I have a 500' roll. Send me a stamped padded envelope or label for a usps flat rate box and how many feet you'd like.
In about 10 years of offering I've never had a taker though.
73, Drew KO4MA
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 15, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Joe nss@mwt.net wrote:
Main problem seems to be the 93 ohm coax,,,
anyone got a short piece?
Joe WB9SBD Sig The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 3/15/2016 3:11 PM, Robert Bruninga wrote: Although my comments are true, I had not looked at the "updated" web page: http://wb5rmg.somenet.net/k5oe/Eggbeater_2.html
It appears he addressed all those issues and has an eggbeater design that does address those same issues. If that works, then that is the same thing I was talking about and seems to be a good approach. I'd love to see a cookoff between the two antennas. Bob...
-----Original Message----- From: Robert Bruninga [mailto:bruninga@usna.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 1:32 PM Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Homebrew Up-Dated Eggbeater Antenna
My 2 cents:
The problem with Eggbeaters is that their design goal (omni coverage) sounds good but also means, by definition, equally poor in all directions. There is no such thing as "gain" for an omni. The closer its gain approaches 3D omni, in all directions, then the closer its gain approaches 0 dBi. Of course, placed over a ground plane, then they can achieve 3 dBi...
Now, on the other hand, satellites are nowhere near omni located. They are 10dB or more farther away on the horizon than when they are overhead. So you don't need as much gain at all overhead as you need on the horizon.
Further, satellites spend more than 70% of all pass times below 22 degrees! (where they are weak) and only 5% of their time above 45 degrees where they are 10 dB stronger.