Todd, have you been tracking your antenna system's performance using
reversebeacon after your sunset?
I'm guessing that your sunset is circa 0300Z.
Last night (Jan 24) you were picked up at 9 western skimmers, perhaps the
furthest ones from you being WB6BEE and the VE6's.
Based on my
How about even lay it down?
Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 1/23/2019 7:14 PM, Jeff Blaine wrote:
Disconnect the other antenna. Let it float.
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com
On 23-Jan-19 6:02 PM, Todd
Disconnect the other antenna. Let it float.
73/jeff/ac0c
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
www.ac0c.com
On 23-Jan-19 6:02 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
Okay, after many requests, on and off list, I disconnected the 43' T 160m
antenna at its feed point and for good measure I disconnected the coax
feedline
Okay, after many requests, on and off list, I disconnected the 43' T 160m
antenna at its feed point and for good measure I disconnected the coax
feedline from the system too.
It made a pretty substantial difference in the measurements. The 1.5 SWR
range is now only about 35 kHz wide but the 2.0
Dont get discouraged by all this for sure
What I see as fly in the ointment is another 160 antenna close by with
another
radial system,
Anyone of you gurus ever figure what putting power into a 160 antenna does
with another one within feet of it? Imagine power going out, and right
back
As always Frank makes good points. In my case my one lowly tower is 90 feet
from the inverted-L and in fact supports the horizontal wire. It's much too
short to exhibit any resonance near topband, but I have observed an interesting
effect.
The tower also supports a pair of inverted-vee
Hey Todd,
What happens to your Inverted L's SWR curve if you short your other 160m
antenna (the 43'-T) to ground, or otherwise detune it somehow?..could be
you're onto something..not sure. Wide SWR's like that generally point to
huge ground losses.
I just can't get over how freeging wide
Message -
From: "Todd Goins"
To: topband@contesting.com, 676a8e87-aec6-9ead-1297-0bdb1f0a7...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 9:09:19 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)
Both Merv and Guy are correct here. Perhaps this antenna doesn't
Goins
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 4:09 PM
To: topband@contesting.com ;
676a8e87-aec6-9ead-1297-0bdb1f0a7...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)
Both Merv and Guy are correct here. Perhaps this antenna doesn't ever
have a chance at being any good
Spooks! Haunted soil! ;-)
That's probably not the problem.
As I mentioned privately, I think uploading some more photos to a free
file-sharing service website *and sharing those links here* would help us
all to help you solve this.
Since photo attachments to the Topband Reflector are not
:09 PM
To: topband@contesting.com ; 676a8e87-aec6-9ead-1297-0bdb1f0a7...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)
Both Merv and Guy are correct here. Perhaps this antenna doesn't ever
have a chance at being any good due to the suburban area and lot size
Both Merv and Guy are correct here. Perhaps this antenna doesn't ever
have a chance at being any good due to the suburban area and lot size
that I'm constrained by.
Within a 250ft radius (huge!) there is as follows: 80m dipole, 40m
dipole, 30m dipole, 20m dipole, 15m dipole, 20m yagi, and the
Regarding the choke construction and implementation. Mike and I have had an
offline exchange, with pictures, and I think we have agreed that the choke
has been constructed properly per the newest K9YC specifications using a
2.4" Type 31 Fair-Rite toroid and 18 turns of RG400.
Also, the 150' long
Your "apparent" and mine are different because it isn't apparent to me that I
advocated that. I offered a possible explanation to what Todd is observing and
provided the title of a reference source where he could explore it more fully. I
mentioned what I am using and my rational for doing so.
It's possible that the K9YC choke was improperly wound, per my forwarded
message from Jim here yesterday. Here is K9YC's updated info on choke
baluns.
http://k9yc.com/2018Cookbook.pdf
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 1:05 AM Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
> ...
> He inserted a K9YC design
What is missing from that discussion about a maximized use of a given
investment, is whether that investment however well maximized, is in fact
adequate for the particular ground characteristics and circumstances.
Four rotten eggs will deliver a rotten omelette no matter what you mix in
or how
Exactly!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
>
> Al Christman K3LC thoroughly sliced and diced the tradeoffs of number vs
> length for given total wire investment is his Mar/Apr 2004 NCJ paper.
>
> N6LF also has a lot to say.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>> On
Al Christman K3LC thoroughly sliced and diced the tradeoffs of number vs
length for given total wire investment is his Mar/Apr 2004 NCJ paper.
N6LF also has a lot to say.
Grant KZ1W
On 1/22/2019 16:11 PM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote:
“Wes cut his radial length to match the vertical L section
Meant to say “should not decrease loss ...”
Sorry!
Bob AA6VB
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Chortek, Robert L.
> wrote:
>
> “Wes cut his radial length to match the vertical L section height (see N6LF
>> reference). He didn't reduce the number of radials.”
>
> I didn’t
Way back some where around the original posting did he not say he had
2 160 antennas up and they are close to each other? a short vertical and
this antenna? If so what is the short vertical doing, is it floating or
grounded or hooked to the ground system yet, what is its status?
