On 26 Oct 2006 11:04:49 GMT, Steveo wrote:

+++Yeah I was looking at the JO GUNN STAR and comparing it to the Maco Comet.
+++The comet is lighter and less expensive but I don't know about durability.
+++The 3 + 3 has a bit better rejection and gain numbers, if they're to be
+++believed.
****************

Steveo

I used an antenna like the Star back in the 70's called a Gizmotchy. I
had a four element version. One thing that that beam had was a very
deep null at about 120 degrees both sides from the front. Easily knock
down a signal 6 or 7 S units no trouble. Had the top of the driven
element at about 36 feet and it worked very well ground wave. I could
talk with 5 watts easily here in Florida 100 miles just about every
night.

The Star has a bit unbelievable rejection numbers. Still the design
does not appear to be a bad one from what I can determine by looking
at the pictures and limited description. From the boom length of the 4
element and three element designs it seems to be somewhat similar to
what I had. My 4 element was on a 13 foot boom. It could have been on
a slightly shorter boom.

james

wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 11:04:49 GMT, Steveo wrote:

+++Yeah I was looking at the JO GUNN STAR and comparing it to the Maco
Comet. +++The comet is lighter and less expensive but I don't know about
durability. +++The 3 + 3 has a bit better rejection and gain numbers, if
they're to be +++believed.
****************

Steveo

I used an antenna like the Star back in the 70's called a Gizmotchy.

One of these?

http://www.gizmotchy.com/

I've heard good things about those..I didn't find the price section so I'll
have to go back and do a little research later. I'd forgotten about them.
Thanks for the reminder, beerkeg.

I
had a four element version. One thing that that beam had was a very
deep null at about 120 degrees both sides from the front. Easily knock
down a signal 6 or 7 S units no trouble. Had the top of the driven
element at about 36 feet and it worked very well ground wave. I could
talk with 5 watts easily here in Florida 100 miles just about every
night.

Sounds decent.

The Star has a bit unbelievable rejection numbers. Still the design
does not appear to be a bad one from what I can determine by looking
at the pictures and limited description. From the boom length of the 4
element and three element designs it seems to be somewhat similar to
what I had. My 4 element was on a 13 foot boom. It could have been on
a slightly shorter boom.

james

Have you looked at the maco comet quad? (I posted the url earlier) I'm
trying to decide which has the most bang for the bucks, along with the wind
load and durability considerations.

Thanks for your input, keg.

Steveo wrote:
Thanks for your input, keg.

err, James.

On 26 Oct 2006 20:59:48 GMT, Steveo wrote:

+++One of these?
+++
+++http://www.gizmotchy.com/
+++
+++I've heard good things about those..I didn't find the price section so I'll
+++have to go back and do a little research later. I'd forgotten about them.
+++Thanks for the reminder, beerkeg.
**************

Yep that looks like it. I wonder if they redesigned the boom to
element clamps. That was the one weakness of the antenna. They used to
be made of "pot" metal aluminum and would crack after time due to the
wind. I had a freind tool some clamps for me from 6061-T6 aluminum and
they worked superior. I also replaced the Polyethelene dialectric
spacer in the gamma match with teflon.

Saw the pictures on the web page. One thing that would be better for
very long beams, 5 or 6 elements, is to increase the boom diameter.
This will prevent saging and not require the boom supports. This would
be acceptable to boom lengths of about 25 feet or so.

Never looked at others. Don't really spend that much time on the air
any more.

james

wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 20:59:48 GMT, Steveo wrote:

+++One of these?
+++
+++http://www.gizmotchy.com/
+++
+++I've heard good things about those..I didn't find the price section
so I'll +++have to go back and do a little research later. I'd forgotten
about them. +++Thanks for the reminder, beerkeg.
**************

Yep that looks like it. I wonder if they redesigned the boom to
element clamps. That was the one weakness of the antenna. They used to
be made of "pot" metal aluminum and would crack after time due to the
wind. I had a freind tool some clamps for me from 6061-T6 aluminum and
they worked superior. I also replaced the Polyethelene dialectric
spacer in the gamma match with teflon.

Saw the pictures on the web page. One thing that would be better for
very long beams, 5 or 6 elements, is to increase the boom diameter.
This will prevent saging and not require the boom supports. This would
be acceptable to boom lengths of about 25 feet or so.

Never looked at others. Don't really spend that much time on the air
any more.

james

Thanks James, that antenna is sorta tempting and looks fairly stout
especially if I could say I'm ruining a 'gizmotchy'. I like the sound of
that!

I'm leaning toward the 3 element jo gunn tho. Reckon that's OK?

wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 11:04:49 GMT, Steveo wrote:

+++Yeah I was looking at the JO GUNN STAR and comparing it to the Maco
Comet. +++The comet is lighter and less expensive but I don't know about
durability. +++The 3 + 3 has a bit better rejection and gain numbers, if
they're to be +++believed.
****************

Steveo

I used an antenna like the Star back in the 70's called a Gizmotchy.
-snip-


I've been corresponding with that guy via email since you mentioned
Gizmotchy and I gotta say he is very good with support for his product, I'm
impressed.