid WA4VBC >>> >>> --- In [email protected], "Chuck Kelsey" <wb2...@...> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > My vote would be for folded dipole arrays. Sinclair, Comprod, Telewave >>> and >>> > Andrew make good ones. I have seen far too many failures with >>> fiberglass >>> > collinear antennas - lighting and particularly internal failure causing >>> >>> > untold noise generation to the repeater itself as well as to every >>> radio >>> > service nearby. I've never seen a fiberglass one that stood a direct >>> hit but >>> > have seen folded dipoles that did. I'd say at least a 3:1 failure rate, >>> >>> > maybe higher. That said, any can fail. >>> > >>> > Chuck >>> > WB2EDV >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >>> > >> We will be mounting 2 meter, 220, and a 440 repeater antennas. >>> > >> >>> > >> 1: >>> > >> What do you recommend between a choice of either RFS or Telewave >>> > >> Superstation Master Type or DB224E Dipole type for top mounting? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 >> 02:36:00 >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2957 - Release Date: 06/23/10 > 02:36:00 > > >
