My work has been published for ten years, the most current work for two
years, and there have been millions of downloads.
73, Jim
On 3/18/2020 12:29 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
so I am sure they would welcome your expertise.
Perhaps you should make your services available to them.
Hi Bob,
On 3/18/2020 7:18 AM, Bob McGraw K4TAX wrote:
On point #2, the balanced feed line is twisted at my installation. This
is one advantage to the vinyl covered line. This makes essentially a
twisted pair which Bell Labs many years show is a way to minimize
induction into the feed line.
On 3/18/2020 5:39 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
I have a hybrid 4:1 / 1:1 balun at the shack end of the balanced
feedline and have absolutely no issues.
Hi Len,
The problem is noise pickup on the line. I think I remember that your
QTH is relatively isolated, hence not much local noise. The other
I have to agree with Lyn on several points. I do agree the directional
pattern is different on every band. For me, that suffices as I am not
one to aggressively chase DX. If you need specific directional
patterns, then other considerations for antennas should be undertaken.
On point #2,
Jim -
Your comments are well taken ... but mostly invalid for my installation.
For example -
1)Their directional patterns are different on every band;
Exactly, and this plays perfectly into my coverage needs. For example, I
need (and designed for) 80 meter coverage
I wonder. Wouldn’t such noise be out of phase on the two halves of the flat top
and hence be rejected?
Also, the nulls will be in the same directions (although the tightness of the
pattern will vary) when the antenna is operated from half its design frequency
to twice that (e.g., from 40 to 10
Thank you, Jim. I was going to refute some of the comments by K4TAX and
W0LEN myself, but I'm getting tired of challenging every bit of antenna
misinformation that shows up here.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 3/17/2020 4:42 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
On 3/17/2020 3:30 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
One simple
On 3/17/2020 3:30 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
One simple post, Bob, and you've covered pretty much everything anyone needs to
know about wire dipole-type antennas.
NOT! While non-resonant dipoles are certainly viable transmitting
antennas, there is FAR more to know about them, including:
1)
Bingo! One simple post, Bob, and you've covered pretty much everything anyone
needs to know about wire dipole-type antennas. This is exactly the process I
worked thru in deciding to build mine last year, with one embellishment - and
that was to fine tune the size (I had 400 feet to work with)
Bingo! One simple post, Bob, and you've covered pretty much everything anyone
needs to know about wire dipole-type antennas. This is exactly the process I
worked thru in deciding to build mine last year, with one embellishment - and
that was to fine tune the size (I had 400 feet to work with)
No, your wallpaper notwithstanding, that statement is not true and it
has been debunked many times.
Dave AB7E
On 3/17/2020 12:42 PM, Dave New, N8SBE wrote:
A 2-el quad performs at or better than a 3-el yagi at low heights above
ground (35 vs 65 ft), and I have the wallpaper to prove it.
As discussed below, what ever you wish to call it, the antenna that is,
being: a G5RV, a double Zepp, an all band antenna, a center fed dipole
and a few more brand names, the center fed dipole with with a balanced
feed and a suitable balun can be matched on all bands, 160M - 6M with
the
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned MY favorite antenna(s):
1) A 2-el spider-boom quad at 40 ft., covering 20-6M (including the WARC
bands):
https://www.qsl.net/ei7ba/Cubical%20Quad.htm
2) A ZS6BKW dipole, which is 92 ft. long, includes a 40 ft. window line
section, and then 75 ft. of
Blank email.
73, Jim K9YC
On 3/16/2020 2:37 PM, Dave New, N8SBE wrote:
__
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
https://www.qsl.net/4nec2/
Slightly different, but very usable and free... Also, it supports
variables... Very nice antenna modeling for free...
73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 5:11 PM David Gilbert
wrote:
>
> ...I model EVERYTHING
> before I try to build it and I guarantee it has saved me hours of wasted
> effort and lots of dollars of wasted money. I can also categorically
> state that I have learned FAR more about antennas from modeling than
__
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:
Well, I'm still under the impression that we are members of a
knowledge-based hobby, and being willing to understand the basics of
antennas seems like it fits that description. It doesn't take years of
study to understand the basics ... a bit of reading the ARRL Antenna
Book and a couple
Antenna fact: If it stayed up in the last storm, either (a) it was well
built and properly installed, or (b) it wasn't large enough.
Thus, if it works to your satisfaction, then it is a good antenna.
