Yes, FCP *was* originally designed to get small-lotters on top-band. My
buddy Jack downsized and tore my heart out with his moaning about what he
had done to his 160 results. But watch out when you say just. FCP has
opened Pandora's box on the murky area of counterpoles for 160. We have
the
On 02/12/2012 10:15 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
And you will be hearing 160 4 squares built
with FCP's, taking up less space than one conventional 1/4 wave vertical
with 1/4 wave radials, eliminating the issue of what to do with crossing
radials.
I plan to do a similar thing on 80m, though
New antenna models arenas ideas for them are one thing, but new laws of
physics? It's great to experiment but you can only work around the
fundementals. Discovering new principals is always in play, but that is very
different from new configurations of metal. Even fractal antenna technology is
Hi,
Trying to get up on top band on my small lot (free of antenna
'covenants') has forced the issue for me. I will be putting up a stick
as tall as I can, with some sort of loading/matching, AND, as many
radials as I live long enough to put down. That for transmit. I will use
separate receive
Bill:
Why struggle with or even bother putting down radials when you can use a
Folded Counterpoise?
Click on the link below for details:
http://www.w0uce.net/K2AVantennas.html
I will be putting up a stick
as tall as I can, with some sort of loading/matching, AND, as many
Hi Jack,
Are you saying that the FCP works just as well as
an elevated or buried radial field???
I was under the impression that the FCP was just a way
to get on 160 when there wasn't room for a radial field...
Thanks for any feedback.
73,
Ted K2QMF
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:39:35 -0500
On 02/11/2012 01:12 PM, k2...@juno.com wrote:
Hi Jack,
Are you saying that the FCP works just as well as
an elevated or buried radial field???
I was under the impression that the FCP was just a way
to get on 160 when there wasn't room for a radial field...
The FCP, and also the double L
/QRP with my new radials
and nine (9) stations returned with a signal report !!! Thank you !
jim / W1FMR
--- On Sat, 2/11/12, Herb Schoenbohm he...@vitelcom.net wrote:
From: Herb Schoenbohm he...@vitelcom.net
Subject: Re: Topband: Radials help (Mark van Wijk)
To: topband@contesting.com
Please do not abuse my wording. Or maybe I need to clarify.
I DO welcome any discussion on exsting and new proposed antenna/ground systems.
However, discussions tend to be jammed by people throwing in basic theories,
papers, even laws of physics from those who seem to oppose a (valid) new idea
Herb,
Radio Antenna Engineering, published in 1952. It was written by Edmund
Laport. It is available from
Lulu Enterprises
3101 Hillsborough Street
Raleigh, NC 27607
73 Price W0RI
Mark,
With all due respect to your comments.I want to know what I am building
and why it is worth the
Public domain edition also available in downloadable Format:
http://snulbug.mtview.ca.us/books/RadioAntennaEngineering/
73 Gary NL7Y
Herb,
Radio Antenna Engineering, published in 1952. It was written by Edmund
Laport. It is available from
Lulu Enterprises
3101 Hillsborough Street
On 2012-02-10, at 11:34 AM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
One advantage of using insulate wire is that the velocity factor of the wire
on ground or (ROG) allows for shorter lengths. This is important if you
have limited yard space.
Hi Herb,
Interesting point...!
According to either the ARRL
On 2/10/2012 12:48 PM, Eddy Swynar wrote:
On 2012-02-10, at 11:34 AM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
One advantage of using insulate wire is that the velocity factor of
the wire
on ground or (ROG) allows for shorter lengths. This is important if you
have limited yard space.
*/Hi Herb,/*
engineering sense.
I am still learning, so if I am incorrect in any of these items please
enlighten me.
Mis dos centavos.
73 de Milt, N5IA
-Original Message-
From: Eddy Swynar
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:48 AM
To: he...@vitelcom.net
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband
, 2012 12:11 pm
Subject: Re: Topband: Radials help
To: Eddy Swynar , he...@vitelcom.net
Cc: topband@contesting.com
HM
If that is the case, WHY do the pro broadcasters install all 120
radials at
full length; even bare wire buried a couple of inches underground?
Inquiring minds
According to either the ARRL ANTENNA HANDBOOK, or ON4UN's LOW-BAND DX
HANDBOOK, the velocity factor of insulated wire placed atop the ground is
50%...
