Re: [digitalradio] Re: TAK-Tenna
What really matters with any antenna design is to compare the antenna against another antenna to find out the actual real world performance. Most Tak-tenna users have not done this from what I have been reading. This is probably due to not having the space for a full size antenna, since if they had the space they would not choose something that is less effective. Some of the comparisons that have been done have been, as expected, very significantly below a rudimentary dipole. From my reading on this antenna, which is somewhat similar to the Bilal Isotron, you have an L-C circuit at the end of the coax that gives you a very, very, short dipole. As W9JI and other antenna experts have pointed out, a 2 foot antenna, now matter how many feet of wire it uses, will exhibit the characteristics of a 2 foot antenna. Most antenna designs that reduce a dipole length by more the 2/3 start to exhibit some losses. By the time they are 50% shortened, it becomes substantial. Even shorter antennas that appear to be resonant are likely going to be radiating some from the coax which can give you a sort of vertical or maybe low "L" design. The effective radiated power could be quite low, say, 10 watts or so (-10 dB) which mostly proves that QRP can work. It would be informative to compare a short vertical, which is very easy to install at say half size 16 feet or so high with a decent radial system (assuming ground mounting) compared with a similar height tak-tenna. Based on the height some are putting the tak-tenna, it seems that a simple vertical or even a dipole would be a much better solution. An inverted vee half size 40 meter dipole would fit in a linear distance of around 25 feet, would it not? Or use an end fed 33 foot wire fed against ground? 73, Rick, KV9U David wrote: > I own a Tak-Tenna. I selected it because I have almost no space on my lot > for a dipole. First, it is easy to build. Second, don't try this antenna > without an antenna analyzer. I have the 40 meter version and it works. > During the worldwide SSB contest I was able to talk to Finland, New Zealand, > and Austrialia, but was it the antenna or that these guys had 65 foot and > higher towers with beam antennas? Based on my contacts I think this antenna > does well when the other guy has a beam on a high tower. By the way, there > is enough public domain materials on various versions of this antenna around > that you could build your own pretty easily. > > >
[digitalradio] Re: TAK-Tenna
I own a Tak-Tenna. I selected it because I have almost no space on my lot for a dipole. First, it is easy to build. Second, don't try this antenna without an antenna analyzer. I have the 40 meter version and it works. During the worldwide SSB contest I was able to talk to Finland, New Zealand, and Austrialia, but was it the antenna or that these guys had 65 foot and higher towers with beam antennas? Based on my contacts I think this antenna does well when the other guy has a beam on a high tower. By the way, there is enough public domain materials on various versions of this antenna around that you could build your own pretty easily.
[digitalradio] RE: TAK-Tenna
There's a lot of talk about really small antennas. Their performance is generally disappointing, but better than nothing. Check out the HF-Pack antenna shootouts at http://hfpack.com/antennas . They date from 2002 or so and don't include the TAK-tenna. However, discussions in online groups make the TAK-tenna look in MY opinion like an overly complicated way to arrived at performance a couple of mobile whips end to end can deliver. (One surprise was KQ6XA's "wing" antenna, IIRC a V of 15 foot fishing pooles with a dipole running between them and excess wire taped down the poles. Very light, collasible to less than a foot (30cm) long package if you are crafty with a V mount. Believe it's written up in the Yahoo HFPack group.) The TAK looks from my reading of the discussion groups like it suffers from poor efficiency, but gains by radiation from unsuppressed comon-mode currents on the coax shield.But I've not seen any shootout results for it. Really, if you need inductance to load a short antenna, you'd do best with conventional, high Q coils, or efficient cpativie end laoding. Force 12 made a ZR-3 ( see http://www.kc0mnx.org/force12.html) triband dipole with spiral folded ends (not loading coils). It was a lot larger than a TAK, also much sturdier. Still complex, and their more recent designs use simple cross pieces for end loading. For example, see their Sigma-5 ( http://www.force12inc.com/31943/31964.html ) . Warning: $$ shock. On the other hand you can make one a LOT easier than a TAK. I have used an AEA loop antenna with decent reuslts on 15 and 20. But that's a heavy, high voltage, high current tuned loop and harder to hold up than the really light antennas. Cortland KA5S > [Original Message] > From: Larry Kebel > To: > Date: 4/26/2009 4:24:59 PM > Subject: [digitalradio] TAK-Tenna > > I was reading up on the TAK-Tenna and found that it might just be the antenna I am looking for. Check out www.Tak-Tenna.com > > But, all the info I get is that the radiating wire should be put in a circular configuration. Would there be any problem if I pulled the wire tight and make it into a diamond (square) shape? The same length wire, of course. That would make the structure a lot stronger for transporting. > > Please let me have your thoughts on this. > > Larry KB0ZP
