Jeff,
Earlier you wrote "Your construction in the photo is totally wrong"

I guess it really doesn't matter then does it? Seems to be working
ok!
Can that be? Would it work better the other way?
Pete


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