Knight <petelarosa@comcast.net> hath wroth:

>On Sep 6, 5:58 pm, Knight <petelar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>>
>> It is a "N" connector. A "N" bulkhead connector.

Ok, I couldn't tell the size from the photo.

>Guys, heres a screenshot of what's happening while the quad is
>connected.
>Does it look OK to you? Doesn't look bad to me!
>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/361947/biquad.jpg
>
>Let me know what ya think. This is the same one as pictured above,
>didn't change a thing.

Looks like about 8dBi of gain over what you were using as a reference
antenna. That's about what I would expect from a Biquad. I guess
it's working.

A while ago, I got into a debate over the construction of biquads and
how much creativity can be tolerated. So, I ran some models and got a
suprise. See:

A proper biquad:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/Biquad/>

A creatively built biquad-junk:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/biquad-junk/>

Despite the miserable 7:1 VSWR mismatch, the junk antenna still
manages to get about 11dBi of gain, the same as the proper biquad. So,
if your radio can handle the crappy VSWR, feel free to throw it
together any way that seem workable.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558