Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

Buddipole


#1

Hi everyone,

Has someone amoungst the activators used a buddipole while on a summit?

And why or why not?

73,

Peter


#2

In reply to ON3WAB:
The buddie pole to me is a compromise antenna. I am sure that it will work fine in confined spaces, but on most SOTA summits that is not the issue. It is more the question of weight!
A full sized dipole, using wire (even insulated (PVC)) will be better than a compromise dipole with loading coils etc.
73 de Ken


#3

In reply to ON3WAB:

Hi everyone,

Has someone amoungst the activators used a buddipole while on a
summit?

And why or why not?

73,

Peter

Hi Peter

I agree 100% with Ken that the dipole is smaller, lighter and definately more efficient than the Buddipole.
I use a linked dippole for activations, similar to John GW4BVEs, which has photos and build dimensions on the Flickr website.

73 Mike GW0DSP


#4

In reply to ON3WAB:

The Buddipole weighs too much, costs too much and looks like it needs a quite substantial mount.

I use a cheap fishing rod, link dipole and RG174 feeder. Total cost was about 25 Euros. The weight of all of the antenna including the winders is neglible compared to the weight of a battery or FT817.

Andy
MM0FMF


#5

In reply to ON3WAB:

And why or why not?

Hi Peter,

As far as I remember the specifications, the buddipole is a little bit heavy to carry with the mast to high mountains. In addition you need to carry SWR meter or antenna analyser to check the resonance. Dipole or long wire is a good solution. I use a loop antenna without feedline and tune it with ATU. First I used 0.4 mm copper wire from local hardware store, but now I have replaced it with insulated flexible wire. In high mountains I am often operating close to abrupt cliffs and find erecting high antenna mast too risky. That is why I use such a low profile covert antenna.

73, Jaakko OH7BF/F5VGL


#6

In reply to ON3WAB:

why not?

Too heavy
Too complicated
Too inefficient
Too costly.

73

Richard


#7

Tnx for all the info everyone !!

Peter


#8

In reply to G3CWI:

In reply to ON3WAB:

why not?

Too heavy
Too complicated
Too inefficient
Too costly.

73

Richard

You are right on all four acounts Richard, I know I had one.

Terry