Let's see, 102 + 33 = 135. Isn't that pretty close to the length of an 80 Meter Dipole? The G5RV looks like two back-to-back inverted "L" antennas. The twin lead is not feed line but part of the radiator.
Sent from my iPhone ...nr4c. bill > On Aug 4, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Wes Stewart <wes_n...@triconet.org> wrote: > > In my 1999 paper, /"Balanced Transmission Line in Current Amateur Practice"/ > (http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/Ladder_Line.pdf), published in the /ARRL Antenna > Compendium, Volume 6, /pp 174-178, I have this statement: "A popular > multiband wire antenna is the so-called G5RV. This antenna is rarely used as > was intended by Varney, but for some reason, the 102-foot length has taken on > mystical properties,...." > > It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are enamored > by this piece of wire. First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so > in common jargon, it's *not* a 20-meter antenna, any more than any other > random length would be. Second, I understand that the conventional wisdom is > that it has "gain" on 20-meters. Maybe so, but the usual application has the > wire strung up between available supports that may, or may not, direct the > "gain" in a useful direction. A coax-fed, rotatable, resonant dipole would > run rings around a G5RV. > > (While it's off-topic on this off-topic subject, the fascination with the > "magical" 43-foot vertical is equally bewildering to me.) > > In my published paper, space limited any discussion of tuner loss, however, > in 1994 (type)written correspondence with editor Dean Straw I gave him > examples of the horrific losses that could be incurred even with high quality > tuners, when used as proposed the the article* that got me going on this > subject. It's interesting to note that to my knowledge, loss in tuners had > never been mentioned in any ARRL publications before this correspondence. > Shortly thereafter, "/How to Evaluate Your Antenna Tuner" /was published in > 1995. Coincidence I'm sure. > > BTW, any ARRL publication before 1994 with charts of transmission line loss > that include open-wire line is incorrect. It's easily seen by inspection, > but apparenty I was to first to inspect it. Dean and I hashed out a correct > attenuation chart. > > Wes N7WS > > * "/The Lure of the Ladder Line", QST, /December 1993, pp. 70-71 > > > > > : On 8/4/2016 11:08 AM, Ken G Kopp wrote: >> As usual, Jim is correct ... >> >> I have Lou Varney's original article. The G5RV was designed as a 20M >> --ONLY-- antenna. It's now achieved some kind of cult ... read voodoo ... >> status. (;-) >> >> If one has an antenna that is partially fed with balanced line that's then >> directly (!) spliced to a specific length of coax and then still requires a >> tuner, why not run the balanced line directly to the tuner ... assuming it >> has a balun ... or provide one at the tuner? >> >> This same argument would apply to Varney's design for a 20M only dipole. >> >> Maybe he didn't have a tuner of any kind, and wanted to use coax feed line >> because there was a coax connector on his rig. (;-) >> >> 73 >> >> K0PP > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to n...@widomaker.com ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
