On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:19:29 GMT, "Dale Parfitt"
wrote:
"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...
A vee beam or rhombic set up would give you impressive gain, albeit
with a narrow beamwidth... All the factors would have to be right...
I won't take the time to do the search for you, but 'try vhf rhombic'
for starting a search... Older ARRL VHF antenna books address this
issue...

Of what use is a directional antenna on 2M if you cannot rotate it?

Dale W4OP

Hi Dale,

I couldn't resist.

If you make the rhombic with stretchable mounting points (and do not
load the end of the rhombic, so as to make it bi-directional) you can
change the major axis. This would alter EW to NS, and, I bet, if you
didn't stretch it strictly to the typical elongated axis (the major
axis) you would probably fill in the lobes in between.

However, this (admittedly rube Goldberg design) and the original
suggestion of a rhombic seems prohibitive in a neighborhood already
far too sensitive to even a quarterwave vertical.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Dale,

I couldn't resist.

If you make the rhombic with stretchable mounting points (and do not
load the end of the rhombic, so as to make it bi-directional) you can
change the major axis. This would alter EW to NS, and, I bet, if you
didn't stretch it strictly to the typical elongated axis (the major
axis) you would probably fill in the lobes in between.

However, this (admittedly rube Goldberg design) and the original
suggestion of a rhombic seems prohibitive in a neighborhood already
far too sensitive to even a quarterwave vertical.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard

I'm not sure who you are responding to, certainly NOT the original
poster. He can't put up a quarter wave, let alone an effing RHOMBIC!

I am amazed at how these threads can take off in only 3 responses into
something that has absolutely nothing to do with the question that was
asked.

-----------------------------

N3

Please contact me directly at the address shown on this post, and I will
attempt to help you.

tom
K0TAR

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:01:53 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Dale,

I'm not sure who you are responding to

Hi Tom,

I thought I would cut down the intervening criticism to reveal the
answer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Dale,

I couldn't resist.

If you make the rhombic with stretchable mounting points (and do not
load the end of the rhombic, so as to make it bi-directional) you can
change the major axis. This would alter EW to NS, and, I bet, if you
didn't stretch it strictly to the typical elongated axis (the major
axis) you would probably fill in the lobes in between.

However, this (admittedly rube Goldberg design) and the original
suggestion of a rhombic seems prohibitive in a neighborhood already
far too sensitive to even a quarterwave vertical.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

One thing the newcomers to the group should know, and this information
should be passed on on a regular basis, is that Richard is one of the
most intelligent people here. Unfortunately, he is about the least
helpful person here. He seldom answers questions directly, although he
will try to pretend he is trying to make you learn something. He is
not, he is simply showing you how much more knowledgeable he is than
everyone else.

In this case the poster could not put up a quarter wave, and asked about
putting up a long wire. Obviously if the poster couldn't put up a
long wire, a flexible rhombic, which is absurd on the face of it, would
be absolutely unacceptable.

tom
K0TAR


tom
K0TAR

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:30:24 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
suggestion of a rhombic seems prohibitive in a neighborhood already
far too sensitive to even a quarterwave vertical.

is absurd on the face of it, would
be absolutely unacceptable.

Hi Tom,

Again, a little judicous trimming reveals your complaint was already
anticipated.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC