Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-27 Thread Guy Olinger K2AV
Hi Jerry, 65% is in the wheelhouse for DOG VF's. 400 to 600 ohms seems high. In the 12 county area around Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, we measured 120 - 200 ohms resonant R. The variation you experienced, and also high R readings could be explained by a few nicks in the wire insulation toward the

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-26 Thread K4SAV
K2AV said: "Measured resonance of a fixed length gave us velocity factor (VF) and other data. VF's based on those measurements ranged from 45% to 85%. That huge variability certainly explained the BOG experience, and suggested a solution, but that's another subject." When I did those tests

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-26 Thread Guy Olinger K2AV
Hi Wes, Thanks for posting up the Severns material. I had started looking for that, but without memory of exact words (which makes searching difficult), and without absolute certainty that Rudy was who I heard it from. You likely saved me an entire working day. If you're ever in the area, that's

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread Chortek, Robert L.
I am going to add what may be a meaningless post to this thread. I live on a 1/4 acre lot in the black hole of San Jose California. Until very recently I was using a base loaded 1/8 wave vertical for 10 years. The vertical is on the side of the house 10 feet from the property line. I run eight

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread Wes
I guess I should have added "useful to me."  At my location, I wouldn't dream of having elevated radials less than 6 feet above ground.  Running them through the cactus and bushes could be just as difficult as on the ground, especially when they need to be considerably longer.  There also needs

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread Mike Waters
Hi Wes, I have also always had the highest regard for 99.9% of anything that W8JI has stated. However, I feel exactly the same way about K2AV (and, of course, Rudy too). In this particular case, I am inclined to listen to Guy and the others here who have discussed and used the FCP. Probably,

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread Richard (Rick) Karlquist
On 7/25/2019 12:01 PM, Wes wrote: As to gull wing radials, Rudy Severns has looked at these too: https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/files/antenna_ground_system_experiment_5.pdf Rudy's work is a treasure trove and I think I have everything he's written in a folder on my hard drive.  Believe me,

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread Wes
Personally, I would and do, avoid a FCP antenna.  W8JI has done some analysis on these and I value his insight. http://www.w8ji.com/fcp_folded_counterpoise_system.htm There is simply too much handwaving going on to suit me. As to gull wing radials, Rudy Severns has looked at these too:

Re: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread donovanf
- From: "Mark K3MSB" To: "topBand List" Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 5:04:33 PM Subject: Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials This kind of goes with the other thread that has morphed into the FCP topic, but is a bit different. With an FCP feeding the INV-L, the

Topband: FCP vs Gull Wing Elevated Radials

2019-07-25 Thread Mark K3MSB
This kind of goes with the other thread that has morphed into the FCP topic, but is a bit different. With an FCP feeding the INV-L, the bottom of the INV-L will be at least 10 feet off the ground.With my existing trees I can barely get up 50 feet from the ground. So, the INV-L will have 40