Would make
“Wes cut his radial length to match the vertical L section height (see N6LF
> reference). He didn't reduce the number of radials.”
I didn’t think it was the “shortening” OF the length of the radials that would
improve performance e.g. going from 10 125’ radials to 10 55’ radials (in the
case
>So, now we're (apparently) recommending he cut back his already minimal
radial field..uhhh, really Wes?
I agree with Wes' assessment -- as well as him questioning why Rr would
increase with an increased number of radials. If Rr is changing
significantly with the increase, then something else is
So, now we're (apparently) recommending he cut back his already minimal
radial field..uhhh, really Wes?
=-Mike VE9AA
I started this message a day or so ago. Others have commented since with
some similar thoughts, nevertheless, here is my take.
Todd you're going the wrong direction.
Have to pay attention to everything he is reporting. He added a feedpoint
choke per K9YC at the same time. Which may, depending on the physical
connections at his feedpoint, have removed the feedline shield as an
alternate “radial” in parallel with the increasing but still not full size
radial
On 1/22/2019 8:03 AM, Bruce wrote:
You maybe confusing "Radiation Resistance" with "Feed point Resistance". It
often will lower "Feed point Resistance", but raise "radiation Resistance".
Really? Why?
Wes N7WS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband -
I started this message a day or so ago. Others have commented since with some
similar thoughts, nevertheless, here is my take.
Todd you're going the wrong direction. The feed point resistance should be going
down.
A 1/4 wave wire vertical should have a radiation resistance(Rr) of around 35
Indeed, that is what I meant to say.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 10:03 AM Bruce wrote:
> You maybe confusing "Radiation Resistance" with "Feed point Resistance".
> It often will lower "Feed point Resistance", but raise "radiation
> Resistance". 73 Bruce
>
> On 1/22/2019 9:45 AM, Peter Bertini
Todd,
The resistive component should be going down with more radials, not up.
Maybe you are not measuring it the right way, or something in the radial
system could be resonant (which may be a good thing).
Normally, with these antennas, lower R is better (less loss).
I have just measured a top
>"I would think adding radials would lower the Radiation resistance. Also,
the SWR curve should narrow as ground losses are reduced; since the effect
of ground loss resistance swamping the results lessens."
The base resistance, not the radiation resistance is lowered by adding in
radials. At
You maybe confusing "Radiation Resistance" with "Feed point Resistance".
It often will lower "Feed point Resistance", but raise "radiation
Resistance". 73 Bruce
On 1/22/2019 9:45 AM, Peter Bertini wrote:
I would think adding radials would lower the Radiation resistance. Also,
the SWR curve
I would think adding radials would lower the Radiation resistance. Also,
the SWR curve should narrow as ground losses are reduced; since the effect
of ground loss resistance swamping the results lessens.
At some point I suggest, as others, that you get on for the contest and see
what you can
Man, that seems awfully broad! Somewhere, you have losses, my friend.
You ARE measuring directly at the feedpoint, aren't you? And with the
antenna analyzer FLOATING (not touching you, the earth, or anything else)?
FWIW, the K9YC choke I used was about 6 turns of RG-6 wound through 4 or 5
: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)
Hello,
Per many people's recommendations I added 800ft of radials today. That
is 8
x 100ft each. It made a difference on the analyzer which I'll summarize
below. It was dark when I finished but here are a few data points. I
think
: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)
Hello,
Per many people's recommendations I added 800ft of radials today. That is 8
x 100ft each. It made a difference on the analyzer which I'll summarize
below. It was dark when I finished but here are a few data points. I think
it is better
Hello,
Per many people's recommendations I added 800ft of radials today. That is 8
x 100ft each. It made a difference on the analyzer which I'll summarize
below. It was dark when I finished but here are a few data points. I think
it is better. The wide SWR curve still bothers me but the
Fred had to laugh.
I fear my son (yeah a ham) will put all my stuff on the lawn with a small
bucket for any money they feel it is worth.
Use iT!
de KG9H
> On Jan 21, 2019, at 8:44 AM, wrote:
>
> Thank You Guy for taking the time for all great the info.
>
> I have several pieces of RG400
Hi, Fred. You said:
"Guy K2AV I'm guessing you don't like rg58 because of the center conductor
moving outwards??"
Nope. :>)) RG58 is not RG400. That's why I don't like RG58.
RG400 is what should be used for winding coax on toroids. RG400 is a
currently manufactured item. It is INTENDED to
Hi Todd,
Have a look at the calculator at
https://chemandy.com/calculators/return-loss-and-mismatch-calculator.htm
This calculator allows me to compute the SWR for your data points, as if
the Z zero of the meter was 32 ohms. This is important because so many
excellent antennas exhibit raw feed R
Hello,
I borrowed a RigExpert analyzer and was able to take measurements that
folks were asking for without AM station overload. I also built the K9YC
160m choke (18 turns of RG58 on a type 31 2.4" toroid). That choke is at
the feed point of the vertical. The analyzer was connected directly after
39 matches
Mail list logo
