Brian
You have my undivided attention on this one. Can you steer me to a
design for the Cubical Quad that you were referring to? I have all
of the parts for a three element quad out in my shed. It came to me
from the clean off of an antenna tower removal. I'm unfamiliar with
the merits of that antenna but I am interested. The Forty Two Foot
Tower will probably end up at field day this year if I don't sell or
trade it but that will have the tribander three element beam on it. I
am planning to have a forty eight foot mast comprised of 1/4" wall
thickness two inch tubing and I was looking at the Spiderbeam as one
possible choice for the antenna on it. The original plan was to use
the mast for stacked VHF UHF array to go after the extra points
available by working those bands without changing our class. This
because a VHF / UHF station's contacts count but the transceiver does
not count as a station for class. The reason I was looking at the
possibility of another beam was that our GOTA station will need a
directional antenna that it does not have to share with the Two HF
Stations. That begs the question of what will I mount the VHF / UHF
stuff on but I digress.
--
Tom

On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:06 pm, Tom Horne wrote:

Brian
The antenna being asked about is the Spiderbeam not the Hexbeam.
--
Tom Horne, W3TDH

Agreed but see my post of Feb 6, 4:04 am in response to one of Ian
White's posts. on the subject.

w3rv

On Feb 8, 10:40 pm, Tom Horne wrote:
Brian
You have my undivided attention on this one. Can you steer me to a
design for the Cubical Quad that you were referring to?

Oops. There's some confusion here but I don't know which one of us is
confused Tom. Maybe both of us. I wasn't referring to a specific quad.
My point was that any properly tuned unnamed generic quad should be a
better-performing antenna than a Spiderbeam. However the usual HF quad
is not a lightweight antenna, they're designed/built to take a beating
out in the weather for the long run and as you know fiberglass ain't
feathers.

However for applications like dxpeditions, Field Day and other
temporary locations where weight matters one should be able to design/
build a very lightweight quad by using small diameter spreaders which
would not be acceptable for use in permanent antennas. If done right a
"portable quad" ought to be able to compete with the Spiderbeam as far
as weight is concerned.

QSL?

Miles and miles of spreaders:

http://www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm

Brian w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:40 pm, Tom Horne wrote:
Brian
You have my undivided attention on this one. Can you steer me to a
design for the Cubical Quad that you were referring to?

Oops. There's some confusion here but I don't know which one of us is
confused Tom. Maybe both of us. I wasn't referring to a specific quad.
My point was that any properly tuned unnamed generic quad should be a
better-performing antenna than a Spiderbeam. However the usual HF quad
is not a lightweight antenna, they're designed/built to take a beating
out in the weather for the long run and as you know fiberglass ain't
feathers.

However for applications like dxpeditions, Field Day and other
temporary locations where weight matters one should be able to design/
build a very lightweight quad by using small diameter spreaders which
would not be acceptable for use in permanent antennas. If done right a
"portable quad" ought to be able to compete with the Spiderbeam as far
as weight is concerned.

QSL?

Miles and miles of spreaders:

http://www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm

Brian w3rv

Brian
I'm afraid that I'm the one that was confused I was hoping that you had
a specific design in mind. I have all of the parts for the one that was
on the site of the clean off that I got a forty two foot tower from but
I got it disassembled. It just needs a plan for reassembly. I guess I
will have to ask around at the club and find an antenna Elmer that would
be willing to help with guiding the reassembly so that we can test it
well before field day. I've forgotten so much in the thirty years I
have been out of Radio that it is almost like starting over.

Thank you very much for that link. I'm sure that will come in mighty
handy as field day plans go forward.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

My point was that any properly tuned unnamed generic quad should be a
better-performing antenna than a Spiderbeam. However the usual HF quad


free space NEC calculations for both:

Spiderbeam (from www.spiderbeam.net)

20: 6.7 dBi gain
15: 6.9 dBi gain
10: 7.1 dBi gain

full-size 2 el quad (from www.cebik.com)

6.8-7.2 dBi (at freq where f/B is peak, also depends on boom length)

I'd say in practice they are pretty much equal...the quad being three-
dimensional will be much harder for one or two people person to put up.

Tor
N4OGW

I'd say in practice they are pretty much equal...the quad being three-
dimensional will be much harder for one or two people to put up.

Tor
N4OGW

wrote:

My point was that any properly tuned unnamed generic quad should be a
better-performing antenna than a Spiderbeam. However the usual HF quad



free space NEC calculations for both:

Spiderbeam (from www.spiderbeam.net)

20: 6.7 dBi gain
15: 6.9 dBi gain
10: 7.1 dBi gain

full-size 2 el quad (from www.cebik.com)

6.8-7.2 dBi (at freq where f/B is peak, also depends on boom length)

I'd say in practice they are pretty much equal...the quad being three-
dimensional will be much harder for one or two people person to put up.

Tor
N4OGW

I would further speculate that the odds of the "as deployed" performance
(in a temporary portable/field erection) of the quad being what the
model says are lower than for the Spiderbeam. The quad is bulkier and
3D, and deformations and environmental effects might be more of an issue.



Jim, W6RMK