73
Bob, K4TAX
On 3/15/2020 2:37 PM, Edward R Cole wrote:
OK, well one can study theory for
OK, well one can study theory for several years before deciding what
antenna to use ... or just put up something and try it.
My guess a quarter-wave vertical with some radials will work. How
well? You will only find out by trying it.
My favorite HF antenna has been the simple half-wave
There is a lot of antenna misinformation on this list. Your initial
assumption is basically correct. A vertical does not have low angle
radiation unless you have a perfect ground, it will then low
pseudo-brewster angle which is very effective. A 1/2wl or higher 40m
dipole is actually a
a 100 ft boom, erected
on lines run between trees.
-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net On
Behalf Of Rick Bates, NK7I
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:02 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion about antenna
Duane
Right.
73, Jim K9YC
On 3/14/2020 12:09 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
There is some erroneous information here, as well as in Don W3FPR's post.
Radials, whether buried or raised, only affect near field ground return
currents. You cannot improve ground conductivity beyond the radials,
and the
There is some erroneous information here, as well as in Don W3FPR's post.
Radials, whether buried or raised, only affect near field ground return
currents. You cannot improve ground conductivity beyond the radials,
and the strength of the low angle lobe is directly affected by the
ground
As far as a vertical mounted on solid rock, ever heard of
radials? Almost all analysis shows angle lowering by copious
addition of radials to a vertical. I suggest You find the QEX
articles written By Rudy-N6LF which studied radials
thoroughly. Even with very short radials my 630m
That's a bit oversimplified, Don, because of the very strong effect of
soil conductivity and mounting height on the performance of a vertically
polarized antenna. That's addressed in the app note I referenced earlier.
http://k9yc.com/AntennaPlanning.pdf
And this one.
If I recall correctly, the original question in this thread was about
the effectiveness of radials over rocky ground. We have gone far astray
from that consideration. I am trying to bring it back to 'ground zero'.
As I recall, the question was about a vertical whose feedpoint was above
the
On 3/13/2020 3:05 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
Hi Lyn,
IL is a state I know fairly well, having spent 41 years in Chicago and
one in Cairo.
I don't work nets like you do, but I do a lot of contesting, including
80 and 160M, and if you're paying attention, can teach a lot about
propagation. I
be my first choice.
73
Lyn, W0LEN
-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:39 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion ab
ssage-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:39 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion about antenna
That is certainly a perfectly viable antenna and pr
, 2020 4:03 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion about antenna
On 3/13/2020 12:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
> I actually do consider 4.7 dbi as "far outperforming" 2.14 dbi (ordinary
dipole).
It depends on what you want to achieve. Th
On 3/13/2020 12:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
I actually do consider 4.7 dbi as "far outperforming" 2.14 dbi (ordinary
dipole).
It depends on what you want to achieve. The antenna you describe is a
very old and well accepted design. It's like a beam with a fixed
direction. No question that 2.6
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:39 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion about antenna
That is certainly a perfectly viable antenna and pr
ace do you have available?
73
Lyn, W0LEN
-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of bw...@fastmail.fm
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 10:38 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/sugges
That is certainly a perfectly viable antenna and probably a fine choice
for your needs ... but it does not "far outperform" either a dipole or
especially a 2 element yagi at the same height. (although the yagi would
of course be unidirectional). 4.7 dbi is dipole territory. You could
have
M
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion about antenna
>
> From what I understand - solid rock below a raised vertical is not the
best
> option for performance.
> With an underlying geography of many feet of solid metamorphic
On 3/13/2020 9:31 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
There are other wire antenna options that will far outperform a simple
dipole, or for that matter a 2EL yagi.
Yes, if you want directivity. But while dipoles are simple in concept,
they are hard to beat if height is optimized.
t;
> 73
> Lyn, W0LEN
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of bw...@fastmail.fm
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 10:38 AM
> To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [Elecraft] Off-To
...@fastmail.fm
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 10:38 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: [Elecraft] Off-Topic: Your advice/suggestion about antenna
>From what I understand - solid rock below a raised vertical is not the best
option for performance.
With an underlying geography of many f
>From what I understand - solid rock below a raised vertical is not the best
>option for performance.
With an underlying geography of many feet of solid metamorphic rock - that
would probably rule out the low angle benefits of vertical antennas.
Consequently, over the years, every 40m
40 matches
Mail list logo