Unfortunately, and inconveniently, not to cast aspersions on anyone, BUT
actual measurements in the Raleigh area showed that velocity factor
Pardon the dyslexia. Mr. Doty is W7ACD not W7ADC.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.netwrote:
Have a read on W7ADC's (the excellent Mr. Archibald Doty) work in NCJ on
radials. 1983 and 2011. Note the variability in the SAME dense radial
field, and his
On 2012-02-10, at 1:21 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
If any of you think an insulated radial field can just plopped down based on
a formula on just any plot of land and be efficient, think again. All that is
necessary to be abysmally INefficient is for the construction ground fill
://www.navy-radio.com/commsta/cutler.htm
73
Frank
W3LPL
Original message
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:34:05 -0500
From: Eddy Swynar deswy...@xplornet.ca
Subject: Re: Topband: Radials help
To: Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net
Cc: topband@contesting.com, he...@vitelcom.net
On 2012-02
On 2012-02-10, at 1:52 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
It's not to not try anything. It's to try something that you know will work,
once you *know* what you have to work with. The ARRL and ON4UN material
presume uniformity. That, unfortunately, is only true where it's true, and
it's not
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 14:09 -0500, Eddy Swynar wrote:
On 2012-02-10, at 1:52 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
It's not to not try anything. It's to try something that you know will
work, once you *know* what you have to work with. The ARRL and ON4UN
material presume uniformity. That,
On 2/10/2012 1:11 PM, Milt -- N5IA wrote:
If that is the case, WHY do the pro broadcasters install all 120 radials at
full length; even bare wire buried a couple of inches underground?
Answer:
Because the FCC requires it as part of your AM application. Some
stations that were required to
The 120 comes from the watershed 1937 Brown Lewis and Eppstein study now
found in the IEEE journals. There were distinct characteristics to 120
times 0.4 wl (actually 115) that improved results even vs. 60.
That a deficient radial system on one side has any significant reduction in
that direction
On 2/10/2012 5:03 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
The 120 comes from the watershed 1937 Brown Lewis and Eppstein study now
found in the IEEE journals. There were distinct characteristics to 120
times 0.4 wl (actually 115) that improved results even vs. 60.
That a deficient radial system on one
...@vitelcom.net
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:03:26 - (UTC)
Subject: Re: Topband: Radials help
The 120 comes from the watershed 1937 Brown Lewis and Eppstein study now
found in the IEEE journals. There were distinct characteristics to 120
times 0.4 wl (actually 115) that improved
Off top my head, it would seem the slant wire would work to create a
directional effect of one sort or other, depending on the specifics, but I
have no clue why the FCC dissed that one. They usually attach some
technical explanation to rulings. You have access to the specific
proceedings? I
They have stray radiation that the FCC's computer can not model.
On 2/10/12 5:43 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
Off top my head, it would seem the slant wire would work to create a
directional effect of one sort or other, depending on the specifics, but I
have no clue why the FCC dissed that one.
The paper by Rudy Severns, EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF GROUND SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE FOR HF VERTICALS PART 7 GROUND SYSTEMS WITH MISSING SECTORS is
illuminating.
WX7G
On Feb 10, 2012 2:03 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV olin...@bellsouth.net wrote:
The 120 comes from the watershed 1937 Brown Lewis and
It is time to stop talking.
This topic pops up every six months or so for many years now.
Go to a defined and mutual agreed property and build / test all mentioned
radial models.
No need to keep throwing theories, agreed/non agreed standards, computer models
and hardly relevant
Here is a link to that paper. It is easy see what field a radiator of X
height will produce with varying number of radials from 2 to 113. From
the graphs 15 radials and a 45 deg tower gets reasonably close to the
ideal. It also shows a 45 deg tower with 113 radials is almost as good
as a 90
On 2/10/2012 6:43 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
Off top my head, it would seem the slant wire would work to create a
directional effect of one sort or other, depending on the specifics, but I
have no clue why the FCC dissed that one. They usually attach some
technical explanation to rulings.
...@xplornet.ca; he...@vitelcom.net
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: Radials help
HM
If that is the case, WHY do the pro broadcasters install all 120 radials
at
full length; even bare wire buried a couple of inches underground
Buzz,
Instead of 500-foot rolls of insulated wire, I found it more cost effective to
buy a 1,000-foot roll of 14-2 with ground wire from Home Depot. I stretched
about 200 feet at a time along my property. From an electrical supply house I
bought an inexpensive tool that zips easily through
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Dennis OConnor ad4hk2...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is no need in a ham antenna installation for all the radials to be the
same length...
This is only true to any degree if you are talking about buried, BARE
radials. If also uniformly spaced, elevated or insulated
34 matches
Mail list logo
