Re: [IRCA] KAZ versus Pennant/Flag

["Mark Durenberger" <Mark4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 <irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Guy Atkins
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:37 AM
To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 <nhp@xxxxxxxx> 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
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx