World of Ham Radio 1997/WOHR97_AmSoft_(1997-02-01).iso/usenets/1996_03/_antenna.txt

Text File | 1997-02-01 | 882KB | 22,618 lines

The World of Ham Radio CD-ROM



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (Iraklis Mavrokefalos)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 4 Mar 96 13:01:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

unsubscribe from Ham-Ant Mailing List and Newsgroup
********************************************************
* Iraklis Mavrokefalos
* E-Mail:[e-mail]
* NOTICE  j0ker with zero (0) not with an Oou (o)
* Don`t ask, just do it !!!
********************************************************



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:01 1996
From: nickb@alpine (Nicholas Barbieri)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: .5 wave 2m/440?
Date: 6 Mar 1996 14:42:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4hk88r$[e-mail]>

Some time ago, I remember seeing a 1/2 wave antenna for 2m that was about
the same length as a 10m 1/4 wave whip.  It was usually mounted on a
ball or bumper mount, and had good gain over a 1/4 wave.  Does anybody
know what type of design it was?  Is there such a configuration for dual
band 144/440 MHz?

--
Nick Barbieri, KB6QI
Texas Instruments
ASIC Engineering
email: [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joe Landis - Systems & Network Mgr)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 900 Mhz Beam needed
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 1 Mar 96 12:55:16 EST
References: <4gvr1b$[e-mail]>
Distribution: world

In article <4gvr1b$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Rayl) wri
tes:
> I am building some link radios on 900 MHz for point to point
> and plan to use low power (about 10 MW).  Who has some good deals
> on these.  I used to get stuff from Down East Microwave.  They
> used to have some nice loop yagi antana for 900 and 1200 MHz.
> they no longer seem to be around.
> Any info would be a great help.
>
> Brian Rayl  N7MOE
Down East is still around. They just moved to Frenchtown, NJ. [phone]
Joe - AA3GN
--
Joe Landis - Systems and Network Manager - North American Drager - Telford, PA
[e-mail]                        ..speaking only for myself, of course..


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 900 Mhz Beam needed
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 23:03:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4higpp$[e-mail]>
References: <4gvr1b$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Bruce W. Forsberg) wrote:

>[e-mail] (Brian Rayl) wrote:

>>I am building some link radios on 900 MHz for point to point
>>and plan to use low power (about 10 MW).  Who has some good deals
>>on these.  I used to get stuff from Down East Microwave.  They
>>used to have some nice loop yagi antana for 900 and 1200 MHz.
>>they no longer seem to be around.
>>Any info would be a great help.

>I think the company split. The company that sells the loop Yagis is called
>Directive Systems. I just bought one of their 900 MHz loop yagis for 900 MHz.
 I
>got mine from PC Electronics. They can be reached at 818-447-4565.

>73    Bruce  WB6IZG

Sorry, I couldn't resist myself.

How do you keep a fully assembled 900MHz beam from getting lost in the
mail?  After all, isn't it smaller than a cigarette!  Hi Hi  ;-)

TTUL
Gary




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 9:1 Baluns
Date: 2 Mar 1996 04:08:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4h8hjm$[e-mail]>


Gary said -
        One other thing that I cannot figure the relationship thereof, is that
when talking to stations that are polarized opposite to me, I don't
get that cross-polarization warble that is so evident on local QSOs
when one is vertical and one is horizontal on SSB.  I attribute it to
the 450 ohm ladder being an integral part of the transmitting (or
receiving) antenna.

        Gary,
        When a signal is reflected/refracted by the ionosphere it
becomes essentially eliptically polarized i.e. it consists of a
mixture of varying strengths of all polarizations.  Most of the
fading of DX signals is a result of your antenna 's polarization
corrosponding or not corresponding to the dominant polarization
of the signal at various times.
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 20:50:45 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>   <4hdlvj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hfqtn$[e-mail]>

In article <4hfqtn$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Fell
ows) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] writes:
>|> Paul,
>|>
>|> That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with only
>|> one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else sought
>|> such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent # 5457342.
>|>
>|> Those companies you mention have devices that are similar with respect to
>|> cooling only if you care to follow the patents mentioned on my abstract.
>|> However, NONE have developed the device I have NOR do they have a patent
>|> on such a device. As such, I am the sole owner to pursue development of
>|> this product or companies under infringement.
>|>
>|> Gaerhardt G. Herbst
>|>


>What I am wondering is what this has anything to do with amateur radio antenn
as,
>homebrew, space, etc.?  The point is that this, and the preceding posts were
>made to the amateur radio news groups.

>Cooling of microprocessors, and your grandstanding of being awarded a patent
are
>of no interest to me or in any way pertinent to my interest in amateur radio.

>And that is why the newsgroup(s) have those titles.

>If you are looking for invetors, get a clue and do it somewhere else.

>If you are simply so proud of yourself for being awarded a patent for what
>appears to be anothers work, then HIP HIP HOORAY for you!  Now grow up and go
>away.

>Jim



Amen, Jim.  If this thing works like this guy spells, he's got a tough sell.

"Announsing", "blatent" and "know one else" indeed. I don't know what his
device is,  because searching for the number didn't work for me. Sounds like a

Peltier device, but I guess it could be cold fusion.

73, Wes -- N7WS



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Laughton)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 07:42:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4hgr8o$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>  <4hdlvj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

>Paul,

>That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with only
>one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else sought
>such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent # 5457342.

>Those companies you mention have devices that are similar with respect to
>cooling only if you care to follow the patents mentioned on my abstract.
>However, NONE have developed the device I have NOR do they have a patent
>on such a device. As such, I am the sole owner to pursue development of
>this product or companies under infringement.

>Gaerhardt G. Herbst

Having too much time on my hands, I went and looked at your patent.
The first part of the patent describes the exact CCD cooling method
used for years by Santa Barbara Instruments (and others) for cooling
CCDs. Your novel claim seems to be an IC cooler that is retrofitted to
an existing, uncooled IC.

<Yawn>



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:09 1996
From: "Thomas C. J. Sefranek" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: 5 Mar 1996 12:31:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhc6u$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <1996Mar5.000656.1@ssrl01>

Westinghouse Semiconductor DOES indeed have a patent on TE coolers.
(I don't know if they even exist anymore...)
I have a large (4"-4" plate) made by them and it has a patent number on
it.  It has a nice fan on the back for moving the heat and embedded
thermocouples for reading the two sides of the junction.

I have used these devices at MIT for over 20 years now, and I'm curious
as to the patent system that is being used by this guy who obviously had
NO interest in the origional development of the device.  Clearly a case
of opportunism.  Ah well Bill Gates can do it, why not this turkey?

Tom
WA1RHP




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:06:25 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hdlvj$[e-mail]>

In article <4hdlvj$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Laughton) write
s:
>From: [e-mail] (Paul Laughton)
>Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
>Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 02:54:14 GMT

>[e-mail] wrote:


[blah,blah... deleted]

>I wonder how Mr Herbst slipped this one past the prior art
>investigation? This technology has been around since the early 70's -
>at least. For example, IBM and Amdahl main frames made extensive use
>of it.

Simple. He reinvented it first!






From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:12 1996
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 96 08:44:20 PDT
References: <[e-mail]>

Paul,

That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with only
one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else sought
such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent # 5457342.

Those companies you mention have devices that are similar with respect to
cooling only if you care to follow the patents mentioned on my abstract.
However, NONE have developed the device I have NOR do they have a patent
on such a device. As such, I am the sole owner to pursue development of
this product or companies under infringement.

Gaerhardt G. Herbst



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:13 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 14:52:01 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>  <4hg97g$[e-mail]>


> I believe your final statement is too broad.  You may "preclude others
> from practicing your invention" is closer to the correct formulation.
>
Correct you Charles.

Gerhardt G. Herbst



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:14 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 15:00:58 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hg97g$[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>


> Correct you Charles.
>
> Gerhardt G. Herbst
>
Whoops...I mean correct you are Charles...

Gerhardt



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 13:37:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmp0u$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <1996Mar5.000656.1@ssrl01> <4hhc6u$[e-mail]>

   "Thomas C. J. Sefranek" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Clearly a case of opportunism.  Ah well Bill Gates can do it, why not
>this turkey?

Bill Gates' success year after year is NOT the result of taking undue
advantage of some helpless victim.

Perhaps opportunism is just another catch-all phrase coined so the
have-nots could better antagonize the haves?

73,
Jack WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:16 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna arcing
Date: 5 Mar 1996 17:50:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhuss$[e-mail]>
References: <4hhelc$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <4hhelc$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS) writes
:
>
>Always provide a DC path to ground so that charge is leaked off as
>fast as it accumulates and it then does not get to sufficient voltage
>to arc anywhere.
>
>Charlie, W7XC
>--

Precisely,

  the reason for using SHUNT FED verticals, even in phased arrays!


Mike W5WQN as a guest at leviathan.tamu.edu


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:17 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 96 12:32:01 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ha20h$[e-mail]> <4hb3ng$[e-mail]>

W8JI  Tom <[e-mail]> writes:

>That combo sounds good to me Cecil. It has a low initial SWR on at least
>three popular bands! Great idea! What should we call it? ;-)

Hi Tom, I'm not trying to steal G5RV's thunder, just improve on the
original. For a 102 ft. dipole, there are current nodes on 40m and
20m-10m in the 75-87 ft feedline range. There are current nodes on
all HF bands between 130-144 ft. All it takes is eight switches and
some self-supporting loops of ladder-line mounted on a piece of
plexiglas at the operating position to have a tunerless all-band
antenna. Radio Adventure (Antennas West) is publishing my idea
next issue.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:18 1996
From: "Paul Christensen, N9AZ" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: 5 Mar 1996 21:54:09 GMT
Message-ID: <4hid61$[e-mail]>
References: <4ha20h$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

>The moral is that a non-resonant antenna length can be
>made to resonate and radiate just as efficiently as a
>resonant antenna length.

George Grammer himself could't have done a finer job in making this
point.

-Paul, N9AZ



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:19 1996
From: Hank Blackstock <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: 7 Mar 1996 12:42:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmljj$[e-mail]>
References: <4ha20h$[e-mail]> <4hid61$[e-mail]> <4hkcs4$[e-mail]>

Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>"Paul Christensen, N9AZ" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>The moral is that a non-resonant antenna length can be
>>>made to resonate and radiate just as efficiently as a
>>>resonant antenna length.
>>
>>George Grammer himself could't have done a finer job in making this
>>point.
>
>Thanks Paul, IMO almost all the loss problems associated with non-
>resonant length ladder-line fed dipoles are in the network that
>matches the balanced line to the unbalanced transmitter. I have
>solved those problems and the results are almost unbelievable. My
>tuner uses one parallel variable capacitor plus some toroids.
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)
>
>
Another way to solve that problem is to use a Johnson Matchbox
tuner instead of the Mickey Mouse tuners that are manufactured
today.

73 Hank



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Steve Silverwood)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna for apartment
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 21:38:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4hicb8$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Here's the situation:

I live in a downstairs apartment with a small backyard.  We have a storage
shed in the back, which means I may actually have a chance to set up a ham
station again after being restricted to just my HT and 10m mobile rig for
the past three years!

But along with the apartment comes a limitation regarding what kind of
antenna I can put up.  Being a downstairs apartment, it means I have no
access to the roof.  Having the backyard means I can probably set up some
kind of dipole or small beam, but I can't put it up very high.  I also will
have to operate very low power, in the QRP range, in order to avoid the
interference problems that will no doubt come about with being in such
close proximity to other apartments loaded with cheap electronics. ;-)

Being a Tech Plus licensee, I will probably want to go for 40m CW
operation.  I've considered the Butternut bowtie beam antenna, but not sure
about how it will perform in the above environment.

If anyone has any suggestions as to commercial or homebrew solutions to
this problem, I'm all ears!


-- //Steve//

Computer Associates    CompuServe: 76703,3035
Fax: [phone]      Internet: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    America Online: KB6OJS
Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/KB6OJS
Personal homepage: http://www.earthlink.net/~kb6ojs



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Thilo Kootz)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna model.soft (MININEX?)
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 14:43:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4hevib$[e-mail]>
References: <APC&63'0'32ae8c61'[e-mail]> <4hc0hi$[e-mail]>

Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Andrey, Contact W7EL (Roy). He has designed the best and most user
>friendly software on the market. I assume you want to pay for it.  73s
>Jesse

I would not say that eznec is very user friendly, however it is very
nice and once you got used to it, you will find it good !
Question to other eznec users:
How do you model a bungalow roof, that is grounded?




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna model.soft (MININEX?)
Date: 5 Mar 1996 12:36:30 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhcge$[e-mail]>


Thilo Kootz wrote
Question to other eznec users:
How do you model a bungalow roof, that is grounded?

You can set up a grid of wires approximating the roof dimensions
and set the number of segments such that they occur at the same
points where the wires dro/// cross.  Remember that EZNEC assumes
junctions of segments with the same position to be connected
although they are not so shown in "view antenna".  This reduces
the number of wires required to for m  an approximation of a
surface.  The segment lengths should of course be small relative
to the wavelength.
        Confirmation from Roy might be appropriate here.
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jack Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 5 Mar 96 03:17:06 GMT
Message-ID: <3573@NJ7P>

Today started to assemble a J-pole antenna for 224 MHz.  Used number
12 solid wire and planned on enclosing it inside a length of 1 in dia
PVC pipe.  Using a grid dip meter, cut the antenna to resonate on 224.

However upon inserting it inside the pipe, the resonant frequency dipped
about 8 MHz lower!  Went ahead and trimmed it some more until resonance
inside the pipe was reached at 224 MHz.  In this case at least, looks
like PVC affects the VF of the physical dimensions by 0.91 as compared
to free space.

Has anyone else on the group have experience with placing an antenna
inside of PVC pipe?

73 de Jack




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:24 1996
From: John Passaneau <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 09:14:44 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P>

Jack Taylor wrote:
>
> Today started to assemble a J-pole antenna for 224 MHz.  Used number
> 12 solid wire and planned on enclosing it inside a length of 1 in dia
> PVC pipe.  Using a grid dip meter, cut the antenna to resonate on 224.
>
> However upon inserting it inside the pipe, the resonant frequency dipped
> about 8 MHz lower!  Went ahead and trimmed it some more until resonance
> inside the pipe was reached at 224 MHz.  In this case at least, looks
> like PVC affects the VF of the physical dimensions by 0.91 as compared
> to free space.
>
> Has anyone else on the group have experience with placing an antenna
> inside of PVC pipe?
>
> 73 de Jack

Hi Jack:
I've never used PVC pipe over an antenna, but I know the insolated wire
does make a big differance. I thought I'd be smart and I substuted a
lenght of #12 PVC insolated house wire for the stainless steel whip on a
2 meter mobile antenna, as it would be easer to trim to frequecy, and I
would then just transfer the lenght to the steel whip. I did that and
recheck the SWR and it was 4 to 1. It turned out that it was about 3 in
too short and I had to buy a new steel whip and do it over. It was a good
(?) example of dielectric loading. This happens at all frequencies, but
is more noticable at higher frequencies.
John Passaneau, WB8EIY, State College, Pa.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 5 Mar 1996 22:07:25 GMT
Message-ID: <4hidut$[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P> <[e-mail]>


   YES There is 3 Diff types of PVC pipe, white yellow & grey. I believe the
lightest white is best, but even it will effect the resonance and must be comp
ensated for.

john, N0KIC



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang Gellerich)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 6 Mar 1996 08:34:05 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hjilt$[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P>

In article <3573@NJ7P>, [e-mail] (Jack Taylor) writes:
|> Today started to assemble a J-pole antenna for 224 MHz.  Used number
|> 12 solid wire and planned on enclosing it inside a length of 1 in dia
|> PVC pipe.  Using a grid dip meter, cut the antenna to resonate on 224.
|>
|> However upon inserting it inside the pipe, the resonant frequency dipped
|> about 8 MHz lower!  Went ahead and trimmed it some more until resonance
|> inside the pipe was reached at 224 MHz.  In this case at least, looks
|> like PVC affects the VF of the physical dimensions by 0.91 as compared
|> to free space.
|>
|> Has anyone else on the group have experience with placing an antenna
|> inside of PVC pipe?
|>

As  far as I know, the PVC molecules can become "activated" by certain
frequencies, and PVC is generally not considered to be a good choice
as material to construct antennas from.

73s, Wolfgang DJ3TZ


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joseph Utter)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best 2M/70cm Mobile Antenna for Handheld
Date: 6 Mar 1996 19:00:03 -0600
Message-ID: <4hlcej$[e-mail]>
References: <lui-0303961553490001@192.0.2.1>

Personally I use one from (of all places) Radio Shack.  They have a nice
tri-bander (6m, 2m, 70cm) with a mag-mount base and coax (unfortunatally
to a motorola-male connector) for about $30.  I really have 2 and am very
pleased with the result for a non-expensive antenna.  :-)

You are right though about the many (thousands of) choices out there.
Good luck and 73.

Joe Utter, N9ZJL


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB7ASR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Best way to insall a Rohn HBX tower
Date: 5 Mar 1996 21:03:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hia6a$[e-mail]>

I purchased a Rohn HBDX-40 self-supporting tower with the three
four foot long concrete base leg L-stubs. After I dig my base hole
and install the rebar, what is the best way to install the three tower
base leg L-stubs into the hole before the concrete is poored to insure
they will be level and ture once the concrete has been poured?





From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Ferguson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best way to insall a Rohn HBX tower
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 12:31:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4hml0d$[e-mail]>
References: <4hia6a$[e-mail]> <4hj3an$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Jerry Flanders) wrote:

>>I purchased a Rohn HBDX-40 self-supporting tower with the three
>>four foot long concrete base leg L-stubs. After I dig my base hole
>>and install the rebar, what is the best way to install the three tower
>>base leg L-stubs into the hole before the concrete is poored to insure
>>they will be level and ture once the concrete has been poured?


I installed an HBDX-48. I mounted the legs to the base section and
suspended the base above the concrete form using wooden beams across
the form. The base section sits on the beams. Choose the beam height
so that the base is the proper distance above the top of the future
concrete pad. The legs extend down into the hole. Make it vertical and
install some small guy wires to keep it in position.  After pouring
the concrete, you can make adjustments to the base section to insure
it is vertical by playing with the guy wires
73,



Paul Ferguson
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:30 1996
From: John M Sonley <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butternut HF Multiband Vertical
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:19:33 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

>
>Butternut Vertical

-- where can I buy the Butternut in the UK

RadCom does not seem to carry any adverts for it


John M Sonley  G3XZV


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:31 1996
From: "William M. Bickley" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ButterNut Vertical...160 Capabilites ????? HELP! HELP!!!!
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 16:21:00 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hb8hi$[e-mail]>

IIHHSS wrote:
>
> I have a new ButterNut Vertical. Does Butternut make a coil for  this
> antenna that will work 160 meters? Where might I get it?
>
> Looking forward to the answer...
>
> PATHi, Pat.

Butternut DOES make a 160M coil for its verticals.  I recently bought one, and
 was unable to make
it work.  I suspect my radials were just not long enough.  The antenna is dyna
mite otherwise.  I'm
astonished at how well it works on 80M.

Oh, by the way, the bandwidth specified on the 160M coil is really, really nar
row.  If you're
courious, I can look it up for you in the paperwork which came with the coil.

I still have the coil, if you're interested.

73.

Bill  KF2ON


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (IIHHSS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: ButterNut Vertical...160 Capabilites ????? HELP! HELP!!!!
Date: 2 Mar 1996 23:52:02 -0500
Message-ID: <4hb8hi$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (IIHHSS)

I have a new ButterNut Vertical. Does Butternut make a coil for  this
antenna that will work 160 meters? Where might I get it?

Looking forward to the answer...

PAT


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:33 1996
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
From: [e-mail] (James D. Cronin)
Subject: Cold fusion superconducting antennas (was: Announsing...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hfqtn$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:27:42 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,
Wes Stewart <[e-mail]> wrote:
>...
>"Announsing", "blatent" and "know one else" indeed. I don't know what his
>device is,  because searching for the number didn't work for me. Sounds like
a
>Peltier device, but I guess it could be cold fusion.
>
>73, Wes -- N7WS

Isn't it obvious:

Homebrew superconducting cold fusion ham radio astronomy antenna
equipment with investment potential for insider stock trader Canadians.
(Apoligies in advance to our friends in VE land...)

Ten points to the first person who cross-posts all this stuff to the
alt.sex hierarchy.  April 1 is closer than you think.

73...Jim  N2VNO


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: 2 Mar 1996 03:51:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4h8gj9$[e-mail]>


Graham Seale said -
        "To measure is to know"!
Thompson (Lord kelvin ) said -
'IF you can't put a number on it you don't know what you are
talking about'
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: 6 Mar 1996 06:51:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4hjclh$[e-mail]>


Tom says -
        >IF you can't put a number on it you don't know what you are
>talking about'
>Charlie, W7XC

Good one Charlie, but how about the people that put numbers on things that
can't have fixed answer? Or pull numbers out of their rear sides? Or
mis-apply numbers?

IMO, the most reliable answer anyone can give is "I don't know". That's
the one answer in life we can absolutely depend on being correct. Anything
else is suspect, h

Tom, I was quoting Thompson (Lord Kelvin) - suggest you take it up
with him!
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: 3 Mar 1996 08:56:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4hc8dq$[e-mail]>
References: <4h8gj9$[e-mail]>

In article <4h8gj9$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CHARLES J.
MICHAELS) writes:

>IF you can't put a number on it you don't know what you are
>talking about'
>Charlie, W7XC

Good one Charlie, but how about the people that put numbers on things that
can't have fixed answer? Or pull numbers out of their rear sides? Or
mis-apply numbers?

IMO, the most reliable answer anyone can give is "I don't know". That's
the one answer in life we can absolutely depend on being correct. Anything
else is suspect, hi.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:36 1996
From: Steven B Reed <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: construction plan for a 2m beam
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 05:36:20 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

January 1995 QST Page 67
        "A Five-Element Quad Antenna for 2 Meters"

Built one myself and realy liked it.  The article uses a wood beam and
spreaders, cheap but not real permanent.  I have read other posts on
this ant when the article was first printed and most people want to use
insulated wire, DON'T!!  If you can avoid that temptation little else
can go wrong with this design.

Good luck and 73
--
Steven Reed  KB8STB


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (mike del pozzo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Cubical Quad Antennas for HF
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 00:27:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4hg1p4$[e-mail]>
References: <4fsgkr$[e-mail]> <4gu415$[e-mail]> <4gur91$[e-mail]> <mike_cash-2902960734210001@cash_mike.chinalake.navy.mil> <4h7lf7$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Lee Buller) wrote:

>Hey Guys....

>What about the GEM Quad out of Canada?  Anyone have luck with them?  I
>am curous how a quad will withstand kansas winds and ice.

>Lee K0wa
>[e-mail]

Hello Lee ,
The Quad antenna is not an indestructable instrument. You really have
to consider that all elements are wire, and will attract alot of ice
even in a " diamond " configuration. If you do go with a quad - make
sure that EVERYTHING is heavy duty. The extra weight of the beam is
well worth having it stay " up there "  We usually dont have the same
problems here in Atlanta. Gud Luck es 73 de
KR4TG , Mike




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert G. Strickland)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Cubical Quad Antennas for HF
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 08:55:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4hhe26$[e-mail]>
References: <4fsgkr$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Charlie...
I have been using a Lightning Bolt Quad for four years in Central NY.
We get some strange weather here, and the LBQ has held up fine. I have
the five band version, and I'm pleased with its performance. Be that
as it may, I am planning to redesign/reconstruct it this summer. This
does not reflect on the original design/construction. I've been
modeling quads with EZNEC, and I'd just like to put my "knowledge" to
use. LBQ uses aluminum welding wire. It is a bit difficult to work
with, but its strength to weight ratio is excellent. While one cannot
predict these things, I have the sense that it could stay up there for
some time before anything happens to the wires - what ususally goes in
a quad. Performance wise, quads are the best compact beam there is.
You just can't get a better performing antenna in such a small space.
...Robert



Robert G. Strickland KE2WY
[e-mail]
Syracuse, New York



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:39 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Alan F. Jovanovich)
Subject: Cushcraft AV5 info Needed
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 00:28:39 GMT


I am in need of a manual / instruction sheet for an older Cushcraft
model AV5 verticle.  Specifically, I need to know the recommended
number of radials their recommended lengths and size, and the tune
up / adjustment procedure.  If you have the info please Email me at:

[e-mail]

or fax it to me at 206-824-2751.

                        Thanks.

                        Alan, KA7DAT
                        [e-mail]







From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (BOB ALBERT)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DIPOLE acting fishy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 96 08:04:00 -0800
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (BOB ALBERT)
References: <[e-mail]>

A 40 meter dipole may resonate on 15 meters, but won't be 50 Ohms.
Hence, the high SWR.  Don't worry about it, just use it and enjoy it.

73 DE K6DDX


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brad Charbonneau)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Erecting 100 ft tower on 800-900ft hill
Date: 4 Mar 1996 20:24:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4hfjhg$[e-mail]>

Hi everyone,
     I am planning to erect a 100 ft tower (Rohn 55) on a hill of 800-900ft
elevation.  I realize that the winds will be strong up here, so I plan on
reinforcing everything.  This is my question: what can I do to the tower
and / or antennas to make them stronger and more wind resistant?
     One ham suggested that I line the inner part of the antenna elements with
rope in order to prevent the oscillations of the elements in the wind.  He
also recommended that I insert a thinner metal tubing piece inside part of the
boom in order to make the boom stronger.  I have wondered if increasing the
amount of guying to the tower (ie every 15 ft rather than say every 25-20ft) w
ould make the tower stronger against the wind...
     If anyone has any comments, or anything else they know of that I could
do to make this setup more wind resistant, I'd really appreciate it.  Maybe
building my own antennas from scratch (w/ computer modeling prog) would make
the strongest antennas...Any suggestions/info is greatly appreciated!
     Thanks in advance!

73, Brad NZ1Y




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:43 1996
From: VE4KLM <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: feed point impedance calc for length of wire or tubing ?
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:56:27 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Given a length of wire or tubing, is there a practical formula I
can use to determine the feed point impedance for the following
scenarios (the resistive component anyway) ?

        1. length of wire or tubing, end fed

        2. length of wire or tubing, center fed (dipole like)

If the formula includes natural inductance & capacitance, even better.

Thanks in advance,

Maiko Langelaar
VE4KLM

 ---------------------
|  SLM Software Inc.  |
| [e-mail] |
 ---------------------



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feedpoint impedance - Extended double Zepp
Date: 2 Mar 1996 04:19:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <4h8i8n$[e-mail]>
References: <4gsoag$[e-mail]> <4h5jfp$[e-mail]>

In article <4h5jfp$[e-mail]>,
Christopher Trask  <[e-mail]> wrote:

>       BTW:  There is nothing sacred about open feed line.

Hi Chris, you're getting close to blaspheme, you know. :-)

>A coax line
>with a balun at the antenna feedpoint will work just fine, although coax
>is a bit more lossy than open line.

ELNEC gives the antenna feedpoint impedance for a 20m EDZ as
300-j1000.  What kind of balun do you have in mind for that
impedance?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (D.RODMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Force 12 info request
Date: 5 Mar 1996 12:33 EST
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Can anyone give me a number or address for Force 12 antennas?  I am
looking for specific information on 20 m monobanders.  Thanks, Dave.



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:46 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: G5RV $24.95
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:32:27 GMT

Kinda hard to make'em stand up on their own though.

Curt ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Yes a full size"102Ft" G5RV for Just $24.95! Made by Van Gorden
: Engineering. Work's 10-80 meters with antenna tuner and works better than
: my hustler 5BTV Vertical! For more info E-MAIL [e-mail] or try
: http://hightec.com/amnov/cvan.htm
:                          73 & good DX Curt, N9INK

--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Markey)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Gap DX-VI on 17M
Date: 3 Mar 96 23:41:33 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Does anyone have the modification to put the Gap DX-VI, VII, and VIII series
of antennas on 17M?  I beleive you modify the 12M tuning rod to accomplish thi
s.
TNX, de Rick KN3C





From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (James C. H. Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: HELP: AM & FM signals
Date: 5 Mar 1996 04:23:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4hgfkc$[e-mail]>

I'm trying to receive an out-of-state but strong signal AM radio station
(WSM-AM in TN to be exact) but have a hard time getting it.  I can do OK
from my car (with a fair amount of fuzz but at least recognizable,
especially at night), but can hardly get it in the house.  I currently
have a loop antenna that came with the stereo attached for AM signals and
a fancy-looking FM antenna that I bought (which helps improve FM signals)
for the FM.  Please, in your E-MAIL, tell me how to improve my reception
in detail but not too technical.  Also, how would I do the same for
distant FM stations?  Thanx to all who helps in advance!


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (James C. H. Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.broadcasting
Subject: HELP: AM & FM signals
Date: 6 Mar 1996 01:27:29 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hipm1$[e-mail]>



A question for all you radio experts out there.  I am trying to receive
an out-of-state but fairly strong AM signal (WSM-AM in Nashville to be
exact) and do okay at night (though fuzzy) if I'm driving but have hard
time getting it in the house.  My stereo currently has a loop antenna
that came from with it (which I attached for AM) and a FM stereo antenna
that I brought which helps with FM reception.  I want to know how can I
improve my AM reception 24 hours (other than attaching an antenna onto my
roof).  How would I do the same for distant FM signals?  Please in your
e-mail,  be detailed but not too technical.  Thanx to all who help in
advance!




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:50 1996
From: Charles Hobley <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.swap
Subject: HF antenna Mobil
Date: 4 Mar 1996 12:59:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4hepek$k9f$[e-mail]>

HF Antenna mobil
Texas Bug Catcher 6" coil with a 16" cap with break over hitch
mount. $ 200.00

Contact me at [phone]
Email 103575,1500 @ compuserve.com
Email CharlesHobley @ msn,com


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: how can a duckie be 4-7db?
Date: 5 Mar 1996 08:11:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4hhehb$[e-mail]>
References: <4hgmgi$[e-mail]>

In article <4hgmgi$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff
Hall) writes:

>
>  I was reading an ad about rubber duckie for your hand held that have a
>4-7db. and yet you can get a large out side 2 meter ant which the same
>db. Can a rubber duckie really have that much db? "The smiley Antenna
>Company has such antennas....please asnswer via e-mail...thanks, Jef
>
>

They can be MINUS 4 to 7 dB, but certainly not plus (in reference to a 1/2
wave or isotropic radiator) !!!! Sound like the dB fairy waved his S unit
at ole Smiley Antenna co.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:52 1996
From: Hank Blackstock <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: how can a duckie be 4-7db?
Date: 5 Mar 1996 22:24:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4hieuq$[e-mail]>
References: <4hgmgi$[e-mail]> <4hhehb$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:
>In article <4hgmgi$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff
>Hall) writes:
>
>>
>>  I was reading an ad about rubber duckie for your hand held that have a
>>4-7db. and yet you can get a large out side 2 meter ant which the same
>>db. Can a rubber duckie really have that much db? "The smiley Antenna
>>Company has such antennas....please asnswer via e-mail...thanks, Jef
>>
>>
>
>They can be MINUS 4 to 7 dB, but certainly not plus (in reference to a 1/2
>wave or isotropic radiator) !!!! Sound like the dB fairy waved his S unit
>at ole Smiley Antenna co.
>
I think some company's reference their antenna gain to a
shielded dummy load buried 50 ft below ground.

HankWA5JRH




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Re: How much RF pwr does an ant tuner consume?
Date: 2 Mar 1996 17:04:18 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4h9v2i$[e-mail]>
References: <4g2j6u$[e-mail]> <4h40nl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4h73q9$[e-mail]>

In article <4h73q9$[e-mail]>,
Glenn Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:

>The problem isn't the tuner, the problem is the placement of the tuner,
>and the loss of the feedline.  Place the tuner at the antenna, so the
>coax is loaded and fed as 50 ohms and the loss of the tuner will be
>minimal.

That's how I feed my mobile antenna - with an SGC230 mounted at
the base of the antenna. It works great.

However, for fixed installations, I think you will find the
matched-line loss for reasonably priced coax is greater than
the total loss in the less expensive open-wire line even with
their sometimes "high" SWRs. The losses in the cheapest TV
twin-lead are approximately the same as RG-8.

Moving the tuner to the antenna may lessen or increase the
losses in the tuner. Varying the length of the transmission
line to reduce losses in the tuner is an option not available
directly at the antenna.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How much RF pwr does an ant tuner consume?
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 96 17:46:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4hfa83$[e-mail]>

[e-mail]:

> [The power at the tuner output can be calculated using]

>Pout = (|V|^2/Z0 + |I|^2*Z0) * (s/(1 + s^2))

>where |V| is the voltage magnitude and |I| is the current magnitude,
>and Z0 is the real characteristic impedance, and s is the swr. . .

Kevin,

You're right, the power can be calculated from just |V|, |I|, and
SWR. I hadn't thought of that combination, and will file it
away to use again. Thanks for pointing it out!

73,
Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:55 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How much RF pwr does an ant tuner consume?
Date: 5 Mar 1996 16:26:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhpvv$[e-mail]>
References: <4hfa83$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Roy Lewallen) wrote:
>[e-mail]:
>>Pout = (|V|^2/Z0 + |I|^2*Z0) * (s/(1 + s^2))
>You're right, the power can be calculated from just |V|, |I|, and
>SWR.

Hi guys, are these RMS values? Does this imply that V^2/Z0+I^2*Z0
is constant up and down the line in a lossless line?

thanks and 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How much RF pwr does an ant tuner consume?
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 96 22:51:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4higfe$[e-mail]>
References: <4hfa83$[e-mail]> <4hhpvv$[e-mail]>

In article <4hhpvv$[e-mail]>,
   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (Roy Lewallen) wrote:
>>[e-mail]:
>>>Pout = (|V|^2/Z0 + |I|^2*Z0) * (s/(1 + s^2))
>>You're right, the power can be calculated from just |V|, |I|, and
>>SWR.
>
>Hi guys, are these RMS values? Does this imply that V^2/Z0+I^2*Z0
>is constant up and down the line in a lossless line?

Yes, and yes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Quirk)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.broadcasting,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,alt.radio.free,alt.radio.college,rec.radio,rec.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: IDIO-AUDIO Toronto's Indie/Experimental Music Electronic Mailing List.
Date: 1 Mar 1996 22:21:49 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4h7t9t$[e-mail]>

Reply-To: [e-mail]


Toronto residence beware, a new, suspicious union has formed.

The perverse and demented members of the so-called IDIO-AUDIO mailing
list plan to communicate with each other and inform one another about
subversive events that play that bizarre eccentricity those people
call music.

They can tell one another which god forsaken vendors sell the filth
they're looking for.

They can discuss, review, announce, trade ....

With this retched bohemia able to communicate -- Toronto will never be
the same again.

These people think they are too good to listen to the music everyone
else listens to.

The more people they have on idio-audio -- the more dangerous
this lists becomes. They get more info, more views, reviews etc. and
they can attract more people to their demented idiosyncratic events --
thereby increasing this threat to our fair city.

All you need to be a part of idio-audio is an email account. It's so
sinisterly simple that any one interested in this indie/experemental
music and the debauched scene related it will one day be on the list.

People who don't even have internet accounts can participate in the
atrocity by using low cost BBSs that provide internet email now --
and then there's public access places like Local GlobalAccess where
someone who doesn't even have a computer can get an email account.

Every wacko in the Toronto area who likes this so-called
Indie/Experimental music or is involved in it in any way has no excuse
not to be on this list.

They even have a web page:

http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik/idio-audio.html

They must be stopped!



.....

Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk

P.S.  Oh, Nevermind.
                            [e-mail]
                            http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik/idio-audio.html
    "Gravity lets           (c) 1996 Idiosyntactix (tm) Toronto
      you down"


  IDIO-AUDIO -- Toronto's Indie/Experimental
  music electronic mailing list. Send email
  to [e-mail] with the following
  command in the body of your message:

  subscribe idio-audio <your email address>



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (Scott Townley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.swap,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Info/Items Wanted: Mobile HF: Icom AH-2 or SGC-230
Date: 5 Mar 1996 06:44:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4hhgf1$[e-mail]>

I'm looking to go mobile as it's apparent I'll never get a "real" antenna up
anytime soon.
Of most interest for a mobile HF antenna installation appear to be either the
ICOM IC-AH2 (paired with an IC-735 which I already own), or the SGC-230/QMS2
gadget.
I'm interested in any opinions, experiences, etc., from the community on
either of these two items.  And if anyone has one for sale, I'd be interested
in that, too!
Thanks in advance

Scott Townley
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:04:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (Orrin Winton)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: looking for Winton Bell ZL3AO
Date: 4 Mar 1996 19:53:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4hfho3$[e-mail]>

Winton Bell, you sent me a note after reading one of my postings,
and i want to respond, but the e-mail address in the FROM: field
of your note is invalid, isn't even a real e-mail address.  If
you could pleawse send another note signed with your e-mail address
i will respond.  Thanks

[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (Phillip Jockell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: manual for 4BTV
Date: 2 Mar 1996 13:18:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4h9hqs$[e-mail]>

Can anyone send/fax  me a copy of the manual/info sheet on the 4BTV?

A friend gave me one, but he had long since discarded the
documentation.  (How come people do that???)

Thanks for ANY help - 73,
phil - N4GWV



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:01 1996
From: Bud Simmons <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ HF VERTICALS???
Date: 5 Mar 1996 17:52:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhv0v$[e-mail]>

Has anyone tried the MFJ vertical antennas? ARE THEY ANY GOOD?




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:02 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Bryan King)
Subject: Re: Mounting height of R5?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 04:20:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <4grfu0$[e-mail]>

In article <4grfu0$[e-mail]>, sholisky <sHolisky@winternet.c
om> says:

Would having the R5 6 - 8 feet away from trees and large rocks detune it?
There's also an AR6 nearby that is even closer to the ground.

I currently have my R5 mounted on a piece of 1.25" galvanized conduit that
is 10' long.  Its about 8' off the ground and in a small clearing on
high ground.  Its about 20' above my house in the backyard and about 50'
from the house.  Its far away from any powerlines or other noisy sources.
Later this spring, I'm going to add another 10' section of conduit to
raise the effective height of the antenna to 18'

So far I've had good luck with this antenna in working DX.


73's

Bryan


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Raymond A. Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: need plans for 6m antenna
Date: 2 Mar 1996 21:21:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4hae5n$[e-mail]>
References: <4gaqpe$[e-mail]> <4gtc1j$[e-mail]>

Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr. ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (Mark McAnally) wrote:
:
: >Does anyone know of a source for a simple yet effective dipole or
: >vertical 6m homebrew antenna? Thanks in advance   KE4QKN in
: >Milton, FL
:
: Hi Mark
:
: Check out my home page under Copper Cactus at
: http://www.inlink.com/~raiar
: The numbers you need to construct a single band 6-m J-Pole are the
: same as for the multi-band.
: I use J-Poles almost exclusively now, most are the mirror image J's
: which for 6-m I installed it such that I can turn horizontal if need
: be.

  If you don't see my Email, please respond to [e-mail]. Thanks!

                                                _Ray_   KB0STN




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:04 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Toste)
Subject: New home Attic Antenna? Help needed.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Toste)
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 08:51:41 GMT




Hello to all. Just join this newsgroup and haven't been able
to find a FAQ so here I am asking 2 or 3 questions which I'm
sure have been asked more then once.

I've just bought a new home and I'll be moving in June. The
house is just about built. The home is a new comunity, so as
I'm sure you all know that in new homes people don't like
major towers poping up and antennas everywhere. I won't have
access to a fence yet not atleast until the summer/spring of
97, the back of the home is sorta still just mud and they are
still working on building the other homes. What I want to do
until I am able to rig a wire or two outside I wanted to rig
something in the attic. I don't have the exact sizes but it's
more or less 50x20ft and atleast 6 ft height, but the
measurements could be alittle more. I won't know until I can
get into the attic once I move in and know for sure. I'ld like to
have something that I would work from 10-80m(ya I know 10m
is useless just about now.)
Anyone have any ideas as to what I could place up there?


--
 David Toste [VE3TOS]        Internet - [e-mail]
 Don Mills, Ontario.          SWLOGit - The Ultimate Shortwave Listeners
 ftp.virginia.edu  /pub/swlogit/        Software. (Fidonet: 1:250/930)
*NEW* http://www.interlog.com/~saturn/SWLOGit.html (SWLOGit Web Page)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:05 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Curt <[e-mail]>
Subject: PORCELAIN INSULATORS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 03:50:55 GMT

If you have an antenna project in mind for spring, i have some hard to
find Birnbach Porcelain insulators for sale. They are about 8" long &
about 1 1/2" around. These are great for SWL, Ham Hi-Power or any wire
antenna. The price is $4.00ea plus shipping. To reach me:
[e-mail] or phone [phone] before 10pm EST
or you can mail a check with approx $5.00 for shipping to
Curt Haroutunian N9INK
7835 E Southport Rd.
Indianapolis, IN. 46259
An E-Mail message to let me know your check is on the way will hold them
for you as quantity is limited to 80 at the time of this post.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:06 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: "Martin Biallas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Q: How would a 80m Magnetic Loop antenna look like?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:51:53 GMT

Hello!

Unfortunately I have no opportunity to establish a good 80m antenna. (I live i
n a
flat in a house that I dont own.) Recently I heard about an antenna called Mag
netic
Loop. It was said that this antenna typ allows -although it is worse than an h
alf
wave Dipol- nice QSOs. Or in other words: its better than nothing. :)
Now my question is how must a magnetic loop for the 80m band look like? And co
uld
anyone send me (via email) the meassurements of that antenna? Maybe there are
even
www-sites which contain such a plan ...




Thanks for any notices!

Bye ...

        Martin

        --------->[e-mail]<----------
To get my PGP Pubkey send a mail with Subject 'SendPGP'.



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S Units
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 96 18:03:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4hfb83$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4gkmfu$[e-mail]> <4h02jm$[e-mail]> <4h25da$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Thomas M. Alldread) wrote:
>On 28 Feb 1996 18:03:22 GMT, [e-mail] (James W. KELLEY)
wrote:
>. . .
>0.25 uV for a 10 dB Signal \ Signal + noise ratio. If one were to consider
>the sensitivity
>specification as roughly equivalent to an S zero threshold then it would
>appear that a calibration
>factor of 5 dB per S unit is the closest round number fit to the 10 dB
>S/S+N sensitivity  with a
>calibration reference of S9=50 uV.
>. . .

Unfortunately, reaching this conclusion requires making two assumptions,
neither of which is necessarily true.

> A  nice
>quality of a 6dB/SU curve is that the RF input voltage doubles for each S
>unit increase of signal
>strength (representing increase of input power of 4 times for each
>additional S unit) which would
>be a practical rule-of-thumb to remember.

It would, but since it isn't true, I don't recommend remembering it.

>       I think the current technology could support an improvement in the
>calibration of S-meters. . .
>An S meter tracking accuracy specification
>should be included as part
>of  the overall specifications.

>       I hope the manufactures take steps to clear up this age old guess
>meter confusion  so that
>radio amateurs have the ability to routinely measure signal strengths in a
>reasonably accurate
>manner in the near future. Possibly the amateur radio community may need
>to lobby the manufactures
>to give the issue some priority.

In the meantime, why don't we just measure our S-meters instead of engaging
in endless speculation and argument? An evening of simple work, a handful
of 5% resistors, a few slide switches, a couple of connectors, and a little
PC board material are all that are required to build a step attenuator.
That and a steady signal source are all you need. An added advantage is
that you can also use the same step attenuator with a switch to actually
measure which antenna is better, and by how many dB.

I do agree with Thomas that the only thing which will cause the
manufacturers to make consistent S-meters is to convince them that the
increase in sales will make it worth the effort. Personally, I'd rather see
less than 6 dB/S-unit, and a step attenuator at the input.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:09 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: S-Meter Cal
Date: 4 Mar 1996 07:36:25 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4he6hp$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In the early 1950's Collins Radio adopted the following rule for its
S-meters:

100 microvolts open circuit from a 50 Ohm sig gen, or 50 microvolts
meter reading on the sig gen meter, for S9.

The S meter reference was set at 1 microvolt open circuit. This figures
to 4.4 dB per S unit, or "approximately 4 dB per S unit", according
to their receiver owner's manuals.

Because of threshold effects in diode AGC detectors and gain variations in
vacuum tube circuitry and calibration accuracy there was no attempt to
be too nit-picky about this.

Later solid state designs made it possible to achieve more reliable
calibrations. One good approach is an internal calibrated noise source
that can be used with a certain IF bandwidth to set an S9 level by
pushing a button and adjusting a gain pot. The receiver could then be
a pretty good field strength meter. This "built-in-test" is common
in some equipment.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Burch Akin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: shuttle communication on 2 meter
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 15:12:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4hf150$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4gqtvh$[e-mail]> <4h2pq6$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (WB7ASR) wrote:



>Unless you have the "BIG" station, forget about working the shuttle.
>They only talk with pre-determined scheduled contacts (schools), or
>stations with the loudest signals ( EME arrays with 1KW amps). When
>their above your horizon, there are about 200+ stations on the average
>all calling them at the same time you are. The BIG signal will win!!!

>WB7ASR...

I disagree.  A friend of mine has worked the Shuttle everytime it has
had ham equipment onboard.  He works it with 80watts into a 6 element
beam (he uses two $10 rotators to aim the beam.)  Granted a big
station with be heard first, if you have a little patience you can
work the shuttle without a "big" station.   I know people who have
made contact with the shuttle using 25watts into a groundplane!

KE4ZQV
Burch Akin




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:11 1996
From: Charles Bolland <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.noncomm,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
Subject: Re: Stand Alone Broadcast Radio Station Database - LW,MW,SW
Date: 2 Mar 1996 21:35:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4haeue$[e-mail]>
References: <4gttsh$[e-mail]> <4gvda8$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Friends,

I'm still sending out the Stand Alone Broadcast Radio Station Database to
whomever wants it.  I would like your mailing address and Email address
for registration and possibly a future letter describing a more
comprehensive database program for radio.  All information will be kept
confidential..

Just answer this posting to "[e-mail]".

The database has more than 4,000 records already and can be edited and
updated.

Hope to hear from you.

Chuck
KA4PRF




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Len Revelle)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Strange Phenonomon on G5RV
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 06:17:57 GMT
Message-ID: <4hgmks$[e-mail]>
References: <4h3433$[e-mail]>

Years ago I took my brand new Heathkit HW-7 QRP rig to a friends to
try a real antenna. The last antenna used was a long wire. Winds were
getting high so I decided to go home and disconnected the longwire
from the HW-7. When I inserted the coax connector back into Al's TR4B
transciever the radio caught fire! We found a potted choke in the
front end, presumably as protection, burnt to a crisp. The cause was
presumed to be static built up by the wind.

I've heard that people have been killed due to such discharges around
other long line systems such as power line carrier cables, etc...

[e-mail] wrote:

>Wow,
>  This one will get ya thinking. I live in Northern Indiana and last nite we
had
> thunderstorms and relatively spring like weather. I have an 80 meter length
G5RV
> strung between two trees. The antenna is stretched pretty taut and is about
35'
> average in height.
>  Well, the thunderstorm left the area about midnight. By this morning the we
ather
> changed drastically and we had a wind chill of -30 degrees. In other words i
t was
> in Hoosier parlance 'whooping it up!'
>   I had pulled the PL-259 out of my HF rig last night and left it laying acr
oss a
> book. About 7:30 this morning I started hearing a 'snapping sound' about eve
ry 15
> seconds. It was loud enough that the Jethro Tull CD that I had playing was b
eing
> interrupted by this 'snapping'. Low and behold I looked over in the directio
n of the
> PL-259 and the 'snapping' was actually an arc between the center pin and the
> barrel of the connector. I lifted the end of the cable away from the book, a
nd
> isolated it from anything combustible. The phenonomon continued on for about

> 35 more minutes. During this time, it was snowing, cleared, and flurried aga
in.
>   I guess the reason for the post, is that even in a weather situation where
 it was
> not 'lightning and thunder' conditions, and ungrounded open end feedline can
> bring you a real surprise. If I had been working with combustibles, this cou
ld have
> been a 'post mortem'. Anybody else ever see this?

>                                                     Jim WD9AHF
>




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:14 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Strange Phenonomon on G5RV
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4h3433$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:30:42 GMT

I've had this happen a lot with center fed Zepps. 4 years ago a
thunderstorm was about 20 miles away and my tuner began snaping loudly. I
could faintly see the lightning. So waiting for a pause, I quickly
reached behing the antenna tuner and yanked the feeders off their binding
post. When I did, I felt a slight tingle.

The next day after I got to work, I glanced at my wrist watch to check
the time and volia, the watch had stopped on the very minute that I had
unhooked the antenna. So I took my nice Citizens, electronic watch to the
jewler who pronuced it dead. The chip had blown.

Now in your case, it could just be those Jethrol Tull tunes attracting
the charge. You remember how flute music was used once to attract rats?
Well.......hmmmm.


--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (M.F.P.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Strange Phenonomon on G5RV
Date: 5 Mar 1996 17:47:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhune$[e-mail]>
References: <4h3433$[e-mail]> <4h5rlh$[e-mail]>

In article <4h5rlh$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>[e-mail] wrote:
>
>>Wow,
>>  This one will get ya thinking. I live in Northern Indiana and last nite we

had
>> thunderstorms and relatively spring like weather. I have an 80 meter length

G5RV
>> strung between two trees. The antenna is stretched pretty taut and is about

35'
>> average in height.
>>  Well, the thunderstorm left the area about midnight. By this morning the
weather
>> changed drastically and we had a wind chill of -30 degrees. In other words
it was
>> in Hoosier parlance 'whooping it up!'
>>   I had pulled the PL-259 out of my HF rig last night and left it laying
across a
>> book. About 7:30 this morning I started hearing a 'snapping sound' about
every 15
>> seconds. It was loud enough that the Jethro Tull CD that I had playing was
being
>> interrupted by this 'snapping'. Low and behold I looked over in the
direction of the
>> PL-259 and the 'snapping' was actually an arc between the center pin and
the
>> barrel of the connector. I lifted the end of the cable away from the book,
and
>> isolated it from anything combustible. The phenonomon continued on for
about
>> 35 more minutes. During this time, it was snowing, cleared, and flurried
again.
>>   I guess the reason for the post, is that even in a weather situation
where it was
>> not 'lightning and thunder' conditions, and ungrounded open end feedline
can
>> bring you a real surprise. If I had been working with combustibles, this
could have
>> been a 'post mortem'. Anybody else ever see this?
>
>>                                                     Jim WD9AHF

>>Here's a simple way to HELP isolate the feeder, ladder line, instead of
using ladder all the way to your tuner, put a 1:1 balun at the base of the
vertical ladder line, then run RG/8 coax cable into your tuner or rig... gives

a little better isolation ratios...Plus, you can ground the Coax feed to
direct grounding rods...at ground level...

Just a thought....anyone else build on this???



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:17 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Pringle)
Subject: Re: Strange Phenonomon on G5RV
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4h3433$[e-mail]> <4h5rlh$[e-mail]> <4hhune$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:49:15 GMT

In article <4hhune$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (M.F.P.) says:
>
>In article <4h5rlh$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>>
>>[e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>>Wow,
>>>  This one will get ya thinking. I live in Northern Indiana and last nite w
e
>had
>>> thunderstorms and relatively spring like weather. I have an 80 meter lengt
h
>G5RV
>>> strung between two trees. The antenna is stretched pretty taut and is abou
t
>35'
>>> average in height.
>>>  Well, the thunderstorm left the area about midnight. By this morning the
>weather
>>> changed drastically and we had a wind chill of -30 degrees. In other words

>it was
>>> in Hoosier parlance 'whooping it up!'
>>>   I had pulled the PL-259 out of my HF rig last night and left it laying
>across a
>>> book. About 7:30 this morning I started hearing a 'snapping sound' about
>every 15
>>> seconds. It was loud enough that the Jethro Tull CD that I had playing was

>being
>>> interrupted by this 'snapping'. Low and behold I looked over in the
>direction of the
>>> PL-259 and the 'snapping' was actually an arc between the center pin and
>the
>>> barrel of the connector. I lifted the end of the cable away from the book,

>and
>>> isolated it from anything combustible. The phenonomon continued on for
>about
>>> 35 more minutes. During this time, it was snowing, cleared, and flurried
>again.
>>>   I guess the reason for the post, is that even in a weather situation
>where it was
>>> not 'lightning and thunder' conditions, and ungrounded open end feedline
>can
>>> bring you a real surprise. If I had been working with combustibles, this
>could have
>>> been a 'post mortem'. Anybody else ever see this?
>>
>>>                                                     Jim WD9AHF

>
>>>Here's a simple way to HELP isolate the feeder, ladder line, instead of
>using ladder all the way to your tuner, put a 1:1 balun at the base of the
>vertical ladder line, then run RG/8 coax cable into your tuner or rig... give
s
>a little better isolation ratios...Plus, you can ground the Coax feed to
>direct grounding rods...at ground level...
>
>Just a thought....anyone else build on this???
>
The exact same thing happened to a friend of mine during a blizzard
this winter (same storm?).  We figure the cold dry air coupled with snow
caused a static charge to build up.  Good thing that you had your rig
unplugged!

Bill - N1WBO


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (ESTUDIANTES DE COMUNICACIONES)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: switches
Date: 5 Mar 96 21:29:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Hello everyone.
I wonder if you know about commercial devices that let me switch between
two antennas whose transmition lines are 75 ohms.

Any help would be very appreciated.

Benjamin.

email: [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:19 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (James Casey)
Subject: Re: switches
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:48:30 GMT

For receiving or for very low power, 3 watts or so, you could use one of
Radio Shack's cable tv antenna switches. Other than that, you will need a
heavy duty switch. Most ham antenna switches are 50 ohms so depending on
your application you may want to consider that.


ESTUDIANTES DE COMUNICACIONES ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Hello everyone.
: I wonder if you know about commercial devices that let me switch between
: two antennas whose transmition lines are 75 ohms.

: Any help would be very appreciated.

: Benjamin.

: email: [e-mail]


--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:20 1996
From: "Anthony R. Gold" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: switches
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 10:14:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] "James Casey" writes:

>                    Most ham antenna switches are 50 ohms so depending on
> your application you may want to consider that.

Except in instrumentation situations, I have never seen a manual coax
switch which attempts to maintain constant impedance.  Although the
connectors on a ham radio coax switch are chosen to mate with 50 ohm
coax cable terminations, the switch will work equally well over a wide
range of impedances.

What are the frequencies, power levels and types of transmission lines
involved?

Regards,
--
   Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM                  email: [e-mail]
                                                [e-mail]
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:22 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: TAI-CHI MASTER - 3/13 - PC THEATER
Date: 6 Mar 96 15:17:48 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


ATTENTION FILM-GOERS!:

***************************************************
Don't Miss Two of Hong Kong's Most Exciting Stars in
One of the Greatest Martial Arts Films of All Time!!!
***************************************************
 ________________________
|                                                               |
|          THE TAI-CHI MASTER         |
|                                                               |
|       Directed by Yuen Woo Ping     |
|               Hong Kong, 1993                 |
|                                                                |
|        Starring: **JET LI** and            |
|          **MICHELLE KHAN**           |
|________________________|

  ----------------------------------------
   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13    at the PRICE CENTER THEATER!
  ----------------------------------------
 _________________________
|                                                                 |
|  SHOWTIMES:   5:30 / 8:00 / 10:15  |
|________________________ |

********************************
GENERAL ADMISSION: $2
TICKETS ON SALE NOW AT
THE PRICE CENTER BOX OFFICE
********************************

WIN FABULOUS DOOR PRIZES!!!

Enter and WIN the GRAND PRIZE in our
TRIVIA RAFFLE!!!




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Carrubba)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tower Location?
Date: 4 Mar 1996 13:59:01 GMT
Message-ID: <4hesv5$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Steve Ellington ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Should I put the beam on the current tower and enjoy the low feedline
: loss due to the short distance but suffer whatever effects the house
: has on the signal or should I put the new tower out in the middle of
: the yard which is 100ft from any surrounding objects and suffer the
: effects of feeder loss. The feeder would go from 70ft to 170ft long.

: BTW, I plan to use RG-213 coax but am open to suggestions.


: Steve [e-mail]

--
Hi Steve,

Put the HF beam on the tower away from the house. This avoid any RFI
problems caused by signal<> device overload in your home. The HF beam
will also perform better in the clear. My tower (45 ft) is located next
to my house and the shack is about 20ft away....I will get RF overload
when running full legal power....I have to decrease the power...

GL, 73
============================================================================
Tom Carrubba            "To err is human, but to really foul
N. Babylon, NY          things up requires a computer......"
KA2DFO                  packet radio| [e-mail]
============================================================================


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:24 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tower Location?
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 23:08:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4hih25$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Steve Ellington <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Here's the deal. My shack is on the end of the house. The tower
>is attached to the house at that point. The coax goes straight through
>the wall and right up to the antenna. I am preparing to purchase either
>tri-band quad or yagi. The tower is 60ft high which makes it about 38ft
>above the highest point of the roof.

>Recently I came across a good deal on another tower which is 68ft.
>My yard covers 2 acres and it's flat,open territory. Here's the
>question.

>Should I put the beam on the current tower and enjoy the low feedline
>loss due to the short distance but suffer whatever effects the house
>has on the signal or should I put the new tower out in the middle of
>the yard which is 100ft from any surrounding objects and suffer the
>effects of feeder loss. The feeder would go from 70ft to 170ft long.

>Has anyone got some idea of what a house can do to your signal when
>it's directly below the hf beam?

>BTW, I plan to use RG-213 coax but am open to suggestions.


>Steve [e-mail]

Just a though, use ladder line between the antenna and the house, then
switch to a coax!

Actually, the best Tower Location to put your tower is in St. Louis
County, just a couple of blocks west of interstate 270 on the North
side of the road, set back about 150 feet from the highway :-)
That should put it about in the center of my backyard ;-)))....

TTUL
Gary




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:25 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: TRISATO Crankup Tower Info??
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 23:59:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4hidej$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Russ McCoy) wrote:

>I recently acquired a crankup tower from TRISATO.  It is 80 feet fully
>extended and 20 feet cranked down.  I understand that TRISATO was
>in the Visalia, CA area, but is no longer in business.  I would like to
>obtain any information about this tower including a copy of the original
>manual if possible: wind loading, recommended guying, capacity,
>base configurations, parts availability, anything.

>Thanks for any help.

>Russ - AA5FP
>[e-mail]


Tristao sold to U.S. Tower if my recollection is accurate.

Contact them for info.  They have been more than helpful.

Gl/DX

cdn

           C. Dean Norris
      Amateur Radio Station K7NO
      e-mail to [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tuner difference: MFJ 989C vs. -986???
Date: 2 Mar 1996 22:30:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4hb3ns$[e-mail]>
References: <4hafi4$[e-mail]>

In article <4hafi4$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(BillV21572) writes:

>
>I'd like to know the difference between these two types of tuners.  One
>(the
>986) seems like it would be a simpler operation.  Any clear advantage
>between
>the two from you enlightened types?
>tnx es 73 de bill ka9hln

They are both T tuners. The differential T gives easier tuning but you're
stuck with a pretty high Q on the lower bands, especially 160.

The other conventional T allows you to have a little more power capability
and lower loss on the low bands.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:27 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: 5 Mar 1996 16:11:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhp4c$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Bill Turner) wrote:
>In article <4hc0ac$[e-mail]>, Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>W6KKT Will be conducting another HF Mobile Antenna System "Shootout" at
>>the upcoming Visalia, Calif.DX convention. This event will be held at the
>>U.S Towers factory, Saturday, April 20th, 10:00am. The test frequency
>>will be 3995kc.

>Can you provide some details on the testing?  I'm interested in how to
>compensate for differing feedpoint impedances among other issues.

Could you please post the rules? Like height/length limit, etc.

thanks and 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 19:16:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4hi3us$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Bill Turner) wrote:

>In article <4hc0ac$[e-mail]>, Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>W6KKT Will be conducting another HF Mobile Antenna System "Shootout" at
>>the upcoming Visalia, Calif.DX convention. ...

>.....73s...Jesse (W6KKT)
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Can you provide some details on the testing?  I'm interested in how to
>compensate for differing feedpoint impedances among other issues.
>73, Bill W7LZP

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
One of their earlier shootouts (last year's, I think) was written up
in QST.

They only measured the received field strength in one direction (in
line with a front headlight, I think) with the antenna actually
mounted on the contestant's vehicle.

Jerry W4UKU



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:29 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Curry)
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hi3us$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:44:52 GMT

Jerry Flanders ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] (Bill Turner) wrote:

: >In article <4hc0ac$[e-mail]>, Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]> wrote
:
: >>W6KKT Will be conducting another HF Mobile Antenna System "Shootout" at
: >>the upcoming Visalia, Calif.DX convention. ...

: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
: One of their earlier shootouts (last year's, I think) was written up
: in QST.
 It was written up in World Radio  Magazine, I believe Sept 1995 issue.
: mounted on the contestant's vehicle.

: Jerry W4UKU

--
.----------------------------------------------+--------------------------.
| INTERNET: [e-mail]     (DC436)     | Daniel Curry             |
| AMPRNET : [e-mail]  [44.4.20.144] | WB6STW                   |
| AX.25   : wb6stw@n0ary.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM    | DoD # 1450   SOHC4 # 136 |
'----------------------------------------------+--------------------------'


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Raymond A. Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's your favorite 6mt FM mobile antenna?
Date: 2 Mar 1996 21:24:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4haeb4$[e-mail]>
References: <4gu1e8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Alan Raskind ([e-mail]) wrote:
: ZaaX wrote:
: >
: > I would be interested in hearing from anyone that runs 6 meter FM mobile.
: > What
: > antenna do you use? What do you like or dislike about it? Would you
: > recommend
: > your antenna to others? Have you used a Larson or Cushcraft fm antenna?
: > Any info on this will be greatly appreciated!
: >
: > 73 Zack Schindler
: > N8FNR
:
: The latest (and said to be one of the best) mobile antenna is made by a
: company called COMTELCO.  It is handled by Juns Electronics in Los
: Angeles [phone].  (Jun's also has a web site:
: http://cyber10.csz.com:80/radio).  It has been tested by a number of
: die-hard 6M users and they all liked it better than the typical 2M 5/8
: base loaded antenna we usually use.  Don't know what the exact details
: are, but I will probably get one.  The key thing is to get "the 6M
: antenna that also resonates on 2M as well".  The antenna is supposed to
: be somewhere around $30.

  Hmmm!!! :-) I'll have to keep an eye out for this one, especially if it
also rez's on 2m! (smack, drool)

                                                _Ray_   KB0STN



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bromley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's your favorite 6mt FM mobile antenna?
Date: 5 Mar 1996 17:55:01 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4gu1e8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4haeb4$[e-mail]>


>: > ZaaX wrote:
>: >
>: > I would be interested in hearing from anyone that runs 6 meter FM mobile.
>: > What
>: > antenna do you use? What do you like or dislike about it?

>: Alan Raskind ([e-mail]) wrote:
>:
>: The latest (and said to be one of the best) mobile antenna is made by a
>: company called COMTELCO...  The key thing is to get "the 6M
>: antenna that also resonates on 2M as well".  The antenna is supposed to
>: be somewhere around $30.

>  [e-mail] (Raymond A. Brown) writes:
>
>  Hmmm!!! :-) I'll have to keep an eye out for this one, especially if it
>  also rez's on 2m! (smack, drool)

Ahhhh *&$%#*&@!!!  You guys are a bunch of wimps!  The only antenna worthy
of 6-meter FM mobile operation is a full-size Antenna Specialists
ball-and-spring type that has been retired from a long career with the
California Highway Patrol.  Even better, it should be personally
autographed by Broderick Crawford.  Anything else is CellTel effete.

Jim Bromley, W5GYJ
Glendale, AZ



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:32 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Why long wire TVI
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Patrick Walkup)
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 14:31:00 -0640
Distribution: world

Good question, I've been thinking of setting up a longwire myself.
The plans are simple 99'4'' to the center of 72 ohm coax 8'10'' to
braid.
Supposed to give good gain 25 degrees off the long end. With my lot, I
can set it up pointing NE at approx 50 degrees magnetic. I picked this
orientation hoping to hear good dx from the NE. Maybe I'm being
optimistic, but I thought 50 degrees,plus or minus 25 degrees was a good
beam heading from St. Louis to Europe. What do you think?? Will a
longwire beam at 20'cause excessive TVI?? Finally, just what is the
approximate beam heading from St Louis to Europe??
So many questions :)
Pat
---
 ■ OLX 2.1 TD ■ --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--


 ---
 * travel.com <sm> / TRAVEL ONLINE <sm> / ST. LOUIS ONLINE <sm>


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:33 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Why long wire TVI
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 96 21:18:21 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Patrick Walkup <[e-mail]> writes:

>So many questions :)

Hi Pat, unbalanced antennas have a whole set of problems that
balanced antennas don't have. If you have room, a balanced
antenna would probably be better. Most people who put up
unbalanced horizontal wire antennas are simply unable to
put up a balanced one. Unbalanced antennas are a lot more
unforgiving than balanced ones. I live on 2 acres and could
put up a hellava longwire unbalanced antenna.  However, a
102 ft. centerfed dipole satisfies my needs except for 75m
DX.  73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Why long wire TVI
Date: 5 Mar 1996 13:10:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhefr$[e-mail]>


G4wnt said -
Last shot about RF in the house is to debunk the fond belief that the outer
braid of a coax is somehow a "screen" that will "stop nasty RF from getting
out". The braid is actually one half of an unbalanced transmission line! The
*only* condition where it will not radiate is if the cable is feeding a load
equal to its characteristic impedance. Anything else - and the standing wave
currents on the braid will radiate where they are not wanted.

        This is not true.  standing waves in a coax do not cause radiation
from the outside of the coax.  Except for a very small leakage due to the
woven nature of most coax outer conductors, the currents are confined to
the inner surface of the otu/// outer conductor by skin effect.  In most
cases currents on the outside of the outer conductor are due to either
those flowing from the connection to the antenna of the outer conductor
or due to currents induced in the outer condutor by the antenna .

Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Why long wire TVI
Date: 6 Mar 1996 08:13:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4hk31h$[e-mail]>
References: <4hhefr$[e-mail]>

In article <4hhefr$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CHARLES J.
MICHAELS) writes:

>
>       This is not true.  standing waves in a coax do not cause radiation
>from the outside of the coax.  Except for a very small leakage due to the
>woven nature of most coax outer conductors, the currents are confined to
>the inner surface of the otu/// outer conductor by skin effect.  In most
>cases currents on the outside of the outer conductor are due to either
>those flowing from the connection to the antenna of the outer conductor
>or due to currents induced in the outer condutor by the antenna .
>
>

Actually the coax sheild ONLY stops radiation and confines the RF to the
inside of the shield when the current in the sheild and center conductor
are equal and of opposite phase.

ALL shields that are small in terms of the WL work this way.Without equal
and opposite currents, they aren't shields at all. Except perhaps right at
the very end where a real "ground" may occur. At that point, the sheild
can act like an electric field shield. We do that is SWR transformers to
prevent capacitive coupling between the line and transformer secondary.

Without proper termination of the ends, a shield more than the tiniest
fraction of a WL long isn't a shield at all. Shield or not, it will
radiate as badly as a bare single wire with the same common mode current.
SWR has nothing to do with it, it's a common mode problem.

Think about that next time you build a shielded loop, hi. It better be a
real small shielded loop.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Spencer Trombly)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: X beam
Date: 5 Mar 96 03:45:18 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

 I have some light weight aluminum antennas (WEBSTER) with fiberglass
whips that screw into the end. Total length about 20'. OD of the antenna
1.25".
 I am thinking about constructing a 30 meter 'X' beam as described in
chapter 33 of the 93 handbook.
 Any comments welcome.
 73
 Spencer Trombly
 [e-mail]





From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:37 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Tom Skelton <[e-mail]>
Subject: XMIT/RCVE ant. separation?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (skeltt)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 00:42:08 GMT

Being extremely pleased with the performance of an 80 meter  1/4
wave sort-of
inverted L (more like the letter GAMMA instead of L) I
experimented with at the
new QTH, I want to go ahead and make a permanent installation
and wrist-rocket
the top wayyy up in a tree.  With this in mind, I also want to
install the 300 ft
beverage (will probably convert to 2-wire design).

I have seen reports of noise coupling between XMITantennas and
RCVE antennas,
but this apparently wasn't a problem at the old QTH.  What is
this recommended
spacing in wavelengths?  Any hard-core experience out there?

TNX....73, Tom WB4iUX

[e-mail] or
[e-mail]

ps:  Any CQ ZONE 18, 22, 23, 24, 26 or 40 readers want to make
some skeds on
80 before the season ends??    ;-)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 07 10:05:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Mileshosky)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: } SPIDER HF Antenna - NEED INFO {
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 21:59:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4hih5v$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hello Everybody,
  I am really thinking into buying a Spider HF mobile antenna.  This
is the 4 band top-loaded HF antenna. I would like to get the following
information regarding this antenna from people wjo have used them.
  What do you like about the antenna? What DON'T you like about the
Spider? Is it a good antenna to use mobile? What about at a home QTH?
I'm looking into it primarily for 80 and 40 meters.  Is this a good
antenna for these bands?
  Also, any other information would be GREATLY appreciated! Thanks!
Best of 73,
Brian, N5ZGT...

[e-mail]



________________________________________________________________________
 Boy Scouts of America                   Amateur Radio
  J.A.S.M. - Troop 41                        N5ZGT
    Albuquerque, NM            Packet: N5ZGT @ KC5IZT.ALBQ.NM.USA.NA
 Great Southwest Council           Internet: [e-mail]
    O.A. Lodge 66
_______________________________________________________________________



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 96 17:35:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4hv446$[e-mail]>
References: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (COUGER GORDON) wrote:

>Somewhere I read that a tuner doesn't need a balan for balanced loads
>if the tuner was allowed to "float". I purchased a tuner almost
>compleatly isolated from the case and enclosure. All that is conected
>are the ground side of the coax fittings.
>
>My plan is to install a plexiglass mount for the coax fittings and
>removing the ground from the case and chasis and tying the grounds
>from both coax fittings togeather. I will of courese ground the case.
>
>Has anyone done this before and can anyone offer any insight?
>
>Please don't turn this in to a religous argument about baluns.

OK, but it does help to say three Hail Mary's before using one.  :)

The concept you're proposing will transform the feedpoint impedance to
50 ohms, but it won't provide the necessary unbalanced-to-balanced
conversion.  As a result, common-mode current will be present on the
feedline, and also on the ground in the shack.

You would do just as well to short the feedline and drive the entire
system like an end-fed wire.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (COUGER GORDON)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: 9 Mar 1996 22:11:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Gordon Couger <[e-mail]>

Somewhere I read that a tuner doesn't need a balan for balanced loads
if the tuner was allowed to "float". I purchased a tuner almost
compleatly isolated from the case and enclosure. All that is conected are
the ground side of the coax fittings.

My plan is to install a plexiglass mount for the coax fittings and removing
the ground from the case and chasis and tying the grounds from both
coax fittings togeather. I will of courese ground the case.

Has anyone done this before and can anyone offer any insight?

Please don't turn this in to a religous argument about baluns.

Thanks
Gordon AB5DG
   Gordon Couger
   Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering. 114 AG Hall Stillwater, OK 74075
   [e-mail] 405 625-2855 evenings



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 05:41:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4i0ema$[e-mail]>
References: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) wrote:

>and in the other case, both lines need to be symmetric
>with respect to "ground".

Isn't that true only when a balun is used at the input or output of
the tuner, as in your example?  If the feedline currents are isolated
from ground (as in a link-coupled tuner), does it matter whether the
line is symmetrical to that reference?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:34 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Feldman)
Subject: 10M duck ant question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 20:44:13 GMT

I'm looking for a source for a 10M flexible rubber antenna for a SSB 10M
handheld. I tried getting one from Radio Shack that they sell for their
CB HT to cut it down a bit, but they never delivered on the special
order. I know this kind of antenna won't be efficient, but I am looking
for one just the same.

73 Dave WB0GAZ [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 4:1 or 9:1, which is better?
Date: 8 Mar 1996 01:59:11 -0500
Message-ID: <4holrv$[e-mail]>
References: <4hnmcb$[e-mail]>

In article <4hnmcb$[e-mail]>, Cecil Moore
<[e-mail]> writes:

>
>4:1 baluns are easy to build or buy and work as well as 9:1.
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for our employer)
>
>

Hi Tom and Cecil,

Cecil forgot to mention 1:1 choke baluns work better than 4:1 baluns when
the load is not the design impedance of the balun!!!!!

I would guess most books recommend 4:1 because the author hasn't really
thought about the problem. ;-)

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gr|nlund Pentti)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Alarm decal antenna.
Date: 07 Mar 1996 23:20:41 +0200
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4gv3hm$[e-mail]> <4h0o44$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (David Stuben) wrote:

>I would like to know if anyone is using the patch type antenna that was
>advertised in QST some months ago.  This antenna is disguised as a alarm
>decal, and is for the 2m band.  I am interested in this type of an antenna fo
r
>a new truck that I have on order.  I have a glass mount antenna now, but the
>performance is somewhat marginal.  A quarter wave magmount works better!  I
>could just drill a hole in the roof, but something inside seems neat too.
>Also any information on loop type antennas for 2m/440, such as feeding,
>mounting,etc would be great.  Thanks!!

And Wayne, NH6GJ, continues:

   If you think the glass mount is marginal, then the patch antenna will be
   much worse.  I can normally reach the Diamond Head repeater with a 1/4
   wave or a glass mount Larson Dual Band antenna from my driveway, a
   distance of about 28 miles (probably more like 25 as the crow flies), but
   couldn't bring it up with the patch antenna when I tried it a few years
   ago.  They may have improved them, but I doubt it.  The size (capture
   area) just seems too small.

On 2 meters, anything inside a car is easily 10 dB or more worse
than a similar setup outside. The windows are quite small comp-
ared to the wavelength.

70 cm is easier, AMPS/TACS/NMT900/GSM or 23 cm even more...

Benjamin OH3BK

--
   Pentti "Benjamin" Gronlund                         [e-mail]
   Life member of IAAA, the International Association for Adjustment Aces
          *** Original Live Reports from the Taxman's Paradise ***


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:37 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Am I wasting my time looking for a 5/8 2m/70cm mobil antenna
Date: 7 Mar 1996 16:04:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4hn1f7$[e-mail]>
References: <4hn02t$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Edward Soniat du Fossat Jr) wrote:
>
>I am looking for a 2M/70cm dual band mobile that is 5/8 in BOTH 2m and 70cm.

You can't find one because an antenna that is 5/8 on 2m might as well
be made better than a 5/8 on 70cm. Comet and Diamond make antennas
that have the gain of a 5/8 on 2m and more gain than a 5/8 on 70cm.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Fellows)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: 4 Mar 1996 22:30:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4hfqtn$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>   <4hdlvj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes:
|> Paul,
|>
|> That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with only
|> one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else sought
|> such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent # 5457342.
|>
|> Those companies you mention have devices that are similar with respect to
|> cooling only if you care to follow the patents mentioned on my abstract.
|> However, NONE have developed the device I have NOR do they have a patent
|> on such a device. As such, I am the sole owner to pursue development of
|> this product or companies under infringement.
|>
|> Gaerhardt G. Herbst
|>


What I am wondering is what this has anything to do with amateur radio antenna
s,
homebrew, space, etc.?  The point is that this, and the preceding posts were
made to the amateur radio news groups.

Cooling of microprocessors, and your grandstanding of being awarded a patent a
re
of no interest to me or in any way pertinent to my interest in amateur radio.
And that is why the newsgroup(s) have those titles.

If you are looking for invetors, get a clue and do it somewhere else.

If you are simply so proud of yourself for being awarded a patent for what
appears to be anothers work, then HIP HIP HOORAY for you!  Now grow up and go
away.

Jim


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Laughton)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 06:50:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4hgo64$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>  <4hdlvj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

>Paul,

>That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with only
>one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else sought
>such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent # 5457342.

>Those companies you mention have devices that are similar with respect to
>cooling only if you care to follow the patents mentioned on my abstract.
>However, NONE have developed the device I have NOR do they have a patent
>on such a device. As such, I am the sole owner to pursue development of
>this product or companies under infringement.

>Gaerhardt G. Herbst

I am sorry if my statement upset you. It is just that I have seen so
many patents issued for which there is substantial prior art. Usually,
no one bothers to dispute these patents unless the patent holder
attempts to assert his or her 'rights.' Then it is a matter of who has
the most bucks to give to lawyers. The only people that really win in
these case are the lawyers.

I really do not know the details of your patent and what your claims
are. I just know that cooling of IC's has been used for many years to
stabilize ICs against environemental changes. Besides IBM, Amdahl,
etc, there are numerous military applications of the technique.

Closer to home, in the world of CCD imaging we have had TE cooled and
requlated ICs for many years. The cooling of CCDs is used  1) to lower
the thermoelectic noise and 2)  keep the noise (a function of
temperature) at a constant value (via feedback regulation).

The fact that no one else has attempted to patent this idea is
probably due to fact of its total lack of novelty. On the other hand,
since I can not imagine what you did come up with that is novel in
this arena, maybe you really do have something that is unique and of
value.

In any case, good luck.

-Paul



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan sawyer)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 04:16:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hlv15$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hg97g$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
>> Correct you Charles.
>>
>> Gerhardt G. Herbst
>>
>Whoops...I mean correct you are Charles...
>
>Gerhardt
>

In 1982 I put a Peltier Cooler on a 8087 coprocessor in an IBM computer in an
effort
to speed up the clock.  I had a PC board made and along with schematics and
documentation. This progressed into modules for 80287's.   In fact I hold the
record for
the highest speed attained using a 80287 in an IBM AT computer by cooling the
80287 down to -50 deg C.

I therefore have prior documented art on this invention and demand all royatie
s should
be sent to me.  <grin>

Jonathan Sawyer

FreeWave Technolgies




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Laughton)
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 02:54:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4hdlvj$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:


>Gerhardt G. Herbst II, is the patent holder for "Cold Spot Module".
>This product is for sale to an individual or manufacturer.

>The "Cold Spot Module" is used to effectively reduce the operating
>temperature of integrated circuits such as computer CPUs to maintain
>reliability under extreme operating conditions. This module is protected
>under a U.S. Utility Patent issued in October of 1995. A Utility patent
>provides the strongest protection under U.S. law.

>An independent North American Market Study was done on the product and the
>potential market has been identified.

>The product has not yet been introduced to the general public but is referenc
ed
>in the U.S. Patent catalog which is posted periodically. For an on-line refer
ence
>refer to:



>http://www.uspto.gov

>Search on Patent Number: 5457342

>The title abstract is: Integrated circuit cooling apparatus

>Note: A search on just the patent number will bring up the details.



>Exclusive rights can be purchased reasonably with negotiable license term.

>For further information, contact Gerhardt G. Herbst II.

>                                       Gerhardt G. Herbst II
>                                       133 Wynstay
>                                        Valley Park, MO 63088
>                                       Phone:  [phone]
>                                       E-mail: [e-mail]

I wonder how Mr Herbst slipped this one past the prior art
investigation? This technology has been around since the early 70's -
at least. For example, IBM and Amdahl main frames made extensive use
of it.





From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:43 1996
From: [e-mail](Charles Tutt )
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: 5 Mar 1996 02:34:24 GMT
Message-ID: <4hg97g$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:
>
>Paul,
>
>That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with
only
>one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else
sought
>such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent #
5457342.
>
>Those companies you mention have devices that are similar with respect
to
>cooling only if you care to follow the patents mentioned on my
abstract.
>However, NONE have developed the device I have NOR do they have a
patent
>on such a device. As such, I am the sole owner to pursue development
of
>this product or companies under infringement.
>
>Gaerhardt G. Herbst
>
I believe your final statement is too broad.  You may "preclude others
from practicing your invention" is closer to the correct formulation.



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:45 1996
Newsgroups: sci.astro.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.funds,misc.invest.canada
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Fred McKenzie)
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 17:29:01 -0500
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] wrote:
> That's a very blatent claim you make. This patent went through with only
> one need for clarification from the PTO. Obviously know one else sought
> such a patent which is evidence by the PTO issuing me patent # 5457342.

Gaerhardt-

I think some of us have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that your
invention duplicates prior art.  On the other hand, your statements do not
clearly show how it is different from prior art.

You are looking for investors to finance development of a product that on
the surface, appears to be old technology.  I suggest you revise your
"sales pitch", so that it is clear that your invention is (a) new, and (b)
of commercial value.  In other words, why would one want to use your
invention instead of existing spot-cooling techniques?

73, Fred, K4DII


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna arcing
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 00:55:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hhelc$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In message <4hhelc$[e-mail]> CHARLES J. MICHAELS wrote:

>
> Always provide a DC path to ground so that charge is leaked off as
> fast as it accumulates and it then does not get to sufficient voltage
> to arc anywhere.
>
> Charlie, W7XC

Hi Charlie

I dont know who started this thread, but I should like to append to yours
if I may.

The one time I heard a flashover from mine, I shorted and grounded the
connector. This grounding "switched on" a dim violet discharge from the
insulator up in the tree at the end of the dipole. Call me paranoid, but
I feared a strike, so I undid the halyards and lowered the whole antenna
onto the ground.

Since then I have seen an article in RadCom describing a homebrew foil-leaf
electroscope made up from an empty Nescafe jar and a bolt fitted into the
plastic lid. One end of the thin strip of foil is taped to the bolt such
that it hangs against it, and will deflect from the bolt if it gets charged.
This jar is used as a "charge monitor" if hooked to antenna line via a piece
of coax inner (dielectric makes good insulation!).

I have also seen a scheme where a dipole is "grounded" via 15K 20W resistors
sealed in plastic tubing, and mounted at the feedpoint. These have spark gaps
going around them, made of dipole wire filed sharp and set nearly touching.
Final trick is to file *very* sharp points onto the dipole ends at the
insulators. The rationale here is the corona "starts" at a much lower voltage
difference, and quietly discharges all the local fields, making it more likely
a strike will have to happen elsewhere. The antenna is held at near ground
potential by the resistor connection.

I don't know if the above notion  represents credible physics, but I can do
without being on the end of sharp pointy things squirting billions of ions
into a corona right under a thundercloud! If there are any experts on
lightning in this group - then do tell. This is a subject where real knowledge
seems a bit sparse.

73s G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna arcing
Date: 8 Mar 1996 04:51:33 GMT
Message-ID: <4hoecl$[e-mail]>


        I think it unwise to try to measure the magnitude of the
charge before thinking of disconnecting the feedline outside the
house and grounding it.  I also think it unwise to encourage start
or /// of a carona discharge since it may be the start of a strike
that would otherwise occur some where else.
        The discharge need not be made fast in my experience since
long ago before I took the precaution I found that the arc time
constant of build up to arc over was usually a t least a few seconds
and it doesn't take a very fast (i.e. low resitance to ground ) to
keep up with it.
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 14:35:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmseh$[e-mail]>
References: <4ha20h$[e-mail]> <4hid61$[e-mail]> <4hkcs4$[e-mail]> <4hmljj$[e-mail]>

   Hank Blackstock <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Another way to solve that problem is to use a Johnson Matchbox
>tuner instead of the Mickey Mouse tuners that are manufactured
>today.

Some of the new tuners seem to be pretty good.  Buying one with a
balun is sure a waste of money though.  :)

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:48 1996
From: Rolfe Tessem <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 11:56:22 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hmseh$[e-mail]> <4hmuql$[e-mail]>

W8JI Tom wrote:

> It's pretty easy to imply that the tuners are built poorly, but who would
> pay a couple of grand or more to buy a new tuner like the old Matchbox?
>
> A modified reversible L network; with no cabinet shielding, no balun and
> no warranty (using a little 12 or 14 gauge coil) costs a thousand bucks!
>
> Products are market driven, and most applications are filled nicely by
> todays 300 to 400 dollar tuners. that's why they're built the way they
> are.

Tom,

What is it about the Johnson Matchbox that makes you think they'd be so
expensive if they were manufactured to the same specs today? I have one, and
while I like it, I don't think there's anything inside that is significantly
more heavy-duty than the best of the currently-available tuners.

Rolfe W3VH

--
Rolfe Tessem      |    Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
[e-mail]     |    96 Morton Street
[phone]    |    New York, NY 10014


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:49 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: 6 Mar 1996 16:01:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4hkcs4$[e-mail]>
References: <4ha20h$[e-mail]> <4hid61$[e-mail]>

"Paul Christensen, N9AZ" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>The moral is that a non-resonant antenna length can be
>>made to resonate and radiate just as efficiently as a
>>resonant antenna length.
>
>George Grammer himself could't have done a finer job in making this
>point.

Thanks Paul, IMO almost all the loss problems associated with non-
resonant length ladder-line fed dipoles are in the network that
matches the balanced line to the unbalanced transmitter. I have
solved those problems and the results are almost unbelievable. My
tuner uses one parallel variable capacitor plus some toroids.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: antenna efficiency
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 96 18:47:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4hv8bn$[e-mail]>
References: <4hmseh$[e-mail]> <4hmuql$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   Rolfe Tessem <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Tom,
>
>What is it about the Johnson Matchbox that makes you think they'd be
>so expensive if they were manufactured to the same specs today? I
>have one, and while I like it, I don't think there's anything inside
>that is significantly more heavy-duty than the best of the
>currently-available tuners.
>
>Rolfe W3VH

I've been slowly collecting parts to build a 160-10M version of the KW
Match Box.  A few of the reasons for the expense Tom refers to are:

1.  The output coil in a link tuner needs to be approximately two to
three times the value of the coil in a T network.  This means the coil
must be much larger while still maintaining good Q.

2.  The switching in a link tuner is more complex than a T network.
For one thing, switching of the output coil requires a well-isolated,
two-deck RF switch.  This switch must have a much higher voltage
rating than the switch in a T network, which usually has the common
contact tied to ground.  The cost of this switch, plus the coil
assembly, is more than the cost of even a good roller inductor.

In order to cover 160M through 10M, it may also be necessary to use
additional switch decks to add more capacitance on 160M.  The
alternative would be larger variable capacitors with vernier drives,
but the necessary capacitors would be outrageously expensive.  Also,
the tuner would probably approach the size of a small block V8.

Coverage down to 160M will require that the input link be switched as
well, and this represents another not-insignificant cost.

3.  In order to minimize stray capacitance and optimize balance, the
link tuner should have as few connections to the output coil as
possible.  This means that rather than being tapped helter-skelter at
as many places as possible, the taps should be placed only where
they're needed, on a band-by-band basis.  Considerable engineering
time is required to establish the proper location of these taps.

4.  For best balance, the link tuner requires two series variable
capacitors.  They must be isolated from each other and from ground,
but must be capable of being rotated as a single unit.  The tuner also
requires at least a third variable capacitor in parallel with the
output coil.  If the design calls for this capacitor to be split, with
the center grounded (as in the Match Box), then each section must have
twice the capacitance of a single unit.  All of this is more complex
and costly than a T network tuner.

5.  The capacitor plate spacing in my KW Match Box is much larger than
the capacitors in my mid-70's Dentron 3KW tuner, and the Dentron was
not a cheap tuner in its day.  I've also heard that current 3KW tuners
from MFJ use spacing that's smaller than the 275W Match Box.  I know
MFJ doesn't make the most expensive tuners on the market, but are you
sure your statement comparing the Johnson parts to others is accurate?
I can only remember a few times in 30 years that I've seen capacitors
this large, and those were in (or removed from) commercial equipment.

I also want to say that the interest in balanced tuners has made
me think about going into production.  I've examined methods of
manufacturing the switches, the coils and the capacitors that would
save cost over the purchase of commercially-available components.
However, when one adds the cost of these components to the chassis,
paint and silkscreening, engineering time, production time, and
advertising and marketing, it's a *major* loss for anything less than
$1,000 each.

To illustrate this more directly, the KW Match Box could be purchased
at one time with the directional coupler and meter for about $150.00.
That year, new fuel-injected Corvettes were selling for less than
$4,000.00.  The ratio of the "then" and "now" cost of the car is about
9:1, and if you apply that to the Match Box, it should sell for $1,350
in today's economy.  Even at that, you'd still have to update its
frequency coverage with the addition of larger and more costly parts.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna for apartment
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 14:51:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmtb0$[e-mail]>
References: <4hicb8$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Steve Silverwood) wrote:
>Here's the situation:
>
>I live in a downstairs apartment with a small backyard.
        <snip>
>Being a Tech Plus licensee, I will probably want to go for 40m CW
>operation.  I've considered the Butternut bowtie beam antenna, but
>not sure about how it will perform in the above environment.

Seems to me your two biggest problems will be A) finding an
antenna that is both efficient and unobtrusive, and B) TVI/RFI.

The first could be solved reasonably well with a shortened dipole
made from magnet wire and fed with TV twinlead.  If this was driven
by a 275 watt Johnson Matchbox (and if the run of line was reasonably
short), you could have a pretty efficient system.

The severity of the second problem depends in large part on whether
your neighbors already know that you're a ham.  <g>  Other than that,
TVI will be minimized by using a low pass filter at the output of the
rig.  TVI and RFI will both be minimized by using a balanced antenna
that doesn't rely on earth ground to prevent unwanted radiation from
other parts of the system.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:53 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 20:58:22 GMT
Reply-To: choffman @pelican.davlin.net
References: <3573@NJ7P> <4hjilt$[e-mail]>

Would not suggest using pvc for all above mentioned reasons; better
choice might be Delrin (tm) or Lexan(tm) plastic tubes...much better.
73 K5SBU


[e-mail] (Wolfgang Gellerich) wrote:

>In article <3573@NJ7P>, [e-mail] (Jack Taylor) writes:
>|> Today started to assemble a J-pole antenna for 224 MHz.  Used number
>|> 12 solid wire and planned on enclosing it inside a length of 1 in dia
>|> PVC pipe.  Using a grid dip meter, cut the antenna to resonate on 224.
>|>
>|> However upon inserting it inside the pipe, the resonant frequency dipped
>|> about 8 MHz lower!  Went ahead and trimmed it some more until resonance
>|> inside the pipe was reached at 224 MHz.  In this case at least, looks
>|> like PVC affects the VF of the physical dimensions by 0.91 as compared
>|> to free space.
>|>
>|> Has anyone else on the group have experience with placing an antenna
>|> inside of PVC pipe?
>|>

>As  far as I know, the PVC molecules can become "activated" by certain
>frequencies, and PVC is generally not considered to be a good choice
>as material to construct antennas from.

>73s, Wolfgang DJ3TZ




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rane Curl)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 7 Mar 1996 17:27:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4hn69p$[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P> <4hjilt$[e-mail]> <4hn62g$[e-mail]>

In article <4hn62g$[e-mail]>,
Rane Curl <[e-mail]> wrote:

>(vacuum is 1.0), so the capacitance is increased, and the resonant
>frequency is lowered - by a *factor* of 4.3, in fact, if we lived in a

By a *factor* of SQRT(4.3) - sorry about that. Should think first...
Rane    N8REG




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:55 1996
From: Alan Doherty <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:58:01 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P>

In article <3573@NJ7P>, Jack Taylor <[e-mail]> writes
>Today started to assemble a J-pole antenna for 224 MHz.  Used number
>12 solid wire and planned on enclosing it inside a length of 1 in dia
>PVC pipe.  Using a grid dip meter, cut the antenna to resonate on 224.
>
>However upon inserting it inside the pipe, the resonant frequency dipped
>about 8 MHz lower!  Went ahead and trimmed it some more until resonance
>inside the pipe was reached at 224 MHz.  In this case at least, looks
>like PVC affects the VF of the physical dimensions by 0.91 as compared
>to free space.
>
>Has anyone else on the group have experience with placing an antenna
>inside of PVC pipe?
>
>73 de Jack
>
Hi Jack,
        I have made various J-Pole and Slim Jim type antennas inserted
in PVC water pipe. One thing to be aware of is  the properties of some
plastic materials change in sunlight. I had this problem occur with one
antenna fitted to a boat, after a few years I noticed the SWR had gone
up quite a bit. Thinking salt water had got in, I stripped the antenna
down. But it was as clean as the day it was made, so I checked the SWR
outside the PVC pipe and it was OK. But it shot up again when placed
into the pipe. Make sure the PVC you use is UV stabilized.
Good luck, and have fun.

73's
                  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                  +     Happiness IS Amateur Radio      +
                  +        Alan Doherty, GI0OTC         +
                  +   E-Mail: [e-mail]   +
                  +               ******                +
                  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:57 1996
From: AC6V <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 5 Mar 1996 15:08:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4hhlcg$[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P>
To: [e-mail]

Hi Jack, A QSO on the repeater here involved a similar situation for an HF
antenna in PVC pipe. The builder sed that the PVC he used had a lot of
carbon in it. He changed the type of PVC and solved the problem. Check the
supplier of your PVC for composition. This is unverified by me but maybe
worth checking on.

73
Rod

--
*****************************************************************
Hark! I Have Hurled My Words To The Far Reaches Of The Earth!
What King Of Old Could Do Thus ?  --- AC6V
*****************************************************************
A Man May Know Of The World Without Leaving The Shelter Of His
Own Home!
Loa-Tsze
*****************************************************************




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Fellows)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 7 Mar 1996 22:59:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4hnpp4$[e-mail]>
References: <3573@NJ7P> <4hjilt$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Well, I remember this thread from just a month ago, but don't remember the res
ults.

My question is, what about other "plumbing" materials for supports.

Such as a boom for a 435 helix or yagi made of ABS.  Elements not inside suppo
rt.

I'm not sure about the correctness of the microwave test method, and know of n
o
other way of testing.


Jim


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas in PVC pipe
Date: 9 Mar 1996 20:02:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4hso45$[e-mail]>


Jack said -
        I've never used PVC pipe over an antenna, but I know the insolated wire
does make a big differance. I thought I'd be smart and I substuted a
lenght of #12 PVC insolated house wire for the stainless steel whip on a
2 meter mobile antenna, as it would be easer to trim to frequecy, and I
would then just transfer the lenght to the steel whip. I did that and
recheck the SWR and it was 4 to 1. It turned out that it was about 3 in
too short and I had to buy a new steel whip and do it over. It was a good
(?) example of dielectric loading. This happens at all frequencies, but
is more noticable at higher frequencies.
John Passaneau, WB8EIY, State College, Pa.

        Jack,
        Was the diameter of the whip the same as that of the #12 wire?
        The diameter also influences the resonant frequency.
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:10:59 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: AR-22 Rotator Limit
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:15:26 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Can anyone tell me what the maximum rating (square feet) is for a CDR AR-22
rotator with the antenna mounted at zero height above the rotator?

Thanks,

Tony Stalls, K4KYO
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:00 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Best tall dual band vertical?
Date: 7 Mar 1996 14:20:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmrbb$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Having taken down a Valor Pro-Am 555 16.5-foot dual band vertical
due to skyrocketing SWR and finding lots of moisture in the base
as well as pieces of loose metal in the radome, I'd like to replace
it with a similar antenna but one which will survive northern Ohio
wind and moisture better than the 555.  Thank you for your
suggestions.  --Bill KB8USZ [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best way to insall a Rohn HBX tower
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 02:26:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4hlhhn$[e-mail]>
References: <4hia6a$[e-mail]>

In article <4hia6a$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (WB7ASR) wrote:
>I purchased a Rohn HBDX-40 self-supporting tower with the three
>four foot long concrete base leg L-stubs. After I dig my base hole
>and install the rebar, what is the best way to install the three tower
>base leg L-stubs into the hole before the concrete is poored to insure
>they will be level and ture once the concrete has been poured?

Tom, what I did was attach the stubs to the first tower section.
I then places my 2x6 forms around the edge of the hole. Then, I
place two lengths of 2x4 across the forms in a cross pattern. I
straddled the cross with the bottom section with the three stubs
dangling in the hole. (make sue the dont touch the rebar). I
placed attached 3 pieces of rope to the section about 7 feet up
from the bottom and anchored them with stakes about 10 feet from
it, one per side. Each length of rope was a double run. Imagine
them as 3 guys, one per side. I placed a short dowell in each
doubled run and placed a level against the parallel part of the
section sides. By alternately tightening the 3 rope "guys", in a
tourniquet manner, I got to a point where the sides of the section
were all perpendicular and reasonable tension was placed on the 3
"guys". This prevents the section from moving when the concrete
hits it going into the hole. My HBX 56 has been up for 11 years
with my TH5 on it and is still perpendicular. Good Luck.

John, NJ0M



John S. Hill, NJ0M
Product Engineer
Timewave Technology
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:02 1996
From: Robert Bissett <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best way to insall a Rohn HBX tower
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 13:36:48 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hia6a$[e-mail]>
To: WB7ASR <[e-mail]>

WB7ASR wrote:
>
> I purchased a Rohn HBDX-40 self-supporting tower with the three
> four foot long concrete base leg L-stubs. After I dig my base hole
> and install the rebar, what is the best way to install the three tower
> base leg L-stubs into the hole before the concrete is poored to insure
> they will be level and ture once the concrete has been poured?

I helped a friend install one of these recently. Attach the stubs
to the bottom section of the tower. Get three friends with vertical
levels. On pouring day prop the legs in the center of the hole with
one man on each leg with a level on a leg of the tower. Pour SLOWLY
 and have the leg holders keep the section vertical as the concrete
 is poured. Once the hole is filled it will be difficult to correct
 any lean.

Bob ND2L
--
      *********
Bob Bissett      [e-mail]
      *********


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best way to insall a Rohn HBX tower
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 04:12:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4hj3an$[e-mail]>
References: <4hia6a$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (WB7ASR) wrote:

>I purchased a Rohn HBDX-40 self-supporting tower with the three
>four foot long concrete base leg L-stubs. After I dig my base hole
>and install the rebar, what is the best way to install the three tower
>base leg L-stubs into the hole before the concrete is poored to insure
>they will be level and ture once the concrete has been poured?
===============================================================
Rohn publishes an EXCELLENT consumer's technical manual that REALLY
tells you how to install their stuff. You obviously don't have it.
Phone ROHN and ask for it. I am not sure what they call it these days,
but if you ask them the above question, they will know just what you
need.

Jerry       W4UKU      [e-mail]






From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:04 1996
From: Jay <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best way to insall a Rohn HBX tower
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 09:04:48 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hia6a$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

> WB7ASR wrote:
> >
> > I purchased a Rohn HBDX-40 self-supporting tower with the three
> > four foot long concrete base leg L-stubs. After I dig my base hole
> > and install the rebar, what is the best way to install the three tower
> > base leg L-stubs into the hole before the concrete is poored to insure
> > they will be level and ture once the concrete has been poured?
> Tom,
do yourself a BIG favor and get the instruction sheets from Rohn.  In it you'l
l
see how to make a template using a scrap piece of plywood.  This template, wit
h
the L-stubs hanging from it, is then placed over your hole in the ground befor
e or
during the concrete pour.  There is no need to play with the lower tower secti
on
at all using this method, much easier, much safer, much lighter, less manpower

needed during the pour.  Myself and one other person was all that was needed w
hen
we poured the concrete for my Rohn HDBX-48 behind my house.  Call Rohn, get th
e
instructions, you'll be glad you did.

Good Luck

Jay
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:05 1996
From: steffey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Building a 2m yagi ?
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 11:53:44 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello,
Can anyone tell me a place on the internet to find the
design to build a 2m yagi antenna.( or a shareware
program to figure the lengths).

thanks in advance,
bryan


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (IIHHSS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: ButterNut Vertical...Ground Plane on Motor Home..HELP..HELP!!!
Date: 2 Mar 1996 23:32:25 -0500
Message-ID: <4hb7cp$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (IIHHSS)

I just bought a Butternut Vertical and will be placing it on my Motor
Home. I am very concerned about getting a GOOD GROUND / GROUND PLANE.
My motor home has an aluminum sheet roof covered with aluminum roof
compound. I think I will be mounting my Butternut on the aluminum ladder
that is on the rear of my motor home ( the ladder used to to climb up to
the roof ).

SO what is the best way to get a GOOD GROUND PLANE? What is the best
method of grounding? I have heard about radials ...do I need any type of
radial for my Butternut?

Oh, by the way I think my Butternut will be apprx. 10-12ft. from the
ground to the bottom off the Butternut.

PLEASE ANY and ALL help would be GREATLY APPRECIATED....

Thank You,

PAT


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Nuytens)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Comet GP9-N vs Diamond X500HNA
Date: 7 Mar 1996 04:49:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4hlptb$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In message <[e-mail]> - Jeff DePolo WN3A <depolo@interm
e
diainc.com> writes:
:>
:>Has anyone had the chance to compare these two antennas?  At one of my
:>repeater sites, I'm going to be replacing VHF and UHF monoband antennas
:>with a single dual-band antenna, and am trying to decide which.  I have
:>a Diamond X500HNA that I used for a while on the 2m and 440 remote bases
:>tied to a repeater, and, although it was OK, it's performance on UHF
:>didn't compare favorably to single-band UHF antennas that I've A/B
:>compared it to at the same site (Celwave PD-455, Diamond F718A, etc.),
:>so I'm wondering if the Comet GP9-N is a better alternative.
:>

<snip>

Our group replaced a defective Diamond after 2 years of service with one of
these Comet atennas in September 1995. It too early to tell about durability,
but patterns appear to be just about indenticle.

The one thing that we noiced was that all the phasing sections in the Diamond
were crimp-on connections where the Comet's are soldered. Also, the Diamond
developed a leak in the upper-most section that then corroded much of the top
third of the antenna. Not a resounding testimony for Diamond, IMHO.

Unfortunately, both antennas seem to flop around a bit in the wind, so I
expect the same problems with the Comet in about 2 years time.

:>
:>I can't understand why Celwave or Decibel haven't come out with a good
:>fiberglass-radomed dual-band antenna yet.  From what I've seen, "good"
:>and "dual-band" don't go as well together as the ham-grade antenna
:>manufacturers might have you believe.
:>

I can figure it out either. We once toyed around with the idea of enclosing
our dual-band antenna in a hollowed out radome, but you don't see people
replacing those very often in the first place.



Jim Nuytens  N3JJA/Delaware                     Email:
V.P., Delaware Repeater Association     73700.12 @ compuserve.com
Seitz Technical Products                    Jim @ Seitz.com

             Delaware Ham Shack BBS  302-798-2002

All opinions stated above are my own, which probably accounts
for their unpopularity.



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:09 1996
From: Jeff DePolo WN3A <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Comet GP9-N vs Diamond X500HNA
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 01:41:40 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Has anyone had the chance to compare these two antennas?  At one of my
repeater sites, I'm going to be replacing VHF and UHF monoband antennas
with a single dual-band antenna, and am trying to decide which.  I have
a Diamond X500HNA that I used for a while on the 2m and 440 remote bases
tied to a repeater, and, although it was OK, it's performance on UHF
didn't compare favorably to single-band UHF antennas that I've A/B
compared it to at the same site (Celwave PD-455, Diamond F718A, etc.),
so I'm wondering if the Comet GP9-N is a better alternative.

Whichever antenna I get will be top-mounted.  I'm all too familiar with
the problems of pattern distortion caused by these flimsy amateur-grade
antennas flopping around in the wind.  I've been dissapointed with the
Hustler 2m/440 dual-bander (both the old and new styles), so that's not
an option -- any others you think I should consider?

For what it's worth, the new antenna will be replacing a Celwave PD-400
and a Diamond F-22A.  The reason for the change is to able to use a
higher spot on the tower (the top) for both a UHF voice repeater
currently using a side-mounted PD-400 and an APRS digi using a
side-mounted F-22A.  I'm primarily interested in UHF performance
differences.  The antenna will be mounted a little shy of 1000' HAAT, so
I am also weighing the option of a lower-gain antenna as well in the
interest of preventing overshoot across a long, wide valley immediately
west of the repeater site.

I can't understand why Celwave or Decibel haven't come out with a good
fiberglass-radomed dual-band antenna yet.  From what I've seen, "good"
and "dual-band" don't go as well together as the ham-grade antenna
manufacturers might have you believe.

                                                --- Jeff
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeff DePolo  WN3A
[e-mail]
Twisted Pair: H:610-337-7383 W:215-387-3059 x300
RF: 442.1 442.2 442.4 443.45 443.8 444.15 449.925 linked


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 20:05:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4hnfoi$[e-mail]>
References: <4hmq97$[e-mail]> <4hmru6$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:

>I didn't consider that one Jack. Sorta like asking your XYL if you
>can buy a new rig and she answers "I don't know"!

You know, I get that same response when I ask if she'd prefer a
240 foot tower to a 60, or whether I should replace my dipole with
80 through 10 meter monoband yagis.

I have to say though, she's really looking forward to the $30,000
equipment shelter that's going in where the garage used to be.  She
knows it's an investment that will be here long after the memories
of that Antigua trip would be dull and faded.  :)

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 96 13:58:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmq97$[e-mail]>
References: <4hjclh$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS) wrote:

>IMO, the most reliable answer anyone can give is "I don't know".
>That's the one answer in life we can absolutely depend on being
>correct.

Unless they're lying.  <g>

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: 7 Mar 1996 09:30:30 -0500
Message-ID: <4hmru6$[e-mail]>
References: <4hmq97$[e-mail]>

In article <4hmq97$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (WB3U) writes:

>Unless they're lying.  <g>
>
>73,
>Jack  WB3U

I didn't consider that one Jack. Sorta like asking your XYL if you can buy
a new rig and she answers "I don't know"!


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:12 1996
From: "Oliver P. Timme" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: construction plan for a 2m beam
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 09:34:59 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Hello

Im looking for a design plan to build a 2m beam (three or five
elements). Has anyone such a plan (you can mail it). Or know anyone a
location on the net where I can get such a construction plan. Thanks.

73 Oliver


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert G. Strickland)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Cubical Quad Antennas for HF
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 15:40:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4hneh4$[e-mail]>
References: <4fsgkr$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hhe26$[e-mail]> <4hjvvd$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:


>Do you have a way to contact Lighting Bolts Antennas

>73's

>Mike

There phone number is: [412] 530-7396
Mike Duddy, WB2ECM

...Robert


Robert G. Strickland KE2WY
[e-mail]
Syracuse, New York



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:14 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Cubical Quad Antennas for HF
Date: 6 Mar 1996 05:21:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4hjvvd$[e-mail]>
References: <4fsgkr$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hhe26$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <4hhe26$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert G.
 Strickland) writes:
>Charlie...
>I have been using a Lightning Bolt Quad for four years in Central NY.
>We get some strange weather here, and the LBQ has held up fine. I have
>the five band version, and I'm pleased with its performance. Be that
>as it may, I am planning to redesign/reconstruct it this summer. This
>does not reflect on the original design/construction. I've been
>modeling quads with EZNEC, and I'd just like to put my "knowledge" to
>use. LBQ uses aluminum welding wire. It is a bit difficult to work
>with, but its strength to weight ratio is excellent. While one cannot
>predict these things, I have the sense that it could stay up there for
>some time before anything happens to the wires - what ususally goes in
>a quad. Performance wise, quads are the best compact beam there is.
>You just can't get a better performing antenna in such a small space.
>....Robert
>
>
>
>Robert G. Strickland KE2WY
>[e-mail]
>Syracuse, New York
>
Do you have a way to contact Lighting Bolts Antennas

73's

Mike


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (ZaaX)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Discone Radiation Patterns?
Date: 8 Mar 1996 01:25:02 -0500
Message-ID: <4hojru$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ZaaX)

Can anyone out there tell me what type of radiation pattern a VHF/UHF
discone exhibits? Is it roughly equal to a 1/4 wave or what? I looked in
all of
my antenna books (including the Arrl antenna book) but could find nothing
about this. Any info will be greatly appreciated!

73 Zack Schindler
N8FNR

EN82KL


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Martin N6MZV)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Discone Radiation Patterns?
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 19:35:31 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hojru$[e-mail]>

In article <4hojru$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (ZaaX) wrote:

> Can anyone out there tell me what type of radiation pattern a VHF/UHF
> discone exhibits? Is it roughly equal to a 1/4 wave or what? I looked in
> all of
> my antenna books (including the Arrl antenna book) but could find nothing
> about this. Any info will be greatly appreciated!
>
> 73 Zack Schindler
> N8FNR
>
> EN82KL

Roughly like a 1/4 wave, with the take-off angle increasing with frequency

73-

--

Bob Martin N6MZV          * [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Erecting 100 ft tower on 800-900ft hill
Date: 8 Mar 1996 01:22:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4ho256$[e-mail]>
References: <4hfjhg$[e-mail]>

In article <4hfjhg$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>
>Hi everyone,
>     I am planning to erect a 100 ft tower (Rohn 55) on a hill of
800-900ft
>elevation.  I realize that the winds will be strong up here, so I plan
on
>reinforcing everything.  This is my question: what can I do to the tower
>and / or antennas to make them stronger and more wind resistant?

A must read: Physical Design of Yagi Antennas, by David B. Leeson, W6QHS
ARRL bookstore. around 20 dollars

This book not only tells you how to strengthen antennas and towers for
hill top mounting, but also explores the propagation take off angle
associated with sloping terrain ( e.g. you can actually mount an antenna
too high!!)

Highly recommended

73,

MUR



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gayle Lawson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Erecting 100 ft tower on 800-900ft hill
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 02:53:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4hgahh$[e-mail]>
References: <4hfjhg$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Brad Charbonneau) wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>     I am planning to erect a 100 ft tower (Rohn 55) on a hill of 800-900ft
>elevation.  I realize that the winds will be strong up here, so I plan on
>reinforcing everything.  This is my question: what can I do to the tower
>and / or antennas to make them stronger and more wind resistant?
>     One ham suggested that I line the inner part of the antenna elements wit
h
>rope in order to prevent the oscillations of the elements in the wind.  He
>also recommended that I insert a thinner metal tubing piece inside part of th
e
>boom in order to make the boom stronger.  I have wondered if increasing the
>amount of guying to the tower (ie every 15 ft rather than say every 25-20ft)
would make the tower stronger against the wind...
>     If anyone has any comments, or anything else they know of that I could
>do to make this setup more wind resistant, I'd really appreciate it.  Maybe
>building my own antennas from scratch (w/ computer modeling prog) would make
>the strongest antennas...Any suggestions/info is greatly appreciated!
>     Thanks in advance!

>73, Brad NZ1Y

Brad:

Sounds like a winner of QTH.  Rohn has some application sheets that
you can request which will give you some insites on guying and wind
rating of the model 55 tower (25 and 45 also).

Also you might E-mail Steve N0YVY ( [e-mail]) and ask  for his
model 55 calculations.  Steve is a mechanical engineer ( with PE
certificate) that has some how gone crazy and now writes software for
a living.

More guy wires may not be the answer, remember that guyed towers
vector the wind force down to the base, they are rated by the force
that is required to collapse  the bottom section.  As you add more guy
wires you put more preload on the bottom section leaving less margin
for the  forces created by the wind.

I believe that Ham Radio magazine had several articles on how towers
were design etc.  You might try finding these.


Gayle W0FO





 Gayle Lawson W0FO




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: feed point impedance calc for length of wire or tubing ?
Date: 7 Mar 1996 16:52:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4hn490$[e-mail]>
References: <4hm8bn$[e-mail]>

Thilo Kootz ([e-mail]) wrote:
: VE4KLM <[e-mail]> wrote:

: >Given a length of wire or tubing, is there a practical formula I
: >can use to determine the feed point impedance for the following
: >scenarios (the resistive component anyway) ?

: >     1. length of wire or tubing, end fed

: >     2. length of wire or tubing, center fed (dipole like)

: >If the formula includes natural inductance & capacitance, even better.

: if you get a positive answer, please let me know. i posted a similar
: question about 4 weeks ago. but no usable answer !
: 73 thilo dl9kce


Well, one practical formula is implemented in NEC.  It's made practical by
the availability of computing power.  The question asked is not an easy one
to answer in a simple textbook fashion, though there are some reasonable
engineering approximations.  Although NEC will give you numerical answers,
I would suggest that you do some reading to get a better qualitative and
semi-quantitative understanding of what's going on.  I highly recommend
Joseph Boyer's "The Antenna-Transmission Line Analog" from April and May,
1977, "Ham Radio" magazine.  It really does help you calculate feedpoint
impedances, though it refers back to a book, King, Mimno and Wing's
"Transmission Lines, Antennas and Wave Guides," for graphs of resistance
versus length and diameter.  I highly recommend that book, too, though
finding it may be a problem.  I have to say I've learned far more from that
article and that book than from all the discussions I've seen posted here.

But if all you want is numerical answers and not understanding, by all
means get your hands on some NEC implementation.  I use Roy Lewallen's
EZNEC and like it, but there are others that will do the trick too,
including freeware.  And trying out different configurations in NEC can
really help drive home the ideas you learn from your reading, too.

(Also be aware that for the original question, the answer depends on the
environment, not just the radiator the feedline is connected to.  This is
especially true for the end-fed wire, which must be fed against
_something_.  The answer will be different feeding against an infinite
ground plane or feeding in freespace against a 1/4 wave long stub, as in a
J-Pole, or feeding against, say, a pie tin...)

--
Cheers,
Tom
[e-mail]

PS -- I have a standing offer to make copies of the Boyer article for the
cost of postage and copying, since Ham Radio mag is no longer around and it
may be difficult for most folk to find this article.  I'll include copies
of some relevant pages of King's book, too.


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: feed point impedance calc for length of wire or tubing ?
Date: 9 Mar 1996 20:26:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4hsphl$[e-mail]>


VE4KLM asked
iven a length of wire or tubing, is there a practical formula I
can use to determine the feed point impedance for the following
scenarios (the resistive component anyway) ?

        1. length of wire or tubing, end fed

        2. length of wire or tubing, center fed (dipole like)

If the formula includes natural inductance & capacitance, even better.

Thanks in advance,

Maiko Langelaar
VE4KLM

        Yes, see Shelkunoff *ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES* VanNostrand 1943
chapter XI
        Or, use ELNEC for both getting center fed as fee/// free space
value and free space end fed by treating as a monopole over perfect \
earth.
        of course either of these will be different if antenna is
below about .2 wavelengths over real earth.

Charlie,  W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: feed point impedance calc for length of wire or tubing ?
Date: 9 Mar 1996 20:40:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4hsqb6$[e-mail]>


In my reply to VE4KLM's question
iven a length of wire or tubing, is there a practical formula I
can use to determine the feed point impedance for the following
scenarios (the resistive component anyway) ?

        1. length of wire or tubing, end fed

        2. length of wire or tubing, center fed (dipole like)

If the formula includes natural inductance & capacitance, even better.

Thanks in advance,

Maiko Langelaar
VE4KLM
        I mispelled Schelkunoff
        See Schelkunoff *ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES* VanNostrand 1943
chapter XI.  You need not solve the complicated equations as he
provides a set of curves of length against K which is a simple
equation in the text.  Ues... Use the *half values * for a monople
to get the end fed casel.
        Of course these will only apply to an antenna more than
about .2 wavelengthts above real earth since local induction field
induced losses are not included
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Nicolaides)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: FS: Wilson 77 foot Self-supporting tower
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 96 16:14:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4hsalr$[e-mail]>

Wilson ST77 Tubular crankup tower:

- motorized winch for hoisting
- built in gin pole with hand winch for tilt-over
- Ham 4 rotor
- Cushcraft A3S three element tri band beam
- Cushcraft Rotatable dipole for 30, 17 and 12 meters
- Hi-gain 40 meter rotatable dipole
- Ringo Ranger 2 for two meters
- tower rated for 17 sq ft wind area

$1700 takes all, shipping to be negotiated

call Tom Nicolaides, WA5ZCC
504.649-3847
email [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:24 1996
From: [e-mail] (KERBUGH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: GAP VERTICLES
Date: 9 Mar 1996 20:22:38 -0500
Message-ID: <4htasu$[e-mail]>
References: <4hb3i1$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (KERBUGH)

I have a Challenger ground mounted (using the GAP counterpoise kit)
approx. 30 from the house.  Too many overhead powerlines cris-crossing the
back yard so I had to put it in the side yard.  With no guying it has
stood up rather well, except that it has developed a slight 'lean' :-\ so
guying would be suggested.  While I am *not* very active as a DX'er, my
experience in the past 5 months suggests that it is no better than my
trusty old dipole.  This may be due to 1) me 2) location or 3)conditions
but I would suggest not to expect miracles.  Two things that make a
vertical worth while is being able to switch bands without re-tuning and
the ability to work 80 meters.  At a distance of 60 feet you shouldn't
have any trouble tuning your vertical as supplied, being so close to the
house I have trouble tuning 12 meters and I had to mess with 20 meters
(added approx. 6" to the 20 meter tuning rod) to get an acceptable SWR.
Hope this helps a little.

Alan
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:24 1996
From: [e-mail] (Phil Leinhauser)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: GPS antenna plans?
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:43:36 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I think I remember seeing plans for a roof mounted GPS antenna in a magazine
somwhere but I can't remember where.  Does anyone know of a good design for
using it while mobile?  I think the one I saw was made of some pieces of
pc board (very simple).

Thanks & 73
Phil
KE3VQ


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:25 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: help with indoor antenna for Kenwood TS450SAT
Message-ID: <1996Mar9.135005.2544@hobbit>
From: [e-mail] (Dinakar)
Date: 9 Mar 96 13:50:05 EDT

Hello all:

I would like to build or buy indoor antenna for my HF radio (kenwood TS450sAT)
with internal antenna tuner.  I would like to know which antenna will be good
 and if it works on all bands 10-80 M would be nice.  I would appreciate,
if you could give some antenna construction plans.  I will be traveling to
Japan very soon and I would like to install antenna indoor.  Moreover, I have
heard that apartments in Japan are really small and I dont have any idea what
will be the dimensions of apartment would be.

I would like to use only the internal antenna tuner as external that I have is
some what bulky to carry with me.

Please let me know what kinda of antenna I can build so that I can feed with
just coax directly from antenna to radio.

thank you very much for your help.

73
Dinakar KG8OE
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:26 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: how can a duckie be 4-7db?
Date: 7 Mar 1996 23:27:04 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hnrc8$[e-mail]>
References: <4hgmgi$[e-mail]> <4hhehb$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:
>In article <4hgmgi$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff
>Hall) writes:
>
>>
>>  I was reading an ad about rubber duckie for your hand held that have a
>>4-7db. and yet you can get a large out side 2 meter ant which the same

>They can be MINUS 4 to 7 dB, but certainly not plus (in reference to a 1/2
>wave or isotropic radiator)

I was assuming 4-7db meant 4 minus 7 db. :-)

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How much RF pwr does an ant tuner consume?
Date: 9 Mar 1996 20:06:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4hsobk$[e-mail]>


        It has been pointed out that measurements of current, voltage
and SWR on a balanced line can provide data for calculation of poer///
power.  Be careful that the insertion of measurement devices into the
line does not change its operation by the stray or paracitic impedances
intoduced by the measurement system.
Charlie,  W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Emarit Ranu)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: is kraus alive?
Date: 8 Mar 1996 17:55:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4hpsas$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Anibal Aguirre ([e-mail]) wrote:
: i`d like to know if the autor of "the antenna bible" is alive today.
: please sorry...sorry for my ignorance.
: if he`s alive, i`d like write him.
: sorry again.
: 73,                          anibal.
:                               LU4DVJ

        My Electromagnetics book copyrighted 1992 by him says he is
        "teaching while serving as a consultant to government and industry".


--
        -Emarit, KG0CQ  73's   [e-mail]
        Electrical Engineering, Colorado State Univeristy
        Packet:                KG0CQ@KF0UW.#NECO.USA.NOAM
        All generalizations are bad.  Censorship:  ######
        _._  __.  _____  _._.  __._


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:29 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: J-pole
Date: 11 Mar 1996 09:00:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4i0q34$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

>I later read where someone insulated the twinlead from the
>inside of the pipe and all was well. I blv they used some non-conductive
>foam that they split lengthwise and inserted the twinlead then fit the
>whole thing into the plastic tube.

Hi Wayne,

Twin lead is not rally a very good idea for a j-pole. So all the effort
with weatherproofing, foam and the rest is a bit of a waste.
Try to build your antenna from *metal* and not from plastic.

73, Moritz DL5UH




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:29 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: KLM phone number
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960306141542.20278A-100000@sunbird>
From: "C.M. (Chris) Christensen" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:19:35 -0600
Distribution: world

I have been trying to reach KLM to order some parts for a KT34A but both
phone numbers I have are incorrect.  If you have a working number for
them please e-mail it to me.

Thanks es 73, Chris AC0M
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Leder)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Need Info on G5RV Antenna
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 00:41:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4hqk49$[e-mail]>
References: <4ho8ga$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Brian Mileshosky) wrote:

>Hello Everybody,
>  I am thinking of buying a G5RV antenna.  Are these antennas pretty
>good? How about on 80 and 40? And I have heard they can be used on 160
>meters.  How does it to on that band?
>  All information would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
>Best of 73,
>Brian, N5ZGT...


>________________________________________________________________________
> Boy Scouts of America                   Amateur Radio
>  J.A.S.M. - Troop 41                        N5ZGT
>    Albuquerque, NM            Packet: N5ZGT @ KC5IZT.ALBQ.NM.USA.NA
> Great Southwest Council           Internet: [e-mail]
>    O.A. Lodge 66
>_______________________________________________________________________

I've had one up I made, real easy to do, in an inverted vee
configuration. The center is only 40 feet up but it still works ok. I
won't say its the best antenna I've ever had, but for the cost and the
effort its pretty good. It is best on 40/20 and ok on 80. Not much
good on 15/10. I only run a barefoot TS450sat into it and the tuner is
required. Never even tried it on 160 but saw some other posts
suggesting ways to do that.
    Jim   ...K8CXM



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (destiny admin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: New Radio Program
Date: 7 Mar 1996 00:38:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4hlb5c$[e-mail]>

Destiny Software is a developer of video games like JAM! (shareware),
Darkseed II and Blood Bowl.  You can check out our WEB site at:

http://www.destiny-software.com/destiny

Now we're experimenting with RADIO!

We have just successfully broadcast good quality music and speech over
the internet (receiving with a 28 800 modem).  (Our compression
algorithm is much faster and better quality than others we've tried.)
We plan to allow non-commercial users to broadcast for free,
encouraging a wide variety of viewpoints in this new medium.
Commercial users are welcome to participate in BETA testing.

The compression is in real time on a 486, so we will support live
broadcasts as soon as we finish the initial testing.

So here's the scoop - we're looking for BETA testers.  If you would
like to become a broadcaster, you need:

1. A permanent IP address.
2. A dedicated machine (or permission to run background tasks)
3. You are either linked to the MBONE or you have a fast connection
4. If you are using a non-windows server, we may need access to your
account to compile for your particular machine.

Basically, you fill your hard drive with samples and a script file to
organize playback.  (The player will repeat the script when it
finishes).  Later we will upgrade so that broadcasters can go live by
plugging a signal into a PC sound card.

Listeners will enter your address into the radio program and voila,
your broadcast will begin playing.  The radio feature will be built
into our soon to be released freeware browser.

If you're interested, send email.

Thanks!








From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (Richard Murnane  x2175)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Organic verticals again
Date: 7 Mar 96 17:52:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Hi all,

In case anyone is still interested in loading up trees, page 19 of the March
1996 issue of the Wireless Institute of Australia's journal, "Amateur Radio"
has an article by Steve Bushell VK3HK on this subject.

Quick precis:

Steve fed an Australian Blue Gum (eucalyptus) with a 300 ohm balanced line,
one side connected to a stake in the ground at the base of the tree (doesn't
sound very balanced to me, but anyway...) The other side side joined by an
alligator clip to a screwdriver hammered into the tree about a metre from
the ground. He fed this from the transmitter via an ATU (I suspect it was a
standard unbalanced tuner)

He says he got 5 by 8 reports from stations in Perth (west coast, VK6), and
Cairns (northern VK4) on 40 metres

He says he also heard stations in Southern Europe and South America, but
didn't call them as there was a contest on.

He also notes best results using a feedpoint about 1/8th wavelength above
ground, and the ground connection was essential.

Steven suggests that Canadian Spruce, Baltic Pine, Californian Redwood and
English Elm would provide good results (on what basis he makes this comment,
other than posibly being tongue in cheek, I don't know...)

73 Richard VK2SKY


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Patch-type antennas
Date: 8 Mar 1996 22:37:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4hqucv$[e-mail]>
References: <4hpmjr$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

I believe if you look in QST over the past year there was an article w/
references on a patch for APRS/ packet.  73,  Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (ZaaX)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Portable 6 Meter Yagi's ?
Date: 6 Mar 1996 08:36:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4hk4d2$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ZaaX)

Does anyone manufacture 2 or 3 element Yagi's for the 6 metre band that
breakdown for travel? Also, does anyone know of any plans for a simple
2 element Yagi for this band. Any info on this will be greatly
appreciated!

73 Zack Schindler
N8FNR


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:37 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ignacy Misztal)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Q: How would a 80m Magnetic Loop antenna look like?
Date: 6 Mar 1996 14:32:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4hk7lq$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ignacy Misztal)

In <[e-mail]>, "Martin Biallas" <[e-mail]
erland.de> writes:
>Hello!
>
>Unfortunately I have no opportunity to establish a good 80m antenna. (I live
in a
>flat in a house that I dont own.) Recently I heard about an antenna called Ma
gnetic
>Loop. It was said that this antenna typ allows -although it is worse than an
half
>wave Dipol- nice QSOs. Or in other words: its better than nothing. :)
>Now my question is how must a magnetic loop for the 80m band look like? And c
ould
>anyone send me (via email) the meassurements of that antenna? Maybe there are
 even
>www-sites which contain such a plan ...

For decent performance, a 20m loop with a 1/4 inch copper tube needs
to be about 3 ft in diameter. This translates to 12 ft on 80m. Another
factor is attenuation by surrounding objects. If the loop is
inside, most of the radiation may end up in structures.

Ignacy Misztal              Ham radio: NO9E, SP8FWB
E-mail: [e-mail]
University Of Georgia, 203 L-P Bldg., Athens, GA 30602
tel. [phone]



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Q: How would a 80m Magnetic Loop antenna look like?
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 11:45:04 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hmad9$[e-mail]> <4hn2m8$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In message <4hn2m8$[e-mail]> Wolfgang Gellerich wro
te:

> In article <4hmad9$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]-hei
delberg.de (Joachim Seibert) writes:
>
> |> Hello Martin!
> |> I am using a double loop with a diameter of 1m for 40 and 80. Give's a go
od
> |> performance with my qrp-rig. By the way: I am forced to use it indoor...
>
> That is interesting. Theory says that a loop of 1m duameter has an efficienc
y
> of about 1% on 80m. What are your experiences concerning dx? What reports
> do you get ?
>
> vy 73, Wolfgang DJ3TZ
>

Hi Wolfgang

You are correct about efficiency. It may not even be as good as 1%.
A magloop, like a vertical, is a very high Q structure. And also it is
very short compared to the wavelength. The radiation resistance will be
*very* low. This is why such loops are constructed of 22mm or thicker copper
pipe without any joints if possible.

A 1metre dia loop is too small for 80m. (Rr < 0.0004 ohms!). Roberto Craighero
(I1ARZ) is probably one of the most experienced loop constructors, and has
published designs showing an 80m loop as a square of 2.5m each side made of
40mm diameter copper.  This  has a Rr of 0.023 ohms and loop resistance of
0.04 ohms, and could reach an efficiency of 36%. The loop bandwidth on 80m is
only (just!) wide enough for SSB.

Magnetic loops, if implemented properly, can be extremely good compared to
the poor performance of the average Ham wire antenna when comparing reports.
I have now apprecated the advantages/disadvantages of magloops, and I consider
their "special" property to be that the field shape is like that of a dipole,
but with the magnetic and electric components transposed. I am keen to constru
ct
a second loop (the first being a very poor attempt!).

73's G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Q: How would a 80m Magnetic Loop antenna look like?
Date: 10 Mar 1996 10:26:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4husbb$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Graham Seale) writes:

>
>Magnetic loops, if implemented properly, can be extremely good compared
to
>the poor performance of the average Ham wire antenna when comparing
reports.
>I have now apprecated the advantages/disadvantages of magloops, and I
>consider
>their "special" property to be that the field shape is like that of a
dipole,
>but with the magnetic and electric components transposed. I am keen to
>construct
>a second loop (the first being a very poor attempt!).
>
>73's G4WNT

Hi Grant,

I've built some small loops here, and like yours they are Electromagnetic,
hi. That let's me communicate over a large distance. ;-)

Anyway, the most critical thing I've found...other than the conductor (it
must have a lot of smooth surface area and preferably be tubing rather
than flat stock).... is the capacitor and the connections to the
capacitor.

I've had poor sucess with any dielectric in the capacitor other than air
or vacuum, and the cap should be densely constructed with no current in
sliding pressure contacts.

Also if the loop is made from woven wire or braid it KILLS the
performance. CATV hardline (using the outer conductor) works great,
braided coax stinks.

73 Tom




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (mike del pozzo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUAD QUESTIONS...
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:03:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4hmqce$[e-mail]>
References: <4hjufs$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Keith Smith) wrote:

>I'm looking for some info on quads...Should I buy or make my own?? Are
>they worth making-and if not, what's the best brand to purchase?? Thanks
>for your help in advance.    Keith-AC6CX   [e-mail]
Hello Keith,
in reguards to which Quad system is best, you have to first decide for
yourself if the antenna in question will serve all your purposes. I'm
guessing that you are in California - so ice may not be a factor here.
so then it is a question as to what bands and or no of elements will
suit your need. Secondly consider putting up a quad is not an easy
chor to accomplish. it takes careful planning , and lots of bodies to
make sure it will reach it's destination in one piece. Thirdly If the
Quad you wish to utilize is of a larger breed ( 4 elements or better )

then Construction is vital to survival. The Boom on these monsters
should be at least 3 in. to 4 in  and the spiders ( spreader supports)
should be strong enough to survive the maximum wind loading , even if
it doesn't happen at your QTH. Finally , PRICE is always a factor.
You get what you pay for in a Quad - is the truth. Imagine for a
moment that you live in Moscow and with the heavy snow and occasiopnal
ice storms " Will My antenna survive ? " This may be severe overkill
but in the long run it will prove to be a worthy investment. I have a
4 element Cubex that has already stood up to icing ( mild ) and seems
to hold up OK to wind loading. We shall see next time a Hurricane
comes along though Atlanta W/ 70+ mph wind. I'll wish you good luck
in your search and I hope I have helped somewhat. 73 , Gud DX'ing
KR4TG, Mike

Some manufacturers to look at:
Cubex
Gem Quads
Antenna Mart
all of which should have ads in QST or CQ for catalog info.........




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Keith Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: QUAD QUESTIONS...
Date: 6 Mar 1996 11:55:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4hjufs$[e-mail]>

I'm looking for some info on quads...Should I buy or make my own?? Are
they worth making-and if not, what's the best brand to purchase?? Thanks
for your help in advance.    Keith-AC6CX   [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:43 1996
From: Mike Sims <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUAD QUESTIONS...
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 23:09:40 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hjufs$[e-mail]> <4hqg1v$[e-mail]>

Robert Strickland wrote:
>
> [e-mail] (Keith Smith) wrote:
>
> >I'm looking for some info on quads...Should I buy or make my own?? Are
> >they worth making-and if not, what's the best brand to purchase?? Thanks
> >for your help in advance.    Keith-AC6CX   [e-mail]
>
> Keith...
> I bought, assembled, put up and am happy with the Lightening Bolt
> Antenna/quad. They offer several models. I have the 5-band, 2el one.
> Some thoughts... It was not difficult to assemble or get up in the
> air. It did take allot of ground space to assemble each bay; they are
> very big. Getting it in the air was "simple." The LBA uses an 8ft boom
> with a spider on each end. I put the boom in the mast mount, pulled it
> to one end, hauled the bay up, bolted it on, pushed the mast to the
> other end, hauled up the second bay and bolted in in place. I had
> three people plus me: one on the jin pole line and two each holding
> light line that was passed through the lower part of the bay arms.
> These two people held on to the lines as the bay went up. They could
> hold it away from the house/etc. Now, if you have a 3+el quad, this
> system obviously won't work. You'd have to assemble it some other way.
> I can comment more on this if you'd like.
>
> As far as making verses buying:
> You'd probably want to buy some good spider mounts unless you like
> mechanical construction/alumminum welding/etc. You'll have to buy the
> spreaders, usually fibergass of one sort or another. You buy the wire.
> By the time you buy all the pieces, you're probably ahead getting a
> "kit" quad and putting it together. Like anything, you can go cheap
> and you can go ritzy. It's a nice feeling not worrying about what's up
> there and when will it break. So, you probably go ritzy. given that
> decision, i'd guess that buying is the way to go. The exception would
> be if you had access to "stuff" that you'd need.
>
> I'm a real fan of the quad. It's allot easier to play around with one
> than it is with yagis. Again, if you'd like some more comments or
> answers to specific questions, let me know. Good luck.
>
> ...Robert
>
> Robert G. Strickland
> [e-mail]
> Syracuse, New YorkKeith,

Built a four element quad out of central vacuum cleaner pipe, 1 1/2 inch
angle aluminum, hose clamps, muffler clamps, three in aluminum
irrigation pipe and a 18 X 12 inch 1/4 inch aluminum plate for the boom
to mast mount.  Used torsion lines to strengthen the boom.  By the way,
the ant. is used on 40ty thru 10 meters.  The ant. is based on the
design in the 1994 July CQ mag.  It is on a crank up tower.  Rented a
"man lift" from a local rental place (transportable in a small pickup
truck) and with the help of several others was able to raise the
assembled 40ty meter driven and reflector elements (include directors
for 20ty thru 10 meters and reflector elements for 20ty thru 10 meters
as well).  It has survived the winter in north central Virginia.  We
have had more snow than any winter on record this year.  Winds have
gusted up to 50 mph.  Not a lot of ice this year though.

It works for me.

Mike, K4GMH ([e-mail])


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:44 1996
From: Mike Wendland <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: R7
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 17:12:35 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I just inherited an R-7 antenna from my brother in law, who has passed
away. The only problem is, there's no instruction book with the
measurements for each segment and how to attach the matchbox.
Can anyone fax/e-mail me a copy?
I also received his Yaesu FT-757GXII... no manual, of course. ANy ideas
on where to find one?
--
================================================
Mike Wendland, K8ZRH             [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Rabbit Ears Question...
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 20:07:09 GMT
Message-ID: <4hnf6t$[e-mail]>
References: <4hletj$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Praetorian) wrote:

>Hey All, is there any way to signifigantly increase the reception of a
>pair of rabbit ears without buying cable?? I am on the 2nd floor of
>the house, and reception is ony good on one or two channels.
>any suggestions???

>andrew

Why not build a folded dipole from 300 ohm twin lead and run it around
your walls at the ceiling.

TTUL
Gary





From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Praetorian)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Rabbit Ears Question...
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 01:42:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4hletj$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hey All, is there any way to signifigantly increase the reception of a
pair of rabbit ears without buying cable?? I am on the 2nd floor of
the house, and reception is ony good on one or two channels.
any suggestions???

andrew



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: s meters
Date: 10 Mar 1996 10:26:43 -0500
Message-ID: <4husbj$[e-mail]>
References: <4hug6s$[e-mail]>

In article <4hug6s$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Bill W0IYH) writes:

>
>As I have said before, the Collins guideline was 4 dB per S unit, and I
can
>find nothing wrong with this. It does not have to be pegged to a noise
>level or a signal to noise ratio. The important thing is that if a
certain
>standard is adopted that everyone uses, then the S-Meter concept is a
>useful tool, providing that the rcvr can be accurately calibrated. It is
>a simple matter to convert S units to microvolts or dBm of rcvr input.
With
>an
>official F.S. antenna, microvolts per meter could be obtained, if someone
>wanted to do that, for example in pattern plotting.
>
>

That makes sense Bill, if every manufacturer would do it. It really isn't
an S unit by the old RST definition then, but I don't think anyone uses
the real definition correctly anyway. If someone gets an honest report,
they'd be hurt! Hi. EVERYONE is 59 or 599.

My point was this....many people claim there is a standard of 6 dB per S
unit, but there is no "standard". People "pop up" right away with that
number, and that incorrect value is even in an answer in the amateur
license question pool.

But in real life the 6 dB/S unit number is NEVER used as a standard.
Currently the ONLY definition of S units is in the RST system, and that
would be based on the sound to the operator (S/N ratio), not receiver
input voltage.

We could have two different definitions of S, like we do many other things
in electronics. But we can't get stand ALC response times and interfaces
from radio manufacturers, heck...they can't even get CW weight or timing
correct! Good luck on meter calibration !

Since Collins (and Drake) left the market, there are no market leaders
setting a standard for others to emulate. Personally, I'd like to see ALC,
CW timing, control pin outs and voltages, and other things corrected
first. They're more important than a relative strength indicator.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S Units
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 96 07:24:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4hrbkn$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4holsp$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) wrote:

>Receiving antennas, however, present a different problem. Obviously,
>some antennas will capture more signal than others, so the signal
>strength at the receiver input terminals won't be an absolute measure
>of the field strength of the distant station. To get that, you need
>a meter calibrated in uV/m, thus including the antenna as part of
>the measuring system. That would have to be calibrated on a site by
>site basis.

Worse than that -- the factor relating terminal signal strength to field
strength varies with direction, both in azimuth and elevation. In fact, a
plot of this factor is the "antenna pattern". (As I know you know well,
Gary. Just wanted to avoid letting folks get misled.)

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:50 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: S Units
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <4holsp$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hrbkn$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:34:12 GMT

In article <4hrbkn$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen) w
rites:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>   [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>
>>Receiving antennas, however, present a different problem. Obviously,
>>some antennas will capture more signal than others, so the signal
>>strength at the receiver input terminals won't be an absolute measure
>>of the field strength of the distant station. To get that, you need
>>a meter calibrated in uV/m, thus including the antenna as part of
>>the measuring system. That would have to be calibrated on a site by
>>site basis.
>
>Worse than that -- the factor relating terminal signal strength to field
>strength varies with direction, both in azimuth and elevation. In fact, a
>plot of this factor is the "antenna pattern". (As I know you know well,
>Gary. Just wanted to avoid letting folks get misled.)

Right Roy, and it may be this pattern that a transmitting station
is trying to measure (or at least get a relative shape factor for)
when asking for S reports. And unfortunately, unless he has an
isotropic reference antenna that he can switch back and forth
with the unknown antenna, he's not going to be able to do that
precisely.

Since I haven't seen many off the shelf isotropic antennas advertised
in QST, this may present a difficult challenge. A reference dipole
or reference vertical can be of some use, of course, but unless you
know the characteristics of the receiving antenna, and the calibration
of the S units on the distant receiver, it still isn't much help.

But here is where standard S units can be of some value. That removes
one unknown from the equation. If in addition the distant receiving
station is using a more or less standard dipole, vertical, or well
documented commercial yagi design, then you can start to get a fairly
close approximation of the information you need. They all need to
work together, however. If one known is converted to an unknown,
your level of uncertainty rises. If too many knowns become unknowns,
your level of uncertainty rises without bound.

We can hope to eliminate one unknown here by agreeing on a standard
S unit step and a standard S unit reference level. The old S9=50uV
at the receiver input terminals, and each S step being a 6 db decrement
from that reference, is a good starting point. We should encourage
commercial manufacturers to adhere to that standard (as some did in
the past). It won't solve all our signal reporting problems, but it
does eliminate one unknown from the equation.

An S scale with no reference value and no standard step size is
*worthless* to us. If every receiving station has a different
reference value (unknown) and a different step size (also unknown)
then S unit reports are of no use to us at all.

But assuming a standard S scale, and if the receiving station
additionally knows the characteristics of his receiving antenna,
so that he can give a uV/m reading with some confidence, we're more
than halfway home. The only real unknown we have to solve then is
path loss in order for us to be able to calculate our transmitting
antenna's behavior (ERP) in that direction. (Knowing path loss may
not be an easy task, but we can turn things around by knowing our
transmit ERP instead, then we can calculate the pass loss, which is
a useful thing to know in any event.)

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:52 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: S Units
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <4holsp$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 22:03:10 GMT

In article <4holsp$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) writ
es:
>How could an S unit standard compensate for different RX antennas, site
>noise, and even receiver BW (since that affects S/N ratios as well as
>noise voltage).

Site noise and receiver bandwidth should not affect S meter readings,
since S readings are a measure of the signal strength at the receiver
*input terminal* only. Those factors will certainly affect SNR, but that's
not what S meters purport to measure. (Note: of course a local noise
level stronger than the signal will give a meaningless reading since
the S meter reading will be the peak noise voltage, not the peak signal
voltage in that case.)

Receiving antennas, however, present a different problem. Obviously,
some antennas will capture more signal than others, so the signal
strength at the receiver input terminals won't be an absolute measure
of the field strength of the distant station. To get that, you need
a meter calibrated in uV/m, thus including the antenna as part of
the measuring system. That would have to be calibrated on a site by
site basis.

>I agree. Why not abolish S units totally and just have a dB scale that can
>be adjusted to zero dB for the noise floor at that moment. That wouldn't
>tell the other guy what his FS really is, but it would give him an idea of
>the S/N ratio and any change when he made a quick test.

Yeah, that's useful. However, the local noise level may fluctuate,
and so the readings would have to be taken in rapid succession to
have much meaning. With a "standard" S unit scale, readings taken
day by day and month by month will still have relative value. In
other words, if what you want to determine how your signal strength
changes over a particular path over a period of time, having a
reporting scale referenced to an objective uV number at the distant
receiving station is useful, even if it can't be back translated
into an absolute field strength measurement or cross correlated
to a SNR value without knowing the S reading of the local receiver
noise and the bandwidth of the local receiver too.

But regardless of whether S9 is defined as 50 uV at the receiver
input terminals or some other number, the important thing is that
each S unit be a well defined *change* in signal strength. That
way a relative set of readings done in cooperation with one station
will have meaning in regard to another relative set of measurements
made with another station, IE say you have two antennas you want
to compare in respect to their performance to a number of different
locations, it would be useful to know that when station X says they
are 2 S units different that it means the same thing as when station
Y tells you they are 2 S units different. The absolute S reading may
be meaningless, but the relative readings should be meaningful. They
can't be, however, if everyone's receiver uses a different step between
S units.

6db per step is a useful size, and with S9 equal to 50 uV, the range
from S1 to S9 covers the range from about the receiver MDS to a good
strong signal for the majority of HF receivers. S0 should obviously mean
"I can't hear you" even when band noise is zero, because the receiver
noise overwhelms you. Note: in some cases, S9 might mean "I can't
hear you", but it will be because *external* noise sources are
overwhelming the signal, *not* because the signal is weak.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Thomas M. Alldread)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: SALE: MFJ202B HF ANT NOISE BRDG
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 15:55:54 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Greetings:

        I have an MFJ-202B HF antenna bridge for sale that is in good
condition with manual. It is a current model so please check out the
new price.  Asking $50 Cdn or  $40 U.S.A. funds plus shipping.

        Tel [phone] or e-mail.

73 de VE7TMA

Very Best Regards: Thomas M. Alldread
E-mail:            [e-mail]
packet radio:      VE7TMA@VE7KGW.#NVI.BC.CAN.NA


Very Best Regards: Thomas M. Alldread
E-mail:            [e-mail]
packet radio:      VE7TMA@VE7KGW.#NVI.BC.CAN.NA


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Thomas M. Alldread)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: SALE: MFJ204B HF ANT BRDG
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996 15:55:51 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Greetings:

        I have an MFJ-204B antenna bridge for sale that is in very
good condition  packed with bubble wrap in the original box  and is
complete with the manual and Duracell battery. Price is $65.00 Cdn or
$50.00 USA plus shipping. It is a current model and is  listed for
$139,95 plus taxes in a Vancouver, BC amateur gear supplier's catalog.

        Tel [phone] or e-mail.


73 de VE7TMA
Very Best Regards: Thomas M. Alldread
E-mail:            [e-mail]
packet radio:      VE7TMA@VE7KGW.#NVI.BC.CAN.NA


Very Best Regards: Thomas M. Alldread
E-mail:            [e-mail]
packet radio:      VE7TMA@VE7KGW.#NVI.BC.CAN.NA


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:54 1996
From: "Rick, AA8VQ" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Searching for a good dual band mobile antenna
Date: 6 Mar 1996 16:42:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4hkfaf$[e-mail]>

I've been upgrading the mobile radio system and have aquired a Yaesu FT-8500.
 I want a good dual
band antenna, but don't know much about the "track record" on the Maldo, Diamo
nd and Comet
antennas.  These are ones I'm considering.  Your thoughts, good and bad are en
couraged.  With the
cost of one of these thigs being rather high, I'd like to like I'm getting my
money's worth.

I'm also looking the Premier line as well.  Thanks



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: shuttle communication on 2 meter
Date: 8 Mar 1996 14:56:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4hphri$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4gqtvh$[e-mail]> <4h2pq6$[e-mail]> <4hf150$[e-mail]>

I've connected with the packet station on MIR with 5 W and a J-pole.

David Smith, VO1DMS


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: shuttle communication on 2 meter
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:34:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4hv41k$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4gqtvh$[e-mail]> <4h2pq6$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (WB7ASR) wrote:




>Unless you have the "BIG" station, forget about working the shuttle.
>They only talk with pre-determined scheduled contacts (schools), or
>stations with the loudest signals ( EME arrays with 1KW amps). When
>their above your horizon, there are about 200+ stations on the average
>all calling them at the same time you are. The BIG signal will win!!!

>WB7ASR...


Why does everybody need a HUGE amount of power, and a complicated
antenna? Sure there are 200+ stations calling them at the same time I
am, but hey, if everybody HAS to have a superstation like the example
above, why have I always been able to contact the shuttle on voice
with only a 3/4 wave groundplane up 40 feet, and a 50 watt mobile rig?
Go figure...
Best of 73,
Brian, N5ZGT...

________________________________________________________________________
 Boy Scouts of America                   Amateur Radio
  J.A.S.M. - Troop 41                        N5ZGT
    Albuquerque, NM            Packet: N5ZGT @ KC5IZT.ALBQ.NM.USA.NA
 Great Southwest Council           Internet: [e-mail]
    O.A. Lodge 66
_______________________________________________________________________



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:57 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gareth Lewis)
Subject: Simple FM arial plans-where can I find them ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 18:20:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]

(sorry for the newbie post)

I want to build a small-ish outdoor antenna for fm (80-108 Mhz)

Anyone to the rescue ?

I haven't found any web pages or FAQ's yet,
 there must be a few sites about somewhere.


--
cheers,
        Gareth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Wyn Lewis                     | Email     : [e-mail]
Department of Physics and Astronomy, | Phone     : [phone] ext 5316
University of Wales,College Cardiff, | Fax       : [phone]
P.O. Box 913,                        | WWW       : http:/www.astro.cf.ac.uk/
Cardiff                              | Home page :   (/pub/Gareth.Lewis)
CF2 3YB.                             |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:58 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Charles Hoffman)
Subject: Re: Slot Antenna Plans?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 21:05:53 GMT
Reply-To: choffman @pelican.davlin.net
References: <4hlpt2$[e-mail]>

Contact the OM himself, Ralph O. Robinson, WA3YEE, retired from Johns
Hopkins Applied Physics Labs., now living on a ranch between Kerrville
and Harper Texas.  Ref.  1) U.S. Patent No. 2908000; 2) Johns Hopkins
University/APLL Bumblebee Series Report No. 118, "The Design and
Application of Notch Excited Antennas for Aerodynamic Surfaces"
(Available Natl Tech Info Serv, Springfield, Va 22161, Accession Nr
AD85887.

73 K5SBU

Brian Butler <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Does anyone know where I may find plans for 900MHz, 1200MHz, and
>higher freq. slot antennas?

>Thanks
>Brian
>VY1BB





From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Small gardens: antenna?
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 96 15:44:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4hs97t$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Darrell Moody) wrote:
>I'm looking for a small, non-vertical antenna for the higher HF bands
>(20m and up). QTH here is a typical modern UK house: tiny garden
>(30ft >square), surrounded by houses and radio-unfriendly neighbours!
>I've tried various wire designs but they just seem to cause TVI
>and/or don't work. Are minibeams any good? Suggestions welcomed.

Which wire designs have you tried?  A shortened, center-fed dipole fed
with open wire line and a balanced tuner (not a balun) should not
cause TVI or undue RFI.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:11:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (Darrell Moody)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Small gardens: antenna?
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 08:42:31 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I'm looking for a small, non-vertical antenna for the higher HF bands
(20m and up). QTH here is a typical modern UK house: tiny garden (30ft
square), surrounded by houses and radio-unfriendly neighbours! I've
tried various wire designs but they just seem to cause TVI and/or
don't work. Are minibeams any good? Suggestions welcomed.

--------------------------------------
Darrell G0HVQ UKSMG#353 Loc IO81VV
[e-mail]
--------------------------------------



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: RE: TAI-CHI MASTER - 3/13 - PC THEATER
Date: 6 Mar 96 19:37:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


does anyone know where this junk comes from and how to stop it?
 ----------
From: mailfail
To: genweb; global_data_storage; glokor; glomex; go-players; goldenkey;
gra.info; gsareps; gwis; habitatlink; ham-am; ham-amtor; ham-ant; ham-atv;
ham-bsd; ham-digital-voice; ham-digital; ham-dxing; ham-eme; ham-equip;
ham-exotic-modes; ham-fax; ham-fx; ham-homebrew; ham-mods; ham-morse;
ham-nocode; ham-packet; ham-policy; ham-radio; ham-rtty; ham-slowscan;
ham-space; ham-spread; ham-ssb; ham-uwave; ham-vhf-uhf; hem-onc_seminars;
high-tc; hosttables; hott-list; hp-users; htcucsd; htgsd
Subject: TAI-CHI MASTER - 3/13 - PC THEATER
Date: Wednesday, March 06, 1996 7:17AM


ATTENTION FILM-GOERS!:

***************************************************
Don't Miss Two of Hong Kong's Most Exciting Stars in
One of the Greatest Martial Arts Films of All Time!!!
***************************************************
 ________________________
|                                                               |
|          THE TAI-CHI MASTER         |
|                                                               |
|       Directed by Yuen Woo Ping     |
|               Hong Kong, 1993                 |
|                                                                |
|        Starring: **JET LI** and            |
|          **MICHELLE KHAN**           |
|________________________|

  ----------------------------------------
   WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13    at the PRICE CENTER THEATER!
  ----------------------------------------
 _________________________
|                                                                 |
|  SHOWTIMES:   5:30 / 8:00 / 10:15  |
|________________________ |

********************************
GENERAL ADMISSION: $2
TICKETS ON SALE NOW AT
THE PRICE CENTER BOX OFFICE
********************************

WIN FABULOUS DOOR PRIZES!!!

Enter and WIN the GRAND PRIZE in our
TRIVIA RAFFLE!!!




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Rowley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Tower Guy Spacing
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 14:07:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4hpihd$[e-mail]>

Hello all.  This is my first time posting so I hope I do it right.
I remember reading somewhere that if you are limited on space that
you can reduce the distance from the tower base to guy anchor point
from the recomended 80% of tower height to something like 50% by
going to 4 guys spaced 90 degrees.  Rohn shows this in their catalog
but only for the foldover towers.  I plan to install 70ft of Rohn 45G
and would like to space the guy anchors between 35 and 40 ft from the
base.  Anyone out there know about this or has used this method?
Thanks and 73
Jim, KG9CC




From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:04 1996
From: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: USA QSL BUREAU
Date: 10 Mar 1996 12:40:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4huik5$[e-mail]>
Keywords: us buro usa buro usburo usaburo usabureau


* * * * * * * A T T E N T I O N   A L L   H A M S * * * * * * *

NOW SEND "QSL VIA USBURO" ON THE AIR!
USA QSL BUREAU FOR ALL YOUR DOMESTIC QSL CARDS, ALL 10
DISTRICTS, TERRITORIES AND TRUSTEESHIPS OF THE U.S.A.

SAVE $$$ ON POSTAGE-SAVE $$$ ON CALLBOOKS-SAVE $$$ ON CD-ROMS
FAST..PROMPT..PROFESSIONAL..SERVICE..FOR HAMS BY HAMS

RATES FOR YOUR OUTGOING CARDS;
2 - 10 CARDS $.10 EA. - 10 FOR $1.00 - 50 FOR $4.50
100 FOR $8.00 - OVER 100, $7.00 PER HUNDRED CARDS
PLEASE PUT CALLSIGN OF STATION YOU ARE SENDING CARD TO IN THE
ADDRESS SECTION (BACK OF CARD) IN 3/4 TO 1 INCH LETTERS!

NO CHARGE FOR CARDS SENT TO YOU BY THE BUREAU - BUT YOU MUST
HAVE AT LEAST ONE SASE ON FILE - ALL HAMS ENCOURAGED TO KEEP
AT LEAST ONE #6 SASE ON FILE AT THE BUREAU!!

SPECIAL SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR; CONTESTERS, CLUBS & SPECIAL
EVENT STATIONS, QSL MANAGER SERVICES ALSO AVAILABLE,
CONTACT US FOR MORE INFRMATION.

START ENJOYING THE SAVINGS AND BENEFITS TODAY!!
SEND US UP TO -4- #6(3-5/8 X 6-1/2) SASE's (W/1-STAMP-EA)
PLEASE PUT YOUR CALLSIGN IN TOP LEFT CORNER!!!  OR
YOU MAY SEND $5.00, YOUR CORRECT RETURN ADDRESS & WE SUPPLY
10 ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPES FOR YOU.

SEND YOUR CHECK/OUTGOING CARDS ALONG WITH YOUR SASE'S TO;
USA QSL BUREAU Dept-P
P.O. BOX 814
BREWER, ME 04412-0814

DON'T DELAY! DO IT TODAY! ENJOY SAVINGS & BENEFITS TOMORROW!

THE QSL CARD - THE FINAL COURTEOUSITY OF A QSO!!!
NOW, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO QSL!!!
OPERATED BY AA1MF & CREW
E-MAIL [e-mail]
-EOF-


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:05 1996
From: Michael J Wooding <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: VHF Communications Magazine
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:45:52 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hi Folks,

For subscribers and interested parties:

Issue 1/1996 of VHF Communications is now at the printers and should be
shipped by March 30th.

For more information on the contents of this issue and on subscribing to
the magazine take a look at our Web site:

http://www.eolas.co.uk/ag/vhfcomm.htm

Thanks and 73 ... Mike

Michael J Wooding   [e-mail] - CompuServe: 100441,377
Web Pages: http://www.eolas.co.uk/ag/vhfcomm.htm (hambits.htm & hamclip.htm)
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
KM Publications, 5 Ware Orchard, Barby, Nr.Rugby, CV23 8UF, UK
VHF Communications Magazine - Especially Covering VHF, UHF and Microwaves


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:06 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: VHF current balun
Date: 9 Mar 1996 18:27:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4hsii6$[e-mail]>


A common balun on vhf is the 4:1 1/2 wavelength coaxial balun.
Using Roy Lewallen's terminology this would be a voltage balun.
In his phased array section in the antenna book, Roy advocates
using 1/4 or 3/4 wave sections to force the feedpoint current
of antennas to be either in or 180 degrees out of phase. An obvious
generalization is to use these sections to make a current balun
where the two halves of a balanced antenna are driven 180 degrees
out of phase.
                                        |
            1/4 wavelength              |
connect   ============================--|<--  one side of antenna
in                                   |<------ ground
parrallel ============================--|<-- other side of antenna
            3/4 wavelength              |
                                        |

For the balun input to be 50 ohms, the impedance at the end of each
section should be 100 ohms. By using coaxial cable with a
characteristic impedance of Z0 you would produce an impedance transorm
to Z0^2/100, and the impedance of the driven element would need to be
Z0^2/50.

This says using 50 ohm, 70 ohm or 100 ohm  cable for the balun would
make a 1:1, 2:1, or 4:1 balun respectively. The 1:1 balun would
probably be most useful and simple to make. The disadvantages that I
see are that twice as much cable is used as for a voltage balun, and
more cable connections are required. However the connection
disadvantage is partly offset by being able to use a T connector for
main feedline input feedpoint and a pair of standard connectors at the
antenna feedpoint.  More cable means more loss and more frequency
sensitivity - roughly since it uses a wavelength of cable, you might
expect the bandwidth to be half that of a half wavelength voltage
balun. In both the voltage and this current balun, to have a swr of 1
in the balun cable, the cable needs to be 100 ohm and you have a 4:1
balun. Here you get a 1:1 balun with 50 ohm cable.

Has anyone used this? I have never seen it described, but it would seem
to be a natural way to feed quagis where the feedpoint is nearly 50 ohms.

Kevin Schmidt, [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:08 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Bart Rowlett)
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 01:09:23 GMT

In article <4hhego$[e-mail]>,
W8JI  Tom <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <4hc0ac$[e-mail]>, Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]>
>writes:
>
>>
>>W6KKT Will be conducting another HF Mobile Antenna System "Shootout" at
>>the upcoming Visalia, Calif.DX convention. This event will be held at the
>
>>U.S Towers factory, Saturday, April 20th, 10:00am. The test frequency
>>will be 3995kc.
>>So, if you plan to be in the area, join us for fun, food and see how your
>
>>mobile antenna system "stacks up" against some of the best systems in the
>
>>country.....73s...Jesse (W6KKT)
>>
>>
>
>WHAT are the rules??????? 73 Tom from Atlanta GA.

The purpose of the contest is to compare the DX performance of various 75M
mobile antenna installations by measuring the ratio of low angle vertically
polarized radiation to the power actually delivered to the antenna.  Power
delivered to the antenna is assumed to be the difference between the measured
forward and reverse power indicated with a Bird wattmeter.  Radiation is
measured by a custom designed field strength meter sensitive only to the
horizontal magnetic field existing a couple of hundred yards from the antenna
and about eight feet above the ground.  The field strength measured is actuall
y
a combination of the vertically polarized radiated field, the groundwave and
the near field remaining at the test distance.  Since the antenna heights
are all about the same (13.5 feet maximum), it is assumed the near field
contribution (corruption) to the measurement is small and about equal from all
contestants.  Since the antenna heights are very low, only the vertically
polarized components are considered useful for DX.  An antenna could somehow
have a large horizontally polarized component optimized for NVIS and would
be just dandy for local mobile use, but wouldn't score well in the test.
Power is converted to dB referenced to 50 watts and subtracted from the
field strength in dB (arbitrary but stable reference).  The resulting values
are repeatable to better than .25 dB over several hours and are believed to
accuratly compare the various installations but have no absolute significance.
Very good correlation has been acheived between the same contestants at
different shootouts performed at different venues.  The field strength meter
has a dynamic range of over 70 dB but has been most accuratly calibrated
over the 10 or so dB range encountered during this contest.

bart   wb6hqk

[e-mail]





From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB7ASR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's your favorite 6mt FM mobile antenna?
Date: 8 Mar 1996 17:32:41 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hpqvp$[e-mail]>
References: <4gu1e8$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4haeb4$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Cut down a full size fiberglass 1/4 wave CB wip to 54 inchs.
Use a 3/8 inch type mount, any kind, as long as your roof mount it.



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Why long wire TVI
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 08:38:26 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hhefr$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In message <4hhefr$[e-mail]> CHARLES J. MICHAELS wrote:

>
> G4wnt said -
> Last shot about RF in the house is to debunk the fond belief that the outer
> braid of a coax is somehow a "screen" that will "stop nasty RF from getting
> out". The braid is actually one half of an unbalanced transmission line! The
> *only* condition where it will not radiate is if the cable is feeding a load
> equal to its characteristic impedance. Anything else - and the standing wave
> currents on the braid will radiate where they are not wanted.
>
>       This is not true.  standing waves in a coax do not cause radiation
> from the outside of the coax.  Except for a very small leakage due to the
> woven nature of most coax outer conductors, the currents are confined to
> the inner surface of the otu/// outer conductor by skin effect.  In most
> cases currents on the outside of the outer conductor are due to either
> those flowing from the connection to the antenna of the outer conductor
> or due to currents induced in the outer condutor by the antenna .
>
> Charlie, W7XC

Hi Charlie

Maybe in between postings you missed the exchange between myself and
Cecil Moore where we worked this one out. You sure are right that the simple
presence of standing waves on a coax is not a cause for radiation - because
the forward currents are matched by the returning currents, and hence any
near fields they might have made are zero.

The trouble is a coax is an unbalanced structure, and so it is difficult to
keep the currents equal because the braid couples to the surroundings, but the
inner conductor cannot. Even this is no big problem ... until the coax couples
as part of the counterpoise of an antenna structure! Then you can have very
large unbalanced (common mode) currents. In this case, radiation from coax
can be very troublesome.

This situation is hard to avoid if the coax is involved in end feeding long
wires. The potential for TVI is huge, especially if the coax trails through
loft. The easy fix is first to ensure that liberal "grounding" of things
in the shack do not upset the principle that all the currents *and* their
returns go via the feeder. If this is a coax, then common mode currents can
be frustrated by winding a dozen or so turns into the coax. When the feeder
is clear of the house, you can make the field counterpoise to a radial system
or even a few yards of wire laid on the ground - whatever.

Allowing fields generated at the antenna to "go around" the feeder setup
and find their convenient counterpoise among house wiring and shack stuff
makes the scene very prone to TVI. There is bound to be better wisdom than
mine in this group, but the above rationale made sense to me at the time,
and I have managed to avoid TVI by using balanced feeders .

73s G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:11 1996
From: Listserv@ucsd (Mailing List Processor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: your LISTSERV request "help on finding/creating custom? mobile antenna."
Date: 7 Mar 96 09:11:33 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

The mailing list "on" could not be found.
You may use the INDEX command to get a listing
of available mailing lists.


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 07:12:13 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: } SPIDER HF Antenna - NEED INFO {
Date: 9 Mar 1996 04:22:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4hr11f$[e-mail]>
References: <4hih5v$[e-mail]>

I've used the Spider antenna for years and really like it for multi-band
operation. Over the years I expanded it to cover all bands, 10 - 40,
including the WARC bands by adding another "collar" to add 3 more
elements. I keep it tuned to the CW portion of each band and then use the
tuner in my TS-440 to match if I go to the SSB portion. It works great.

Of course, you mentioned 40 and 80. If I was to specialize on those bands
only, I probably would go to "monoband" "longjohns" - dedicated
single-band antennas, as communications there (especially 80) can be
challenging from mobile. (But I've worked plenty of 40M CW DX with the
Spider).

If you move around a lot, bandwidth is also a consideration and the ease
with which you can change frequency (esp. if you have no tuner in your
rig).

You might also consider the "screwdriver" type antennas, which are also
multiband and permit adjustment from within the car (but not the instant
band change of the Spider).

The service I've received throught the years from Spider has also been
outstanding.

73,

Greg, N6GK



From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 13:52:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (jillngus)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: } SPIDER HF Antenna - NEED INFO {
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 20:18:17 -0700
Message-ID: <4hlk93$[e-mail]>
References: <4hih5v$[e-mail]>

In article <4hih5v$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] wrote:

> Hello Everybody,
>   I am really thinking into buying a Spider HF mobile antenna.  This
> is the 4 band top-loaded HF antenna. I would like to get the following
> information regarding this antenna from people wjo have used them.
>   What do you like about the antenna? What DON'T you like about the
> Spider? Is it a good antenna to use mobile? What about at a home QTH?
> I'm looking into it primarily for 80 and 40 meters.  Is this a good
> antenna for these bands?
>   Also, any other information would be GREATLY appreciated! Thanks!
> Best of 73,
> Brian, N5ZGT...
>
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>  Boy Scouts of America                   Amateur Radio
>   J.A.S.M. - Troop 41                        N5ZGT
>     Albuquerque, NM            Packet: N5ZGT @ KC5IZT.ALBQ.NM.USA.NA
>  Great Southwest Council           Internet: [e-mail]
>     O.A. Lodge 66
>
_______________________________________________________________________

Hi Brian,
    I bought one about 11 years ago, right after they came out. I had it
mobile for 2 or 3 years and loved it. I worked all sorts of DX from the
car, probably 30 or 40 countries without really trying. I recently
resurrected it and roof mounted it on my condo, complete with radials. It
was very disappointing. Although the SWR was okay, I simply didn't hear
many people, and no dx at all. I replaced it with an R5 and hear more on
40 now than with the spider, even though the R5 doesn't have 40 meter
capability. Good luck..Gus, WA6WBC


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 13:52:46 1996
From: Bill Levey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUAD QUESTIONS...
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 15:29:53 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hjufs$[e-mail]>

Keith Smith wrote:

> I'm looking for some info on quads...Should I buy or make my own??

        Quads are relatively easy to make but often difficult to tune for
optimum performance. Quality components are also somewhat tough to find.
If you are a 'tinkerer' and don't mind occasional frustration sprinkled with
delightful success, I'd recommend you *go for it*.

>Are they worth making ...??

        Opinion on quad performance ranges from 'absolutely nothing compares'
to 'about the same as a yagi and more difficult to maintain' ... and
everything in between. Serious DX'ers tend to be more unified in their praise
of quad systems, observing the quiet nature of a full-wave antenna and the
lower RF launch angle. The only way to know for sure if 'they are worth
making' is to give them a try personally.

        And now a self-serving plug: My company is a quad manufacturer and a
resource should you prefer to investigate commercially-available quads.
(We focus on VHF and UHF systems primarily.) Information may be found on our
web site at http://bro.net/aae or by our email auto-responder. Send your info
request to [e-mail] for an immediate reply.

73!

Bill Levey - WA4FAT
Bandmaster Quads


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 13:52:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: s meters
Date: 10 Mar 1996 11:59:24 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4hug6s$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

The purpose of an S Meter is to tell the strength, in microvolts or dBm,
of the signal level at the antenna input. This requires a known value of
receiver gain and an accurate AGC. If every rcvr has the same calibration,
then meaningful comparisons can be made between different locations, and
also at a single location when doing antenna comparisons.

An accurate rcvr is one element in a bonafide field strength measurement
setup. It can accurately perform comparative measurements that are reliable
over long periods of time.

As I have said before, the Collins guideline was 4 dB per S unit, and I can
find nothing wrong with this. It does not have to be pegged to a noise
level or a signal to noise ratio. The important thing is that if a certain
standard is adopted that everyone uses, then the S-Meter concept is a
useful tool, providing that the rcvr can be accurately calibrated. It is
a simple matter to convert S units to microvolts or dBm of rcvr input. With an

official F.S. antenna, microvolts per meter could be obtained, if someone
wanted to do that, for example in pattern plotting.

The idea of an internal S9 noise reference that can be used to check
rcvr gain would be reassuring. The automatic calibration procedure can be
programmed into a "smart" rcvr and would take a second or two to
complete. Official field strength rcvrs always contain self-calibrating
hardware.

And if I tell someone that he is S6 at my location, I have given some
useful information about the **Communication Channel** performance.


From [e-mail] Mon Mar 11 13:52:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (Koellner, Guenter)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Subject: construction plan for a 2m beam
Date: 11 Mar 96 16:27:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Hello,

for all bands 6m, 144MHz, 432MHz and 1296MHz I prefer to use the the DJ9BV
designed Yagis:

144MHz in DUBUS 1/90
432MHz in DUBUS 2/91
1296MHz in DUBUS 2/94
50MHz in DUBUS ?/95 (later releases...)

A 144MHz Yagi can be built easily, I will give the data for a 1.8 lambda
(3.8m) long yagi here. Other versions up to 10m boomlength can be read from
the article itself. All articles are available on request from me.

All measures in mm!

    Length   Position
R   1053     0        (two reflectors spaced 600 between)
DE   990     360      (990 outside length, 66 outside width, opening 15)
                      (8mm diam. tube, use a lambda/2 balun for feeding)
D1   950     525
D2   940     900
D3   930     1350
D4   920     1875
D5   915     2460
D6   910     3090     (For shorter versions D6 and D7 can be obtained)
D7   905     3750

The elements are 4mm dia and isolated mounted. Some nylon rivets or nylon
screws were successfully used for this. This has the advantage that
corrossion between the elements and the boom never takes effect on the
electrical data.

Boom is a square 20x20 aluminium. This can easily be drilled.

vy 73, Guenter, DL4MEA@DB0KCP.#BAY.DEU.EU   (AX.25)
                [e-mail]            (Internet)
                http://www.scn.de/~koellner (WWW)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:50 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 96 01:33:40 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]>

COUGER GORDON <[e-mail]> writes:

>Somewhere I read that a tuner doesn't need a balan for balanced loads
>if the tuner was allowed to "float". I purchased a tuner almost

Hi Gordon, we beat this one to death last year. As I remember,
putting an unbalanced tuner in a balanced line unbalances the
currents causing feedline radiation and doesn't protect the
balun from common mode currents. Balanced tuners are much
better. Could yours be modified for balanced operation?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: 11 Mar 1996 16:54:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4i1lsf$[e-mail]>
References: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]>

COUGER GORDON ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Somewhere I read that a tuner doesn't need a balan for balanced loads
: if the tuner was allowed to "float". I purchased a tuner almost
: compleatly isolated from the case and enclosure. All that is conected are
: the ground side of the coax fittings.

Depends on the configuration of the tuner.  As Gary C pointed out, a
"T" (or for that matter any configuration with one terminal common
to both input and output) is "unbalanced".  If you perfectly floated
the source as well as the tuner, the output could be "balanced".

But if you use a link-coupled tuner, it's easy to configure the output side
to be balanced and the input side to be unbalanced.  And you can just as
well have the output side unbalanced, if that's what you want.  Changes in
where you connect the output let such a tuner match a very wide range of
impedances with potentially good efficiency.

--
Cheers,
Tom
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: 11 Mar 1996 12:11:02 -0500
Message-ID: <4i1mr6$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Cecil Moore
<[e-mail]> writes:

>Hi Gordon, we beat this one to death last year. As I remember,
>putting an unbalanced tuner in a balanced line unbalances the
>currents causing feedline radiation and doesn't protect the
>balun from common mode currents. Balanced tuners are much
>better. Could yours be modified for balanced operation?
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC

Hi Cecil,

Actually we didn't beat this to death enough! Even a balanced tuner won't
usually or predictibly change the common mode impedance presented to the
balun! It may make it better or worse, but usually the change is not large
at all.

If the balanced tuner is referenced to ground (becoming a balanced voltage
source) then it helps the stresss on the balun, but not if the balanced
circuit floats at the common point.

Unfortunately the floating system is the best one for balance under real
world load conditions. So 'ere we go again....

Moving the balun just doesn't do everything claimed.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: 12 Mar 1996 01:59:50 -0500
Message-ID: <4i37d6$[e-mail]>
References: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]>

In article <4hsvn5$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (COUGER GORDON) writes:

>Somewhere I read that a tuner doesn't need a balan for balanced loads
>if the tuner was allowed to "float". I purchased a tuner almost
>compleatly isolated from the case and enclosure. All that is conected are
>the ground side of the coax fittings.
>
>My plan is to install a plexiglass mount for the coax fittings and
removing
>the ground from the case and chasis and tying the grounds from both
>coax fittings togeather. I will of courese ground the case.
>
>Has anyone done this before and can anyone offer any insight?
>
>Please don't turn this in to a religous argument about baluns.
>
>Thanks
>Gordon AB5DG

Hi Gordon,

Moving a choke balun to the input of any tuner does little to improve
balance. The common mode currents remain the same.

It does relax the differential mode stress on the balun, but most choke
baluns take that very well anyway...it's usually not a consideration
unless you run really high power and/or very high load impedances !

In my opinion (and I spent a long time measuring the results) moving the
balun isn't worth the effort. Very little, if anything, is gained for all
the effort.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:54 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 11 Mar 96 02:31:32 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

erested, there isl be a newly discovered comet that
should put on quite a show in a few weeks.  It is called the Hyakutake Comet
(after the Japanise gentleman who discovered it), and will best be seen in
the northern skies between the Big and Little Dippers between March 20-27th,
and will be between 2 and 4 times the size of a full moon.  It will be only 9
million miles from Earth, 1/10 the distance from the Earth and the Sun.

There is a really cool WEB sight about comet sightings.  Check it out!!
            HTTP://ENCKE.JPL.NASA.GOV/

Bob
KD8WU


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 11 Mar 96 17:00:57 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

subscribe



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:56 1996
From: /PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=attmail/C=us/@safe.ia.GOV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 11 Mar 96 19:31:39 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>From /PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=attmail/C=us/ Mon Mar 11 1
3:31:10 CST 1996 remote from osiint.safe.ia.gov
Date: 11 Mar 1996 13:29:09 -0600
X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*IADPS
        arrival 11 Mar 1996 13:29:09 -0600
        action Relayed
From: /PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=attmail/C=us/@osiint.safe.
ia.gov
To: "/RFC-822=ham-ant(a)UCSD.EDU/OU=OSI-INTERNET/O=WALLACE/PRMD=IADPS/ADMD=ATT
MAIL/C=US/"@osiint.safe.ia.gov
Subject: Ok
Importance: normal
Autoforwarded: FALSE
Message-Id: <werl0311132640aa*/PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=at
tmail/C=us/@osiint.safe.ia.gov>
P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*IADPS;IDPS3550 werl0311132640aa
UA-Content-Id: werl0311132640aa
P1-Content-Type: P2
Priority: normal
Received: from osiint.safe.ia.gov by iadpshub.safe.ia.gov; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13
:31 CST
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 156

I'm not getting the digest version any more.  In fact I'm receiving nothing at
all from the list.  Is it still going?

Scott
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:57 1996
From: Erik Finskas OH2LAK <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 23cm vertical antennas
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:52:57 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I am looking for building instructions or modification information
for 23cm vertical antennas. Collinear would be the best to archieve some
gain, because
there is a height limit.

Anyone modified 900MHz cellular antennas for 23cm?

Erik
--
Erik Finskas G/OH2LAK
Email [e-mail]
      [e-mail]
University of Portsmouth, UK
Department of Electric and Electronic Engineering


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:58 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 4:1 or 9:1, which is better?
Date: 11 Mar 1996 16:47:08 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i1lec$[e-mail]>
References: <4hrgu7$[e-mail]> <4hsd2h$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:

>Why a 4:1 balun is used on an unmatched line is beyond me! It's gotta be
>the worse thing in the world (oops, there's the 9:1...that'd be worse).

Hi Tom, If I install series/parallel caps/coils/stubs at the point on
the ladder-line to achieve a Z0-match, I'm left with a 300 ohm or
450 ohm resistive load for the balun. If I use a 1:1 balun, I
have either a 6:1 or 9:1 50 ohm SWR. For those boundary conditions,
do you think a 6:1 or 9:1 balun would be more efficient than a 1:1
balun/choke especially since a tuner would be required only because
one chose to use a 1:1 balun? It's not a trick question. Simply put,
is a 6:1 balun without a 50 ohm tuner more or less efficient than a
1:1 balun with a 50 ohm tuner?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:59 1996
From: Rick Wilson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: >"floating" the output of a tuner
Date: 12 Mar 1996 20:11:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4lp3$[e-mail]>

Most of the tuners on the market that boast of a balanced output, use a
low-impedance balun to do the transformation. The output of such a device is o
nly
balanced when the Z is low (less than 150 ohms or so) and there is little reac
tance.
The so-called balanced load must also be truly balanced, as the balun can't
compensate for uneven amounts of C to ground. A truly balanced output involves
 one
of those hard-to-build Antenna Handbook tuners that use lots of plug-in,
split-winding coils with caps that are isolated from ground on both sides.
600-ohm line that is driven by a low-Z balun is feeding the antenna network in
 the
common mode in most cases.
--
Rick Wilson | e-mail: [e-mail]
fax [phone] | voice 217 221 6137 | ham call W0KT
se habla espan~ol   | ich spreche deutsch |  si parla italiano




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:20:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (76lt XO Dweebs Of Death)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: A Question On a 2m Vertical Antenna
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 15:43:12 MST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hi guys I have just got started in  HAM radio and I a simple problem I need to

find the answer too.  I have a 2 meter vertical antenna that needs a ground.
Do I put the ground on the radiating part of the antenna(there seems to be a
bolt there for it) or do I pu it on the baseof the anttena which has the
radials connected to it?  Any help would be appreciated because I don't want
to xap my radio with static electrisity.

John


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:01 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Announsing: Technology Patent Available For Purchase
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 09:11:20 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hdlvj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hfqtn$[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>


> Amen, Jim.  If this thing works like this guy spells, he's got a tough sell.


>
> "Announsing", "blatent" and "know one else" indeed. I don't know what his
> device is,  because searching for the number didn't work for me. Sounds like

a
> Peltier device, but I guess it could be cold fusion.
>
> 73, Wes -- N7WS
>
Always nice to see a couple of smarta*sses on the net..Hi fellows

Gerhardt-



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (John N0ISL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: 12 Mar 1996 00:07:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4i30qc$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John N0ISL)

I've had a chance to use both. The graphics mode of the AEA was really
handy. I noticed that the Outbacker factory uses the AEA antenna analyzer
in their manufacturing processing, It was shown in one of the Outbacker
videos sent to stores. Always use new batteries when climbing towers as
both of them are pretty battery intensive.

Be sure to check your new 249 or 259 analyzer closly when it arrives, I
have seen an abnormally number that had problems right out of the box.  If
you don't quite have the budget for these, I have been using the Palomar
Engineering Noise for years with great success....
John Douglas, N0ISL
AX.25 N0ISL@KZ7I.#MSP.MN.USA.NOAM
I'm in Minnesota only because I must be somewhere!


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:02 1996
From: Rolfe Tessem <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:58:15 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Does anyone have any thoughts on the relative merits of these
two devices? The AEA appears to be better designed from an
ergonomic standpoint, while the MFJ seems to have more features
and beats AEA on price by a substantial margin.

--
Rolfe Tessem      |    Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
[e-mail]     |    96 Morton Street
[phone]    |    New York, NY 10014


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 18:39:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4gl6$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4i35me$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Parf) wrote:

>When I spoke to AEA about the accuracy I was told "that's
>about what you should expect for a $400 instrument"- I sold it.

The Autek analyzer doesn't cover VHF, but the price is certainly
right ($130).  Anyone know how it's construction, accuracy and
features stack up against the other two?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: 12 Mar 1996 01:30:38 -0500
Message-ID: <4i35me$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

I have owned them both -The AEA VHF/UHF and the MFJ HF-VHF w/ resistance
meter. I also own a brand new HP 8711B network analyzer that I used as a
benchmark. The AEA was quite optimistic in its readings and became more so
as the freq got higher. At 70cM it indicated 1:1 when the load was a
precision 75 Ohm termination. The MFJ was more accurate at VHF (it does
not do UHF). When I spoke to AEA about the accuracy I was told "that's
about what you should expect for a $400 instrument"- I sold it.

Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jari Jokiniemi)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: 13 Mar 1996 06:32:50 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4i35me$[e-mail]>


I have the Autek RF-1. A friend of mine who knows more about RF
technology than I did pretty extensive testing of the device. Seems to
be pretty accurate. There is one problem, though. The device may to
produce a lot of harmonics when used in low temperatures (-10 degrees
Celsius). This may be the reason for the fact that when used outside
in winter the SWR readings are far too high. At least in our test
case.

Another friend has a MFJ. Autek sure has more features and is capable
of more different measurements. In most common cases the MFJ is easier to
use because it has analog readout instead of a digital one.
--
Jari Jokiniemi, [e-mail], OH2MPO, OH3BU
Tekla Oy, Koronakatu 1, 02210 Espoo, 90-8879 474


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (Steve Silverwood)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna for apartment
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:44:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4i49nl$[e-mail]>
References: <4hicb8$[e-mail]> <4hmtb0$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (WB3U) wrote:

>Seems to me your two biggest problems will be A) finding an
>antenna that is both efficient and unobtrusive, and B) TVI/RFI.

>The first could be solved reasonably well with a shortened dipole
>made from magnet wire and fed with TV twinlead.  If this was driven
>by a 275 watt Johnson Matchbox (and if the run of line was reasonably
>short), you could have a pretty efficient system.

From the comments I've received elsewhere, this sounds like the best
solution.  Just out of curiosity, is there a real advantage between using
twin-lead for the feed over using coax with a balun?

>The severity of the second problem depends in large part on whether
>your neighbors already know that you're a ham.  <g>  Other than that,
>TVI will be minimized by using a low pass filter at the output of the
>rig.  TVI and RFI will both be minimized by using a balanced antenna
>that doesn't rely on earth ground to prevent unwanted radiation from
>other parts of the system.

Nobody at the apartment building knows about it, at least so far, so I'm
not concerned about that.  I'm also planning to run QRP so that should help
minimize things as well.  (And of course, no operating during the World
Series and so forth, because (1) that tends to REALLY tick people off, (2)
I'll be watching it myself, and (3) so will everyone else I would be
talking to on the air! ;-)
-- //Steve//

Computer Associates    CompuServe: 76703,3035
Fax: [phone]      Internet: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    America Online: KB6OJS
Homepage: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/KB6OJS
Personal homepage: http://www.earthlink.net/~kb6ojs



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna for apartment
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 18:49:54 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4h8a$[e-mail]>
References: <4hicb8$[e-mail]> <4hmtb0$[e-mail]> <4i49nl$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Steve Silverwood) wrote:

>Just out of curiosity, is there a real advantage between using
>twin-lead for the feed over using coax with a balun?

A balun is likely to cause problems in this situation whether it's at
the tuner (twinlead feeder) or at the antenna (coax feeder).  In your
situation, assuming the feedline is short, losses in the line will
probably be secondary to problems that will potentially be
generated by a balun.

As Tom, W8JI, has pointed out, a choke balun is the most immune to the
ill-effects of feeding a high impedance load.  However, even if it
doesn't consume power, it will can still lose balance.  Given your
situation and the need to keep RFI to an absolute minimum, a balanced
tuner is the optimum solution.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: 11 Mar 1996 21:14:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4i2538$[e-mail]>

This is a VHF/UHF TV question, I know, but please bear with me - I couldn't
find any newsgroups on Antennas other than this one...

I live in Delta, B.C., about 120 miles north of Seattle, WA and wish to
recieve more US TV channels... I have a roof mounted antenna which is
capable of recieving one Tacoma station, albeit very noisy. I want to
recieve Seattle stations, too, and wanted to know if it was better to buy a
mast mounted "booster" amplifier (with say 20 to 30 dB gain) or replace my
antenna with a "deep fringe" type. My antenna is about six feet long, with
about 20 elements, I recall.

Also, how can I find out what channels are available on UHF in my area ?

Any input appreciated,
--
Thanks,   ...Dave

____________________________________________________________________________
David R. Jones, PEng                    The University of British Columbia


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 23:22:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4i5173$[e-mail]>
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

 [e-mail] "Joe Mack" wrote:

>the lossy coax adds noise to the signal and it's about the same as
>the loss.

Does this mean that I could roll up 500' of lossy coax, terminate
the unused end with a 50 ohm resistor, and use it as a wideband noise
generator?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:10 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Joe Mack)
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:38:34 GMT

In article <4i2538$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Jones) writes
:
>This is a VHF/UHF TV question, I know, but please bear with me - I couldn't
>find any newsgroups on Antennas other than this one...
>
>I live in Delta, B.C., about 120 miles north of Seattle, WA and wish to
>recieve more US TV channels... I have a roof mounted antenna which is
>capable of recieving one Tacoma station, albeit very noisy. I want to
>recieve Seattle stations, too, and wanted to know if it was better to buy a
>mast mounted "booster" amplifier (with say 20 to 30 dB gain) or replace my
>antenna with a "deep fringe" type. My antenna is about six feet long, with
>about 20 elements, I recall.
>
>Also, how can I find out what channels are available on UHF in my area ?
>
>Any input appreciated,
>--
>Thanks,   ...Dave
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>David R. Jones, PEng                   The University of British Columbia

Well this is a good place to ask, most people here are
looking for ways to receive as much signal as they can
for the minimum price.

        There are 3 routes to getting a better signal
at VHF
        low noise preamp on the mast
        bigger antenna
        higher antenna

        The coax is important too - it gets you twice -
if you have 3db of loss in the coax your signal goes
down 3db, but as well, the lossy coax adds noise
to the signal and it's about the same as the loss.
So your S/N goes down 6db. I would expect in your
situation, you're running crappy TV grade coax
with F-connectors and getting a lot of loss there.
In the ham world, all weak signal people have
mast mounted preamps and quite often converters
on the tower to change the freq to something that
will survive the trip through the coax. For $100
(or $200 if you add the converter) you get
6db more S/N with a preamp. You usually can't
get 6db of S/N improvement with $100 of antenna
or increase in height.

        Happy viewing
        Joe NA3T
        [e-mail]





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:11 1996
From: "Anthony R. Gold" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 16:26:30 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] "Joe Mack" writes:

>         The coax is important too - it gets you twice -
> if you have 3db of loss in the coax your signal goes
> down 3db, but as well, the lossy coax adds noise
> to the signal and it's about the same as the loss.
> So your S/N goes down 6db.

That's incredible!

Regards,
--
   Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM                  email: [e-mail]
                                                [e-mail]
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (David, Michaela & Benjamin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: 13 Mar 96 03:28:51 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail].198.186.186.2>

Date: 11 Mar 1996 21:14:16 GMT
From: [e-mail] (David Jones)
Subject: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?

This is a VHF/UHF TV question, I know, but please bear with me - I =
couldn't
find any newsgroups on Antennas other than this one...

I live in Delta, B.C., about 120 miles north of Seattle, WA and wish to
recieve more US TV channels... I have a roof mounted antenna which is
capable of recieving one Tacoma station, albeit very noisy. I want to
recieve Seattle stations, too, and wanted to know if it was better to =
buy a
mast mounted "booster" amplifier (with say 20 to 30 dB gain) or replace =
my
antenna with a "deep fringe" type. My antenna is about six feet long, =
with
about 20 elements, I recall.

>>>Dave:  Either amp will just increase the level of noise.  You need to =
increase the ability of your antenna to focus closely on the target =
signal to the exclusion of other sources of RF.  The "deep fringe" =
option sounds right. You may then capture a weak, but cleaner, signal =
that is worth amplifying.
      Can't address the question about UHF stations in the area. Enjoy!
      73, David AA1FA
               =20

Any input appreciated,  Thanks,   ...Dave

_________________________________________________________________
David R. Jones, PEng                    The University of British Columbia



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (mlmitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Best 2M/70cm Mobile Antenna for Handheld
Date: 10 Mar 1996 18:14:02 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <lui-0303961553490001@192.0.2.1>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Stephen Lui) wrote:

>What is the best 2M/70cm mobile antenna for a handheld, preferably a
>magnetic mount? I visited stores and looked through catalogs and I was
>inundated with countless choices! I already have a cellular phone antenna,
>so I can't really install another through the glass antenna (which aren't
>supposed to work that well anyways).
>
>Stephen
Stephen,
I have had the best luck with the  ANLI, AT-2 and AT-2+ antennas They
take an NMO mount, either permanent or other NMO mounts available.
I feel that I have found the best antenna available for me and the
uses that I demand from an antenna.

73
Bill (N0EVG)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:15 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Stockton)
Subject: Re: Beveridge antennas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:29:19 GMT
References: <4i9uvp$[e-mail]>

Exiled on Main Street ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Hello all...

: I need to find out more about the construction of a beveridge antenna.
: Anyone know where i can get some instructions on constructing a balun for
: one? Please respond via email. Thanx! -Tim


   The Beveridge is an unbalanced antenna. You most certainly do not need
a balun.

   It is a non-resonant antenna.  length is not critical, the more the
better.  Try to get a few wavelengths, preferably several, at the lowest
freq you want good performance (it's still useful at lower freqs) of wire
supported in a straight line, at a fixed height above ground. Hit the ref
books and calculate the characteristic Z of this dia wire at this height
over groundplane. At the far end terminate with a resistor of same value
as antenna line Z to ground. A reasonable ground system helps, but you
don't need the sort of grounding array that a vertical antenna needs.

   Knowing the line Z, you can either use a classic antenna tuner design
close to the feed end, or else use a broadband *unbalanced* matching
transformer. The transformer approach makes the thing into a wideband
no-tune antenna, though the antenna tuner does have an advantage if you
want to push the LF limits a bit and use it where it's beginning to
become more of a terminated longwire.....

   One very nice touch is a remote control to open the terminating
resistor. This allows you to use it better as a longwire below it's
"Beveridge" type frequencies, and can also give a choice of directional
patterns above it.

   If you have a farm and a long hedgerow or fence, run one above it.
Great height seems less necessary with these things than a lot of other
types, 15 foot or so has been known to work fine.

   They have a rising gain with freq characteristic, as they become more
and more sharply directional.

   Rotating one could be a bit of a problem.......

   Governments used to use fans of Beveridges (rarely) and fans of
Rhombics (more often)  to cover full HF and all directions.

   Cheers
          David GM4ZNX




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Connector losses
Date: 10 Mar 1996 05:09:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4hto66$[e-mail]>


Jack,
        Your posting incorrectly ascribed the fololowing to me -

>IMO, the most reliable answer anyone can give is "I don't know".
>That's the one answer in life we can absolutely depend on being
>correct.

Unless they're lying.  <g>

73,
Jack  WB3U

        My quote of Thompson (Lord Kelvin) must be properly
interpreted.  I>E.  If you can't put numbers on it you probably
don't know what you are talking about.
        The emphesis must be on the YOP//// YOU , that is , it
is a test you give yourself.

Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: CTSVR vs. Voyager DX?
Date: 14 Mar 1996 00:08:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4i89ju$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Roger A. McCarty) writes:

>
>Anybody ever have the opportunity to do a heads up comparison between
the
>Uni-Hat CTSVR Vs. the GAP Voyager DX? ANy data is appreciated.
>
>Roger KD6CC
>
>

They did a comparison of the two at a ham's house in Los Alamos NM.

The Uni-Hat won.

Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jason)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Cushcraft AP8A & APR18A SWR problem
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:43:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4m77$[e-mail]>

Hi there,
        I have a cushcraft AP8A HF vertical antenna mounted on the gable end
of my house and need to attach ground radials to it to get the SWR
down to below 1:1.5 on all 8 bands.
        I have the cushcraft APR18A radial kit and was wondering if anyone
has had experience with the positioning of the many radials in the
same mounting position as mine.
        Obviously mounting the radials in one of the directions is impossible
because there is no roof to support them.
        Have you had the same problem and if so how did you overcome it?
        Are there any designs of matching units which can be used at the base
as in the R7 and R5 verticals which would do without the need for
radials?

        Your comments would be most welocme.

        Many thanks in advance

        73    Jason  GM0VKQ    QTH  Aberdeen Scotland UK





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Anibal Aguirre)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Discone Radiation Patterns?
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 20:44:59 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <4hojru$[e-mail]> <4hphrs$[e-mail]>

In <4hphrs$[e-mail]>
[e-mail] () wrote:

>>Can anyone out there tell me what type of radiation pattern a VHF/UHF
>>discone exhibits? Is it roughly equal to a 1/4 wave or what?
>
>Hi Zack,
>
>The gain is roughly comparable to a 1/4 wave, but the pattern changs
>in a peculiar way as you move from the lowest to the highest specified
>frequency. I have seen an extensive set of diagrams in an professoional
>antenna engineering handbook.
>
>73, Moritz DL5UH
>
>
>
>
Zack:practically de discone gain is lowest than 1/4 wave.
remember that gain*BW=CONST.
--
---
E-mail: [e-mail]
Buenos Aires - Argentina




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:19 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Discone Radiation Patterns?
Date: 8 Mar 1996 14:57:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4hphrs$[e-mail]>
References: <4hojru$[e-mail]>

>Can anyone out there tell me what type of radiation pattern a VHF/UHF
>discone exhibits? Is it roughly equal to a 1/4 wave or what?

Hi Zack,

The gain is roughly comparable to a 1/4 wave, but the pattern changs
in a peculiar way as you move from the lowest to the highest specified
frequency. I have seen an extensive set of diagrams in an professoional
antenna engineering handbook.

73, Moritz DL5UH






From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: FCC-Out of Control??? Please Read
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 16:21:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4i48hk$[e-mail]>
References: <4i34k7$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Rick Eutsler) wrote:

>Prepared to use force if necessary, federal police arrived at 8 AM on
>March 7, 1996, to remove a small radio transmitter from the home of
>A.L. Kobres, a long-time radio enthusiast.

                 <snip>

There is no question that the F.C.C.'s methods of allotment are wrong.
Government does not own the magnetic spectrum any more than it owns
all land, all personal property, or the heat from the sun.

It is also evident that ideas transmitted over the air, regardless of
format, fall under the Constitutionally-protected right to free
speech.

Nevertheless, and regardless of the sins of the F.C.C., the act of
transmission on a frequency one does not own is trespass.  Kobres was
indeed exercising his right to free speech, but the F.C.C. did not
infringe on that.  They merely removed a trespasser from property that
didn't belong to him.

Kobres' actions are similar to someone who breaks into their
neighbor's house, then claims they have a right to be there because
they're talking.

Ridiculous.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:22 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: G5RV beam
Date: 11 Mar 1996 19:17:33 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i1u8d$[e-mail]>

I've been experimenting with EZNEC and my 102 ft dipole trying
to better the 40m radiation pattern. EZNEC says that a 66 ft
reflector 10 ft away will give 9dbi gain over real ground with
a TOA of 50 degrees and a horizontal beam width of 100 degrees.
From my AZ location, that covers all the US east of N.Mex, the
northern half of South America, most of Africa, and most of
Europe. By using a 104 ft reflector 10 ft away, there's three
powerful (10dbi+) lobes on 20m, one toward Europe, one toward
South Africa, and one toward Mexico/South America.

By using two 10 ft pieces of fiberglas, I can support the whole
thing on 2 poles. By flipping the driven element and the reflector,
I can reverse the direction to favor the west.

I'm familiar with half-wave wire beams. Has anybody else explored
the multi-lobed feature of a 3/2 WL wire beam?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rval58)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: G5RV coax length
Date: 15 Mar 1996 11:41:39 -0500
Message-ID: <4ic6k3$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rval58)

I have a pre-assembled G5RV that uses 300 Ohm twinlead and RG-8X coax.  I
hear that a varying COAX length can effect the match??  Currently, the SWR
is about 4 or 5:1 on average across the bands.  Not very pleased,
obviously.  I wonder if anyone has had success trimming or adding to the
RG-8X  to tweak SWR?  The coax is just as it was currently.  My lowest SWR
is on 10M around 28.500 at 1.5:1.
The antenna is up 45 feet.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:23 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: G5RV coax length
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ic6k3$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:39:47 GMT

Yes. The longer the coax the lower the swr appears due to loss in the
feeder. If you make it at least 70ft of RG-58, your swr will appear quite
low. I also found that if you wad the coax up and let it lay on the
ground the swr appears even lower. All of this goes to show the how the
G5RV was never intended to be a multiband antenna in the first place when
fed with coax. Only 20 meters was originally considered. MR G5RV himself
recommends using open wire feeders when used as a multiband antenna.

Most antenna manuals have charts showing the effect of line loss on swr.
A lossy coax can turn a 5:1 swr into an nice 1.2:1 if it is long enough.

I suggest you either replace the coax with open line or just put up with
the high swr and use a tuner. Remember, the better and shorter your coax
is, the higher the swr will appear.

Further, when a line has a mismatch like yours, the swr will appear to
vary for different lengths of line on any given frequency. Sometimes a
decent compromise can be achieved by experimenting with various short
sections of coax added to your feeder. This is real easy on the higher
bands where just a short 3ft jumper from the tuner to the rig can make a
huge different in swr READINGS.


Rval58 ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I have a pre-assembled G5RV that uses 300 Ohm twinlead and RG-8X coax.  I
: hear that a varying COAX length can effect the match??  Currently, the SWR
: is about 4 or 5:1 on average across the bands.  Not very pleased,
: obviously.  I wonder if anyone has had success trimming or adding to the
: RG-8X  to tweak SWR?  The coax is just as it was currently.  My lowest SWR
: is on 10M around 28.500 at 1.5:1.
: The antenna is up 45 feet.

--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (Vince Fiscus,  KB7ADL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: GAP Voyager DX vertical antenna.
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 00:40:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4i2h8i$[e-mail]>


Is the GAP Voyager DX a good vertical ?


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:25 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Glass mount dualband antenna
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4htn6p$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 07:14:50 GMT

[e-mail] (FrankB2686) wrote:

>Anyone have experience (good or bad) using a glass mount 2m/70cm antenna?
>Comments on installation, manufactures, etc. would be appriciated.

>73 Frank  WD6AGS

Does anyone have any experience using the glass mount, is the and
difference to rx or tx as opposed to drilling a hole into my brand new
car.  Im using the Vertex 99 channel uhf model.
Any make or model?



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Burch Akin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Glass mount dualband antenna
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:10:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6krq$[e-mail]>
References: <4htn6p$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:

>[e-mail] (FrankB2686) wrote:

>>Anyone have experience (good or bad) using a glass mount 2m/70cm antenna?
>>Comments on installation, manufactures, etc. would be appriciated.

>>73 Frank  WD6AGS

>Does anyone have any experience using the glass mount, is the and
>difference to rx or tx as opposed to drilling a hole into my brand new
>car.  Im using the Vertex 99 channel uhf model.
>Any make or model?

I have owned two glass mount antennas.  The first one was an Antenna
Specialist two meter antenna and I could never get the SWR below 3:1.
I bought a Tucker 2 meter glass mount (that was about half the price
of the Antenna Specialist) and it was able to get the SWR under 1.5:1.
Most glass mounts are limited to 50 watts, although I have seen a
couple that were rated at 100 watts.  I have had pretty good luck with
mine, of course it is not as good as a 5/8 wavelength wip (my glass
mount is a 1/4 wave.)  I own a Trans Am and didn't want to put a big
antenna on the car and the glass mount was perfect.  It even looks
nice on the car (looks like a big cell phone antenna.)  While driving
I can reach most repeaters within a 30 mile range or so with 20-30
watts.

Burch Akin
KE4ZQV



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:27 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Glass mount dualband antenna
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:08:04 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
> [e-mail] (FrankB2686) wrote:
>
> >Anyone have experience (good or bad) using a glass mount 2m/70cm
antenna?
> >Comments on installation, manufactures, etc. would be appriciated.
>
> >73 Frank  WD6AGS
>
> Does anyone have any experience using the glass mount, is the and
> difference to rx or tx as opposed to drilling a hole into my brand
new
> car.  Im using the Vertex 99 channel uhf model.
> Any make or model?

I've been very pleased with my Larsen KG2/70 glass mount.

Tony  kc7hdt



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Charlie Fortner)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: ground a 5/8 wave on a trunk lip mount?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 21:12:15 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I've got a trunk lip mount and I want to use a 5/8 wave antenna with it.
If I attach a piece of wire running from the ground of the antenna to a
suitable ground in the trunk, will this have the same affect as putting
the antenna on the roof of my car?  Thanks.

Charlie Fortner
KF4GJQ


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:29 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ham-Ant Digest V96 #126
Date: 13 Mar 96 18:04:12 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>I'm looking for a source for a 10M flexible rubber antenna for a SSB 10M
>handheld. I tried getting one from Radio Shack that they sell for their
>CB HT to cut it down a bit, but they never delivered on the special
>order. I know this kind of antenna won't be efficient, but I am looking
>for one just the same.

>73 Dave WB0GAZ [e-mail]

Why don't you try Azden for a rubber duck, they sell a hand-held 10m rig and
you could get the rubber duckie they use for that one.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (mike del pozzo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: help, mutual coupling...
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:10:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4i3phc$[e-mail]>

Hello Guys,
seems I have a new problem with my 4 element Quad coupling with my
160 mtr inverted V. only have this problem with 20 mtrs. would like to
solve this short of moving the 160 antenna. Quad boom is at 80 ft. and
160 antenna is at 65 ft. and fed W/ open line for use on 80/40, though

this will change to a 4 Square soon. Would like to solve problem w 160

antenna. Would going to 50 Ohm coax fix? Tnx in advance
KR4TG, Mike




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter  Markham)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF dipole for VHF/UHF
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 15:12:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4i44b4$[e-mail]>
References: <4hsii6$[e-mail]>


    I have wondered about the possibility and practicality of using a
75m dipole, center fed with 450 ladder (window?) line, on vhf/uhf. I
have never seen the subject touched upon in my limited printed resources, or
mentioned in this group articles for the month I have been reading them. Given

high power computer analysis of antennas, matching networks, and operating
environments coupled with the intellect evident among the postings, I suspect
that
someone has played with the idea. Anyone willing to share their insight or
knowledge of the subject?

    Associated with this subject is that of building balanced vhf/uhf matching

networks (tuners) and baluns for use with the above idea antenna, if
practical.

                                  Pete, wa4hei


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: HF Fractal Antennas?
Date: 12 Mar 1996 15:13:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i44a2$[e-mail]>

Communications Quarterly, Summer '95, carried an article
on Fractal Antennas by Chip Cohen, N1IR. Looks like a
great way to shrink an HF half-wave dipole for an attic
installation. Has anybody tried an HF fractal antenna?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:32 1996
From: Ellie Emmanuel <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: HF Rhombic Antennas
Date: 11 Mar 1996 21:57:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4i27l1$[e-mail]>

Can anyone help with some basic info on HF Rhombics. I have recently
purchase sufficient land for a 2 wave on a side for 40M Rhombic or other
higher band Rhombic. I am unable to find in depth info in ARRL Handbook,
RSGB Handbook or others. Questions abound concerning angles at corners,
heigth above ground, terminated vs unterminated etc etc etc.

If someone has experience aned would be willing to share, please contact
me at the following:

       Jim Smith - [e-mail]

I do not have newsgroup access at home and am using a friends computer to
send this message.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:34 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF Rhombic Antennas
Date: 12 Mar 1996 07:37:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4i39kb$[e-mail]>
References: <4i27l1$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <4i27l1$[e-mail]>, Ellie Emmanuel <[e-mail]> write
s:
>Can anyone help with some basic info on HF Rhombics. I have recently
>purchase sufficient land for a 2 wave on a side for 40M Rhombic or other
>higher band Rhombic. I am unable to find in depth info in ARRL Handbook,
>RSGB Handbook or others. Questions abound concerning angles at corners,
>heigth above ground, terminated vs unterminated etc etc etc.
>
>If someone has experience aned would be willing to share, please contact
>me at the following:
>
>       Jim Smith - [e-mail]
>
>I do not have newsgroup access at home and am using a friends computer to
>send this message.
>

Jasik's Antenna handbook has a VERY in-depth treatment of rhombics.
The older W6SAI Radio Handbooks also have some information on them.

Brian Beezley's MN and MNC antenna software packages come with a
compromise rhombic starting point for design work with his antenna
modeling package that produces the nicest complex radiation pattern display
you ever saw in color.

It also displays the rather interesting large number of narrow spike lobes
in various directions both in the horizontal and vertical plane for you to
see just how these antennae really radiate.

A friend of mine that own a creosote plant for phone poles has played
with them in east Texas for a long time.  Here in tornado alley, he says
they aren't all that good at all in summer QRN, because of the high angle
spikes that pick up all the interference from every close range TRW that
shows up in staticville.

It rather reinforces the point that the rhombic is a wonderful antenna for
fixed point to point circuits where the path length is also known so that
one can optimize the plant for both the required single direction and
desired takeoff angle.  On these circuits, these antennae are wonderful.

If you look carefully at this antenna, unless your amateur radio desires for
a signal are eally confined to only a few directions, it can get mighty
expensive putting up a number of them to fill in the holes around the
compass.

I have the space for a couple good ones.

I gave up thinking about them when I started calculating the cost per DB
per direction and what all it REALLY would take to put up a plant full.

Besides, they are still the same old story about having to be at least 3/4
wave length above the ground at the desired frequency for the right takeoff
angles.  That, on 40 meters means up above 90 feet or so.  And on 80,
it means up around 160 feet or so.

Just beecause you have the horizontal space,  does not mean you have the
money for LOTS of 180 foot towers.

At least in MY case.....

:)

Mike W5WQN as a guest at leviathan.tamu.edu



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:35 1996
From: Ellie Emmanuel <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF Rhombic Antennas
Date: 15 Mar 1996 16:04:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4ic4f7$[e-mail]>
References: <4i27l1$[e-mail]> <4i39kb$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Thanks for the comeback. It does indeed seem you are confirming my
suspicions. I agree that the cost to put such a critter in the air can be
a whole lot. Another direct reply also suggested that for the same cost I
could put up a whole farm full of wire antennas with just a few poles and
pulleys.

73, Jim, KA7APJ
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mark Saunders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Hygain 18AVT need help
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:52:09 UNDEFINED
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> Earl Richardet <[e-mail]>
writes:

>I'm having trouble matching my recently acquired Hygain 18AVT antenna.  I can
't get below 3-1
>SWR.  Does anyone have the original starting measurements for this antenna an
d or installation
>instructions.

>Desparate  VE7MLJ EARL

Hi Earl,

I've got the information you need.  Send me your snail mail address and I'll
send it off to you.



Mark Saunders - KJ7BS
Glendale, AZ
PACKET:   [e-mail]
INTERNET: [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:37 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Joe Mack)
Subject: Re: is kraus alive?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hpsas$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:12:06 GMT

In article <4hpsas$[e-mail]> [e-mail]
U (Emarit Ranu) writes:
>Anibal Aguirre ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: i`d like to know if the autor of "the antenna bible" is alive today.
>: please sorry...sorry for my ignorance.
>: if he`s alive, i`d like write him.
>: sorry again.
>: 73,                          anibal.
>:                               LU4DVJ
>
>       My Electromagnetics book copyrighted 1992 by him says he is
>       "teaching while serving as a consultant to government and industry".
>
>
>--
>       -Emarit, KG0CQ  73's   [e-mail]
>       Electrical Engineering, Colorado State Univeristy
>       Packet:                KG0CQ@KF0UW.#NECO.USA.NOAM
>       All generalizations are bad.  Censorship:  ######
>       _._  __.  _____  _._.  __._


He has just been given some ham award for service to the
(ham) community, which will be presented at the Dayton
HamVention.

        I called up his (old) dept at the university
a few years back, trying to find out about him. The
secretary just told me to phone him at home. I said
something about there must be people bothering him
all day if people like me just phoned him up. She
didn't seem to think it would be a problem. SO I called
him up and said hello. I was trying to track down
his book "The Big Ear", as it seemed to be out of
print. He didn't know where I could get it. However
I talked to the man himself. Quite something.
(I later got the book through interlibrary loan
via the county library - even later I foudn that
CQ magazine (I think) bookstore has it)

Joe NA3T
[e-mail]






From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB7ASR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ladder line and 6M antenna  RESULTS?
Date: 14 Mar 1996 16:20:39 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i9h0n$[e-mail]>
References: <4i3r4u$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (DeNoid95X) wrote:
>I have a quick question, I was wondering if anyone was using ladder line
>from their transceiver to an antenna and if so what type of antenna and
>the results you have experienced.  I am using a 6M two element quad and
>was curious of the results of such a system with ladder line 300/450 Ohm.
>
>N9RLR/2

      Im using my 40 meter roof mounted full size vertical which
      is base feed using 300 ohm ladder line and a 4:1 balum
      on 6 meters. The 4:1 balum connects via 50 ohm coax to a
      homebrew 6 meter antenna tuner, which gives me a 1:1 swr
      match to my 100 watt output xcvr.

      It has been working with quite good results, yealding me many
      DX station QSOs during pipeups against local guys who are running
      3 ele beams. Per an antenna modeling software program, I have
      a 6.4db gain omni pattern with a take off angle of 64 deg.

      Tom...



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (DeNoid95X)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: ladder line and 6M antenna  RESULTS?
Date: 12 Mar 1996 07:36:46 -0500
Message-ID: <4i3r4u$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (DeNoid95X)

I have a quick question, I was wondering if anyone was using ladder line
from their transceiver to an antenna and if so what type of antenna and
the results you have experienced.  I am using a 6M two element quad and
was curious of the results of such a system with ladder line 300/450 Ohm.

N9RLR/2


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:41 1996
From: Dave Heil <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ladder line and 6M antenna  RESULTS?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 16:59:09 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i3r4u$[e-mail]>

DeNoid95X wrote:
>
> I have a quick question, I was wondering if anyone was using ladder line
> from their transceiver to an antenna and if so what type of antenna and
> the results you have experienced.  I am using a 6M two element quad and
> was curious of the results of such a system with ladder line 300/450 Ohm.
>
> N9RLR/2


In the early days of TV, when folks lived in a valley or other area
shielded from good reception, it was common practice to place the antenna
perhaps a couple of hundred feet away from the house, say on the side of
a hill.  Open wire line was run up the hill to the antenna and reception
was good.  Don't forget that 30 years ago, the most common TV lead-in was
300 ohm twin lead.

If you use a balun at each end of the feed line to transform the
impedances to 50 ohms, you'll end up with less loss than if you'd used
coaxial cable.  You'll need to use standoff insulators to keep the stuff
away from the house and any nearby metal objects.  Good luck.

73,

Dave OH2/K8MN
downtown Helsinki


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: lowband antennas
Date: 13 Mar 1996 19:07:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i76dj$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

>I never thought it was preferable to ground the system at the base of
>the vertical.

A bit of misunderstanding, Jack. My assumption is that the radials are
all returned to the braid of the coax. I did not suggest a ground rod at
the antenna. The coax braid then returns to the xmtr, which is probably
grounded to a good system ground of some kind.

If the number of radials or length of radials is not adequate, *some* of the
return current *at the antenna* may not be collected by the radials and may
seek *another route* back to the xmtr via an *earth* path. For some time now
I have suspected that may, in fact, be happening if the radial system is
poor.

I tried to word my post as carefully as possible so that there would be no
misinterpretations. Apparently I was not careful enough (mea culpa).

Also, I referred only to verticals that are at ground level (ground
mounted). I would hope to restrict the scope to just the things that I
mentioned. I am especially anxious not to get into another spool of
thread on this topic.

73, Bill


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:43 1996
From: Mark Schoonover <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: LW Antenna for Apartment Dweller
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:05:43 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Thanks for reading!

I'm looking for plans to build LW antennas for use in an apartment. My main
goal is for DXing beacons and NAVTEXT broadcasts. Any pointers would be
greatly appreciated!

Thanks Again!

Mark --KA6WKE


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Mileshosky)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need Info on G5RV Antenna
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 02:07:58 GMT
Message-ID: <4ho8ga$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hello Everybody,
  I am thinking of buying a G5RV antenna.  Are these antennas pretty
good? How about on 80 and 40? And I have heard they can be used on 160
meters.  How does it to on that band?
  All information would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Best of 73,
Brian, N5ZGT...


________________________________________________________________________
 Boy Scouts of America                   Amateur Radio
  J.A.S.M. - Troop 41                        N5ZGT
    Albuquerque, NM            Packet: N5ZGT @ KC5IZT.ALBQ.NM.USA.NA
 Great Southwest Council           Internet: [e-mail]
    O.A. Lodge 66
_______________________________________________________________________



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ronald H Steinberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need info on Heath B1 balun
Date: 12 Mar 1996 11:31:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4i3na1$[e-mail]>

Picked up an old Heath coil balun and would like a copy of the
instruction/specs. Does this type of balun (air coil) offer any real
advantages or disadvantages over the new torrid based units?
              RON K9IKZ


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:46 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: OOTC
Date: 11 Mar 96 14:23:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4722BAED@MHS>

Thanks Tom.
You make it perfectly clear.
I thought it was Old OSCAR Training Course
or Old Olympiad Tiddiliewinks Character

cul8tr
73, Roland

>In article <4606E8C2@MHS>, [e-mail] writes:

>Could someone tell me what an OOTC is?
>Is that an EE on steriods or or what?
>73,
>Roland WF4P

>Abbreviations cause QRK 1. Since I am not QRL at QTR 1:05pm, I thought I'd
>QSP QTC-1. OOTC is the Old old timers club..

>It means the OM's been QRV since Hector was a pup, before the days of MTV
>and even TTL. QSL?
>BCNU,

>Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:47 1996
From: Jake Middlebrook <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Date: 13 Mar 1996 22:00:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7gh2$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hvmdk$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

I've heard of some lore that says a pine tree killed by lighting when the
sap is high will affect antenna patterns but I never heard of anyone
actually trying to drive one.  I'll pay a quarter to watch him tune it by
trimming the capacity hat with hedge clippers. HI.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Date: 14 Mar 1996 01:10:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7rm5$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hvmdk$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>In article <4hvmdk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ross Alex
ander) writes:

>>I just went out and measured the resistance between two plated 8" lag
>>screws driven into a meter of green aspen, about 30 in cm diameter.
>>It's well over 100 k ohms (sorry, didn't have a megger handy.)  Maybe
>>some other trees are better, but five or six orders of magnitude
>>better?  Highly unlikely.

>At what frequency did you take this measurement? [...]

Good point.  Just went outside with my Autek RF analyst and did some
more measurements.  Got 1300 ohms at 3.5 Mhz, 550 ohms at 7.15 Mhz,
230-ish ohms at 20m.  That's per foot.  Although I did measure higher
(90 ohms per foot indicated at 28.5 Mhz) I'm extremely suspicious of
the results; the lead lengths start to get significant, and stray
capacitance & body effects made the readings bounce all over.

Does anyone here think that an 80m vertical built from 66 1k ohm
resistors each having a pair of six inch leads would work well?  :)
I still think feedline radiation is the ticket.

regards,
Ross ve6pdq

ps: so, does anyone else have numbers?  Surely I'm not the only ham
who owns a tree and a noise bridge.

--
Ross Alexander, ve6pdq  --  [phone]  --  [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:52 1996
From: Jake Middlebrook <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Date: 13 Mar 1996 22:00:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7ghh$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hvmdk$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

I've heard of some lore that says a pine tree killed by lighting when the
sap is high will affect antenna patterns but I never heard of anyone
actually trying to drive one.  I'll pay a quarter to watch him tune it by
trimming the capacity hat with hedge clippers. HI.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tony Angerame - Sun SSE)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: OSCAR 2mt DwnLnk
Date: 13 Mar 1996 17:12:07 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i6vl7$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I need some help choosing an antenna for the 2 meter downlink. I am trying to
build
a solid receiver setup at as low a cost as is reasonable. I allready have a Ye
asu
FT-101ZD receiver at 14mhz using an Ameco Nuvistor convertor. It's old but sur
e seems
to have plenty of gain and is a stable setup. I plan on making up for the conv
ertors
mediocre noise figure by installing a GasFet preamp at the antenna which will
be
only 20 feet or less away from the shack. I am contemplating a six turn helix
but
haven't worked out the mechanical details. (Need to get to Home Depot hihi). A
s an
alternative antenna I am thinking of the KLM,Hy-gain or M2 Circular polarized
yagis.
I have notice they make both a large and a smaller model (15ele vs 11 or so).
Which
one is my best bet? Should I go for the higher or lower gain model? I like the
 idea
of switching RHCP and LHCP but I'm not sure how important it is? Slowly but sh
urely
and before the sunspots are back!


                                                    TIA


                                                    Tony WA6LZH




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:54 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: webbte <>
Subject: Paint on a Vertical
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To:  (webbte)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 18:48:14 GMT

I'm about to move into a development with the usual antenna
restrictions. Just wondered if anyone has had any luck applying
a coat of dark colored paint to a vertical? I realize the paint
would have to be a non-metalic type. It would serve to "hide"
the antenna within a small stand of pine trees by blocking any
reflections from the bright aluminum. Any ideas?

73 de Ted / AC4CS
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:55 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (James Aeschliman)
Subject: Re: Paint on a Vertical
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (James Aeschliman)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 19:47:02 GMT


In a previous article,  (webbte) says:

>
>I'm about to move into a development with the usual antenna
>restrictions. Just wondered if anyone has had any luck applying
>a coat of dark colored paint to a vertical? I realize the paint
>would have to be a non-metalic type. It would serve to "hide"
>the antenna within a small stand of pine trees by blocking any
>reflections from the bright aluminum. Any ideas?
>
It should work.  It's been common practice for years to coat an
aluminum antenna with clear lacquer to reduce corrosion.

--
Jim Aeschliman                      [e-mail]
Black Diamond, Washington           KD7MK


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bromley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Paint on a Vertical
Date: 12 Mar 1996 14:42:01 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4i30c9$[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ted / AC4CS) writes:

>I'm about to move into a development with the usual antenna
>restrictions. Just wondered if anyone has had any luck applying
>a coat of dark colored paint to a vertical? I realize the paint
>would have to be a non-metalic type. It would serve to "hide"
>the antenna within a small stand of pine trees by blocking any
>reflections from the bright aluminum. Any ideas?

I usually paint my 2m/440 verticals flat black.  No problem
at all with bare aluminum - it has the effect of shorting out
any loss resistance the paint might exhibit.  I don't paint
the plastic insulators, since any resistance in the paint
could degrade the antenna's performance at that point.

However, most spray-on black paints seem to use small particles
of amorphous carbon black for pigment. These particles are buried
in the binder and are not in contact with each other. This seems
to keep the  paint resistance quite high from DC up to microwaves.
So loss from this source may be a moot point.

Lately, I have spray-painted a plastic-covered 2m/440 gain
antenna and have not noticed any degradation in SWR or
on-the-air performance with distant stations.

A final note on color.  Black seems to fade out of sight
when against just about any background.  Even against a
bright blue sky, there is something about it that makes
the eye look past it.

Jim Bromley, W5GYJ
Glendale, AZ




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (John N0ISL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Paint on a Vertical
Date: 11 Mar 1996 23:59:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4i30c9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John N0ISL)

Comet Antennas produced a version of one of their antennas in Blue, hoping
it would disapper into the sky and not be so obvious. It stood out like
crazy. It is also no longer for sale. I have installed a couple of
"stealth" antennas that were painted a ligh grey. They were not at all
obivous and there were no side effects from painting them.
John Douglas, N0ISL
AX.25 N0ISL@KZ7I.#MSP.MN.USA.NOAM
I'm in Minnesota only because I must be somewhere!


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Paint on a Vertical
Date: 13 Mar 1996 16:03:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6rjr$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

webbte () wrote:
: I'm about to move into a development with the usual antenna
: restrictions. Just wondered if anyone has had any luck applying
: a coat of dark colored paint to a vertical? I realize the paint
: would have to be a non-metalic type. It would serve to "hide"
: the antenna within a small stand of pine trees by blocking any
: reflections from the bright aluminum. Any ideas?

Barry Ornitz, a ham who used to post in these groups occasionally,
and who's a chemical engineer at a plastics plant, once told me
that acrylic paint is particularly good for antenna projects, because
the paint has reasonably low RF loss and tends to be more weather (UV)
resistant than other paints.  I suspect most non-epoxy spray paints are
acrylic, but check the labels.  I miss Barry's postings; I could always
rely on them for accuracy and thoughtfulness.

--
Cheers,
Tom
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:21:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Paint on a Vertical
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 17:45:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4i71s3$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4i30c9$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (James E. Bromley) wrote:

>I usually paint my 2m/440 verticals flat black.  No problem
>at all with bare aluminum - it has the effect of shorting out
>any loss resistance the paint might exhibit.

Hi Jim,

As you mentioned later in your post, the particular paint you're using
may not be conductive at these frequencies.  However, if it is, the
aluminum surface of the vertical isn't likely to short out the
resistance in the paint.  Skin effect will force the current into the
paint, and it will become all or part of the path.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:00 1996
From: Mike James <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Portable HF ant. suggestions?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:40:51 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Greetings,
Can anyone suggest a good, portable HF antenna one could put into a backpack
alogn with a QRP rig?  It would be nice if the antenna could be made to work o
n
several bands.

Thanks!
Mike James
KE0CH


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:01 1996
From: Jake Middlebrook <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Q: How would a 80m Magnetic Loop antenna look like?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 19:51:57 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hk7lq$[e-mail]>

.35 wave length loop  .1 wave length diameter  open one end and insert a
cap to resonate  use large copper type or 3 inch wide copper tape
you can get a good guess at cap size by .36 uH per foot
If you look under ftp.funnet.fi/pub/ham there is a program called
miniloop.zip which gives you the results of a magnetic loop design
feed the thing with a gamma match or a shielded loop 1/6 diameter
of the large loop
good luck
Jake WB4HPF


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 20:13:09 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4m4f$[e-mail]>
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop>

   Ron Thompson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>A mobile unit 40 miles away transmitting on a simplex frequency can
>be heard clearly, but the mobile unit cannot hear my radio until it
>gets within 10 miles.

Perhaps the directivity of your yagi is reducing some of the
multiple reflections that would make your signal audible to the
other station.  Have you tried a vertical in that situation?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:03 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:12:39 GMT

In article <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> Ron Thompson <[e-mail]> write
s:
>I have a unique situation that needs some help:
>
>I live in a valley, halfway up the hill on the north side.
>All the contacts I want to make are to the north of me,
>which is effectively blocked by the hill I live on. Across
>the valley is a big mountain that faces north.
>
>I have a 50 W 2M radio with a 4 Element Yagi Beam antenna
>with 10db gain.
>
>The beam is aimed south, directly towards the big mountain.
>I am effectively bouncing my signal off of it to get over
>the hill I am on.  If I turned the beam around, it would
>would be pointed directly into the hillside.
>
>The problem is, my signal reception is much better than
>my signal going out.  Tests I have done indicate that I
>can hear signals about 4 times farther away than I can
>with a 3db gain whip.  The 3db whip puts out signals
>that can be heard about twice as far away than the beam
>though.  A mobile unit 40 miles away transmitting on
>a simplex frequency can be heard clearly, but the mobile
>unit cannot hear my radio until it gets within 10 miles.
>Strange.
>
>Does anyone have any idea why this would happen?

Sounds like you are under illuminating your reflector.
This is a common source of reduced gain with dish
antennas, and would also seem to apply in this case.
Try removing a director from your beam to widen its
main lobe.

The reason the behavior appears non-reciprocal is
due to the fact that the mountain isn't a focusing
reflector, but rather is a scattering reflector due
to its rough surface. Thus on receive, where the
mountain is fully illuminated by the expanded wave
from the distant station, scatter is letting more
of the signal combine at your antenna than is the
case for the focused beam fed toward only part of
the mountain.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:04 1996
From: "Anthony R. Gold" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 20:29:26 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "Gary Coffman" writes:

> The reason the behavior appears non-reciprocal is
> due to the fact that the mountain isn't a focusing
> reflector, but rather is a scattering reflector due
> to its rough surface.

I do not follow this.  And indeed to be frank, I just don't believe it.

Are you saying that this appears to be non-reciprocal but isn't.  Or are
you saying that this particular antenna configuration, hills and all, IS
non-reciprocal. And either way, could you explain your theory with a
numerical example?

Regards,
--
   Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM                  email: [e-mail]
                                                [e-mail]
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 14:32:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6mih$[e-mail]>
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> <[e-mail]> <4i6iq8$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen) wrote:

>If the antenna beam were so narrow that it hits only a part of the
>mountain when transmitting, wouldn't it then receive signals
>only from that same part of the mountain? If so, it wouldn't matter
>how much of the rest of the mountain were illuminated by the other
>transmitter.

I can't speak for Gary, but in my response to this I was thinking
about the distant signal also being refracted/reflected near its own
location.  As a result of that, multiple waves might strike the
mountain from various angles.  If the waves arrive reasonably
in-phase, and they converge at the yagi after being reflected from the
mountain, the result could be the noted effect.  When the yagi is used
to transmit though, that effect would not necessarily be reciprocal
for the distant mobile receiver.  The narrow beam of the yagi would
prevent the transmit signal from spreading out and would limit its
chances of reflecting back to the mobile from multiple points.  The
mountain may simply not be reflecting the transmit signal in the
correct direction to be received by the mobile, or a straight line
drawn from the yagi to the mountain, and then to the mobile, may be
blocked by side of the hill that the QTH is on.  This is why I
suggested trying a vertical.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:07 1996
From: Ron Thompson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: 11 Mar 1996 16:23:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop>

I have a unique situation that needs some help:

I live in a valley, halfway up the hill on the north side.
All the contacts I want to make are to the north of me,
which is effectively blocked by the hill I live on. Across
the valley is a big mountain that faces north.

I have a 50 W 2M radio with a 4 Element Yagi Beam antenna
with 10db gain.

The beam is aimed south, directly towards the big mountain.
I am effectively bouncing my signal off of it to get over
the hill I am on.  If I turned the beam around, it would
would be pointed directly into the hillside.

The problem is, my signal reception is much better than
my signal going out.  Tests I have done indicate that I
can hear signals about 4 times farther away than I can
with a 3db gain whip.  The 3db whip puts out signals
that can be heard about twice as far away than the beam
though.  A mobile unit 40 miles away transmitting on
a simplex frequency can be heard clearly, but the mobile
unit cannot hear my radio until it gets within 10 miles.
Strange.

Does anyone have any idea why this would happen?

Thanks!

[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 13:33:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6iq8$[e-mail]>
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>. . .

>The reason the behavior appears non-reciprocal is
>due to the fact that the mountain isn't a focusing
>reflector, but rather is a scattering reflector due
>to its rough surface. Thus on receive, where the
>mountain is fully illuminated by the expanded wave
>from the distant station, scatter is letting more
>of the signal combine at your antenna than is the
>case for the focused beam fed toward only part of
>the mountain.

Pardon my ignorance. If the antenna beam were so narrow that it hits only a
part of the mountain when transmitting, wouldn't it then receive signals
only from that same part of the mountain? If so, it wouldn't matter how
much of the rest of the mountain were illuminated by the other transmitter.
It seems to me that antenna operation would be reciprocal.

There are, of course, other explanations for non-reciprocity in VHF
transmitting and receiving -- different amounts of transmit power and
different receiver noise figures. These sound more likely to me.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:09 1996
From: John Fleming <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: RadioAdventure Web Site
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:12:54 +0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

There is a new web site,

http://www.far.net/radioadventure

which contains articles and info about a variety of antenna types.


John Fleming


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:10 1996
From: Dave Perkins <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Replacement Antenna for Yaesu FT-411E
Date: 14 Mar 1996 01:28:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7soc$[e-mail]>

  I lost the antenna that my Yaesu came with a while ago...I have an
antenna for it now but I hate it..Does anyone know how I can get a
replacement one...The one that the radio came with...Also, does anyone
know how much it will cost..???

  Please reply via [e-mail]


  Thanx, Dave in San Diego



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:11 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (James Aeschliman)
Subject: Re: RFI with stereo: need filter advice/RFI from AM xmtr, what to do?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (James Aeschliman)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:35:37 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Pete Soper) says:

>
>I'm considering building low pass filters for each of the
>five speaker outputs but before I build and test the first
>one I thought I'd check with the collective wisdom of those
>readers who have "been there, done that". My first cut would be
>a series inductor of perhaps 20 microhenries and a small
>cap of perhaps .01ufd to ground (numbers from memory).  . . .

I believe I read in a recent QST not to put by-pass capacitors on
speakers connected to a solid state amplifier, because they may
cause a runaway situation and burn up the amplifier.  I could be
wrong or not remembering correctly, but I suggest checking it out
first.  Apparently solid state is real touchy.
--
Jim Aeschliman                      [e-mail]
Black Diamond, Washington           KD7MK


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert Everitt Heiss)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: RG6, 58,59 Cable Data
Date: 13 Mar 1996 22:40:23 -0800
Message-ID: <4i8f0n$[e-mail]>
References: <4i28tk$[e-mail]>

In article <4i28tk$[e-mail]>,
Chris Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>The following information was extracted from the Times Fiber Communications,
[...]
>Dielectric Material for all the above cables is Polyethylene

Solid PE dielectric in RG6 and RG59, that's interesting.  All the
suppliers around here sell foam dielectric RG6 and RG59.  I have noticed
both solid and foam cable labeled RG8, both foam and semi-solid RG62 as
well.  Buyer beware.

I started to notice the dielectrics after learning to use Q sections and
stubs for antenna matching, where velocity factor is important.  The
Times coax you described has VF=.66 which is typical of solid PE.  Here is
the formula I used to determine VF from impedance Z ohms and capacitance
C pf/ft:  VF=1016/(Z*C)

The dielectric also determines the center conductor size for the desired
impedance.  The center conductor for foam is larger than for solid PE,
and since most of the loss is due to skin resistance of the center
conductor, foam-type coax should have lower loss than solid PE.

Power and peak voltage handling is generally much higher with solid
dielectric than with foam.  The cost-effective RG8X and RG59 foam types,
which aren't rated to handle a kilowatt plus, are never recommended by
ham authorities.

The mechanical properties of the dielectric could also be important.
Foam coax is lighter than it looks, an advantage for portable stations.
Solid PE dielectric is more resistant to abuse such as soldering heat,
stepping on it, or tightly coiling it into a choke.

Coax is so simple -- only four parts, and we just discussed one -- okay,
off the soapbox for now.

73, Rob  KO6KA
[e-mail]

P.S.  Food for thought: golf balls have dimples; hardline is corrugated.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (Derek Scherer)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Rombic Ant
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:36:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world

I'm looking for info to build a Rombic ant for TV or HF
---
 * OLX 2.2 TD * It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: s meters
Date: 11 Mar 1996 14:23:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i1d04$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

A calibrated S meter, in a rcvr whose gain and AGC properties
are accurately known (within a couple of dB or so), would provide
information that many operators will learn to utilize, once it is
available and trustworthy. The ability to measure weak signals
and noise levels with fair accuracy and *precision* gives a rcvr
a certain instrumentation capability. If it can be done easily
and economically there can't be all that much wrong with it.
Radio amateurs are becoming more sophisticated as technology
becomes more sophisticated. They will welcome the chance to
get better quantitative evaluations. One quick example might be the
evaluation of an HF data channel in the presence of noise and fading.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: 12 Mar 1996 08:42:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4i3v0t$[e-mail]>
References: <4i3799$[e-mail]>

Hi Ron,
 [e-mail] (Ron Ries) wrote:
>
>When using a pair of coax to feed a dipole, i.e., using the center
>conductors in each coax as a differential feeder (also using a 4:1
>balun),

OK, that doubles the loss when the system is matched in both cases.

> . . . I am concerned about the loading on 20 where the Rr is
>approximately 4Kohms and high SWR.

Rr is a hundred ohms or so. The *feedpoint* R is a few thousand ohms.
Losses in the feeder will be very high. I'd worry also!

>BTW, I am using a tuner with this setup.

Why do you want to use that feeder? Why not open wire line?

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ron Ries)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: 12 Mar 1996 02:13:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4i2mk1$[e-mail]>

When using a pair of coax to feed a dipole, i.e., using the center
conductors in each coax as a differential feeder (also using a 4:1
balun), does one gain the advantage of half the lossiness of a single
coax in a non-resonant configuration and twice the resistance to
breakdown with SWR of greater than 5? The example is called the "Spencer"
antenna mentioned in Lew McCoy's antenna book. The dipole is cut for
40-about 32.5 ft. per side and works fine on 40 eliminating a lot of the
local QRN but I am concerned about the loading on 20 where the Rr is
approximately 4Kohms and high SWR.

BTW, I am using a tuner with this setup.

Any comments or suggestions?

-- Arizona Dreamin'



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 06:53:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4i3799$[e-mail]>
References: <4i2mk1$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Ron Ries) wrote:

>When using a pair of coax to feed a dipole, i.e., using the center
>conductors in each coax as a differential feeder (also using a 4:1
>balun),

> . . . I am concerned about the loading on 20 where the Rr is
>approximately 4Kohms and high SWR.
>
>BTW, I am using a tuner with this setup.

I haven't seen the article this appeared in, but it sounds reasonable
to expect good performance as long as the antenna is resonant.  The
problem when you use it on 20M isn't so much the feedline, it's the
fact that now you're driving a very high impedance antenna system with
a balun that's not designed to work into that type of load.  With a 4K
ohm load, it's extremely unlikely the balun is performing properly.
At best, it's probably losing balance.  At worst, it's consuming a
significant percentage of your transmitter's power.

In general, there are only two efficient configurations of balanced
feeder antenna systems - those that present the balun with an
impedance within the proper range, and those that are tuned with a
balanced L/C network (not a balun).

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: 15 Mar 1996 10:23:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4ic217$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Zack Lau <[e-mail]> writes:

>
>Measurements and computer simulations I've done seem to
>indicate little difference in loss with matched transmission
>lines, assuming you accurately match the electrical lengths.
>
>Zack KH6CP/1

What you say is absolutely true, if the line is matched the loss is the
same....no better no worse. I corrected it. I hope it got posted.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jack Kovar  KE0AX)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Should I buy: Cushcraft ARX-270 antenna?
Date: 12 Mar 1996 19:03:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4hqb$[e-mail]>

        ARX-270 Cushcraft 70cm/2mtr base antenna.
        Rated at 12db/9db gain uhf/vhf.
        Are these figures the dbd or the tricking dbi references?

        I would like to here from anyone that has installed and used
        this Dualband base station antenna.
        I have already ordered it and hoping for positive but honest
        comments.
        Does it have dc grounded coupling for static and lightning
        protection?

        Setting the money cost aside for now what is the best omni
        highgain dualband antenna offered to the Ham market?

        If you are also wondering about this antenna then give me
        a month to install it and email me for a comparison to my
        existing ringo 1 antenna.

        I have been very happy with my HF Antenna A3S and hope the
        ARX-270 will fullfill my needs too.

                        Please reply with comments to:
                                Jack Kovar
                                [e-mail]

                                        THANKS,
                                                Jack




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:20 1996
From: Timothy E. Nagle <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: shuttle communication on 2 meter
Date: 13 Mar 1996 17:11:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6vkv$[e-mail]>

What kind of report did you get back?  Have you
made many contacts?

Just curious,

Tim



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:21 1996
From: Jake Middlebrook <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Strange Phenonomon on G5RV
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 19:20:40 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4h3433$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

you may have run into something Tesla discribed as standing waves in the earth
.
He reported lighting as electrically detected waxing and waneing as
thunderstorms moved off he belived he was seeing standing waves which were
being set up in the ea
rth as a large but finite object reguardless the effect is real
take the advice of someone from the thunder storm capatol of the world orlando
and ground that antenna if you even think a storm might come by sometime soon
goodluck
Jake


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Super J-Pole antenna
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:52:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4i9bdi$[e-mail]>
References: <4ho8js$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Ken White) wrote:

>Just built myself a nifty 2-meter J-Pole antenna called the "Copper
>Cactus", but I hear that there is another one called the "Super J-Pole"
>that might be a little better. Better or not, I'd like to build one.
>Trouble is - I can't find the construction details.
>Has anyone run across this antenna?
>Thanks, Ken - KE4WIS

Pictures someday maybe!

Hi Ken
Besides the Copper Cactus J-Poles on my home page, I also have
Stacked-Js and Mirror Image Js...

The Stacked J is 1-1/4 wavelengths tall overall and the mirror image J
is 1-1/2 wavelengths long.

By using spring steel stainless wire, the antenna can be made almost
invisible or even go mobile...

http:/www.inlink.com/~raiar/amateur.html

Gary





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (john d benson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: test
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 00:22:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7sjo$[e-mail]>

test


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:23 1996
From: Rick Wilson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: test - ignore
Date: 12 Mar 1996 12:41:09 GMT
Message-ID: <4i3rd5$[e-mail]>


test - ignore
--
Rick Wilson | e-mail: [e-mail]
fax [phone] | voice 217 221 6137 | ham call W0KT
se habla espan~ol   | ich spreche deutsch |  si parla italiano




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (mike del pozzo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tower Guy Spacing
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:00:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4i3p1h$[e-mail]>
References: <4hpihd$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Jim Rowley) wrote:

>Hello all.  This is my first time posting so I hope I do it right.
>I remember reading somewhere that if you are limited on space that
>you can reduce the distance from the tower base to guy anchor point
>from the recomended 80% of tower height to something like 50% by
>going to 4 guys spaced 90 degrees.  Rohn shows this in their catalog
>but only for the foldover towers.  I plan to install 70ft of Rohn 45G
>and would like to space the guy anchors between 35 and 40 ft from the
>base.  Anyone out there know about this or has used this method?
>Thanks and 73
>Jim, KG9CC

Hello Jim,
yup , I have a 70 ft. Rohn 25 W/ a 4 el Quad on top . Previously had
all three Hygain Long Johns on top ( 5 el. 10/15/20 beams). It seems
to be a nice arrangement , especially if ground space is somewhat
limited. My guys are at 90 deg. intervals and located at 20ft , 40ft ,
and 65 ft. The material used is of 5/16 dia stranded . The tower has
been hit with better than 70 MPH wind with the beams on top and did
not even budge. I will suggest however that you put some serious work
into the guy anchors ( cement embedded screw anchors or similliar ).
My anchor points are 45 & 50 feet from the base and are the above
arrangement. Gud luck es 73 de
KR4TG ,Mike





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 19:16:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4i1u4i$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i13pu$[e-mail]>

In article <4i13pu$[e-mail]>,
   Hank Blackstock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (Bart Rowlett) wrote:
>
;>The purpose of the contest is to compare the DX performance of various
75M
;>mobile antenna installations by measuring the ratio of low angle
vertically
;>polarized radiation to the power actually delivered to the antenna.
Power
;>delivered to the antenna is assumed to be the difference between the
measured
;>forward and reverse power indicated with a Bird wattmeter.

;Where did they come up with that assumption? Someone needs to
;read Reflections by M. Walter Maxwell, W2DU. If they use this
;method it is going to give the bugcatcher guys an even greater
;advantage (if they put their matching network at the
;transmitter rather than the antenna).

Could you please direct us to the place in Walt's book where it says that
this isn't a valid way to measure power?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:27 1996
From: Garry Foster <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:18:22 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i13pu$[e-mail]> <4i1u4i$[e-mail]>

Roy Lewallen wrote:

 > In article <4i13pu$[e-mail]>,
    Hank Blackstock <[e-mail]> wrote:
  >[e-mail] (Bart Rowlett) wrote:
 >
 > ;>The purpose of the contest is to compare the DX performance of various
 > 75M
 > ;>mobile antenna installations by measuring the ratio of low angle
 > vertically
 > ;>polarized radiation to the power actually delivered to the antenna.
 > Power
 > ;>delivered to the antenna is assumed to be the difference between the
 > measured
 > ;>forward and reverse power indicated with a Bird wattmeter.
 >
 > ;Where did they come up with that assumption? Someone needs to
 > ;read Reflections by M. Walter Maxwell, W2DU. If they use this
 > ;method it is going to give the bugcatcher guys an even greater
 > ;advantage (if they put their matching network at the
 > ;transmitter rather than the antenna).
 >
 > Could you please direct us to the place in Walt's book where it says that
 > this isn't a valid way to measure power?
 >
 > Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Well If I remimmber right Walt says that all the power gets radiated after it
bounces atound enough. Minus feed line loses of course but I don't remimber
what he says about indicated power. Or is indicated power on a Bird real
power. Actually this brings me back to a point that is made in a series of HP
tapes I saw, that would say that the feed line on a mobile at 80 meters is
not a transmission line and therefore transmission line theory doesn't apply.
The simple statement was that "Transmission line rules don't apply untill you
have a transmissiom line. To have a transmission line it has to be long
enough that the signal is flowing in both directions at the same time.(ie.
1/8 wavelength minimum.)"

Anything under this length is just a lead and measuring instruments based on
the lines charistic impedence are of no use, and you have to use e,i,and
phase angle measurements to determine what is going on.

However the article in QST about on of the shootouts showed antennas winning
that should acording to antenna lore.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 20:09:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Bart Rowlett <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>the near field remaining at the test distance.  Since the antenna
>>heights are all about the same (13.5 feet maximum), it is assumed
>>the near field
>
>Is there any limit on length of the antenna as long as the 13.5 ft
>height limit is observed? Could the antenna, for instance, be a 40 ft
>loop from front bumper to rear bumper as long as it didn't get above
>13.5 ft in height?

How about the diameter of the mast?  Would it be permissable to be,
say, slightly larger that the diameter of a 3-500Z?  I've heard large
masts like that often result in much greater field strength, although
no one's sure exactly why.  ;)

Cecil, if you'll bring a loop, I'll bring two of my "super efficient"
masts to support it.  Say, what's the prize for winning this shootout?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:31 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i13pu$[e-mail]> <4i1u4i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:28:10 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Garry Foster <[e-mail]> write
s:
>Roy Lewallen wrote:
> > In article <4i13pu$[e-mail]>,
>    Hank Blackstock <[e-mail]> wrote:
>  >[e-mail] (Bart Rowlett) wrote:
> > ;>The purpose of the contest is to compare the DX performance of various
> > 75M
> > ;>mobile antenna installations by measuring the ratio of low angle
> > vertically
> > ;>polarized radiation to the power actually delivered to the antenna.
> > Power
> > ;>delivered to the antenna is assumed to be the difference between the
> > measured
> > ;>forward and reverse power indicated with a Bird wattmeter.
> > ;Where did they come up with that assumption? Someone needs to
> > ;read Reflections by M. Walter Maxwell, W2DU. If they use this
> > ;method it is going to give the bugcatcher guys an even greater
> > ;advantage (if they put their matching network at the
> > ;transmitter rather than the antenna).
> >
> > Could you please direct us to the place in Walt's book where it says that
> > this isn't a valid way to measure power?
>
>Well If I remimmber right Walt says that all the power gets radiated after it

>bounces atound enough. Minus feed line loses of course but I don't remimber
>what he says about indicated power. Or is indicated power on a Bird real
>power.

Walt's right about all the power getting radiated (minus line losses),
but you're misinterpreting what you read with the Bird. The *forward*
power that you read on a line with non-unity VSWR will be *greater*
than the power output of the transmitter due to the way the forward
and reflected waves interact on the line. When you subtract the reverse
power reading (also fictitious) you'll have the net power output of the
transmitter, IE the actual power out. All of that, again minus line
losses and antenna efficiency losses, will be radiated by the antenna.

>Actually this brings me back to a point that is made in a series of HP
>tapes I saw, that would say that the feed line on a mobile at 80 meters is
>not a transmission line and therefore transmission line theory doesn't apply.

>The simple statement was that "Transmission line rules don't apply untill you

>have a transmissiom line. To have a transmission line it has to be long
>enough that the signal is flowing in both directions at the same time.(ie.
>1/8 wavelength minimum.)"

I don't think they have a leg to stand on saying that.
It's true that a standing wave needs a place to stand,
but it can stand on tippy toe, so it doesn't need a big
hulking length of line. In fact, only the little bit
inside the meter is what's measured. To prove that,
you only have to place a 100 ohm resistor on the
output connector of the meter, and you'll read a
2:1 VSWR with *no* line present other than the little
section inside the meter.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:32 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 21:07:58 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Bart Rowlett <[e-mail]> writes:

>the near field remaining at the test distance.  Since the antenna heights
>are all about the same (13.5 feet maximum), it is assumed the near field

Is there any limit on length of the antenna as long as the 13.5 ft height
limit is observed? Could the antenna, for instance, be a 40 ft loop from
front bumper to rear bumper as long as it didn't get above 13.5 ft in
height?

thanks and 73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 13:20:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6i1b$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>

Some things take a while to sink in. (Actually, more and more are taking
longer and longer. . .)

Did I hear that the measurement was done with a magnetic field detector in
the near field? And did someone ask if a loop (e.g., a whip top connected
back to the car) was allowed? A setup like that ought to put out a
terrifically big magnetic near field compared to a whip, even if the far
field intensity were the same, if it was oriented right. Also, I wonder how
much influence the shape of the car body has on the near field impedance
(the ratio of E/H)? Some car bodies might do better than others. Sounds
like an interesting modeling project if I ever get time. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: 14 Mar 1996 12:44:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4i9lu4$[e-mail]>
References: <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>

In article <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (WB3U) writes:

>
>How about the diameter of the mast?  Would it be permissable to be,
>say, slightly larger that the diameter of a 3-500Z?  I've heard large
>masts like that often result in much greater field strength, although
>no one's sure exactly why.  ;)
>
>Cecil, if you'll bring a loop, I'll bring two of my "super efficient"
>masts to support it.  Say, what's the prize for winning this shootout?
>
>73,
>Jack  WB3U

If I was going to do that, I'd use a thin mast with a very large hat at
the tip. Current distribution over the mast would be even, and the
radiation resistance would be the highest value possible. If I wanted to
have a weaker signal, I'd use a thicker mast with the same size hat. ;-)

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:36 1996
From: Kevin Schmidt <kschmidt>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: 12 Mar 1996 19:50:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4i4ki7$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i13pu$[e-mail]> <4i1u4i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Garry Foster <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Actually this brings me back to a point that is made in a series of HP
>tapes I saw, that would say that the feed line on a mobile at 80 meters is
>not a transmission line and therefore transmission line theory doesn't apply.

>The simple statement was that "Transmission line rules don't apply untill you

>have a transmissiom line. To have a transmission line it has to be long
>enough that the signal is flowing in both directions at the same time.(ie.
>1/8 wavelength minimum.)"
>
>Anything under this length is just a lead and measuring instruments based on
>the lines charistic impedence are of no use, and you have to use e,i,and
>phase angle measurements to determine what is going on.
>

This is not correct. The only time the standard transmission line
rules don't apply is if there are other modes besides the standard TEM ones.
For coax, the cutoff wave length is of order the circumference of the
coax, for HF frequencies these other modes are severely attenuated on this
same scale, so once the cable is longer than a few circumferences
the standard rules apply just fine. Actually it is rather hard to
excite the other modes so for even shorter lines the "rules" work
fine.  On the other hand the definition of a "lead" and the rules
that it follows are unknown, at least to me.

It is clear that you don't need
to have a long transmission line if you simply derive the equations.
While your at it, you will also see that the power output is the
difference between the forward and reverse powers indicated on a
directional coupler. Like Roy, I don't believe that Walt Maxwell got
this wrong.

Kevin Schmidt [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:38 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: Wanted plans for 440 J-pole/300 ohm wire
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i0f2j$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:14:13 GMT

In article <4i0f2j$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff H
all) writes:
>  I have plans for a 2 meter j-pole which is made from 300 Ohm TV lead..I
>am looking for the same plans for a 440...I want to take it on a trip..I
>have looked in all my antenna books and I can't find the
>plans...Thanks..73es..Jeff

All you really need do is take the 2M antenna dimensions and multuply
them by the ratio 146/445 and that should get you pretty close.  The
width of the 300 ohm twinlead stays the same, just the lengths change.
Don't forget the ferrite bead or a few turns of feedline coax at the
feedpoint, to keep RF off the feedline.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Wanted: Low-band modeling case studies
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 13:10:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6he8$[e-mail]>

I'm giving a talk on low-band antenna modeling at the Visalia DX convention
next month, and would like a couple of case studies to use as
illustrations. What I'm looking for is examples of antennas which were
modeled, then constructed and tested. Ones that didn't work as predicted
are of interest as well as ones that did. Or, an antenna that was modified
based on modeling predictions then tested. I'll give full credit to the
source unless anonymity is requested.

Thanks!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:40 1996
From: Michael J Wooding <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 11:45:09 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <4idjm1$[e-mail]>, David Mark
<[e-mail]> writes
>What's happening is your radio is probably tuned to an FM station
>near the upper end of the band (around 107-108mhz) and you're
>probably under a flight path.  When a plane is nearby (there's
>that word again) and the pilot transmits on one of the lower
>airline frequencies, your radio's less than discriminating tuner
>picks it up.

Whilst that is very feasible, due to the low powers transmitted by
aircraft (RX levels of the order of less than -90dBm even with the sorts
of aerials and masts etc., that we use in the CAA !) then I would
imagaine that the aircraft must be relatively low when overflying his
property to cause these signals to be strong enough to swamp the radio.

Mike

Michael J Wooding   [e-mail] - CompuServe: 100441,377
WWW: http://www.eolas.co.uk/ag/vhfcomm.htm (hambits.htm & hamclip.htm)
WWW: http://www.clearlight.com/~vhfcomm
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
KM Publications, 5 Ware Orchard, Barby, Nr.Rugby, CV23 8UF, UK
VHF Communications Magazine - Especially Covering VHF, UHF and Microwaves


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:42 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Stockton)
Subject: Where do S reports go to, anyway ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:59:49 GMT


    All this fuss over S meter readings...  Most just get written onto
cardboard then ignored...


    A few people want to change things and get some quantitative
measurement of the effect of the change. This seems a reasonable enough
request to me.  Absolute calibration either of receiver and of receiving
antenna are not necessary, though a TX end antenna change could affect
the angle of approach and polarisation of the incoming signal which could
make RX antenna characteristics affect the result.

    I usually have a decent spectrum analyser in the shack that I can
use on the antenna or on the IF out of a receiver. With this, and an
oscilloscope, I can make useful measurements of relative signal strength
as well as modulation and keying, limited chiefly by the stability of
propagation conditions. This doesn't seem to help with comparative reports
as sometimes my "Your signal rose by 8.5 dB" gets met by "What's that in
S-points ?"

    Everyone seems to want an S report, but so few seem to know just what
they're worth....

    I second Roy's plea for front end step-attenuators, though if the
S-meters are anything to go by, if the manufacturers saw them as a
competitive lead, we'd get them, but they'd see no need for any greater
accuracy of the steps than our current S meters...


    Cheers

   David (hang on, if I switch the pre-amp on, I can give you a better
report) GM4ZNX


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale L. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Where do S reports go to, anyway ?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:07:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4i3pav$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (David Stockton) wrote:


>    All this fuss over S meter readings...  Most just get written onto
>cardboard then ignored...


>    A few people want to change things and get some quantitative
>measurement of the effect of the change. This seems a reasonable enough
>request to me.  Absolute calibration either of receiver and of receiving
>antenna are not necessary, though a TX end antenna change could affect
>the angle of approach and polarisation of the incoming signal which could
>make RX antenna characteristics affect the result.

>    I usually have a decent spectrum analyser in the shack that I can
>use on the antenna or on the IF out of a receiver. With this, and an
>oscilloscope, I can make useful measurements of relative signal strength
>as well as modulation and keying, limited chiefly by the stability of
>propagation conditions. This doesn't seem to help with comparative reports
>as sometimes my "Your signal rose by 8.5 dB" gets met by "What's that in
>S-points ?"

>    Everyone seems to want an S report, but so few seem to know just what
>they're worth....

>    I second Roy's plea for front end step-attenuators, though if the
>S-meters are anything to go by, if the manufacturers saw them as a
>competitive lead, we'd get them, but they'd see no need for any greater
>accuracy of the steps than our current S meters...


>    Cheers
>
>   David (hang on, if I switch the pre-amp on, I can give you a better
>report) GM4ZNX

David,

Maybe the manufacturers will see it as a marketing opportunity and
include a digital readout adjacent to or within the face of the analog
meter.  They could add a button and it would freeze the display so the
operator would not forget what it was.

As to your question: "Where do S reports go to, anyway?"
I don't know if things are that much different in Scotland, but here
in the U.S.A., there is probably not a ham among us who doesn't know
from grade school that there is what is called a 'permanent' record.
Everything you ever do in your life goes into your 'permanent' record.
I can't recall the number of times the threat of something I did or
was planning to do going into my 'permanent' record at school was used
by a teacher or the principal.  Of course, it was a real letdown to
find out that there was no such thing....Oh, the lost opportunities to
do some neat things but didn't for fear of it going into your
permanent record!!

Anyway, I suspect if S reports had to go somewhere, that's where they
would go, right?

73 and have fun!!!
Dale
Houston, TX



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:44 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Dperrin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who makes  HD Aluminum towers?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:12:58 -0800

Hi:
 Who makes good quality heavy duty aluminum towers?
I am trying to replace one 50 foot tall that has a base 20" per leg.
Thanks for any info or leads.
 Dave



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Why long wire TVI
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 23:26:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4hm1oc$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In message <4hm1oc$[e-mail]> W8JI  Tom wrote:

> Hi Graham,
>
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] (Graham Seale) writes:
>
> >The trouble is a coax is an unbalanced structure,(snips)
>
> The problem is just as large with balanced line. Coax or open wire, BOTH
> lines require equal and 180 degree out of phase currents on the conductors
> to prevent radiation.
>
> Assuming that rule is followed at the load and source, *and coax is not
> subject to field induced currents*, we can do anything we like to the
> outside of the braid without changing the internal current balance. We can
> run the coax underground, against other conductors, and through the fish
> tank without upsetting the current balance inside the line.
>
> Not so with the balanced line. We have to keep that line several conductor
> spacings away from other objects (even dielectrics) or be sure that the
> external effect is applied equally to both conductors. And definitely out
> of the fish tank.

Hi Tom

Tee Hee - I can just hear you quitting a ragchew ... "Gotta go fellas, the
guppies are starting to pant and I'm steamin' up the shack - 73s"

Yeah - I used to do that too. I made dozens of 50mm (err..2 inch) PVC
conduit standoffs for my balanced line. (I favour 300 ohm or 450 ohm
window slotted waxy polythene type.) But my experiences with balanced line
do not mimic yours. For me, the TVI and "live" shack were instantly cured!

We found that, within reason, you can treat it almost like coax. Sure I did a
whole load of experiments with it - looking for leaks and fields, and I
would not tape it hard up against a metal mast, or try to bury it! Yet it
is surprisingly tolerant. You can hang it up a mast and if it touches a
few places, it will not matter unless you are doing something else to
seriously unbalance it.  I even stapled the stuff straight across a cellar
ceiling, then through a duct tube to the outside. I tried to keep it clear
of other conductors, but it did not seem to care. Even through a pile coiled
up in a heap on the patio, it was fine.

I just made *very* sure that I fed it balanced, and I used common mode
chokes to ensure it stayed that way.


73s G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:47 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Windom comparisons
Date: 15 Mar 1996 20:36:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4ickcr$[e-mail]>
References: <4ic6nh$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Steve Ellington) wrote:
>Even a dipole has directional
>qualities but not as severe as an 80 meter dipole or windom on 15 meters!
>You will experience dead zones.

..and you will experience live zones. The four lobes on my 102ft dipole
each has more gain than a resonant dipole on any HF band above 20m. If
one understands radiation patterns, one can turn it into an advantage.
I have the four lobes aimed at the world's land masses while the dead
zones are aimed mostly at open water.

>: I'm considering putting up a windom-type antenna,
>:Finally, any comparisons between these type antennas and a G5RV?

IMO, an antenna should start radiating at its highest point. That
usually means a balanced antenna. My 102ft dipole has a low SWR and
low losses and is resonant on all HF Ham frequencies. Radio Adventure
is publishing a series of articles on the subject.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (MTaintor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Windom comparisons
Date: 15 Mar 1996 08:43:29 -0800
Message-ID: <4ic6nh$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MTaintor)

I'm considering putting up a windom-type antenna, ie an off-center fed
dipole. I've seen three different companies that advertise them: Antennas
West, Fritzel, and Radio Works. Has anyone done a comparison of these? Is
there much difference between them? I do know that RadioWorks has a
vertical radiator that is part of there antenna. Does that make much
difference?  Finally, any comparisons between these type antennas and a
G5RV?

Thanks for any info you can share about these antennas.
73,
Mark, N0YRW


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 16 15:22:49 1996
From: Kent Winrich <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WTB:Kiwa Loop
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:39:54 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I am looking for someone that wants to sell a KIWA MW Loop.  Anyone out
there??

Kent Winrich
Waukesha, WI


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:39:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: 12 Mar 1996 20:40:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4i5931$[e-mail]>
References: <4i1lsf$[e-mail]>

In article <4i1lsf$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns)
writes:

>Depends on the configuration of the tuner.  As Gary C pointed out, a
>"T" (or for that matter any configuration with one terminal common
>to both input and output) is "unbalanced".  If you perfectly floated
>the source as well as the tuner, the output could be "balanced".
>
>

Hi Tom,

It's important to remember if the center of the balanced network isn't
connected to ground, there is either no or very little transformation of
common mode voltages. So choking effectiveness of a current balun isn't
improved by the move.

If someone is going to go through all that grief, they might as well build
a link coupled tuner and be done with it all! Then they could have
unbalanced output and a choice of balanced voltage or balanced current
outputs.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:39:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (Derrick Cole)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: 16 Mar 1996 17:49:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4iev07$[e-mail]>

Greetings!

At the Charlotte HamFest last weekend, I purchased two 40M "HamStick" antennas
(HF mobile whips?) consisting of a coiled mast and an extendable metal "whip",
which, when adjusted, supposedly allow for tuning for a certain center
frequency.  I also bought a mounting bracket so as to create a dipole from
the two 'sticks.

Suffice to say, I've not had much luck.  Initially, with the whips fully
extended, I could only achieve 3+:1 across 40M except for the upper 30KHz,
where I could get 1-8-2:1.

Wanting a lower SWR in the lower 100KHz, I set out to actually read the
confusing instructions about the whip and tuning for a certain frequency.
Choosing a frequency of 7.1MHz, this implies an exposed whip length of
39".  I cut both whips to 39.5" (39" of which was exposed), tightened
everything up, tuned up on 7.1MHz, and now enjoy 5:1 SWR everywhere.

Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originally
48.25" long)?  What should I do?

Thanks and 73,
Derrick


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:39:59 1996
From: Will Flor <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: 17 Mar 1996 00:33:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4ifmko$[e-mail]>
References: <4iev07$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Steve Ellington) wrote:
>No but when you do, let me know. I use Hamsticks on the van and have to
>use small capacitors to bring the swr down. They go from the antenna to
>ground right at the feed point. My understanding is that a shortend
>antenna should have a very low impedance thus the need for the capacitor.
>Perhaps the same is necessary on your dipole arrangement.

Yes; the Hamstick or any other short vertical does indeed have a low impedance
 - much
lower than 50 ohms.  This is in contrast with a long random wire, which has  a
 really
high impedance.  To tune a short vertical like a hamstick I use a random-wire
antenna
tuner *backwards* - i.e. I feed it through the "antenna" terminal and connect
the
"transciever" terminal to the antenna, achieving a similar effect to yours.

73 de Will KB9JTT
[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:00 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4iev07$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 21:02:30 GMT

No but when you do, let me know. I use Hamsticks on the van and have to
use small capacitors to bring the swr down. They go from the antenna to
ground right at the feed point. My understanding is that a shortend
antenna should have a very low impedance thus the need for the capacitor.
Perhaps the same is necessary on your dipole arrangement.


: Wanting a lower SWR in the lower 100KHz, I set out to actually read the
: confusing instructions about the whip and tuning for a certain frequency.
: Choosing a frequency of 7.1MHz, this implies an exposed whip length of
: 39".  I cut both whips to 39.5" (39" of which was exposed), tightened
: everything up, tuned up on 7.1MHz, and now enjoy 5:1 SWR everywhere.

: Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
: a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originall
y
: 48.25" long)?  What should I do?

: Thanks and 73,
: Derrick

--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:01 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 96 17:51:08 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4iev07$[e-mail]>

Derrick Cole <[e-mail]> writes:

>Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
>a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originally

Don't know what you mean by 1-8-2:1  Doesn't sound reasonable for 1:1, 8:1,
and 2:1 to all happen within 30KHz. First check continunity from base to
stinger. Then check for no continunity from section to section. Then find
out where the thing is resonant using a grid-dip meter or an unlocked
transceiver. If you have the thing wired up properly, my guess is that
you need longer stingers than came with the sticks.

BTW, you need to tune it before you add transmission line to it. The
transmission line itself can cause confusing readings.  Good Luck.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:02 1996
From: ksprouse <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: 17 Mar 1996 13:41:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4ih4pp$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Derrick Cole) writes:
> Greetings!
>
> At the Charlotte HamFest last weekend, I purchased two 40M "HamStick" antenn
as
> (HF mobile whips?) consisting of a coiled mast and an extendable metal "whip
",
> which, when adjusted, supposedly allow for tuning for a certain center
> frequency.  I also bought a mounting bracket so as to create a dipole from
> the two 'sticks.
>
> Suffice to say, I've not had much luck.  Initially, with the whips fully
> extended, I could only achieve 3+:1 across 40M except for the upper 30KHz,
> where I could get 1-8-2:1.
>
> Wanting a lower SWR in the lower 100KHz, I set out to actually read the
> confusing instructions about the whip and tuning for a certain frequency.
> Choosing a frequency of 7.1MHz, this implies an exposed whip length of
> 39".  I cut both whips to 39.5" (39" of which was exposed), tightened
> everything up, tuned up on 7.1MHz, and now enjoy 5:1 SWR everywhere.
>
> Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
> a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originall
y
> 48.25" long)?  What should I do?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Derrick



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:04 1996
From: ksprouse <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: 17 Mar 1996 13:46:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4ih53s$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Derrick Cole) writes:
> Greetings!
>
> At the Charlotte HamFest last weekend, I purchased two 40M "HamStick" antenn
as
> (HF mobile whips?) consisting of a coiled mast and an extendable metal "whip
",
> which, when adjusted, supposedly allow for tuning for a certain center
> frequency.  I also bought a mounting bracket so as to create a dipole from
> the two 'sticks.
>
> Suffice to say, I've not had much luck.  Initially, with the whips fully
> extended, I could only achieve 3+:1 across 40M except for the upper 30KHz,
> where I could get 1-8-2:1.
>
> Wanting a lower SWR in the lower 100KHz, I set out to actually read the
> confusing instructions about the whip and tuning for a certain frequency.
> Choosing a frequency of 7.1MHz, this implies an exposed whip length of
> 39".  I cut both whips to 39.5" (39" of which was exposed), tightened
> everything up, tuned up on 7.1MHz, and now enjoy 5:1 SWR everywhere.
>
> Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
> a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originall
y
> 48.25" long)?  What should I do?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Derrick


Hi Derrick,

I have encountered several problems where the "hamstick" antennas were not
mounted with the insulating washer isolating the center lead-fed antenna from
the ground or shield side of the coax.  I would not overlook the simple fixes.
As far as replacement whips, you can order them directly from the manufacturer
in Anderson, SC...WD4BUM...Also I personally would not recommend trimming the
whips, I would just slide them in or out for the proper adjustment.  My experi
ence
with these antennas have been great considering the small investment that you
have to make.  GOOD LUCK!! and 73.

Kellan Sprouse
AD4QE


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:05 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 17 Mar 96 17:12:43 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Does the receiver range really equal the transmitter range of an antenna?
ie...Are the receive and the transmit of an antenna reciprocal?

As the size of the antenna decreases, the load factor increases.  So, at
full size(free space length), the load factor is 0, and for a zero length
antenna(isotropic)the load factor is infinity.

The transmit field strength is based on an area measurement of the cross
section of the antenna field, at a given distance, giving a strength to
distance figure.  The receive measurement is based on the area cross-
section of the antenna.  The more 'capture area' the higher the received
signal.  In optics, it's called aperture.

For a full size antenna with no shortening/loading, the receive cross-
section gives a value which fulfills a formula meant to explain field
strength.  And yes, at full size(free space length), the receive and
transmit strengths are truly reciprocal.  The same number of stations
heard can be contacted that can be heard.

With a much shortened antenna, the area is less on receive, but on
transmit almost the same field strength can be generated.  So, for a
station over the horizon, the S-meter reading is somewhat less than a
half-wave full size dipole.  As the size of the antenna approaches a
point-source size(isotropic), the distant station will see the S-meter
drop the equivalent of 2.13 db less than the dipole.  At the shortened
antenna station, transmit is somewhat better than receive.  If you've
used a Super/Iso loop antenna, this is very obvious.

For the fully shortened antenna(isotropic), the station will hear zero
stations, because he now has a capture area of zero.  The transmit field
strength becomes the -2.13 dbd received by the distant station.

So, my conclusion about the reciprocal effect? Most of us use loaded
beams or traps somewhere along the way.  Any free space size dipoles?
With that in mind, I would have to say...

I don't think so.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:06 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 16 Mar 96 23:27:25 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

subscribe ve7duc.ampr.org ham-ant


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (EFL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 14 Mar 96 08:50:54 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

subscribe



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:08 1996
From: Martin Hibbs <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 10 Mtr Yagi on a 40-2CD??
Date: 14 Mar 1996 20:09:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4i9udf$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>



--
Martin Hibbs  --- A Subscriber at Internet On-Ramp, Inc.

I laced three fairly closely spaced 10 meter elements on my Hygain 2
element 40 and it seemed to work just fine.  I noticed no degradation on
40 (very slight VSWR change) and 10 meters performed as I expected.  Ran
it for 2 years before changing the entire antenna farm.  Give it a try.
You'll probably like it.

Marty
WB7RBJ






From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ranson J. Pelt)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 10 Mtr Yagi on a 40-2CD??
Date: 12 Mar 1996 22:41:28 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Has anyone interlaced a 10 Mtr Yagi on a 40-2CD??  Would appreciate any
comments from anyone who's tried this.

Tnx

--
Ranson Pelt
[e-mail]
nz4i


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Charlie Fortner)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 2m antenna for travel
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:51:39 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I am going on a trip with the local Boy Scout troop out west this summer
and I want some opinions on what antenna(s) I should bring for the times
we are in a building (a hotel of some sort).  I have an Icom IC-T22A
handheld with a Larsen 5/8 wave mag mount (to use on the van when we are
mobile - I really don't want to have to take it off the van for use
inside).  I was thinking about making a J-Pole out of copper pipe and
using that, but it would be bigger than I would like it to be.  Any ideas,
suggestions, or the like would be greatly appreciated.
BTW - any mods for an IC-2000H would also be appreciated! Thanx!

--
Ted Fortner
[e-mail]
KF4GJR


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:10 1996
From: Geir <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 6 meter high gain yagis
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 02:09:07 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello and thanks for reading this.
I am looking for addresses and prices for big 6 meter yagis. I have seen
one 11 element yagi for sale in scandinavia. But the price is doubled
compared to a 6 element from the same factory. The 11 el. is just not
worth all the money they want for it. So I plan to import one from the
U.S. If any of you have some infos i.e. addresses, numb. of elements,
lenght, gain and prices, it will be really appreciated.

73 de Geir / LA6LU




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:11 1996
From: Simon gw7soz <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 6m beam dimensions??
Date: 17 Mar 1996 11:10:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4igrv5$[e-mail]>

Hi
Does anyone have the dimensions for a 3 ele 6m beam??

73 de Simon
[e-mail]
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~srj5



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: >"floating" the output of a tuner
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 96 15:17:30 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihanf$[e-mail]>
References: <4i4lp3$[e-mail]> <4ic25e$[e-mail]>

   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I suspect, as long as the load remains resistive, a well-designed 4:1
>balun should work at even higher resistive loads. If I remember
>right, inter-winding capacitance is the limiting factor with high
>resistive loads.

It depends on the frequency.  On 160 and 80 meters, the problem
usually relates to the inability of the device to maintain minimum
required inductance relative to the load Z.  On 40 meters and above,
it's usually the interwinding capacitance that effects the
transmformer as the load Z rises.

These two characteristics also limit the frequency response of the
device when it's driving the proper load.

73,
Jack WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:13 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: adhesive copper tape
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 96 11:45:35 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Greetings to all - Has anyone tried making an antenna or counterpoise from the

self-adhesive copper foil tape intended for stained glass projects?  It is
"dead soft" copper with an adhesive backing.  You can solder directly to it.

This tape is the stuff they wrap around the border of each piece of glass to
solder it to the next piece of glass.  It comes in various widths - I think up

to 1/2 inch, and in several thicknesses - thickest I saw in catalog was 1.5
mil.  It comes in 36 yard rolls for around $5 - $7 a roll (cheaper in
quantity, but 108 feet seems plenty of quantity!)  It is intended to be
soldered and the adhesive backing seems to hold up to the heat.

Seems it might be an ideal material for appartments - stick it right to the
wall (adds a whole new meaning to "ceiling beams"!) -  and applications where
you might want to make the antenna less obvious.

My own application is installing a counterpoise system inside a fiberglass
sail boat for an automatic antenna tuner working the 40M to 15M bands.  (250W
PEP?) The antenna is the backstay which, on my boat, puts the tuner in a bad
spot for a direct-to-the-water ground of sufficient area.  (Plus potential for

electrolysis problems.)  So, I'm going to use counterpoise system below water
line.  I don't want to use loose wires for that and attaching them or regular
copper foil to the hull would be an adventure with all the structural stuff in

the way.  The self-adhesive feature might solve this, too.

I would like to hear from anyone who has tried this stuff for an antenna or
counterpoise, or has any _constructive_ suggestions about it.

Thanks for your help - have fun

73 - KD2FT

Frank Fitz... and the crew of the mighty Draco
[e-mail]

P.S.  If this turns out to be a good idea for anyone, thank my wife - she's
the stained glass craftsperson.



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:14 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Jens Goerke)
Subject: Re: adhesive copper tape
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:25:43 GMT

[e-mail] wrote:
[...]
> My own application is installing a counterpoise system inside a fiberglass
> sail boat for an automatic antenna tuner working the 40M to 15M bands.  (250
W
> PEP?) The antenna is the backstay which, on my boat, puts the tuner in a bad

> spot for a direct-to-the-water ground of sufficient area.  (Plus potential f
or
> electrolysis problems.)  So, I'm going to use counterpoise system below wate
r
> line.  I don't want to use loose wires for that and attaching them or regula
r
> copper foil to the hull would be an adventure with all the structural stuff
in
> the way.  The self-adhesive feature might solve this, too.
[...]

How about a metal rudder <sp?>
IMHO this would make a rather good ground connection.
What about the keel? On smaller sailing boats they are usually made
from lead, so that would be another possibility.

Just my $.02,
        Jens, DB9LL
--
Missing coffee error - operator halted.

This message may not be distributed via the Microsoft Network.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: adhesive copper tape
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 08:42:33 GMT
Message-ID: <4ij7v4$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] wrote:

>It comes in 36 yard rolls for around $5 - $7 a roll (cheaper in
>quantity, but 108 feet seems plenty of quantity!)

I need a small quantity of 1/8" or 1/4" tape, but I had given up on
the idea because of Newark's prices.  Your quote is MUCH less
expensive though, so now I'm aware that there might be a more
affordable source.

Do you know if this is available without the adhesive backing?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:18 1996
From: Cliff Soderback <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: adhesive copper tape
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:56:53 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> In Article<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> write:
> > Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
> > Path: li.net!news5.ner.bbnplanet.net!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!howland.reston
.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!Frankfurt.Germany.EU.net!news.maz.net!news.allcon.net!
jgfl1
> > From: [e-mail] (Jens Goerke)
> > Subject: Re: adhesive copper tape
> > X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
> > Organization: Private Multi-Site
> > Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> > References: <[e-mail]>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:25:43 GMT
> > Lines: 23
> >
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > [...]
> > > My own application is installing a counterpoise system inside a fibergla
ss
> > > sail boat for an automatic antenna tuner working the 40M to 15M bands.
(250W
> > > PEP?) The antenna is the backstay which, on my boat, puts the tuner in a
 bad
> > > spot for a direct-to-the-water ground of sufficient area.  (Plus potenti
al for
> > > electrolysis problems.)  So, I'm going to use counterpoise system below
water
> > > line.  I don't want to use loose wires for that and attaching them or re
gular
> > > copper foil to the hull would be an adventure with all the structural st
uff in
> > > the way.  The self-adhesive feature might solve this, too.
> > [...]
> >
> > How about a metal rudder <sp?>
> > IMHO this would make a rather good ground connection.
> > What about the keel? On smaller sailing boats they are usually made
> > from lead, so that would be another possibility.
> >
> > Just my $.02,
> >       Jens, DB9LL
> > --
> > Missing coffee error - operator halted.
> >
> > This message may not be distributed via the Microsoft Network.
>
> de KD2FT
>
> Hi, Jens - thanks for the thoughts on grounding.  Normally, these would
> be worthy possibilities, but the specifics of my boat preclude me from
> making effective electrical contact with either.
>
> In building my boat (35' double-ended cutter, 6' draft), I had to cast my
> own keel.  It is 6300 pounds of lead, but it is all internal, down in the
> molded fiberglass keel cavity.  To manage that job, I cast it in three layer
s
> of many separate blocks each.  Each block was carefully cast to match the
> shape of the keel cavity at the place where that block would go, and in a si
ze
> that I could carry up into the boat and back down into the hull (no internal
> structures yet) and position properly in the keel cavity, without getting
> killed.  These blocks run about 100 to 150 pound each.  After a layer of
> blocks was positioned, I "potted" the blocks in resin and than fiberglassed
> over the whole layer as both a securing agent for that layer, a base for the
> next layer and to form a water-tight layer in the (hopefully unlikely) event
> that I ground the boat and cause the existing bottom of the fiberglass keel
to
> leak.  Then the next layer was cast, installed, potted and glassed over, etc
.
> The net result is that the keel is now composed of many separate and
> electrically isolated blocks.
>
> As for the rudder, I also made that.  It has a large, very rugged "core" of
> stainless plate and the rudder stock, but it is inside a fiberglass shell
> filled with microballoons.  The rudder stock runs through a trunk made of
> fiberglass tube from the hull to deck-level.  At deck-level, it enters the
> tiller-head.  It would probably be OK as a capacitively-coupled ground, but
> the result here is that it, too, is electrically unaccessable.  The only
> moving connection I could envision would be some kind of brush or wiper
> contacting the rudder stock through the fiberglass rudder trunk.  I don't
> think this would be a good connection for long.
>
> Net result is that I believe I have to consider another method than the rudd
er
> or the balast.  That leads me to the counterpoise system, and thence to the
> installation problems of regular (wide) copper foil, now that all the interi
or
> structures and systems are in the way.  There-in lies the reason for inquiri
ng
> about foil counterpoise systems in general, and the self-adhesive, thin foil
> tape in specific.
>
> Thanks very much for your thoughts - all help is greatly appreciated as it
> helps me avoid "reinventing the wheel".
>
> 73   KD2FT
> Frank Fitz... and the crew of the mighty Draco
> [e-mail]

 Frank:
        It has been a few years since I installed radios on seagoing
boats. Here a few suggestion on counterpoises which I have used in the
past. If you are hand with fiber-glass resin you can do this.
Procure some copper screen, the gauge or spacing is not important,
if the bilge is still fairly clean, lay down the copper screen in
the bilge and solder the edges where the screen overlaps. Cover as
much of the bilge and up the sides of the hull as possible. This will
be the ships countpoise. Copper foil in the bilge as works about
as well. Ground all the ships machinery, including
the negative side of the battery banks to this counter-poise. Only use
a battery charger that has a low leakage transformer, no cheap auto
ones. If you have a sailboat a back stay antenna will work fine. You
will need a good antenna tuner if you use Ham gear as commercial
transmitters usually have provisions for tuning seperate channels. You
can use a running back-stay for you antenna also, just keep it as far
from the other rigging as possible. Be sure to ground the stays to your
ships ground. As you can see a good radio installation takes some doing.
 You have no idea the fun<sic> we had when fiber-glass boats came out.
 The next real challange will be to get all the noise out of the
various equipment.

                 Happy Sailing
                     Cliff, W7VVA


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Terry Burch)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: AM antennas???
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 05:58:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4i8cbj$[e-mail]>

Hi all,
I tried posting this to the rec.audio.opinion group, but unlike most
matters in that group :-), I have yet to get any opinions. Does anyone
in this group have any advice?

I have severe static-like interference on the low end of the AM band.
I have tried the "long wire" AM antenna method and with an antenna  50
feet long the reception still has not improved . What I think I need
is a selective AM antenna which will ignore some of the static I am
picking up.

I have been looking at the Terk AM FM Q and the Terk PI, as well as
the Parsec Model 2000 AM/FM. Has anyone had any experience with these
antennas? Have they made a difference in the reduction of AM static
that you were getting?

Terry
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: 15 Mar 1996 19:25:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4id1p0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Hi Bill,

Probably not many- of course my point was that the MFJ was "more accurate"
than the AEA piece and considerably less expensive. In addition, V.S.W.R.
or return loss is only a small fraction of what the hP will do. Then
again, it's a bitch to haul up the tower!

73,  Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:48:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7itu$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4i35me$[e-mail]> <4i4gl6$[e-mail]>

I worked for some time at a well known antenna manufacturer, as well
as designed several antennas myself.
To date, I know of know device sold as an antenna analyzer that is
functional or accurate throught the range claimed as it's parameters.
I will give MFJ credit for manufacturing a low cost unit that performs
better than some high priced models, although it is limited in usage.

There are so many external factors that affect an antenna, that
antenna tuning is an art best left to the end user and the associated
problems of installation locations selected by the user, should not
reflect on the manufacturers as to the viability of the claims they
make concerning their antenna which can be assured, was tested under
the most ideal of conditions.

TTUL
Gary






From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:22 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 19:17:17 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>  <4i35me$[e-mail]>


In Article<4i35me$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> write:

> I have owned them both -The AEA VHF/UHF and the MFJ HF-VHF w/ resistance
> meter. I also own a brand new HP 8711B network analyzer that I used as a
> benchmark. The AEA was quite optimistic in its readings and became more so
> as the freq got higher. At 70cM it indicated 1:1 when the load was a
> precision 75 Ohm termination. The MFJ was more accurate at VHF (it does
> not do UHF). When I spoke to AEA about the accuracy I was told "that's
> about what you should expect for a $400 instrument"- I sold it.
>
> Dale WA2YPY

Dale,

How many HP 8711Bs do you think HP would sell at $10,000 if the AEA and MFJ
units were as accurate?

Bill



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Irwin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: 13 Mar 1996 22:17:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7hhh$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+

In article <[e-mail]>, Rolfe Tessem <[e-mail]> says:
>
>Does anyone have any thoughts on the relative merits of these
>two devices? The AEA appears to be better designed from an
>ergonomic standpoint, while the MFJ seems to have more features
>and beats AEA on price by a substantial margin.
>
>--
>Rolfe Tessem      |    Lucky Duck Productions, Inc.
>[e-mail]     |    96 Morton Street
>[phone]    |    New York, NY 10014


I dont have the AEA, but I did buy the MFJ a while back.  Don't know I
ever did without it.  Tells you almost as much as a noise bridge, but
its more convenient for an experimenter.

Wayne,  WA1RRZ



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:24 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Antenna for an IC-706
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i98e7$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 15:00:09 GMT

I've seen several questions lately about this. I too have an IC-706 but never
considered trying to find an antenna to match the rig. I think the idea here
is to find one antenna that does everything, like the rig. If this is the
case, I don't think anyone makes an antenna that covers 160 through 6
meters. Even if they did, it would be a tremendous compromise on many
bands and I don't recommend it. Otherwise, the Butternut with the 160mtr
loading coil plus something else for 6 meters with a 2 position antenna
switch may be your best choice of the multiband verticals. GAP antennas
have a reputation of spotty performance. That is, they seem to work for
some people and others have trashed them.

Check the April Fool ad in this months new QST. The all band vertical that
is only 17 inches tall!

Also consider Icom's Auto tuner for the 706. I have heard some good
reports on this little gadget. One guy I qsoed was using it in his car
with an 8ft whip and could work all bands.


: I am seeking information and opinions on an antenna to match with the ICOM 7
06.
:  I am considering the GAP Challenger DX vertical and the Butternut HF9VX (pl
us
: a separate 2 meter).   Opinions and experieinces would be most appreciated.

: tnx es 73, John
: KC5RYQ



--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (John cleland)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna for an IC-706
Date: 14 Mar 1996 13:54:15 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i98e7$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I am seeking information and opinions on an antenna to match with the ICOM 706
.
 I am considering the GAP Challenger DX vertical and the Butternut HF9VX (plus

a separate 2 meter).   Opinions and experieinces would be most appreciated.

tnx es 73, John
KC5RYQ




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rod Upfold)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna Help - don't be mad
Date: 18 Mar 1996 08:55:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4ijpvl$[e-mail]>

Please do not get mad.....

I have looked for other antenna groups but could not find one.....

My problem is with a television antenna. I have a combination head hooked
up to an antenna pre-amp.

My question is: can connect via a 300 ohm flat wire another uhf head to
the combination head...and both go through the pre-amp....

I relly could use the help....local sellers do not know "dick" and I need
help from an expert.

Thank you
Rod Upfold
--



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:30 1996
From: Rod Upfold <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Help - don't be mad
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:14:51 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ijpvl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Sorry...the word that I think you concerned with...wasn't ment in a
profane manner. I used it to mean that they could not answer any of my
question.

I apologize again....

Rod Upfold



On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 [e-mail] wrote:

> Rod Upfold <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> >I relly could use the help....local sellers do not know "dick" and I need
>
> This may come as a big suprise to you but profanity will sharply reduce
> the offers to help you.
>
>


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:31 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Antenna Help - don't be mad
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ijpvl$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:48:48 GMT

Ok. I'm an expert. Whats a UHF head???? What your are doing isn't quite
clear. Sorry.


Rod Upfold ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Please do not get mad.....

: I have looked for other antenna groups but could not find one.....

: My problem is with a television antenna. I have a combination head hooked
: up to an antenna pre-amp.

: My question is: can connect via a 300 ohm flat wire another uhf head to
: the combination head...and both go through the pre-amp....

: I relly could use the help....local sellers do not know "dick" and I need
: help from an expert.

: Thank you
: Rod Upfold
: --


--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (Colin Wright)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:37:39 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]>

On 11 Mar 1996 21:14:16 GMT, [e-mail] (David Jones) wrote:
<...snip...>
>Also, how can I find out what channels are available on UHF in my area ?

Hi Dave.  I keep a listing of AM/TV/FM stations on my web site.  They
are listed by grid field (CM, CN, etc.) and then subsorted by grid
sqaure for the US and some of Canada and Mexico.  The address is:

http://walden.mo.net/~aa0yt

Hope this helps!

73!  Colin, AA0YT
Colin R. Wright, AA0YT
Certified OS/2 Engineer
http://walden.mo.net/~aa0yt


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:33 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:12:24 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <n7kXGAA4BbRxEwi$@ifwtech.demon.co.uk>
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Joe Mack wrote among lots of good
advice:
>       The coax is important too - it gets you twice -
>if you have 3db of loss in the coax your signal goes
>down 3db, but as well, the lossy coax adds noise
>to the signal and it's about the same as the loss.

That's hardly ever true, unless both the receiver noise and the noise
picked up by the antenna are very low.

>So your S/N goes down 6db.

Usually it's little worse than 3dB, but that's important enough to make
good coax worthwhile!

Put in another way: if you have 3dB of loss in the coax, it's like you
sawed your antenna in half (but please don't ask which half  :-)

73 from Ian G3SEK          Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
                          'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Professionally:
IFW Technical Services     Clear technical English - anywhere.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:34 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:09:09 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <4i5173$[e-mail]>, WB3U wrote:
> [e-mail] "Joe Mack" wrote:
>
>>the lossy coax adds noise to the signal and it's about the same as
>>the loss.
>
>Does this mean that I could roll up 500' of lossy coax, terminate
>the unused end with a 50 ohm resistor, and use it as a wideband noise
>generator?
>

Even though the original statement wasn't quite right, the answer is
Yes. The coax will generate thermal noise equivalent to its physical
temperature - but so too will the 50 ohm resistor.

73 from Ian G3SEK          Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
                          'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Professionally:
IFW Technical Services     Clear technical English - anywhere.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:35 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Joe Mack)
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i5173$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 17:02:02 GMT

In article <4i5173$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (WB
3U) writes:
> [e-mail] "Joe Mack" wrote:
>
>>the lossy coax adds noise to the signal and it's about the same as
>>the loss.
>
>Does this mean that I could roll up 500' of lossy coax, terminate
>the unused end with a 50 ohm resistor, and use it as a wideband noise
>generator?
>
>73,
>Jack  WB3U

This was all a surprise to me when I realised that lossy
coax also generated noise, but from what I know, what
you're proposing will do exactly that. It will be
a perfect noise generator at approx 300degK. Most
noise diodes have an equivelent noise temp of
several 1000 def K.

        73 de Joe NA3T
        [e-mail]
X



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bruno Beckers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:42:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7j99$[e-mail]>
References: <4i5173$[e-mail]>

In my opinion, a mast amp is better, because when you ampify the mast,
it gets bigger and higher wich results in a lower radiation angle for
you antenna.
On the other hand, if you amplify your antenna, it will be hopelessly
out of tune...  :-)
Bruno Beckers
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Date: 13 Mar 1996 17:43:58 -0500
Message-ID: <4i7j3e$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail].198.186.186.2>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Hi Dave,

The mast mounted preamp (assuming a decent noise figure such as the
Winegard  low noise pieces) would at the very least establish the noise
floor for your system. Without it the noise figure would be the noise
figure of the front end of the TV receiver ( typically 5 dB VHF and maybe
as much as 8dB UHF)+ the loss in the coax.  Forget about the "focusing
effect" of a larger antenna. Antennas for VHF and or VHF/UHF do not have
clean side lobes and will always p/u man made noise despite their gain. Go
with the preamp. Winegard used to make balanced input preamps. These were
great because they didn't need a balun and its attendant 3-4 dB loss at
UHF and probably a dB or 2 at VHF. They are no longer available new but
can be found at MATV shops occasionally.

73, Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:37 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Any experience with Loop Antennas?
Date: 14 Mar 1996 01:01:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7r59$[e-mail]>

I need to get a low profile 20 meter antenna and am looking at the IsoLoop
from AEA, MFJ has one also. does anyone have any experience with these?
+/- experience?

JOHN
KF4GBV



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:38 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: BCB antenna
Date: 13 Mar 96 15:34:03 GMT
Message-ID: <0003800003174410000004*@MHS>



I need help locating  companies that make BCB outdoor loop antennas with
preamp. Thanks.
Bill Fletcher AF9B
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (David, Michaela & Benjamin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Best No Gnd Radial HF Vertical
Date: 16 Mar 96 19:07:09 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail].198.186.186.2>

Help!  I have chosen to scale my station way back as it won't get much use for
 the next 2 years.
I want to put up an HF vertical that works reasonably well without ground radi
als or guy wires.
80-10 including WARC is a pipe dream, 40-10 including WARC nice (esp. if
full band coverage), 20-10 including WARC (must be full band coverage) ok.
The Cushcraft R-5 appears to meet the latter requirement, the R-7 trims 20,
30 & 40.
I don't know about the GAP Titan, the Butternut HF9V-X, or the new Cushcraft
R-7000.  Am I missing any antennas that belong on this list?
   Thanks in advance for any guidance here.  No point in putting up something
that won't cut it, but want something simple and clean for now.
    73, David AA1FA



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (Exiled on Main Street)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Beveridge antennas
Date: 14 Mar 1996 20:19:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4i9uvp$[e-mail]>

Hello all...

I need to find out more about the construction of a beveridge antenna.
Anyone know where i can get some instructions on constructing a balun for
one? Please respond via email. Thanx! -Tim



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Vince Fiscus,  KB7ADL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: BUTTERNUT HF9V & Counterpoise - Advice Pse
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 01:06:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4iqa5g$[e-mail]>
References: <4im5di$a8d$[e-mail]>
Keywords: Antenna Vertical


I ground-mounted my vertical and buried the radials, works great.

73 de KB7ADL




In article <4im5di$a8d$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Robin Gandevia) wrote:
>       RE: BUTTERNUT HF9V and BUTTERNUT COUNTERPOISE
>
>  I am in a dilemma and would appreciate your opinion as to the
>  merits of the Butternut counterpoise kit compared to radials.
>
>  I would like to buy the Butternut HF9V - the all HF band
>  vertical antenna. I currently have an R5 for 20 through 10, and
>  a base loaded home-brew ground plane for 80, 40 and 30 metres.
>
>  I must "clear up the mess". The new antenna would have to be
>  mounted on the side of the house - up to 10 feet above the roof.
>  Radials for 8 HF bands are impractical. I have a tin roof but
>  unfortunately it has "color-bonding" together with silicone
>  between sheets. Conductivity between sheets is minimal. The
>  other problem is the shape of the roof. The house is typical
>  "terrace" design - an "A" frame at the front with a long
>  scillion rear roof. The mounting point is midway in the rear
>  section. My poor drawing skills...
>
>                     |
>                     |
>                     |               .
>                     |              / \
>                     |            /     \
>         ______________________ /         \
>        |                                  |          E------W
>        |                                  |
>  rear  |             side                 |  front
>        |                                  |
>        |__________________________________|
>        <              c. 50'             >
>
>  The obvious answer seems the Butternut counterpoise. But is it?
>  I am reticent to use the roof as a counterpoise for a few
>  reasons...
>
>    - Poor connections between sheets may cause TVI with the diode
>      effect.
>
>    - If the antenna base is mounted at the roof level, the "A"
>      frame section 20 feet away will be higher than it.
>
>    - The antenna will be mounted at the SIDE of the roof - thus
>      only a 50% coverage of roof below.
>
>  I would be interested in your opinion. I'd be especially
>  grateful to hear from anyone who has any experience with the
>  Butternut counterpoise. I haven't seen one, nor do I know anyone
>  who even has the Butternut antenna, though I understand it is
>  very good. To be honest, I've not been happy with the R5. But if
>  the Butternut and its counterpoise will not be as good then I
>  might see if I can persuade the powers to be to let it stay!
>
>  It is kind of you to read me request for assistance - thank you.
>
>  Robin Gandevia VK2VN
>
>
>


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Car AM Antennas to 2 Meter
Date: 17 Mar 1996 15:25:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihasp$[e-mail]>
References: <4ibpqg$[e-mail]>

In article <4ibpqg$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...

>Last December WA6ILQ posted a reply to a question about
>disguise antennas.  He said that the "big name" in these
>antennas was/is STICO.  I have tried to find the phone number
>of this firm and have not been able to locate them.

I don't have STICO's phone number, but I know that Antenna Specialists
makes disguise antennas and couplers for disguise antennas.  I use a
Hustler 2meter antenna on my '67 Mustang in the normal antenna location
(a cowl mount) and the coupler allows reception on FM real well (AM
reception is not good).  The location (fender) isn't the best location,
but it really don't look like a transmitting antenna to most people.

Brian



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rval58)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Carolina Windom 80 Question
Date: 20 Mar 1996 14:40:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4ipmvh$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rval58)

I've heard some good things about the Carolina Windom 80  from Radio
Works.  Haven't seen much in this group about the antenna. Anyone have
one?
I was wondering in addition to it's performance, what kind of SWR and RFI
can be expected?  Using a G5RV now. - Thanks.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:45 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Comet GP9-N vs Diamond X500HNA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 17:38:50 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Jeff DePolo WN3A <depolo@intermed
iainc.com> writes:
>Has anyone had the chance to compare these two antennas?  At one of my
>repeater sites, I'm going to be replacing VHF and UHF monoband antennas
>with a single dual-band antenna, and am trying to decide which.  I have
>a Diamond X500HNA that I used for a while on the 2m and 440 remote bases
>tied to a repeater, and, although it was OK, it's performance on UHF
>didn't compare favorably to single-band UHF antennas that I've A/B
>compared it to at the same site (Celwave PD-455, Diamond F718A, etc.),
>so I'm wondering if the Comet GP9-N is a better alternative.

Other than I think that the Comet antennas use a better electrical
construction than the Diamond, I'm not sure there are any major
performance differences, IE the Comets tolerate lightning strikes
better than the Diamonds due to the fact there are no series capacitors
to rupture in the element stack. Phasing is done by "linear loading".

But I have noticed something else. The UHF vertical pattern profiles
of either of these dual banders is not as desirable as the vertical
profile of a single band antenna. These antennas are optimized for
proper phasing at 2m, not at the high end of 70cm. 3x146=438, and
these antennas have good patterns at 438 MHz, but not at 448 MHz.

We'd like a bit of electrical downtilt for a repeater antenna, but
the dualbanders give us a bit of electrical uptilt instead. That's
fine for working aircraft, or warming birds, but it's not much
use to us as a high site repeater antenna.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Pat Barthelow)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Discone Radiation Patterns
Date: 13 Mar 96 15:37:34 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

      A design article on discones exists in the June 1955 Electronics
Buyers Guide, by J.J. Nail.  Reference Sheet, R-27.  This article
references 3 other articles in the literature, which are:

          A.G Kandolan, "Three New Antenna Types and their
          Applications Proc IRE, 34, p. 70 W Feb. 1946

          A.G. Kandolan, W. Sichak, R.A. Felsenheld, "Elecronic
          Communication", 25, P. 139, June 1948

          J.M. Bower, "Discone - 40 to 500 Mc. Skywire", CQ, 5, p. 11,
          July 1950

          Mack Seybold, "The Low frequency Discone", CQ 6, p. 13,
          July 1950

To summarize the Nail article, Impedance plots show that for Flare
angles (the complete inside angle of the cone) between 25 and 60
degrees, SWRs to a 50 ohm feed, of 1.5 to 2 to one, exist until the
lower frequency limit is reached, then a rather steep climb in SWR
occurs. The lower frequency limit is defined by the length of the
sloping side of cone becoming a 1/4 wavelength.  Slight variations
in impedance occur up through 3F, but are inconsequential.  At the
upper frequency limits, (5 or more F) patterns and impedance are
mostly influenced by the dimensions at the pointy end of the cone,
and to a degree, by the flare angle.  It appears that best performance
occurrs  when the cone vertex is as pointy as possible and spaced
as close as possible to the center of the disk.
          Free space pattern plots in the vertcal plane at the lower
frequencies look like a vertical dipole.  As the frequency gets higher,
the dipole pattern gets squeezed at the bottom quarter, so that it
looks like a pair of commas, back to back, at 3F.  The gain at the
horizon is -3.3 dbd at 3.75F, and - 2.5 dbd at 4.85 F.  Someone
should use Lewallen's modelling program to verify these early
computed plots.  I would like to know if you can minimize the
numbers of wires you model, to the point of using only a 2
dimensional model, requiring fewer segments of wire, and
assumptions being made that the pattern is the same
omnidirectionally.
          Bottom line is, consider the discone to be about like a 1/4 wave
ground plane with an upper F limit of up to 10 times  F  min. i.e. a
discone with a cone length of 20 inches should perform well, from
2 meters to well above 1.2 gHz, if the junction area is constructed
properly.  BTW, if you are ever in Monterey, contact me, for a
looksee at our 80-10 METER discone, courtesy of the US Army, at
our new club station, the former Army MARS station at Ft. Ord.
Works DX like gangbusters from 80 through 10 meters.

73, DX, de Pat, [e-mail]
Monterey CA


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:47 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: European 4 to 5 wavelength boom 144 MHz Yagis?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 08:29:12 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Ilkka Kontola wrote:
>Is there European manufacturers for four to five wavelength
>boom 144 MHz Yagi antennas?

Yes, Eagle Antennas in the UK manufacture antennas under license from
DJ9BV, similar to the designs published in DUBUS.

Contact Vine Antennas (GW3YDX) on [phone], fax [phone]
or by mail at:

Vine Antenna Products
The Vine
Llandrinio
Powys
SY22 6SH
United Kingdom

(Yes, Llandrinio does begin with two Ls, same as the Lewallen family
name used to!)

>If any is there any references concerning their usability
>in four or six yagi EME arrays?
>
Plenty of good experience worldwide!



73 from Ian G3SEK          Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
                          'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Professionally:
IFW Technical Services     Clear technical English - anywhere.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (MCEWEN, JAMES)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Feeding a helical wound antenna
Date: 13 Mar 96 17:57:44 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

          Resend of msg 3/8/96


          Hello to the list. Like a lot of others, I have a severe
     space problem and want to get by with one reasonable antenna.  I
     am considering an 80 meter helical wound antenna across the
     ceiling of the shack.  The Handbook sez use 1 wavelength of wire,
     largest size practical, spacing of the turns isn't important to
     performance.  So OK.
        Now here is the problem.  How do I feed the thing to get all
     band (or most band) performance?  The handbook sez this will have
     a low feedpoint impedance.  It suggests using a few turns of wire
     as a primary transformer winding (link Coupling), with a variable
     cap in series to resonate the coil, into 50 ohm coax.  But this
     is for only 1 band.  How do I connect broadband?  A MFJ949D is
     available for matching and a dip meter for tuning.

       One idea was to make a short length of open wire, like this:
                                 ___________-----------
               _______-----------               450 ohm       openwire
     antenna    ~20 ohm spacing       to         spacing  to  input at
       end     -------___________                             MFJ 949D
     "coil link"                 -----------___________


      or another idea:  Use a tapped coil link to make impedance
     transformations, at the antenna:

          /
          \
          /
      ant \  link
          /  coil (10-20 turns?)
      80  \ \-
          / /_   ____________________
     meter\ \_
          / /                      To Openwire input
     200  \ \_Taps                     MFJ 949D
     turns/ /_   --------------------
          \ \-
          /
          \
     Comments & suggestions, please
     TIA

     Jim McEwen KA6TPR
     [e-mail]





From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:50 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: fiberglas rods/pipe
Date: 13 Mar 1996 19:21:04 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i7770$[e-mail]>

I've been asked where to get some. Got mine at Ryan Herco in Tempe,
AZ. They also have 6 offices in N/S CA, Albuquerque, Portland,
Seattle, Austin, and Houston.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (David L. Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Force 12 info request
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:35:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4iihmi$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (D.RODMAN) wrote:

>Can anyone give me a number or address for Force 12 antennas?  I am
>looking for specific information on 20 m monobanders.  Thanks, Dave.

Force 12 has ads in virtually all ham mags.

Dave K4JRB



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:52 1996
From: [e-mail](Koert Koelman )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Free Tower/Antenna Mountain View CA
Date: 16 Mar 1996 06:00:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4idldc$[e-mail]>

A friend of mine just bought a house in Mountain View, CA and the
previous owner left a tower/antenna behind.

It is yours free for the asking, if you take the tower down, take both
the antenna and the tower and haul it yourself.

* 40-feet crank-up Tristao tower
* Tri-bander yagi
* Possibly also a 2-meter antenna (I am not sure about this)

If you are interested, act fast as he wants to clear up his yard.  Call
Tim at 415-960-0430 or send him an e-mail at [e-mail].

73/Koert KC6WCI


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: G5RV coax length
Date: 15 Mar 1996 15:54:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4icldt$[e-mail]>
References: <4i7itu$[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
writes:
>I also found that if you wad the coax up and let it lay on the
>ground the swr appears even lower.

If that happens, the feedline has common mode currents, either from lack
of a choke balun or improper feedline routing.

>All of this goes to show the how the G5RV was never intended to be a
multiband >antenna in the first place when fed with coax. Only 20 meters
was originally >considered. MR G5RV himself recommends using open wire
feeders when used as a >multiband antenna.

Something very nice occurs, intentionally or not. On 80 meters the 30 ft
high Z line adds inductive reactance that cancels capacitive reactance
caused by the antenna being too short. On 40 meters, the 30 ft high Z line
acts like 1/4 wl transmission line transformer, and reduces the very high
center impedance to a reasonable value. On 20 meters, the 30 ft high Z
line repeats the impedance at the antenna, which is low.

My G5RV has a resonable SWR on 80, 40, and 20. It's also easy to match
with a tuner. Very few randomly constructed open wire fed antennas are
easy to match on all bands, even though they use a tuner. Disadvantages
attributed to G5RV's are more rumor than fact.

>A lossy coax can turn a 5:1 swr into an nice 1.2:1 if it is long enough.

Well, just how long is long enough??? To reduce VSWR from 5:1 to 1.2:1
requires 8.65 dB of cable loss. A typical RG-58 cable I looked up would be
around 300 feet long on ten meters, or over 500 feet long on 40 meters to
provide that much loss.
RG-8X would have to be much longer.

>Further, when a line has a mismatch like yours, the swr will appear to
>vary for different lengths of line on any given frequency.

Not so at all !!! SWR remains constant except for the reduction of SWR
caused by attenuation unless:

1.)  The feedline is improperly installed.
2.) The bridge or line have different design impedances.

>Sometimes a decent compromise can be achieved by experimenting with
various >short sections of coax added to your feeder. This is real easy on
the higher
>bands where just a short 3ft jumper from the tuner to the rig can make a
>huge different in swr READINGS.

If changing the length of the 50 ohm line changes the SWR measured by a 50
ohm VSWR meter, one of the above rules is being broken. Either repair the
meter, buy a real 50 ohm line, re-route the feedline as it leaves the
antenna, or de-couple the feedline with a choke balun. Something is very
wrong, OTHER than line matching or SWR".      73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (George P. Thomas, Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: GAMMA-MATCH FOR 2M YAGI
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 16:38:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4ih96m$[e-mail]>

Does anyone have or know where I can find DETAILS regarding building a
gamma-match for a 3 element 2m yagi?  Thank You and 73's...KB0QVT



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:56 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Re: GAP Voyager DX vertical antenna.
Date: 15 Mar 1996 08:55:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4ibb9q$[e-mail]>
References: <4i2h8i$[e-mail]>

In article <4i2h8i$[e-mail]>,
Vince Fiscus,  KB7ADL <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Is the GAP Voyager DX a good vertical ?

Well, it depends what you call a good vertical.

it is quite expensive and looks impressive, However, performance
is similar to a dummy load. It is easily beat by a dipole at the same
height.

A good vertical comes with a ground plane.

73, Moritz DL5UH



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jay Whitworth)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Glass mount dualband antenna
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 02:32:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4i5c3m$[e-mail]>
References: <4htn6p$[e-mail]>

In article <4htn6p$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (FrankB2686) wrote:
>Anyone have experience (good or bad) using a glass mount 2m/70cm antenna?
>Comments on installation, manufactures, etc. would be appriciated.
>
>73 Frank  WD6AGS
>
I have been using a Larson dual band Kulglass antenna for about a year. It wor
ks resonably well.
I have been told that glass mount antennas don't work with some dark tinted wi
ndows.
Be careful in positioning the antenna base on the outside of the window, becau
se once it makes
contact with the glass it is STUCK!

73,

Jay Whitworth, WB7NNA



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Glass mount dualband antenna
Date: 15 Mar 1996 19:16:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4id18g$[e-mail]>
References: <4i5c3m$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Hi Frank,
Iwas the original designer and patent holder of the on-glass series (now
owned by Antenna Specialists). Our design was an end fed 1/2 wave whic
worked well because it did not want to seek a counterpoise. The coax was
cold enough that V.S.W.R. did not vary at all as cable was routed or
moved.
Haven't inspected the Larsens's for years but they used to be a curren fed
design w/ a minimal exterior counterpoise and fed by 2 capacity plates at
the 50 Ohm level thru the glass. The feedline was reasonably hot w/ RF.
The window tints are death to any of the on glass- probably more so to my
design because of the relatively hi end Z- 500 Ohms or so @2M. You need to
"open an area w/ a 1/2" boarder around the foot.
The A.S. antennas showed slight gain over roof mounted quarter waves when
the antenna was mounted near the top of the window. The pattern was quite
omni and the gain may have resulted from the fact that the current loop
was almost a quarter wave higher up than the roof mounted monopole.

73,  Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB7ASR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Glass mount dualband antenna
Date: 14 Mar 1996 15:31:09 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i9e3t$[e-mail]>
References: <4htn6p$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>[e-mail] (FrankB2686) wrote:
>
>>Anyone have experience (good or bad) using a glass mount 2m/70cm antenna?
>>Comments on installation, manufactures, etc. would be appriciated.
>
>>73 Frank  WD6AGS
>
>Does anyone have any experience using the glass mount, is the and
>difference to rx or tx as opposed to drilling a hole into my brand new
>car.  Im using the Vertex 99 channel uhf model.
>Any make or model?
>
    I have the Larson dual-band glass mount antenna. When I first
    installed it, the SWR was high on the high end of two meters
    band and HIGH across the intire 70cm band. I called Larson on the
    telephone and they sent me a new whip, which is longer above
    the center loading coil. This fixed my SWR problem on both bands.
    Its should be noted, the reason why the other shorter whip had
    a higher SWR, was because of the metal film window tinting.
    Window tinting causes the capatance to change between the
    two glass mount sections, thus shorting the electrical length
    of the whip.

    Hope this info helps, Tom...



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:40:59 1996
From: Cliff Soderback <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: Re: ground a 5/8 wave on a trunk lip mount?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:43:41 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: Charlie Fortner <[e-mail]>

Charlie Fortner wrote:
>
> I've got a trunk lip mount and I want to use a 5/8 wave antenna with it.
> If I attach a piece of wire running from the ground of the antenna to a
> suitable ground in the trunk, will this have the same affect as putting
> the antenna on the roof of my car?  Thanks.
>
> Charlie Fortner
> KF4GJQ

 Charlie:
          The wire wouldn't do anything because the 5/8 ant in grounded
in the mount. If you have a fiberglass car then only a 1/2 wave would
work, because you have no ground. Note: a 1/4 wave on top of the
car will work better than any antenna mounted on the trunk.

                              Cliff, W7VVA


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:01 1996
From: Jim Devenport <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: Re: ground a 5/8 wave on a trunk lip mount?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 13:40:32 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: Charlie Fortner <[e-mail]>

Hardly.  Your ground normally takes place through the screws that you
tighten under the trunk mount to hold it in place, they are supposed to
pierce the paint and make a ground connection.  For your ground wire to
have any useful effect it would have to be a more direct connection than
that to ground.
Plus, mounting the antenna in or on the vehicle roof not only gives it
the benefit of the surrounding roof surface as a ground plane but
elevates it another foot or more, plus the pattern will be more
omnidirectional since there should be no other metal obstructions in the
near field of the antenna.
In actual operation it may often be difficult to notice any improvement
from trunk to roof mounting.
--
|-------------------------------------------------------|
|Jim Devenport  WB5AOX                                  |
|All Standard Disclaimers Disclaimed                    |
|My views rarely (if ever) reflect those of my employers|
|HTTP://nis-www.lanl.gov/~jdport/                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------|


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:02 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: ground a 5/8 wave on a trunk lip mount?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 02:38:20 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
m (Charlie Fortner) writes:
>I've got a trunk lip mount and I want to use a 5/8 wave antenna with it.
>If I attach a piece of wire running from the ground of the antenna to a
>suitable ground in the trunk, will this have the same affect as putting
>the antenna on the roof of my car?  Thanks.

No. For the current mirror to be effective, it has to be directly
under the antenna. The only way to get top of the car performance
is to mount the antenna on the top of the car. Mounting on the trunk
will result in directional properties because the signal will be
shielded by the cabin to the front, and because the groundplane
under the antenna will be asymmetric. Running a wire inside the
car will have no effect on the antenna pattern. The antenna is
already "grounded" by the trunk lip mount. THe trunk lid is its
groundplane (such as it is).

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jay Maynard, K5ZC)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.cb,rec.radio.info,rec.answers,news.answers
Subject: Guide to the Personal Radio Newsgroups
Date: 16 Mar 1996 07:05:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <radio/[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jay Maynard, K5ZC)
Summary: This article provides an overview of the newsgroups devoted
Keywords: faq radio amateur ham cb netiquette

Posted-By: auto-faq 3.1.1.2
Archive-name: radio/personal-intro
Revision: 2.1 1994/11/01 03:50:23
Posting-Frequency: posted on the 15th of each month

This message describes the rec.radio.amateur.*, rec.radio.cb,
rec.radio.info, and rec.radio.swap newsgroups, as well as their Internet
mailing list counterparts and complements. It is intended to serve as a
guide for the new reader on what to find where. Questions and comments may
be directed to the author, Jay Maynard, K5ZC, by Internet electronic mail at
[e-mail]. This message was last changed on 31 October
1994 to add the discussion of non-Usenet mailing lists and streamline most
of the history discussion, and to change the moderator information for
rec.radio.info.

History
=======

Way back when, before there was a Usenet, the Internet hosted a mailing list
for hams, called (appropriately enough) INFO-HAMS. Ham radio discussions
were held on the mailing list, and sent to the mailboxes of those who had
signed up for it. When the Usenet software was created, and net news as we
now know it was developed, a newsgroup was created for hams: net.ham-radio.
The mailing list and the newsgroup were gatewayed together, eventually.

Over the years, as the net grew, the volume of discussion became
progressively higher. First one by one, and then as part of two
reorganizations, what was once one group became many. In the process,
developments elsewhere on the net were reflected in the groups as they were
created, most notably the change to place all of the ham radio groups in one
hierarchy.

The collection of newsgroups continues to grow as more people join the net,
and as more topics of discussion gain volume, I expect to see more groups be
created as well. This follows what is happening on the rest of the net.

Nearly all of the radio newsgroups have corresponding mailing lists, the
notable exception being rec.radio.swap. There are also a few mailing lists
that don't have newsgroups.

The Current Groups
==================

It's important to post messages to the group that's appropriate for them,
and not to the groups that aren't. The whole idea of having different
newsgroups is so that folks who aren't interested in, say, homebrewing,
don't have to wade through messages about homebrewing on the way to read
about Field Day. Posting appropriately is just good etiquette.

The rec.radio.amateur.misc group is the catchall. It is what rec.ham-radio
was renamed to during the first major reorganization. Any message that's not
more appropriate in one of the other groups belongs here, from contesting to
DX to ragchewing on VHF to information on becoming a ham.

The group rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc is for discussions related to
(surprise!) digital amateur radio. This doesn't have to be the common
two-meter AX.25 variety of packet radio, either; some of the most
knowledgeable folks in radio digital communications can be found here, and
anything in the general area is welcome. The name was changed to emphasize
this, and to encourage discussion not only of other text-based digital
modes, such as AMTOR, RTTY, and Clover, but things like digital voice and
video as well. The former group, rec.radio.amateur.packet, was removed on
September 21st, 1993. It is obsolete, and you should use .digital.misc
instead (or the appropriate new mailing list, mentioned below).  The group
has .misc as part of the name to allow further specialization if the users
wish it, such as .digital.tcp-ip.

The swap group is rec.radio.swap. This recognizes a fact that became
evident shortly after the original group was formed: Hams don't just swap ham
radio gear, and other folks besides hams swap ham equipment. If you have radio
equipment, or test gear, or computer stuff that hams would be interested in,
here's the place. Equipment wanted postings belong here too. Discussions about
the equipment generally don't; if you wish to discuss a particular posting
with the buyer, email is a much better way to do it, and the other groups,
especially .equipment and .homebrew, are the place for public discussions.
There is now a regular posting with information on how to go about buying and
selling items in rec.radio.swap; please refer to it before you post there.
To answer a frequently asked question: No, there is no mailing list that
goes along with this group. If you can't read Usenet news directly, you're
out of luck.

The group rec.radio.amateur.policy was created as a place for all the
discussions that seem to drag on interminably about the many rules,
regulations, legalities, and policies that surround amateur radio, both
existing and proposed.  Recent changes to the Amateur Radio Rules (FCC Part
97) have finally laid to rest the Great Usenet Pizza Autopatch Debate - it's
now legal to order a pizza on the autopatch, if you're not in the pizza
business - as well as complaints about now-preempted local scanner laws
hostile to amateurs, but plenty of discussion about what a bunch of rotten
no-goodniks the local frequency coordinating body is, as well as the
neverending no-code debate, may still be found here.

The group rec.radio.cb is the place for all discussion about the Citizens'
Band radio service. Such discussions have been very inflammatory in
rec.ham-radio in the past; please do not cross-post to both rec.radio.cb and
rec.radio.amateur.* unless the topic is genuinely of interest to both hams
and CBers - and very few topics are.

The rec.radio.info group is just what its name implies: it's the place where
informational messages from across rec.radio.* may be found, regardless of
where else they're posted. As of this writing, information posted to the
group includes Cary Oler's daily solar progagation bulletins, ARRL
bulletins, the Frequently Asked Questions files for the various groups, and
radio modification instructions. This group is moderated, so you cannot post
to it directly; if you try, even if your message is crossposted to one of
the other groups, your message will be mailed to the moderator, who is
currently David Dodell, WB7TPY. The email address for submissions to the
group is [e-mail]. Inquires and other administrivia should be
directed to [e-mail]. For more information about
rec.radio.info, consult the introduction and posting guidelines that are
regularly posted to that newsgroup.

The groups rec.radio.amateur.antenna, .equipment, .homebrew, and .space are
for more specialized areas of ham radio: discussions about antennas,
commercially-made equipment, homebrewing, and amateur radio space operations.
The .equipment group is not the place for buying or selling equipment; that's
what rec.radio.swap is for. Similarly, the .space group is specifically about
amateur radio in space, such as the OSCAR program and SAREX, the Shuttle
Amateur Radio EXperiment; other groups cover other aspects of satellites and
space. Homebrewing isn't about making your own alcoholic beverages at home
(that's rec.crafts.brewing), but rather construction of radio and electronic
equipment by the amateur experimenter.

Except for rec.radio.swap and rec.radio.cb, all of these newsgroups are
available by Internet electronic mail in digest format; send a mail message
containing "help" on a line by itself to [e-mail] for instructions
on how to use the mail server.

All of the groups can be posted to by electronic mail, though, by using a
gateway at the University of Texas at Austin. To post a message this way,
change the name of the group you wish to post to by replacing all of the '.'s
with '-'s - for example, rec.radio.swap becomes rec-radio-swap - and send to
that [e-mail] ([e-mail], for example). You may
crosspost by including multiple addresses as Cc: entries (but see below). This
gateway's continued availability is at the pleasure of the admins at
UT-Austin, and is subject to going away at any time - and especially if
forgeries and other net.abuses become a problem. You have been warned.

Mailing Lists
=============

In addition to the mailing lists that mirror the Usenet newsgroups, there
also are a few that stand alone. These cover specific areas of ham radio,
and discussion is focused on just those areas.

The cq-contest mailing list is for discussions of contesting in ham radio.
To join, send email with the word "subscribe" on a line by itself to
[e-mail].

The DX mailing list covers the finer points of DXing. This one is also
joined by mailing "subscribe" on a line by itself, this time to
[e-mail].

There's also a VHF mailing list, for VHF operators of the weak signal
persuasion. You can join this one be sending "subscribe vhf" on a line by
itself to [e-mail].

All of the following mailing lists are sponsored to the Boston Amateur Radio
Club, as well as some others of local interest. Thanks to N1IST for the
information.

qrp-l:  This is the qrp mailing list, previously maintained by Bruce
        Walker at Think.com.  It is for discussions about the design,
        construction, and use of qrp (low power) radios and related
        equipment.
arrl-ve-list: This is a one-way list, run by Bart Jahnke of the ARRL
        VEC, for announcements to VEs and VE teams.
w1aw-list:     ARRL bulletins, news, and information
newsline-list: Redistribution of Amateur Radio Newsline
letter-list:   Redistribution of the ARRL Letter
fox-list:      Fox hunting and Radio Direction Finding
fieldorg-l:    ARRL field organization discussions
ham-tech:      Technical discussions and questions about Amateur Radio
arrl-exam-list: amateur radio license examinations scheduled in the US and
                in some foreign areas.

To sign up or inquire about these lists, send mail to [e-mail]
with the following in the body (subject is ignored) of the message.
<listname> is the name of the list to subscribe to.
  To subscribe:   subscribe <listname>
  To unsubscribe: unsubscribe <listname>
  For more information: help
  To post (to the two-way lists), send your message to <listname>@netcom.com

Please do NOT send subscription requests to the mailing lists themselves;
that doesn't work very often, and is very annoying to those on the list.
Also, please keep your electronic mail address current with any mailing
lists you subscribe to, as dealing with returned email is a nuisance for the
person maintaining the mailing list.

A Few Words on Crossposting
===========================

Please do not crosspost messages to two or more groups unless there is genuine
interest in both groups in the topic being discussed, and when you do, please
include a header line of the form "Followup-To: group.name" in your article's
headers (before the first blank line). This will cause followups to your
article to go to the group listed in the Followup-To: line. If you wish
to have replies to go to you by email, rather than be posted, use the word
"poster" instead of the name of a group. Such a line appears in the headers
of this article.

One of the few examples of productive cross-posting is with the rec.radio.info
newsgroup. To provide a filtered presentation of information articles, while
still maintaining visibility in their home newsgroups, the moderator strongly
encourages cross-posting. All information articles should be submitted to the
rec.radio.info moderator so that he may simultaneously cross-post your
information to the appropriate newsgroups. Most newsreaders will only present
the article once, and network bandwidth is conserved since only one article is
propagated. If you make regular informational postings, and have made
arrangements with the moderator to post directly to the group, please
cross-post as appropriate.

--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]   | adequately be explained by stupidity.
      "All is strange and vague." "Are we dead?" "Or is this Ohio?"
                      -- Yakko and Dot Warner


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Irwin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: half wave verticals
Date: 18 Mar 1996 21:35:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4ikkum$[e-mail]>

Just wondering, has anybody made a comparison between the Cushcraft R7
and the Hy-gain DX-77?

I'm thinking of getting one of these since many people have had very
good luck with them, but want to get some feedback before making a decision.

Any comments welcome


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:08 1996
From: Your Real Name <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re:Hamstick" dipole Problems
Date: 17 Mar 1996 19:22:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihoqb$[e-mail]>
References: <4iev07$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Derrick Cole) wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> At the Charlotte HamFest last weekend, I purchased two 40M "HamStick" antenn
as
> (HF mobile whips?) consisting of a coiled mast and an extendable metal "whip
",
> which, when adjusted, supposedly allow for tuning for a certain center
> frequency.  I also bought a mounting bracket so as to create a dipole from
> the two 'sticks.
>
> Suffice to say, I've not had much luck.  Initially, with the whips fully
> extended, I could only achieve 3+:1 across 40M except for the upper 30KHz,
> where I could get 1-8-2:1.
>
> Wanting a lower SWR in the lower 100KHz, I set out to actually read the
> confusing instructions about the whip and tuning for a certain frequency.
> Choosing a frequency of 7.1MHz, this implies an exposed whip length of
> 39".  I cut both whips to 39.5" (39" of which was exposed), tightened
> everything up, tuned up on 7.1MHz, and now enjoy 5:1 SWR everywhere.
>
> Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
> a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originall
y
> 48.25" long)?  What should I do?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Derrick

I have done a lot of work with mobile whip used as very short dipoles.  On 40
meters, it is possible to get a reasonable SWR (<2:1) over a bandwidth of abou
t 35 KHz.  My best results were with ProAm (Valor) whips, which include a matc
hing capacitor in the package. The two whips used to make up the dipole are ea
ch insulated from the mounting bracket.  The anenna is fed with the 17-feet of
 coax as specified in the whips instruction sheet.  Changing the length of the
 coax had a profound effect on matching as did the value of capacitor.  I did
find other lenght of coax which would permit a good match at a specific freque
ncy. CW coverage on 80 for 40 meters was not possible with the whips supplied.
 They were far too short. Better, low SWR, bandwidth was observed on all the h
igher band since the antennas were electrically longer.

Now for the good news: When I got the whips tuned, the 40 meter antenna did a
respectable job for a 16-foot dipole.  Good luck with the project.

Jim, W4THU
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:09 1996
From: Zack Lau <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF dipole for VHF/UHF
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:17:13 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hsii6$[e-mail]> <4i44b4$[e-mail]>
To: Peter Markham <[e-mail]>

Peter Markham (WA4HEI)wrote:
>
>     I have wondered about the possibility and practicality of using a
> 75m dipole, center fed with 450 ladder (window?) line, on vhf/uhf. I
> have never seen the subject touched upon in my limited printed resources,

I had a similar system that seemed to work--I ran open wire (2 inch) to
an 86 foot dipole strung above my 2nd floor apartment (one tree I used
has since been cut down :-(  ).   Although the tuner was principally
designed for 80 meters, it seemed to work on 6 meters, as it took only
15 months to collect the QSLs for VUCC running 3 watts PEP. I even worked
a few double hop E skip contacts to the West Coast from New England.


Zack KH6CP/1


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:10 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF dipole for VHF/UHF
Date: 14 Mar 1996 22:50:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4ia7rk$[e-mail]>
References: <4hsii6$[e-mail]> <4i44b4$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Peter  Markham) wrote:
>Anyone willing to share their insight or knowledge of the subject?
>
Hi Pete, An HF dipole on vhf/uhf would be extremely bi-directional.
Most of the radiated power is off the ends with not much broadside
coverage. It would be like having a beam that you can't rotate.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:11 1996
From: Isaac Kohn <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equpiment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: HF, multiband antenna, etc. for beginner -- PLEASE HELP!
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 20:00:51 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Greetings all,
I am new to the world of ham radio (don't even have my license yet), and
I'm working on setting up a station.  I'm gonna need an antenna to work
at least the entire HF range, and maybe thru 2m.  I live on the second
floor of a 2-flat, and space outside is limited...  I've been figuring
I'd put up a loop around my ceiling (approx. 12'x12') or on one wall
(similar dimensions), use a transmatch, and hope for the best. Maybe
someone out there has a better idea... It would be convenient if there
were a way I could wire something up in my room or (for lower
frequencies) outside my window... It may not be practical to raise
anything up above the top of the building -- will this affect
propagation in the HF range??  I _may_ be able to find a way to set up a
horizontal dipole that is supported a few inches above the edge of the
roof, so that obstructions are less of a problem.  Anyone have any
suggestions??  Also, I will need plans for a versatile, INEXPENSIVE
Transmatch.  I can probably tolerate somewhat high levels of SWR, if it
will reduce design cost.  Is it feasible to wire several toroid-core
broadband transformers, and switch them in and out appropriately for
each band?? I'd like not to have to retune the antenna every time I
switch bands, and if I could have a knob that did that it would be quite
nice.......   PLEASE RESPOND (pref. by E-mail or E-mail+post) IF YOU CAN
ANSWER ANY OF MY IGNORANT QUESTIONS!!! Thanks a lot everybody.

73's
Isaac Kohn

P.S.  I actually am doing things in the wrong order, as I haven't built
any sort of equipment that would utilize an antenna yet.  If anyone has
any diagrams/ideas for a receiver, and maybe a transmitter, that I could
use for phone (at least AM, SSB would be nice), they would be much
appreciated.  Receiver might just be antenna, tank circuit shunting
unwanted stuff to ground, single-diode detector, and high-gain AF AMP.
This is good because I've already built a 1W output AF AMP, and it works
great.  Xmitter is tough because I only want to use one oscillator, but
I want to span entire HF range.  Prob. with both is switching components
in tuned circuits for different bands....  Help is much appreciated.  As
you can see I am very unexperienced and am dying to get on the air.  Thx
again in advance!


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:12 1996
From: Buster <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: How?  6 Meter J-Pole?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 04:04:17 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Been thinking about doing a 6-meter J-Pole

I tried modifying the 2-Meter twin-lead design, but I think
my feed points were too low on the antenna.

I'd like to make one out of antenna whip.

It's gonna be big.  Preliminary estimates put the 3/4~ side
at 150.5" and the 1/4~ matching stub at 50".


Anyone have experience/measurements for different construction
techniques.  I've heard of some with 3/4" copper pipe.  I'm
A Little more interested in a finer whip, like Stainless Steel?


Buster, KC7KMJ
Tucson Arizona DM42
6 & 2 SSB


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:13 1996
From: Isaac Kohn <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 14:21:13 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Subject says it all....  What's a G5RV???  (antenna tuner??)

73's
Isaac


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 08:50:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4ioh6b$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:

>on 17m, the G5RV has 4 lobes each with 10dbi gain over ground

Is that before or after subtracting the loss in the balun?  ;)

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 09:21:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4ioivl$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ils2n$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:

>Some people hate G5RV's, and "write bad things on walls" about them.
>But they are pretty good antennas for the effort, especially on 80,
>40 and 20 meters.

Guess I'm one of the graffiti guys, 'cause I still don't understand
what the fuss is all about.  In the configuration most people use
these in, they're practically a dummy load on 15 & 10m.  The only way
to make this antenna perform well on all the bands is to ditch the
balun and drive it with a balanced tuner.  Once you do that, it's just
a plain ole 102' dipole with a low-loss feed system, not a G5RV.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:16 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 21:28:51 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]>

Edward Lawrence <eal> writes:

>for what it takes to bulid.  I like them, but a full length dipole for each
>band
>will get out far better. (If you have the space.)  I am now in an apartment,

You're likely to get some arguments from that statement. For instance, on
17m, the G5RV has 4 lobes each with 10dbi gain over ground while a 17m
dipole has two lobes each with 7dbi gain over ground. In addition, the
G5RV has a lower take-off angle than the dipole. The dipole will not get
out as well as a G5RV on 17m. Where did your "far better" opinion come from?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 22:32:30 GMT
Message-ID: <4iq1c0$[e-mail]>
References: <4ioivl$[e-mail]> <4ip56k$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:
>[e-mail] (WB3U) writes:

>>The only way to make this antenna perform well on all the bands is
>>to ditch the balun and drive it with a balanced tuner.  Once you do
>>that, it's just a plain ole 102' dipole with a low-loss feed system,
>>not a G5RV.

>With a link coupled tuner, a system might improve a small amount over
>a good choke balun.

Dern, I knew sooner or later I was gonna get dragged into another of
these G5RV balun threads.  Oh well, can't resist.  ;)

Tom, you and I have discussed baluns here before, as well as in
e-mail. In fact, I've been meaning to respond to your last message on
the subject, but wanted to give it a little more thought first.

Anyway, "good choke balun" is a pretty vague description for a device
that can exhibit so many different characteristics.  Let's examine the
specifics a little more closely.

First, I agree that a choke balun made of two parallel conductors
wound on a rod or toroid provides the same function to the outside
world as a choke balun that consists of ferrite beads slipped over
coax, or a rolled-up section of coax.  However, this only applies to
a balun feeding the proper load impedance.  If the load isn't correct,
the characteristics of these three types of baluns will diverge.
Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Comparing the ferrite bead balun to a "wound" balun, the former
suffers from significantly increased losses in the ferrite when load
impedance is high.  The reason for this is that RF current through the
beads creates a single magnetic field in the ferrite.  Increased
voltage across the string of beads that results from increased
feedpoint impedances causes the magnetic flux in each bead to also
increase.  The result is increased power loss within the ferrite,
which in turn causes the beads to generate heat.  Even with reasonable
loads, this "single-ended" RF current can create considerable heat,
which is why the smaller beads are recommended to be used only with
Teflon coax.

In contrast to this, the basic nature of the "wound" ferrite balun
tends to prevent such losses, at least to a point.  The winding of the
choke consists of two parallel lines carrying opposing currents,
therefore the magnetic flux generated by one wire is canceled by the
flux generated by the other.  So, under most conditions, flux losses
in the core are much smaller than in the ferrite beads.  It's still
possible that certain conditions of impedance and frequency might
produce a significant flux in the core though, if for no other reason
than the loss of current balance in the conductors.

As for *system* efficiency when the load impedance is high, even an
assumption that balun losses are reasonable doesn't mean the baluns
are functioning correctly or that the system will be efficient.  The
first thing that happens under these conditions is that the XL of the
balun is no longer sufficient to provide the necessary choking action.
Feedline balance subsequently deteriorates and the result is radiation
from the feedline both fore and aft of the balun.  This creates RF on
the chassis of the transmitter, in addition to reducing the RF current
that reaches the antenna.  In my case, where the feedline is long and
low to the ground, the effective loss in system efficiency could be
severe under these conditions.

The second area of system loss that occurs at high load impedances is
the result of inter-winding capacitance.  This becomes a more
significant factor as the impedance increases, particularly at higher
frequencies.  In a worse-case scenario, the combination of low
effective series reactance and high parallel capacitance probably
renders the balun no more effective than running two bare wires
through a Brillo pad!  The result can be extreme SWR and increased
loss in the coax preceding the balun.  Even if the balun is inside the
tuner housing and there's no coax, losses in the L/C components of the
tuner may increase.  It's like placing a near-short on the output of
the tuner and loading it up!

>But most of the improvement would come from loss reduction in the
>feedline, not balun loss elimination (unless a lossy 4:1 type balun,
>or an improperly designed choke balun, was used).

Again, I think the terminology here is somewhat misleading.  For
instance, what does "improperly designed" mean, relative to an
unpredictable load impedance?  I suppose the balun could be made of 20
turns wound on a core the size of a cinder block, but that's not too
practical.  At some point, the designer has to decide where the cutoff
is in terms of the range of load impedances the balun should be
capable of driving.  For one thing, as the diameter or number of turns
is increased in order to increase the inductance and withstand higher
impedances, the inter-winding capacitance also increases and reduces
the bandwidth of the balun.

The whole thing is a tradeoff between power handling, load
accommodation and frequency response.  Unfortunately, even when all
the characteristics are optimized, the limitations imposed by
available materials causes the real-world balun to fall far short of
handling the real-world high-impedance antenna.

>The user wouldn't notice any balun loss reduction if the tuner used a
>balun, rather than link coupling!  With unbalanced line part of the
>way down, the common mode problem is no worse than it is with open
>wire all the way down, and has to be handled at some point in the
>system anyway!  Why not move the balun up the pipe, and make the
>feedline easy to handle?

I can't comment on the first sentence because I'm not sure what it
means.  Regarding the common mode problem, I agree that it has to
be handled at some point, but not that it should be handled by a
balun.  Also, I have some reservations regarding the possibility of
increased loss in a long run of coax when a balun is used outside the
tuner.  The conditions that cause the balun to misbehave are the same
ones that will increase that loss.  What's bad for one is bad for the
other, and mounting the balun in a remote location may compound the
inefficiency that results from driving a high feedpoint impedance.

>By avoiding a lossy 4:1 balun, and staying with a 1:1 choke, common
>mode induced power loss can be controlled without excessive loss.

"Controlled" is much too strong a word for the actual benefit derived
from a choke balun in this situation.  In addition, even if losses in
the balun itself are reduced, losses external to the balun can still
be significant.  Given that those losses may be the sole result of the
balun's inability to perform, the balun remains the culprit.

Other than that, I agree with everything you said. <g>

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: J-pole
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:38:57 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7ibi$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Wayne Barnhart) wrote:

>I made a twin-lead J-pole last summer. Took great care to resonate the
>thing then stuck it into some white pvc pipe. You gessed it, the swr
>shifted. I later read where someone insulated the twinlead from the
>inside of the pipe and all was well. I blv they used some non-conductive
>foam that they split lengthwise and inserted the twinlead then fit the
>whole thing into the plastic tube.

>Wayne WB7WHI
>Spokane, Wa.

Why go to all the trouble and expense of putting a J-Pole inside of a
PVC pipe, when you could have built a less conspicuous antenna from
simple copper tubing or for almost invisibility stainless spring wire
and be done with it?

Gary






From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Barnhart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: j-poles
Date: 17 Mar 96 03:28:14 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 22:38:57 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Subject: J-pole

[e-mail] (Wayne Barnhart)
wrote:
>I made a twin-lead J-pole last summer. Took great care to
resonate the thing then stuck it into some white pvc pipe. You gessed it,
the swr shifted. I later read where someone insulated the twinlead from
the inside of the pipe and all was well. I blv they used some
non-conductive foam that they split lengthwise and inserted the twinlead
then fit the whole thing into the plastic tube.
>Wayne WB7WHI
>Spokane,Wa.

Why go to all the trouble and expense of putting a J-Pole inside of a
PVC pipe, when you could have built a less conspicuous antenna from simple
copper tubing or for almost invisibility stainless spring wire and be done
with it?  Gary

=======================================
Gary, you missed the point of the thread. I do have a J-pole that I made out
of 1/2 in. copper pipe and it works just too fine. Now should you be
portable somewhere like a camping trip a twinlead j-pole hanging from the
nearest tree branch also makes for a good antenna. Granted, it wont last
as long as the copper pipe antenna but then again it isn't meant to.

Wayne WB7WHI
Spokane, Wa.








From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Keesler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: John Kraus, W8JK
Date: 14 Mar 96 00:23:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Last I knew,  W8JK was hanging around the Ohio State University area--Columbus
,
Ohio in the United States--check his call at a call server or maybe try for an
Ohio State Univ WEB site.

Besides all his work on antennas, he was involved with the OSU "Big Ear" radio

telescope and the Search for ExtraTerrestial Intelligence (SETI)--or
something close to that name!

73,   Jim  K8EXF



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian [e-mail])
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ladder line and 6M antenna  RESULTS?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 17:16:01 GMT
Message-ID: <4i9kac$[e-mail]>
References: <4i3r4u$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (DeNoid95X) wrote:

>I have a quick question, I was wondering if anyone was using ladder line
>from their transceiver to an antenna and if so what type of antenna and
>the results you have experienced.  I am using a 6M two element quad and
>was curious of the results of such a system with ladder line 300/450 Ohm.

>N9RLR/2

I've used it off and on, to a non-res dipole w/ an appropriately
small tuner.  Not sure what diff it would have made, as by the time
you switch it over to a piece of coax, band condx would have
changed.  IF you need a long run, consider that ladderline is
lossless compared to coax (and think about RECEIVING more
than power loss of xmit.)

Uncle Brian VK6BQN




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Doug Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Ladder line to rotatable dipole?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 05:03:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4iathm$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hi all,

Last month I dismantled an old (circa 1968) Mosley 2 element 40m beam.
This wasn't a full size beam - it used center loading and shortened
elements. I realized that if I took the loading coil off of one
element it would make a great halfwave 30m dipole. So I did just that,
and mounted it on the tower at 75 feet,  just above the tribander.
Presto - instant cheap rotatable dipole. It's fed with coax, and works
great.  Worked VK, ZL,  and ZS the first night I put the thing up.

So now I'm thinking that it would be nice to be able to use it on 40m
and 17m as well. EZNEC says it would make a pretty good antenna on
those bands. So here's the question: will I run into any problems if I
run 450 ohm ladder line up to it in place of the coax and use my
balanced tuner? I remember seeing pictures of beams fed with open wire
feeders back in the 40s, so I know people used to do it. In my case I
could run the ladder line up to the top of the tower along one of the
guy cables (Phillystran, so they're non-conductive) but what about the
rest of the way, past the tribander and up to the rotatable dipole?
Any problems doing this?  Given my feedline length, Mr. Smith and his
magic chart tell me that I could get reasonable impedances on 40, 30,
and 17, so it looks good from the shack end of things. Any words of
wisdom? Anybody doing this now?

73,
Doug, KF4KL




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:24 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Ladder line to rotatable dipole?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4iatsd$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 19:22:34 GMT

In article <4iatsd$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Hi all,
>
>So now I'm thinking that it would be nice to be able to use it on 40m
>and 17m as well. EZNEC says it would make a pretty good antenna on
>those bands. So here's the question: will I run into any problems if I
>run 450 ohm ladder line up to it in place of the coax and use my
>balanced tuner? I remember seeing pictures of beams fed with open wire
>feeders back in the 40s, so I know people used to do it. In my case I
>could run the ladder line up to the top of the tower along one of the
>guy cables (Phillystran, so they're non-conductive) but what about the
>rest of the way, past the tribander and up to the rotatable dipole?
>Any problems doing this?  Given my feedline length, Mr. Smith and his
>magic chart tell me that I could get reasonable impedances on 40, 30,
>and 17, so it looks good from the shack end of things. Any words of
>wisdom? Anybody doing this now?

Running the feedline up the guy will probably produce asymmetries
in the patterns of all antennas mounted on the tower. And the
mechanical problems of getting the open wire line around the rotating
joint will be daunting. So I'd just feed it with low loss coax and
accept the slight increase in VSWR losses over use of open wire line.
Consult the chart in the Handbook, and you might be surprised how
minor those additional losses can be for good low loss coax.

Gary

--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:25 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: lowband antennas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4i6lj3$[e-mail]> <4i73as$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:48:29 GMT

In article <4i73as$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (WB
3U) writes:
>   [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH) wrote:
>
>>In the situation I am referring to, Kirchhoff's laws are satisfied
>>more at the location of a *grounded* xmtr and not at the base of the
>>antenna where we would prefer.
>
>I never thought it was preferable to ground the system at the base of
>the vertical, only that it was important to prevent ground currents
>from flowing through lossy earth.  In fact, given the difficulty in
>achieving a good RF connection to earth, I always assumed that the
>"ground" reference in most Amateur vertical systems probably would
>be the transmitter, not some puny ground rod at the base of the
>vertical.

If the current mirror is to be effective, it needs to be physically
symmetric with the antenna, not the transmitter. Now if Earth is to
serve as the current mirror, then the Earth connection should be at
the antenna base, and not some puny ground rod either, but a proper
ground field.

There's no reason, other than ordinary electrical safety, why there
should be a ground connection at the transmitter at all.

>This brings up a point, though.  Let's say that a vertical is
>elevated and the shield of the coax is connected to radials.  Let's
>also assume that the radials are so long and so numerous that all
>"ground current" is returned to the shield, and then to the
>transmitter.
>
>Won't the efficiency and pattern of that antenna be identical to the
>same system mounted at earth level?  And won't the efficiency and
>pattern be the same regardless of whether there's an actual earth
>ground at the antenna (or transmitter)?

If you aren't using Earth for the current mirror, connection to
Earth is only useful for electrical safety. Elevated radials
can decrease losses by isolating the current mirror from lossy
Earth.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: lowband antennas
Date: 17 Mar 1996 20:15:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4ihrtc$[e-mail]>
References: <4i6lj3$[e-mail]> <4i73as$[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <4i73as$[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(WB3U) writes:
>>   [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH) wrote:
>>
>>>In the situation I am referring to, Kirchhoff's laws are satisfied
>>>more at the location of a *grounded* xmtr and not at the base of the
>>>antenna where we would prefer.

We all know what the correct situation is supposed to be for the vertical
antenna at ground level. There is no need to keep on arguing about that
ad infinitum. My question is, what is going on in the less-than-ideal
situation where the ground/radial setup *at the antenna* is inadequate?
I have read that high power low frequency stations worry about this a
great deal. I am sure that my two recent posts have spelled this out
very clearly. The fact is that xmtrs are grounded, as they should be.
If the ground radial system is poor, as it might be in amateur setups,
what does the ground return path to the xmtr look like. If all of
the radiator displacement currents do not return to the xmtr through
the coax braid some problems can occur. What are these problems?
How do we detect the presence of a problem? One clue is that the sum
of return currents ***at the base of the antenna*** may not equal
the current into the radiator.

Bill


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: lowband antennas
Date: 13 Mar 1996 14:20:19 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i6lj3$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

>I'm giving a talk on low-band antenna modeling

As you know, there has been some discussion about the management
of ground and radial currents on ground-mounted verticals. It seems
to me that subject would be a good subject for further study under
scientific conditions. In particular, the possibility of alternate
ground return paths to a transmitter ground, other than through
the coax feedline, is a definite possibility, and also maybe a source
of trouble. Also, the coax braid can act as a radial, with unknown
consequences. Terman's 1943 Handbook speaks of the necessity of
"gathering all ground currents to the base of the antenna and returning
them to the transmitter through the transmission line." This question
pops up in particular when the radial system is inadequate. In the
situation I am referring to, Kirchhoff's laws are satisfied more at the
location of a *grounded* xmtr and not at the base of the antenna where we
would prefer. For someone with the facilities and training, this would be
a good topic for Amateur research.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: lowband antennas
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 18:10:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4i73as$[e-mail]>
References: <4i6lj3$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Bill W0IYH) wrote:

>In the situation I am referring to, Kirchhoff's laws are satisfied
>more at the location of a *grounded* xmtr and not at the base of the
>antenna where we would prefer.

I never thought it was preferable to ground the system at the base of
the vertical, only that it was important to prevent ground currents
from flowing through lossy earth.  In fact, given the difficulty in
achieving a good RF connection to earth, I always assumed that the
"ground" reference in most Amateur vertical systems probably would
be the transmitter, not some puny ground rod at the base of the
vertical.

This brings up a point, though.  Let's say that a vertical is
elevated and the shield of the coax is connected to radials.  Let's
also assume that the radials are so long and so numerous that all
"ground current" is returned to the shield, and then to the
transmitter.

Won't the efficiency and pattern of that antenna be identical to the
same system mounted at earth level?  And won't the efficiency and
pattern be the same regardless of whether there's an actual earth
ground at the antenna (or transmitter)?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:30 1996
From: Will Flor <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ "Portable Antenna"
Date: 18 Mar 1996 05:56:54 GMT
Message-ID: <4iitv6$[e-mail]>

MFJ sells an interesting device they call a "portable antenna" for HF.  Actual
ly, it is
a 54" whip with an antenna tuner built into its base.  It's relatively cheap a
nd so,
while visiting AES the other day, I bought one "for the heck of it."  I'm actu
ally
quite impressed with it - it works far better than I'd ever believe a 54" base
-loaded
whip would work at ground level.  I can definitely get a match and low SWR on
40m thru
10m, and the amazing thing is - it transmits and receives fairly well, too, so
 not all
of the low SWR is due to feedline loss ;-)

Has anyone else here ever used this device?

I'd really like to modify it for use on lower frequencies - I know, I know, th
is isn't
really a good antenna for 4MHz work, but I think it would be possible.  Do any

antenna/antenna tuner gurus here know if just lengthening the antenna would pe
rmit
this, or is the limiting factor built into the tuner?  One idea I had was to c
onnect a
wire to the top of the whip (disconnectable) and run it to a tree or other sup
port.  I
realize that if you do this you might just as well take a regular antenna tune
r into
the field and attach a random wire and be done with it, but I'm fascinated by
my new
toy.

Any ideas?

73 de Will KB9JTT  "Badger 323"
[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:31 1996
From: Douglas Finke <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: MFJ HF VERTICALS???
Date: 17 Mar 1996 20:03:33 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihr6l$s7n$[e-mail]>

I have an MFJ 1798 vertical that goes from 80 to 2 meters.

It works pretty well, but assembly is probably more time-consuming
that some of the others.  And tuning requires some care.

But, in theory at least, it should have slightly better results
than some of the others because it is top fed instead of bottom fed.
This provides a lower angle of radiation because the current maximum
is at the highest part of the antenna.

Bandwidth is good.  It covers the entire bandwidth on 30,20,18,15,12,
and 10.  But is limited to about 30 Khz. on 80 and 40. (But even this
is not a problem if you have a tuner.)

Regards,

Doug, K9DF
--
Douglas Finke


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:32 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: lloyd korb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mobile Antenna Spacing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:47:30 GMT

I plan on runnning my Yaesu FT-736R from my van.  I can space the 6
& 2 mtr antennas about 8 feet apart on the roof.  I'm concerned that
the close proximity of the two antennas will cause excessive RF to
receiver front ends.  Does anyone have experience with a similar
installation?

73, Lloyd   K8DIO

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:33 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: lloyd korb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mobile Antenna Spacing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:47:36 GMT

I plan on runnning my Yaesu FT-736R from my van.  I can space the 6
& 2 mtr antennas about 8 feet apart on the roof.  I'm concerned that
the close proximity of the two antennas will cause excessive RF to
receiver front ends.  Does anyone have experience with a similar
installation?

73, Lloyd   K8DIO

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:34 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: lloyd korb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mobile Antenna Spacing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 16:50:15 GMT

I plan on running my Yaesu FT-736R from my van.  I can space the 6
& 2 mtr antennas about 8 feet apart on the roof.  I'm concerned that
the close proximity of the two antennas will cause excessive RF to
the receiver front ends.  Does anyone have experience with a similar
installation?

73, Lloyd   K8DIO

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:35 1996
From: "George J. Molnar" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mobile Antenna Spacing
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 22:07:06 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: lloyd korb <[e-mail]>

lloyd korb wrote:
>
> I plan on running my Yaesu FT-736R from my van.  I can space the 6
> & 2 mtr antennas about 8 feet apart on the roof.  I'm concerned that
> the close proximity of the two antennas will cause excessive RF to
> the receiver front ends.  Does anyone have experience with a similar
> installation?
>

Until recently, I ran two rigs in my Jeep, one for HF, the other on 2m.
antennas were about 5 feet apart, close to opposite corners of the rear.
No problems were noted running up to 50 watts on either HF or 2m. I
never ran 2 and 6, but don't imagine there'll be much to worry about,
unless you get out the 8877's and build an amplifier to put in the
trunk!

Happy mobiling...
--
George J. Molnar
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Amateur Radio: KF2T@N0QCU.#NECO.CO.USA.NOAM
http://www.interealm.com/p/gmolnar/index.html


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:37 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mobile Antenna Spacing
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 16:22:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4ipbb1$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

lloyd korb <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I plan on runnning my Yaesu FT-736R from my van.  I can space the 6
>& 2 mtr antennas about 8 feet apart on the roof.  I'm concerned that
>the close proximity of the two antennas will cause excessive RF to
>receiver front ends.  Does anyone have experience with a similar
>installation?

>73, Lloyd   K8DIO

>[e-mail]


This is the first time I have tried to post a reply, so I hope that it
works.

Loyd, I have been running "multiple mobiles" for quite some time.
I work in law enforcement as well as being an active ham, and my
patrol car is what is most often refered to as a rolling cactus.  I
normaly run :

1- a Motorola Syntor-X VHF police radio (153-160 Mhz)

2- a Kenwood TM-721 dual band 144 & 440 Mhz ham radio

3- a Radio Shack PRO 32 scanner (usually scanning other agencies on

     153-160)

4- a Uniden HR-2510 10m ham radio

5- a GE compact C.B.

6- a Motorola cellular telephone

All of the antennas are in close proximity on the trunk and roof of
the car, and the only problems that I have are that the police radio
will de-sense the 2m, and the 10m will sometimes cause feedback in the
scanner (and I'm working on that !)

I have had no trouble with the high levels of RF doing any sort of
damage to any of the equipment (I was worried abaut that at first,
too) , even though some are in or near the same bands.

Probobly the best advice is to space the antennas as far apart as you
can, don't worry about it, and have fun!

73, and Happy Mobiling,

Rick Clark KE4HIL



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:38 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: My homemade J-pole works like a charm
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 00:44:07 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I have installed my J-Pole that I made from a magazine article, and I =
>
>had the SWR measured; =
>
>
><1.1 on 2 meter
>1.3 on 440
>
>Works like a charm, even with 85 feet of coaxial (RG-58).  I am pushing =
>5.5 watts through it, from a new Kenwood Handheld TH-79AD, and 3 amp =
>power supply.  Works like a charm.  I can get over 100 km away.  I am =
>located in Guelph, Ontario, about 1 hour west of Toronto.
>I am just trying to get it higher, which might mean more coaxial.  =
>Perhaps an amplifier might work also.  Any ideas for a dual amp for up =
>to 5.5 watts input?
>Cheers.

Be aware that RG58 is lossy at that length and at 2M and 440.  And that
lossyness will make your antenna's SWR look better (the lossy cable will
absorb more reflection as well as the forward power.  You're probably
loosing 2,5 dB forward, and whatever reflection the antenna is reflecting
back (of the RF that made it thru the first time) is being attenuated
another 2.5 dB.  So the reflection will look 5 dB lower then it really
is with lossless coax connected to the antenna.  Making contacts over
100 Km ain't bad, though....


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:39 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Tom Skelton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: need help with  160 meter receiving antenna
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (skeltt)
References: <4hmulg$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:24:58 GMT


>==========Richard Geifman, 3/7/96==========
>
>During the cq 160 meter contest we were able to get out quite well.
>We had a sloper and a dipole off a grain elevator withh an inverted
>"V" at the top, almost 200 feet.  Our problem was that we were not
>able to receive as well.  I think that we were getting too much signal
>with a noise level of S+10.
>
-snip-
Richard:

If you want to get REAL serious about low band work, and you
must if you went
to the trouble to get an antenna 200 ft off the ground, then
procure one or both
of these resources:

1. The Low Band DX Handbook, by John/ON4UN, available from the ARRL
2.  The Beverage Antenna Handbook, by Vic/W1WCR

The Beverage Antenna Handbook is $15.95 (I just ordered one),
and ON4UN's
book is around $20 I think.  I can attest that ON4UN's book is a
timeless resource
that will cover the answers to more questions that you will ever
imagine.  I haven't
read W1WCR's book yet, but I have been assured it is THE RESOURCE on
Beverage antennas.

Since you didn't mention Beverage antennas in your questions,
maybe you're not
familiar with them.  In a nutshell, a Beverage (named after
Harold Beverage) is a
low-noise receiving antenna that is "long."  Optimum length for
160 meters seems to
be around 1050 ft, and it is 8 to 12 ft off the ground.  For
unidirectional use, terminate
the far end to ground in a 500 to 600 ohm non-inductive
resistor.  Feed the
Beverage with 50 ohm coax through a 9:1 unun (unbalanced to
unbalanced) or
use an L-network (the unun is easier).  If you can't swing 1050
ft, at least go for
400 to 500 ft.  I used a 350 ft Beverage for 80 meters and it
was shocking what you
DON'T hear down in the noise on your xmit antenna.  9M2AX long
path on 80 meters
made me a believer.  QSL is on the wall.  :-)

By the way, if you have a spare 200 ft silo you want to lend out
I would be VERY
HAPPY to borrow it!!!!

73, Tom WB4iUX

OF COURSE I HAVE NO FIDUCIARY INTEREST IN EITHER OF THESE
PUBLICATION. BLAH BLAH BLAH, ETC.




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (David L. Thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: need help with  160 meter receiving antenna
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 02:49:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4iiica$[e-mail]>
References: <4hmulg$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Richard Geifman) wrote:

>During the cq 160 meter contest we were able to get out quite well.
>We had a sloper and a dipole off a grain elevator withh an inverted
>"V" at the top, almost 200 feet.  Our problem was that we were not
>able to receive as well.  I think that we were getting too much signal
>with a noise level of S+10.

>Can anyone suggest a good receiving antenna.  We have the height and
>room for almost anything.  Does anyone have any information on
>receiving loops or coax cable receiving loops?

>Any information you could give would be appreciated.

>KB0KRO  Richard Geifman
>[e-mail]

Some people (such as myself) don't have room for beverages or even
several EWE antennas.  I have 1/2 acre and cannot put antennas in my
from yard at a low level.   An alternative is to use a shielded link
loop made from coax.  The best article was by Mike Crabtree AB0X in
the August 1989 CQ.   The loop is one continuous piece of coax made
into a loop.  Attached the center conductor of the far end to a point
on the coax shield leaving the shield open at that point then run the
end of the coax into the receiver.

Mike and I have worked on this and find that its best to use a pre-amp
with gain control and do not use an antenna tuner as it introduces TV
noises and remote telephone intermod.  Mikes version was only 175' and
my version is 300feet (I used RG58).  Mike was going to use a hardline
version .  Mine is laid horizontal on my roof and runs through part of
the trees in my back yard.   W4UW used a vertical version (1988 CQ).

If you have the room beverages are the best if not try this scheme.  I
hear much better than I transmit on 160 most times!

73, Dave K4JRB



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (mhh)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: NEEDING INFO PLEASE!
Date: 13 Mar 1996 03:03:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4i5dtf$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Gidday All,

Lovely day here in the Waikato, New Zealand.

I am interested in learning more about antenna theory, in all bands.
Any recommendations on fairly recent publications?

I serve in the Royal NZ Corps of Signals, and so have experience in
OPERATING VHF and HF and UHF gear of various sorts, including
multichannel and long distance comms.  I'd just like to know more about
the "guts" of everything (is there a FAQ?!).

Also, what's the story with comms between the Shuttle and ground in the
South Pacific?  Any ideas of loc. or freq.?

Catchya soon.



[e-mail]

[OUT]

/\/\


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bromley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: OOTC
Date: 12 Mar 1996 14:16:01 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4606E8C2@MHS>

In article <4606E8C2@MHS>
 [e-mail] (Roland WF4P) writes:

>Could someone tell me what an OOTC is?

>Is that an EE on steriods or or what?

No, it's a ham on Geritol. ;-)  (Hi Cecil!)

Jim, W5GYJ
Glendale, AZ



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Overstreet)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: re:organic verticals
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 14:39:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4imh1m$[e-mail]>

I tried to send a "follow-up", but never did see it appear, so will
try again.

I believe 73 magazine had an article many years ago about using trees
as vertical radiators, with mention that special forces had developed
a way to use them in emergency.  If I remember, they were fed with a
magnetic-loop coupling, untuned, similar to the way the new mini-loop
antennas.  The article hinted at their use in Vietnam, so perhaps some
of the Veterans can elaborate.  I suspect the special forces comm
manuals may have info on this.  I think the coupling loop was wound
like a toroid that would encircle the tree, and position of this loop
above ground was determined by frequency, which would sort of be like
feeding a flagpole.  Anyone else remember the article(s)?



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:44 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i9n40$[e-mail]> <4ia1ro$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:54:52 GMT

: 1.) In Florida a GASH raises efficiency and eliminates ground loss.

: 2.) In Texas a cage increases antenna efficiency enough to surpass a full
: size antenna.

: 3.) In California photons (still radiation) bombard tubes on standby
: causing electron avalanches.

: 4.) In VK, live trees can be used for HF antennas.

5. In Carolina a feedline radiates a strong dx signal.

6. In NH a 17ft vertical is 1/2 wavelength on 40 meters.

7. In MS. A lumpy stick becomes a 9 band vertical.





--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Overstreet)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:44:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4iegkv$[e-mail]>
References: <4hvmdk$[e-mail]> <4i1cpk$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:

>In article <4hvmdk$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ross
>Alexander) writes:

>> just went out and measured the resistance between two plated 8" lag
>>screws driven into a meter of green aspen, about 30 in cm diameter.
>>>
>>regards,
>>Ross ve6pdq

>Hi Ross,

>You're measurement proves a good point. The tree can't contribute any
>useful amount to radiation.

>We all know the efficiency is directly tied to the ratio of loop radiation
>
>Common sense tells us that if a tree was useful as any type of radiator at
>all, wooded areas would kill vertically polarized LF and HF signals. We
>know that isn't true at all from day to day experience.

>The only thing that makes sense is the feedline or gamma wire must be the
>real source of the radiation. I suspect the theory came from a common
>joker, terribly inexperienced antenna guy, or perhaps a mass consumer of
>organic substances.

Hi Fellows: I think trees were used as antennas in Vietnam in
emergency situations, and the tramsmitter was magnetically coupled to
the tree a certain distance above the ground depending on the
frequency.  73 magazine had an article on this many years ago, and
perhaps some military communications manuals would give more details.
If you do discover the trick, how about posting it here.  Perhaps some
jungle-comms types are still around to explain it to us here.

If I remember, the tree was fed with a toroid-wound coupling loop of
just a few turns, untuned if I remember, vaugely similar to the way
the Iso-Loop is fed.




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:47 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hvmdk$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i7rm5$[e-mail]> <4i9n40$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 17:57:15 GMT

In article <4i9n40$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ross Alexa
nder) writes:
>Anyone got an old General
>Radio admittance bridge they'd part with for a reasonable amount? :)

I saw one for sale yesterday at a hamfest. It was priced right, but
didn't sell. Contact Robert Garcia, KD4JRT, for more info. His number
is 770-977-5701. I've bought test equipment from him before, and he
stands behind the equipment (money back guarantee). I bought a really
nice Wavetek sweeper from him yesterday. Look out cavities, I'm dangerous
now. :-)

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Date: 14 Mar 1996 18:04:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4i9n40$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hvmdk$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i7rm5$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Ross Alexander) writes:

>Just went outside with my Autek RF analyst and did some more
>measurements.  Got 1300 ohms at 3.5 Mhz, 550 ohms at 7.15 Mhz,
>230-ish ohms at 20m.  That's per foot.

Forgive me the faux pas of following-up to my own post, but the more I
think about this, the more I'm convinced that I was probably only
measuring the reactance of a capacitor made of two lag screws with 12"
of aspen dielectric.  The Autek doesn't indicate complex Z, it
displays |Z|.  That tree measurement could easily be 100k-j230 at 20m;
I need to go back with a proper noise bridge to get a vector
measurement.

(Is anyone else as annoyed as I am with the current generation of
fancy antenna measurement gadgets the have popped up lately promising
all kinds of wondrous info?  Yet none of them seem to be able to
measure complex impedance; so it's back to the klunky MFJ noise bridge
I bought years ago to get that answer.  Anyone got an old General
Radio admittance bridge they'd part with for a reasonable amount? :)

regards,
Ross ve6pdq
--
Ross Alexander, ve6pdq  --  [phone]  --  [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:49 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4hvmdk$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i7rm5$[e-mail]> <4i9n40$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:50:29 GMT

Look. If you saps want to pine away all day then be my guest. This poor guy
went out on a limb to root out new antenna techonolgy and some of you are
already board. I shall em-bark on a mission to spruce up my antenna farm
here. Perhaps some phased elms? Why woodent this work? Hey, they been makin
beams outta wood for years!



--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Organic verticals again
Date: 14 Mar 1996 16:08:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4ia1ro$[e-mail]>
References: <4i9n40$[e-mail]>

In article <4i9n40$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ross
Alexander) writes:

>Forgive me the faux pas of following-up to my own post, but the more I
>think about this, the more I'm convinced that I was probably only
>measuring the reactance of a capacitor made of two lag screws with 12"
>of aspen dielectric.  The Autek doesn't indicate complex Z, it
>displays |Z|.  That tree measurement could easily be 100k-j230 at 20m;
>I need to go back with a proper noise bridge to get a vector
>measurement.

One thing this confirms is my theory that the furter west you go, the
weirder science becomes.

Let's test the theory:

1.) In Florida a GASH raises efficiency and eliminates ground loss.

2.) In Texas a cage increases antenna efficiency enough to surpass a full
size antenna.

3.) In California photons (still radiation) bombard tubes on standby
causing electron avalanches.

4.) In VK, live trees can be used for HF antennas.

Oh my Goodness, the line crosses the Bermuda triangle!
;-)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (Richard Murnane  x2175)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Organic verticals again
Date: 15 Mar 96 22:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Ross Alexander ve6pdq ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I think our VK friend made his QSOs via "feedline" (I sneer-quote
> feedline here because I doubt he was feeding anything into that tree)
> radiation.  The last bit about other trees does tip the intent of the
> article, though; it must have been a 1 April effort.

"Amateur Radio" magazine is not noted for such subtle humour: speaking as
one who has written for them under the pseudonym of Dr. Owen Lee Kidden
VK1APR, I can tell you they would have clearly labelled it "Humour", or at
least printed a note to the effect that it was a joke, were it so. Or
perhaps AR's editorial policy has changed recently. :-) In any case, this
was the March edition of the mag.

A couple of years ago, "Dr. Kidden", well-known at the Australian National
University for his expertise in spread spectrum communications, complained
bitterly of antiquated government regulations requiring frequency hopping
Amateur stations to identify using voice each time their station changed
frequency. An explanatory note got added to my article lest any
controversial debate arise over the "requirement".

Perhaps it's a reflection on AR's readership, or Australian Amateurs, or all
Amateurs? I once did an story about a code-free HF licence that did not
require operators to sit for exams or anything. I even said that the
allocation for this service had been opened up in the 11 metre band, with
modes limited to AM and SSB voice. I was of course suggesting (without
saying so directly) that people whinging for a code free HF Amateur licence
class should  go out and buy themselves a CB...yet, at least one Amateur
club (in VK3, I think) reprinted the item in their club newsletter *as a
serious news item*....

Alas, Dr Kidden has been too busy with private research in recent months, so
no joke articles from him next month.

My apologies: the subject matter of this message has been only tangentially
related to antennas, so to let me rescue it by asking about people's
experience with the Terlin Outbacker HF whip. I have bought one but haven't
yet installed it (I don't have a car big enough! :-)  Before I ordered it, I
got a promotional video (American too - odd, considering Terlin is
Australian), which showed it being used portable, i.e. without the benefit
of a 4-wheeled ground planebeneath it, but instead using a counterpoise.
Have any of you used this of any other "off-car" configurations succesfully?

Regards,
Richard


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:52 1996
From: Dietrich Morgenstern <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: OSCAR 2mt DwnLnk
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:19:11 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i6vl7$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Tony Angerame - Sun SSE wrote:
>

> only 20 feet or less away from the shack. I am contemplating a six turn heli
x but
> haven't worked out the mechanical details. (Need to get to Home Depot hihi).
 As an
> alternative antenna I am thinking of the KLM,Hy-gain or M2 Circular polarize
d yagis.
> I have notice they make both a large and a smaller model (15ele vs 11 or so)
. Which
> one is my best bet? Should I go for the higher or lower gain model? I like t
he idea
> of switching RHCP and LHCP but I'm not sure how important it is? Slowly but
shurely
> and before the sunspots are back!
>
>                                                     TIA
>
>                                                     Tony WA6LZH
Tonz>
- Do NOT try to build a helix for 2m. It would be too big.
- Use the 2x11 el antenna from M2. They are by far the best Oscar
antennas (at least over here in Europe). They especially are
mechanically very stable, have low wind resistance and the smallest
side lobes I have ever seen.
They are very corrosion proff. I am using them in a high alpine
location with occasional very bad werather and up to now they have
stood up well.
- The M2 Antennas have fixed right hand polarization that can not be
switched. In my experience with Oscars 10 and 13 that is not a big
drawback. During several years of Oscar 13 work with switchable
polarization I did not find that very useful.
- Use a good preamp close to the antenna and good N-type water proof
connectors.
- I do not have any experience with KLM antennas but the consensus
on the satellites seems to be that M2 are slightly better if
compared with the same price class. Somebody told me that the M2
antennas were designed by a gentleman who did the KLM antennas
before.
- The 11 el is entirely sufficient for Oscars 10 and 13 if the noise
figure of your receiver is determined by the preamp.
- Use a digital noise reduction filter.

Hope this will help.

73 Dietrich DJ1VA


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (John N0ISL)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Portable HF ant. suggestions?
Date: 13 Mar 1996 00:11:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4i5le4$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John N0ISL)

I've been using a Fritzell Windom for about a year for portabe
operations.. Loads on 10 through 80 with no tuner (except 15 and 30
meters).. Its about 105 feet long. Works very well when you can get the
feedpoint at about 32 feet.. Good luck... N0ISL John
John Douglas, N0ISL
AX.25 N0ISL@KZ7I.#MSP.MN.USA.NOAM
I'm in Minnesota only because I must be somewhere!


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Portable HF ant. suggestions?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 17:54:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4i72co$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

 Mike James <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Can anyone suggest a good, portable HF antenna one could put into a
>backpack alogn with a QRP rig?  It would be nice if the antenna could
>be made to work on several bands.

I've been thinking about the same thing recently.  The system of
choice might consist of a short dipole about forty or fifty feet long
and a QRP link-coupled tuner.  There have been a number of articles on
tuners like this, and some were completely band-switched (no taps to
change).  A few also used toroidal inductors and were very small,
exactly what's needed for backpacking.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale Chidester)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Portable HF ant. suggestions?
Date: 13 Mar 1996 20:17:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7agr$[e-mail]>
References: <4i72co$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

The best "portable" antenna I've found is a roll of wire, some nylon twine and
 a
slingshot.  Use a rock or heavy fishing weight and the slingshot to launch the
 nylon
twine up into the highest tree you can find.  Attach wire and pull it up.  Use
 a
small tuner to get a decent SWR and you're all set, on all bands!  The longer
the
wire the better.
        73,
                Dale





From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Karl Shepard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Put up a mast and need some antenna advice
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:18:08
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

This past weekend I put up a 30 foot mast.  I have flag pole arrangement
whereby I can put up and take down an inverted dipole quite easily.
Currently, I am have a Radio Shack inverted V dipole antenna for shortwave
that is supposed to be multiband (9 of 11 shortwave bands).   It consists of 4

tuned lengths of wire on each side of the T-connector.   The dipole is fed
with 75 ft of 50 Ohm coax which in turn dumps into a Yaseu FRG 100.  About
25-30 feet of the excess coax is coiled up and resides beneath the eave of the

house.    The legs of the inverted V are about 60 degrees apart.    The ends
of the antenna are a good 12--15 ft off the ground.

Previously the antenna was run beneath the eaves of the house and was fed
with about 12 feet of coax.   It was about 8 feet off the ground and a
section of it ran under the gutter about 8-10 inches away.

To be quite honest, I have so far been unable to see a difference between the
two setups.  Granted, I have only listened for about one hour this morning -
not a very good test - but the strength of the signals on the signal meter is
the same.    In the one day I have listened, I seem to hear more ham
interferance than before but I can't really tell in one hour.  I did get North

Korea but then again I was looking for it.

A salesman at Universial Radio said that the RS antenna is noisy.  OK fine.
What would be a better dipole for multi-band shortwave listening?  I bought
Joe Carr's Receiving Antenna book, but was disppointed that there was no
recommendation of one antenna over another.

Also, what angle for the legs is optimal for an inverted V dipole?   What
about a completely vertical mount?  Would a horozontally mounted dipole with
the antenna about 12-15 feet off the ground be as good or better than an
inverted V?

Another thing, I am having the darnedest time trying to understand what is
meant by getting an antenna a quarter or half wave off the ground.   It seems
to me that a quarter or half wave off the ground could be a little or a lot
depending on the wavelength - 120 meters to 11 meters in the case of shortwave
.

Ultimately, I would like to get African shortwave transmissions.  I live on
the west coast in Portland, Oregon.

I know that I have asked a lot of questions but I do want to improve my
reception.  What is best for shortwave?

[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:58 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Put up a mast and need some antenna advice
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 19:08:56 GMT

You hit the nail on the head by this statement. Trying to get optimum
reception from one antenna on vastly different wavelengths is not possible.
I would require a seperate antenna for each sw band. Decide which
frequency you want to monitor and build accordingly. Those megawatt
stations are so strong that a few dbs isn't going to matter when it comes
to configuring that RS antenna.



: meant by getting an antenna a quarter or half wave off the ground.   It seem
s
: to me that a quarter or half wave off the ground could be a little or a lot
: depending on the wavelength - 120 meters to 11 meters in the case of shortwa
ve.




--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:41:58 1996
From: Jay <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Question, where can I find .....
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 07:56:03 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used
for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end for
attaching guy wires to.

Tnx in advance for any suggestions etc...

Jay [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:00 1996
From: Edward Lawrence <eal>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: 20 Mar 1996 20:45:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4ipqpf$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Try a mobile home supply.  The anchors they use make fine guy wire anchors!



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:01 1996
From: "Anthony R. Gold" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 15:54:51 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> <[e-mail]> <4i6iq8$[e-mail]> <4i6mih$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <4i6mih$[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "WB3U" writes:

> I can't speak for Gary, but in my response to this I was thinking
> about the distant signal also being refracted/reflected near its own
> location.

I suggest that all this non-reciprocal stuff is about 2 1/2 weeks early.

Regards,
--
   Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM                  email: [e-mail]
                                                [e-mail]
                                        packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:03 1996
From: Zack Lau <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: QUESTION:  RECV better than TXMT
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 12:40:27 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> <[e-mail]>
To: Gary Coffman <[e-mail]>

Gary Coffman wrote:
>
> In article <4i1k2a$hhi@lambchop> Ron Thompson <[e-mail]> wri
tes:
> >I have a unique situation that needs some help:
> >
> >I live in a valley, halfway up the hill on the north side.
> >All the contacts I want to make are to the north of me,
> >which is effectively blocked by the hill I live on. Across
> >the valley is a big mountain that faces north.
> >
> >I have a 50 W 2M radio with a 4 Element Yagi Beam antenna
> >with 10db gain.
> >
> >The beam is aimed south, directly towards the big mountain.
> >I am effectively bouncing my signal off of it to get over
> >the hill I am on.  If I turned the beam around, it would
> >would be pointed directly into the hillside.
> >
> >The problem is, my signal reception is much better than
> >my signal going out.  Tests I have done indicate that I
> >can hear signals about 4 times farther away than I can
> >with a 3db gain whip.  The 3db whip puts out signals
> >that can be heard about twice as far away than the beam
> >though.  A mobile unit 40 miles away transmitting on
> >a simplex frequency can be heard clearly, but the mobile
> >unit cannot hear my radio until it gets within 10 miles.
> >Strange.
> >
> >Does anyone have any idea why this would happen?
>
> Sounds like you are under illuminating your reflector.
> This is a common source of reduced gain with dish
> antennas, and would also seem to apply in this case.
> Try removing a director from your beam to widen its
> main lobe.
>
> The reason the behavior appears non-reciprocal is
> due to the fact that the mountain isn't a focusing
> reflector, but rather is a scattering reflector due
> to its rough surface. Thus on receive, where the
> mountain is fully illuminated by the expanded wave
> from the distant station, scatter is letting more
> of the signal combine at your antenna than is the
> case for the focused beam fed toward only part of
> the mountain.

Doesn't the beam have the same pattern on receive
and transmit?  I don't see what changes the scattering
angles or efficency of energy transformation as you
look at ray tracing examples and work it backwards.
(the -20 dB angles of the antenna are the same for
transmit and receive)

My guess is that Ron's location is nicely shielded
from noise sources, so Ron hears better than the mobile.
Reception primarily depends on signal to noise ratio,
as opposed to just the signal levels. Ron might outfit
a mobile station with a very weak signal source to see
if the noise level changes by driving all the way to
Ron's location.  I'd certainly like to know if this
guess is proved wrong experimentally.

This is why dishes hear better when slightly
under-illuminated.  While you are tossing away signal,
you eliminate even more noise away more noise, so you
come out ahead.

Zack KH6CP/1


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jae-Soo Yoon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: R7000+
Date: 15 Mar 96 06:30:44 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Has anybody had experiences with Cushcraft's new vertical R7000+?
R7000 looks basically the same as R7 with some improvements.
R7000+ is R7000 with optional 80M add-on.  My current antenna
covers 40-20-15-10 and I want to work on 80-30-17-12 in addition.
R7000+ seems to be a good candidate if performance is good.

Please any comments?

73 de Jae-Soo DS1DOA


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: RFI with stereo: need filter advice/RFI from AM xmtr, what to do?
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 96 15:43:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihc7u$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (James Aeschliman) wrote:

>I believe I read in a recent QST not to put by-pass capacitors on
>speakers connected to a solid state amplifier, because they may
>cause a runaway situation and burn up the amplifier.  I could be
>wrong or not remembering correctly, but I suggest checking it out
>first.  Apparently solid state is real touchy.

The output impedance of solid state amps is something on the order of
a few tenths or even a few hundredths of an ohm.  At 20 KHz, the
reactance of a 0.01 uF capacitor is approximately 800 ohms, and a
0.001 uF is nearly 8,000 ohms.

This is almost insignificant in comparison to both the impedance of
the amplifier and the parallel capacitance presented by the crossover
network in most speakers.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:06 1996
From: Scott Ellington <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: RFI with stereo: need filter advice/RFI from AM xmtr, what to do?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:01:20 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iaas7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In case of RFI getting in through the speaker leads, it may be
necessary to add more common-mode impedance than you can get with
a few turns around a split core.  One solution that has worked for
me is making a common-mode choke with bifilar magnet wire wound
on a ferrite toroid.  AWG 20 wire should be adequate, with
10-20 turns on a toroid or bead perhaps 3/4 inch in diameter.

Scott  K9MA
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:07 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Pete Soper)
Subject: RFI with stereo: need filter advice/RFI from AM xmtr, what to do?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 21:54:14 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

My amateur signals come out of my home stereo receiver.
I've done the experiments to confirm that this is due to
pickup by the (long) speaker wires running under the floor
to the receiver's speaker connectors. Wrapping the speaker
wires around seven ferrite cores didn't result in any
attenuation so I assume I've got a differential and not a
common mode path.

I'm considering building low pass filters for each of the
five speaker outputs but before I build and test the first
one I thought I'd check with the collective wisdom of those
readers who have "been there, done that". My first cut would be
a series inductor of perhaps 20 microhenries and a small
cap of perhaps .01ufd to ground (numbers from memory). The
goal would be to start rolling off at around a hundred khz to
a half megahertz or thereabouts. If I got 15-20db attenuation
at 7mhz my problem would be solved. Adding a second cap would
be better for me than going with a larger L to move the cutoff
down.

Would an LC filter like this constitute a capacitive load (with
its potential for making the amplifier unstable)? I'm concerned
about Ed Hare's warning in the Antenna book but can't understand
the distinction between his admonishment against putting a
cap across the speaker outputs vs having caps from each output
leg to ground (and isn't one leg likely to be at ground?).

Any other comments or ideas?

My second situation is that the AM "advert" broadcasts from a
little transmitter at the model home of a new development near
me is nailing the 17 meter band. The signal level is around S3
(Silly level #3) which is within just a few S units of the
fundamental! This from what surely must be just a few milliwatts
roughly 100 yards from my house.

The fundamental is at 1610 khz. Thus the crud I get appears to
be the 11th harmonic plus my third IF frequency (i.e.
1.610 * 11 + .455 = 18.160).

Is the solution likely to be on my end (i.e. I need to a high
pass filter to attenuate the BC frequency) or on the xmit end?
If on the xmit end, would I be in my rights to insist that they
get a transmitter that doesn't put out so much energy out of
band? Is it possible this unit they are using would come under
Part 15 and thus fall under the "must not cause interference"
clause of that reg? On the one hand, if I could get them to
just tweak the frequency up or down the slightest bit they'd
jump out of the 17m band. On the other hand I spent an entire
summer with the county commisioners fighting against this
(high density in the country) development, so they may not
like me anymore. :-(

Any help in this area would be appreciated.

Regards,
Pete
KS4XG
(central North Carolina, USA)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: RFI with stereo: need filter advice/RFI from AM xmtr, what to do?
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 96 23:37:32 GMT
Message-ID: <4iaas7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Pete Soper) wrote:

>My amateur signals come out of my home stereo receiver.
>I've done the experiments to confirm that this is due to
>pickup by the (long) speaker wires running under the floor
>to the receiver's speaker connectors. Wrapping the speaker
>wires around seven ferrite cores didn't result in any
>attenuation so I assume I've got a differential and not a
>common mode path.

In my experience, that would be *very* unusual, particularly on lower
HF frequencies.  You could verify it by placing toroids over the
individual wires, though.  What kind of toroids did you use, how long
are the wires and what frequency were you operating on?

Also, what power level are you using, and how is the transmit antenna
system driven and configured?  Are other appliances picking up the
interference?  Have you tried additional toroids on the AC line cord
to the stereo receiver?  Is the interference present if you disconnect
the speaker cables and use headphones (or was this how you proved it
was the speaker cables)?

>Would an LC filter like this constitute a capacitive load (with
>its potential for making the amplifier unstable)? I'm concerned
>about Ed Hare's warning in the Antenna book but can't understand
>the distinction between his admonishment against putting a
>cap across the speaker outputs vs having caps from each output
>leg to ground (and isn't one leg likely to be at ground?).

I've used filters like that in the past, but they were never
very effective because the problem was mostly common-mode. Yes, one
speaker terminal is usually at chassis ground, although that may not
always be true.  I don't have the book you're referring to, but I
don't see the difference either.  At the frequencies an amplifier
might oscillate at, I wouldn't think the location of the cap would
make much difference.  The inductance of speaker wires is not usually
a consideration.  At any rate, unless your receiver is overly
susceptible, small amounts of capacitance like you're describing
shouldn't cause a problem.  Most speaker crossover networks place
quite a bit of capacitance across the output of the amplifiers.
Consider a tweeter connected in series with an electrolytic capacitor,
both placed across the output.  At low frequencies, the low reactance
of the tweeter's voice coil will place quite a bit of signal across
the capacitor, but the amplifier doesn't osillate.  Compared to L/C
crossover networks, .001 or .01 caps are practically invisible.

>My second situation is that the AM "advert" broadcasts from a
>little transmitter at the model home of a new development near
>me is nailing the 17 meter band.

I'd like to hear more about your antenna system.  This might be the
fault of the remote transmitter, but it could also be related to the
RFI problem.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:10 1996
From: Bix Morgan <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Roof Safety
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:40:38 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Now that the weather is getting warmer I'm starting to think
about finally installing an antenna on the roof (2 meter beam).
I'm wondering whether any of the old pros have any suggestions
about working safely on a roof.  My particular roof is quite
steeply pitched (more than 45 degrees) and the apex is a good 30
feet from the ground.  It's a fairly new construction and there
really isn't anything to anchor myself to (no chimney).  If
anyone has any tips that might keep me from taking a spill I'd
sure appreciate hearing them.  Thanks.


Bix Morgan (KG9AZ)
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:11 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Roof Safety
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 19:36:51 GMT

>Bix Morgan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Now that the weather is getting warmer I'm starting to think
>about finally installing an antenna on the roof (2 meter beam).
>I'm wondering whether any of the old pros have any suggestions
>about working safely on a roof.  My particular roof is quite
>steeply pitched (more than 45 degrees) and the apex is a good 30
>feet from the ground.  It's a fairly new construction and there
>really isn't anything to anchor myself to (no chimney).  If
>anyone has any tips that might keep me from taking a spill I'd
>sure appreciate hearing them.  Thanks.


There are several tricks to working on a steeply pitched roof.
One common roofer trick is to use "chicken ladders". This is
simply a long plank with cross pieces nailed to it forming
steps. At one end, you nail a piece that will hook over the
peak of the roof. You can then use the chicken ladder steps
to give you a purchase as you move up and down the pitch.

Another method is to clamp long boards horizontally across the
roof pitch. This again gives you a point of purchase, but now
for moving back and forth across the face of the pitch.

Regardless of whether you use either of these types of improvised
scaffolding, you should wear a rappelling harness and have a rope
run over the pitch of the roof and anchored securely to something
on the ground on the other side of the house. You can use a car
bumper, but if you do, make sure you have *all* of the keys to that
car in your pocket first. It wouldn't do to have a member of the
family hop in the car and drive away. Don't try to use the car
to pull you up and down the roof, the coordination and control
required simply isn't there, and there's a good chance you'll
be hurt.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:13 1996
From: "Mark G. Wiltrakis" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Rotator-mast pinning advice
Date: 17 Mar 1996 20:03:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihr6u$[e-mail]>

I live in a very wind-prone QTH and have heavy antennas (5 el
20m, 7 el 15m monobanders) up at 100 feet.Today's nice wx
allowed me to inspect my rotator (Create model RC5B-3) which
has been nonfunctional since a huge December windstorm.
The two mast clamps had partially disintegrated (3 by 2 cm.
holes) at the tow points where I had drilled them and "pinned"
the mast with a 1/4 inch bolt.
Any suggestions:
1. How large a bolt diameter is optimum for pinning?
2. Any other tricks to solidify mast to mast clamp connections?
All advice welcomed!!

Thanks and 73,

Mark, N7MMQ  Hillsboro, OR  [e-mail]





From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:14 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: RSGB info.
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 21:17:43 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <hpEIAAA3$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Anibal Aguirre wrote:
>hi:i`d like to buy the rsgb vhf\uhf manual and the rsgb microwaves book.
>i tried to communiacte with rsgb by e-mail ([e-mail]) but i never
>received reply.
>does anybody know the correct RSGB`s e-mail for this purpose???

Sorry, RSGB headquarters does not have e-mail. The address
[e-mail] is only for the Web pages which are being run by
outside volunteers.

RSGB headquarters hopes to have e-mail later this year. For now, you can
only order books by phone, fax or mail.

RSGB accept all major credit cards. Their phone number is +44 1707
659015, although fax is obviously cheaper and more accurate: +44 1707
645105. The mailing address is:

RSGB
Lambda House
Cranborne Road
POTTERS BAR
EN6 3JE
England


73 from Ian G3SEK          Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
                          'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Professionally:
IFW Technical Services     Clear technical English - anywhere.



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (PDema20315)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: secret service freqs.
Date: 16 Mar 1996 17:09:49 -0500
Message-ID: <4ife7d$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (PDema20315)

www. address for secret service freqs and code names


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: 12 Mar 1996 16:11:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4i4pao$[e-mail]>
References: <4i3799$[e-mail]>

In a message dated 96-03-12 15:21:06 EST, you write:

>Huh?  Splitting power among a number of matched lines all with the same
>matched loss results in total loss equal to any one of the lines.  That
>assumes you loose nothing in the splitting...

Yeah Tom, and I knew better from the parallel coax thread.

What was I ever thinking? Oh, I know! I was thinking the coax carried
constant current and the path through the other small conductor was much
lossier than the path through the shield. I overcomplicated a simple
problem! That's usually trouble ;-) So the loss would be the SAME as in a
single coaxial line with the same SWR.

OK, the question remains the same. Why use it?

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert Everitt Heiss)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: 14 Mar 1996 00:00:29 -0800
Message-ID: <4i8jmt$[e-mail]>
References: <4i2mk1$[e-mail]>

In article <4i2mk1$[e-mail]>, Ron Ries <[e-mail]> wrote:
>When using a pair of coax to feed a dipole, i.e., using the center
>conductors in each coax as a differential feeder (also using a 4:1
>balun), does one gain the advantage of half the lossiness of a single
>coax in a non-resonant configuration and twice the resistance to
>breakdown with SWR of greater than 5? The example is called the "Spencer"

Yes, I believe it has the advantages claimed.  Using higher impedance
coax such as RG62 (almost 100 ohms) instead of 50 ohm would further
decrease the loss, by improving the match on 20 at the antenna feedpoint.
But then you have a 50 ohm line before the balun, and 4*50=200 ohm line
after it, so moving the balun up to the feedpoint would not change the
SWR or losses in the coax.  If the balun is a current-type or you add
a bead balun on the single 50 ohm coax near the feed point, you can then
drastically reduce the SWR and losses on both bands by moving the feed off
center.  I think that would be what Antennas West calls a TNT/2 windom.

73, Rob  KO6KA
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:18 1996
From: Zack Lau <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shielded Coax Pair Dipole Feed
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:50:32 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4i3799$[e-mail]> <4i3v0t$[e-mail]>

W8JI Tom wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>  [e-mail] (Ron Ries) wrote:
> >
> >When using a pair of coax to feed a dipole, i.e., using the center
> >conductors in each coax as a differential feeder (also using a 4:1
> >balun),
>
> OK, that doubles the loss when the system is matched in both cases.

Measurements and computer simulations I've done seem to
indicate little difference in loss with matched transmission
lines, assuming you accurately match the electrical lengths.

Zack KH6CP/1


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bromley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Strange Phenonomon on G5RV
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:58:00 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4h3433$[e-mail]> <4h5rlh$[e-mail]> <4hhune$[e-mail]> <4hmq1n$[e-mail]>

 PHIL DIAZ,kc7afb <[e-mail]> writes:

>   i first saw this arcing about 2 years ago on a 10 meter vertical and
>have witnessed it many times, particularly through some windy snow
>storms...

>   you  can usually hear it coming on an hf rig, like when you hear the
>static of a thunderstorm and lightning in the distance.

The explanations of static charge buildup and atmospheric discharge
concerning this connector arcing problem go a long way.  I would like
to add one other - Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).

I observed such arcing across the connector of a disconnected 40-meter
dipole strung at a slant to the 100-foot level of 370-foot tower on
top of a mountain near El Paso, Texas.  Every time I observed a lightning
strike in the city, I would immediately hear a snap across the connector.
I surmised that this was due to the high-intensity, broad-band radio
wave radiated by the lightning discharge being received by
the elevated antenna.

EMP is usually associated with nuclear detonations in the upper atmosphere,
but nearby lightning can produce field strengths that are comparable -
something in the 5 kV/m to 50 kV/m range.

Just another hazard of the hobby I suppose, but one to look out for.

Jim, W5GYJ
Glendale, AZ




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Sturba Curtain
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:32:58 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I'm fascinated with the idea of building a couple of Sturba curtains for
UHF and also VHF (2 separate antennas) tv reception.

Can they be made broadband enough? Suggested design dimensions? General
comments?

For you old timers:  wasn't there a 4 stack antenna sold and quite popular
in the "50's in the US for VHF tv that looked like a Sturba? Help me out
here. Was it a Sturba? Anybody remember details?

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:22 1996
From: VE4KLM <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 09:36:24 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>


On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Rick Rikoski wrote:

> I'm fascinated with the idea of building a couple of Sturba curtains for
> UHF and also VHF (2 separate antennas) tv reception.
>
> Can they be made broadband enough? Suggested design dimensions? General
> comments?

Hello Rick, you have definitely perked my interest since I just finished
building a 4 element sterba array (curtain) for 2 meters. My curtain is
centered at 146 MHz, and fed with (believe it or not) plain 300 ohm tv
twin lead that is matched to my hand held through a home made 2 meter
transmatch. The array is vertically oriented since most of the 2 meter
stuff around here is vertically polarized.

I'll have to dig around at home for the details, since I am currently at
work. I will see if I can post them for you within several days.

I can not give you a reasonable performance spec since I really have nothing
to compare the sterba to, except for a vertical 1/2 wave dipole that sits
about 10 feet higher than the array. The 1/2 wave is fed with RG/58, which
is not very good at VHF frequencies, considering that the run is over 40 ft.

The sterba does get out better, and is better at picking up weak signals. It
is an extremely quite antenna (no difference in rcvr noise before and after
plugging in the antenna). For some other reason I no longer get the intermod
that has plagued me when I was using the 1/2 wave. That I like !!!

Keep in mind the sterba is bidirectional, NOT omnidirectional. For tv purposes
,
the curtain would be horizontally oriented (which it usually is anyway), so I
do not see why it would not work.

Bandwith : For transmission SWR considerations, I found the bandwith limited
to about 1 Mhz (.5 Mhz on either side of the 146 center frequency). That
consideration includes the use of the transmatch to keep SWR down. I could
possibly do better had I built a better transmatch.

Regards,

Maiko Langelaar
VE4KLM

 ---------------------
|  SLM Software Inc.  |
| [e-mail] |
 ---------------------



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Harry)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ten Tec and Equipment for sale
Date: 15 Mar 1996 02:32:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4iakri$[e-mail]>
References: <4hr2l3$[e-mail]>

Thank you for the response.  The swr analyzer is sold.



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:23 1996
From: Jeff <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: test ,don`t read
Date: 16 Mar 1996 18:42:31 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4if22n$[e-mail]>

test


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:24 1996
From: Marty Gulseth <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: test post - pls ignore
Date: 20 Mar 1996 20:42:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4ipqk2$[e-mail]>

this is a test.



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:25 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Tunable tunerless G5RV
Date: 13 Mar 1996 17:49:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4i71rp$[e-mail]>

Here's an off-the-wall idea that really works. Discount auto parts
stores carry replacement telescoping radio antennas. I bought 4 for
about $5 each. They are adjustable from 2 ft to 5 ft. I mounted a
pair end-to-end to get an adjustment range of 4 ft to 10 ft. and
installed 1/4 in spacers between the two devices to get a 4 ft to
10 ft adjustable series transmission line section. That is all the
adjustment needed on my G5RV to resonate every band except 30m and
30m is even a lot better with 24 ft of series ladder-line. The thing
could even be automated with a small garage door opener.

Adjusting the series section for minimum SWR results in feeding the
system at a current node which, on my antenna, results in a 50 ohm
SWR of less than 2:1. By being infinitely adjustable, it covers
entire bands.

The impedance bumps at the different sizes of telescoping sections
don't seem to bother the operation. Copper or aluminum tubing would
work just as well, maybe better.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:26 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tunable tunerless G5RV
Date: 15 Mar 1996 19:04:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4icf08$[e-mail]>
References: <4i71rp$[e-mail]> <4i7foe$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (WB3U) wrote:

Thanks Jack, for the suggestions. Further thought on the tunable G5RV
has lead to the following: Assuming an Inverted-V or center support
for a horizontal, seems the most logical configuration would be two
18 ft. runs of copper tubing down the pole, stood off if necessary.
Then 16 ft. of large solid copper wire that slides into the copper
tubing. The 18 ft. minimum is needed for 30m and the 34 ft maximum
is needed for 17m at my QTH. This should give a continually adjustable
perfectly tuned G5RV for all HF bands *and* sub-bands.

If one can stand 130 ft. of ladder-line, the tuning device can be
located near the operating position.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tunable tunerless G5RV
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 21:42:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7foe$[e-mail]>
References: <4i71rp$[e-mail]>

   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Here's an off-the-wall idea that really works. Discount auto parts
>stores carry replacement telescoping radio antennas. I bought 4 for
>about $5 each. They are adjustable from 2 ft to 5 ft. I mounted a
>pair end-to-end to get an adjustment range of 4 ft to 10 ft. and
>installed 1/4 in spacers between the two devices to get a 4 ft to
>10 ft adjustable series transmission line section. That is all the
>adjustment needed on my G5RV to resonate every band except 30m and
>30m is even a lot better with 24 ft of series ladder-line.

This sounds like the Invention Of The Month!  You've just won some
more free advice on your 5-position tuner switch.  ;)

I think you said something awhile back about preferring to use a Pi
network configuration whenever possible.  With that in mind, I came up
with the following:

Position 1:  Balanced T-netork
Position 2:  Balanced Pi-network
Position 3:  Add additional fixed inductance to the balanced Pi
Position 4:  Add additional fixed capacitance at the output of the Pi
Position 5:  Move the capacitance added in Position 4 to the input

The only thing I'm not sure of is whether this is the correct order to
add the additional components.  For instance, maybe it would be better
to be able to switch in the caps without the additional inductance, in
which case Position 3 above should actually be Position 5.  Also,
considering that the rollers are effectively in series in the balanced
Pi configuration, you may have plenty of inductance as-is.  In that
case, it would be better as follows:

Position 3:  Add a fixed capacitor at the output of the Pi
Position 4:  Remove the output capacitor and add a cap at the input
Position 5:  Add the additional capacitance at both input and output

The reason for not using Position 5 alone is that the minimum
capacitance in that position might restrict the tuning range, even on
the lower bands.

Anyway, the general idea is to extend the range of the balanced Pi on
80M and 160M.  Then you'll have the choice of using either a Pi or T
network on any band from 160-10M, and the decision won't have to based
so much on the limitations of the tuner.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Vhf, Uhf Log Periodic??
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:30:27 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ijiqu$[e-mail]>

In article <4ijiqu$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Barkley)
wrote:

> Someone mentioned to me there is a 6meter-1.2ghz log periodic on the market.
> Anyone know of it or had experience with it. I am just getting on 6 meters a
nd
> want a decent directional antenna and only have roomfor one yagi an top of A
-4
> hf yagi.  Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.
>
>================

 Joe, there is one. It is called the "Create" It think it is made in
Virginia, the land of the CIA.

Costs $300 or $400 bucks. I understand that it has the gain and rejection
qualities of a 4 element yagi-uda on any frequency in this range. Pretty
small too.

I'd be interested in buying one, if I could get a good price.

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:30 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Stockton)
Subject: Re: Vhf, Uhf Log Periodic??
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 13:24:59 GMT
References: <4ijiqu$[e-mail]>

Joe Barkley ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Someone mentioned to me there is a 6meter-1.2ghz log periodic on the market.
: Anyone know of it or had experience with it. I am just getting on 6 meters a
nd
: want a decent directional antenna and only have roomfor one yagi an top of A
-4
: hf yagi.  Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.


   Log periodics are specialised antennae optimised for uniform operation
over a wide band at all costs. There is not one design but a family.

   How many elements are used *per octave of coverage* sets their gain.
Their gain and VSWR ripple over frequency range, more elements for the
same range gives smaller gain and VSWR ripples.

   At any spot freq you only have a few elements "on song", the rest do
nothing. You will be sticking plenty of metal in the air that is only
used to give coverage of frequencies *between*, the amateur bands. A
small yagi for each of the amateur bands can easily give more gain per
pound of metal.

   If you want a directional RX antenna to listen to everything in the
50-1300 MHzrange, then a Log-Periodic will be great.  For some reason,
L-P's have become fashionable, their specialisation and compromises being eith
er
not mentioned or ignored.

    Sorry for the bad news,
                              David


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 13:03:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4i6h12$[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <4hhego$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>

How far is this event from the main convention? I'm giving a talk from 9 -
10 a.m. and the "shootout" begins at 10. Hope I have a chance to watch it.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:32 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Bart Rowlett)
Subject: Re: W6KKT VISALIA HF MOBILE ANTENNA "SHOOTOUT" INFO
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hc0ac$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 16:16:47 GMT

In article <4i4ltr$[e-mail]>,
WB3U <[e-mail]> wrote:
>   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Bart Rowlett <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>>the near field remaining at the test distance.  Since the antenna
>>>heights are all about the same (13.5 feet maximum), it is assumed
>>>the near field
>>
>>Is there any limit on length of the antenna as long as the 13.5 ft
>>height limit is observed? Could the antenna, for instance, be a 40 ft
>>loop from front bumper to rear bumper as long as it didn't get above
>>13.5 ft in height?
>
>How about the diameter of the mast?  Would it be permissable to be,
>say, slightly larger that the diameter of a 3-500Z?  I've heard large
>masts like that often result in much greater field strength, although
>no one's sure exactly why.  ;)

Large diameter masts increase the capacitance of the top part which reduces
the required loading inductance and it's associated losses.  Reduced reactance
also decreases the Q and widens the bandwidth.  However, it's best to minimize

capacitance near the coil since it's effect is to increase reactive
circulating currents in the coil.  The classical top hat at the very top
of the radiating mast is usually optimum if you can tolerate such a
'branchcatcher'.

>
>Cecil, if you'll bring a loop, I'll bring two of my "super efficient"
>masts to support it.  Say, what's the prize for winning this shootout?

According to W6KKT, fame, glory and bragging rights :-)

bart   wb6hqk

[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:33 1996
From: Edward Lawrence <eal>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WANTED: HP 8753 Network Analyzer
Date: 19 Mar 1996 15:15:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4imj1q$[e-mail]>

I would like to buy an HP 8753 Network Analyzer with a HP 86046
S-Parameter test set, if I can find one at less than the National Debt.

        Any one have one at a reasonable price?  Please respond by email to

        [e-mail]     TNX  WA5SWD



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:34 1996
From: [e-mail](S)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: 17 Mar 1996 00:54:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4ifnrs$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Peter Neidhardt) writes:
 I intermittenly pickup actual radio
>transmissions from overhead commercial airliners.  Does anyone have
any idea what causes this?  I thought
>Commerical Airline bands were totally different and not even close to
the
>FM bands.

You are receiving civilian air comms on the image frequency of your FM
RX.  The civ air band is 108-136 MHz.  Your FM RX tunes 88-108 and
probably uses a LO at (88->108)+ 10.7 MHz to convert down to an IF at
approximately 10.7 MHz.  This means that strong air signals at
approximately 2*10.7=21.4 MHz above the tuned FM band frequency will
come in.  Your radio is an FM RX, the air comms are AM, so audio may be
distorted or noisy.  Example...if a local tower uses say 120.1 MHz, you
might hear it at about 98.7.
                                        Jim



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: 19 Mar 1996 01:03:11 GMT
Message-ID: <4il14f$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iisa8$[e-mail]>

I don't think there is any point in trying to make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear.  He should go get a decent radio receiver rather than try to
patch up a poor one.

Also, it may help more to decrease the signal strength rather than
increase it.

Anthony O. Cardenas ~ WA6IGJ ([e-mail]) penned:
: [e-mail] (Peter Neidhardt) wrote:

: >I own a cheap General Electric boombox... I am on a certain FM channel
: > I intermittenly pickup actual radio transmissions from overhead commercial

: >airliners...
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^snip -to-fit^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: Paul,

: The aircraft band is right next door to broadcast fm music band.  ADD  your
: fm receiver's  'IF'- frequency (some times 20.x MHz or 10.xMHz) and with a
: strong enough signal from a aircraft right overhead, you may get a  "mix".

: Your aircraft can  'mix'  with your desired station +'IF'   and there you
: have it.  Often even more magic is involved... where two signals transmitt
: at the same time and mix down to your fm receiver.  Infact there is a very
: obscure program (no I don't have it) that calculates where the offending
: signals are and next is to build a filter to trap out at least one of the
: offenders.

: The cure?  Add a external FM Antenna... the better fm antennas look much
: like a TV Antenna, except the elements are almost all the same length...
: Use 300 ohm  'twin-line'  to feed the signal to the set.  Twist the
: twin-line as it passes from antenna, all the way to the set.

: What?   No screw terminals for the two wires?  Then try a random  'long
: wire'  antenna with a alligator clip on the business end and clip it to
: your whip antenna!  You may need to move the long wire around till you find
: the best signal.  This should provide a stronger signal from you FM station
: and hopefully swamp the front-end with 'desired' signal.


: Weinguard makes a FM PASS filter (75 ohm coax 'f' fittings)... this signal
: loves the  FM Brodcast band  and tries it's best to reject other signals
: above and below the band.   Cost, about $12, retail.  I can't vouch for the
: quality of a Radio Shack equiv.  More elabroate 'tunable'  'notch' filters
: can be had, but for lot's more money for one of quality.

: Hope this helps!

: Tony
: WA6IGJ



--
#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
|    John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. |    jlundgre@     |
|    Rancho Santiago Community College District  |   deltanet.com   |
|     17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706   | http://rsc.rancho|
| My opinions are my own, and not my employer's. |    .cc.ca.us     |
|   Most FAQs are available through Thomas Fine's WWW FAQ archive:  |
|http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html|
|      "You can flame your brains out -- it won't take long."       |
#===T=u=z=l=a==C=o=m=p=a=n=y=.=.===t=h=r=e=e='=s==L=e==C=r=o=w=d=!==#


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:38 1996
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave
From: [e-mail] (Paul Grohe)
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Message-ID: <314e712d.11687875@139.187.128.43>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <4idjm1$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:52:05 GMT

Whoa guys!

We all agree that it is an image. That's a given!

But putting a bigger antenna on it won't help! If you were standing
next to a jet engine, would you cup your ears to hear it better? Or
would you cover your ears?

If it *is* causing non-linearities in the front-end, overloading it
even more is not going to help (why do you think they put the -20dB
switch on good receivers?).

Try *collapsing* the antenna, or move it around. I know it sounds
strange, but it does work. I lived directly under the path of SFO's
main runway for 20 years and I have experienced almost every type of
interference from airplanes. Cheap radios always received them. With
high quality receivers, you usually would hear a slight drop in audio
level. Like the noise, you just have to live with it. Cheap RFI
filters simply don't work.

The tuners front end contains the resonant circuit which is supposed
to favor the intended signal (101.7) and reject the un-intended ones
(123.1). In cheap radios, this circuit is not very good, so the
rejection (selectivity) goes to pieces. The quality of the IF stages
also has a lot to do with it.

If the radio has a image rejection of 20dB, that means that the
airplane signal has to be at least 100 times more powerful than the FM
station to "break through". Easy to do when the airplane is right
above your head and the FM station is 10 miles away! Capture ratio sez
it only takes a dB or two to override the intended signal. And it does
it!

Your best bet is to try another radio. Some *are* better than others.

On Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:06:42 -0600,
in newsgroup rec.radio.scanner,
Isaac Kohn <[e-mail]>
from Ripco Communications, Inc. thoughtfully posted:

>There is a small, minor detail: Air transmissions were AM, last time I
> checked!

They still are!

>How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
> transmissions???

FM detectors are capable of detecting AM signals through "Slope
Detection". In a nutshell: If you tune a FM detector off to one side,
you can detect AM. When a FM detector is tuned "dead-on", it will have
the most AM rejection. When it is tuned off resonance, to where the
signal is now riding up-and-down on the steeper outer slopes of the
detector curve, you create an AM detector (the detector curve is
"bell" shaped) Some cheap one IC AM/FM radios use the same detector
for both AM & FM, utilizing slope detection (Note that you have to
disable any AFT circuits, as they will attempt to follow the signal
and keep it centered).

Cheers,
Paul Grohe

---------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul Grohe                     National Semiconductor Corp.
 Sr. Electronics Technician     2900 Semiconductor Drive
 AMPS New Products Eng Group    Mail Stop C2693
 Mailto:[e-mail]    Santa Clara, CA. 95052-8090 USA
 [phone] Tel             [phone] Fax
 Usenet Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed are mine, not NSC's

                 http://www.national.com

   For technical assistance, literature, or samples call:
      NORTH AMERICA                       EUROPE
     [phone]                  (49) 814 110-3720
 mailto:[e-mail]    mailto:[e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Mark)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: 16 Mar 1996 05:30:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4idjm1$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Mark)


Commercial airline frequencies are just above the statndard FM
broadcast band.  Your radio probably has a "cheap" tuner that
doesn't just zero in on the desired frequency, but is subject to
interference on nearby frequencies when a transmitter operating on
those nearby frequencies is nearby (gee...how many more times could
I squeeze the word "nearby" into that sentence?).

What's happening is your radio is probably tuned to an FM station
near the upper end of the band (around 107-108mhz) and you're
probably under a flight path.  When a plane is nearby (there's
that word again) and the pilot transmits on one of the lower
airline frequencies, your radio's less than discriminating tuner
picks it up.
--
(DAVID MARK) [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dennis Nuetzel)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 15:26:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4imjob$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

>There is a small, minor detail: Air transmissions were AM, last time I
>checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
>transmissions???

   If close enough, it will.  I have picked up CB radio transmissions (Also
AM) on a nearby FM reciever.

>



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:42 1996
From: Michael J Wooding <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 20:14:59 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <RP2+ugAD$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Peter
Neidhardt <[e-mail]> writes
>Does anyone have any idea what causes this?  I thought
>Commerical Airline bands were totally different and not even close to the
>FM bands.

I probably won't know the exact answer due to your location not being in
my area!  However, are you in the proximity of an AGA (Air-Ground-Air)
station, used by Air Traffic Control for AGA communication?  If so then
it is simple breakthrough, as we tend to use quite high powers.

If you do not then I would put the radio up for auction, or patent it!

Regards ... Mike

Michael J Wooding   [e-mail] - CompuServe: 100441,377
WWW: http://www.eolas.co.uk/ag/vhfcomm.htm (hambits.htm & hamclip.htm)
WWW: http://www.clearlight.com/~vhfcomm
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
KM Publications, 5 Ware Orchard, Barby, Nr.Rugby, CV23 8UF, UK
VHF Communications Magazine - Especially Covering VHF, UHF and Microwaves


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:43 1996
From: Michael J Wooding <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:54:07 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <sWnjFFAfDxTxEwR$@g6iqm.demon.co.uk>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Isaac Kohn
<[e-mail]> writes
>checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
>transmissions???

Slope detection

Mike

Michael J Wooding   [e-mail] - CompuServe: 100441,377
WWW: http://www.eolas.co.uk/ag/vhfcomm.htm (hambits.htm & hamclip.htm)
WWW: http://www.clearlight.com/~vhfcomm
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]
KM Publications, 5 Ware Orchard, Barby, Nr.Rugby, CV23 8UF, UK
VHF Communications Magazine - Especially Covering VHF, UHF and Microwaves


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:44 1996
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
From: [e-mail] (Steve Work)
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imjob$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:32:53 GMT

Dennis Nuetzel ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >There is a small, minor detail: Air transmissions were AM, last time I
: >checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
: >transmissions???

:    If close enough, it will.  I have picked up CB radio transmissions (Also
: AM) on a nearby FM reciever.

"AM rejection" is a spec which applies to FM radios.  It is worse on
cheaper ones.

The circuitry used to detect FM signals can respond to changes in the
amplitude.  Especially when the circuit is cheap, and under conditions
where it is overloaded.


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: 16 Mar 1996 15:33:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4ien10$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Peter Neidhardt ([e-mail]) penned:
: I own a cheap General Electric boombox (about a $100 in value) that is a
: few years old.  It works well but when I am on a certain FM channel
: listening to my favourite station, I intermittenly pickup actual radio
: transmissions from overhead commercial airliners.  These are actual
: commercial airline communiques to the tower and back.  I know it is
: because the pilot states the airline and other info. like heading and
: other number jumbo stuff.  This is a simple radio with no short wave or
: any extra bells or whistles and it works well except for the fact that
: every so often it interupts the music and I hear aircraft communication
: messages.  Does anyone have any idea what causes this?  I thought
: Commerical Airline bands were totally different and not even close to the
: FM bands.

: Thanks greatly!
: Peter

Commercial airline freqs are right above the FM band.  Your radio is
receiving an image freq and detecting it even to it's AM and not FM.  The
airplane is probably really close, maybe overhead.

Image freqs work something like this.  The IF of the radio is 10.7 MHz,
but let's just use 10 MHz.  The radio station is at 100 MHz.  The IF is
10, so the local oscillator is at 110 MHz.  The receiver can receive at
both the sum and difference of the two, so it can receive at either 100
MHz or 120 MHz.  The 120 MHz is (somewhat) tuned out by the receiver's
tuned circuits leaving the 100 MHz.  But sometimnes the receiver doesn't
do the tuning too well.  And sometimes the unwanted transmitter is real
close, so it gets thru anyway.

If youre using the built-in rabbit ears, make sure they are fully
extended.  If you are always in a certain area, the location may be
affecting the reception of your fav FM station, so try to maximize the
signal by changing the location.  You could also try reducing the signal
strength by putting the antenna in the collapsed position.  Maybe one of
these might help enough to eliminate your problem.

Another boombox might help, too.  I bought some cheap soundesign radio
in a bargain pack along with a flashlight and some batteries.  I liked it
because it received both FM and TV.  But the receiver is atrocious, and
receives all sorts of images of who knows what.  It really sucks, but
what can one expect when buying a radio and flashlight with batteries for
twenty bucks?  Not much, I guess.  The Renewal batteries suck, too. They
try to nail you later for the cost of the recharger!  Forget it.

--
#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
|    John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. |    jlundgre@     |
|    Rancho Santiago Community College District  |   deltanet.com   |
|     17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706   | http://rsc.rancho|
| My opinions are my own, and not my employer's. |    .cc.ca.us     |
|   Most FAQs are available through Thomas Fine's WWW FAQ archive:  |
|http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html|
|      "You can flame your brains out -- it won't take long."       |
#===T=u=z=l=a==C=o=m=p=a=n=y=.=.===t=h=r=e=e='=s==L=e==C=r=o=w=d=!==#


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Shaffer, Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 01:14:13
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> Isaac Kohn <ikohn@vertex.u
cls.uchicago.edu> writes:
> There is a small, minor detail: Air transmissions were AM, last time I
> checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
> transmissions???

All you need to do to decode an AM signal is rectify it.  Any transistor
junction can act as a diode junction under the right circumstances.  I know
someone who gets nearby CB signals on his CD player -- no RF circuits at all,
it's being picked up in the audio amp.

--
 *  From the disk of: | [e-mail]      | "there's a hell of
 Jim Shaffer, Jr.     | NOTICE:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  //  | a good universe
 37 Brook Street      | I've changed              //   | next door; let's go"
 Montgomery, PA 17752 | Internet providers.    \\//    |     (e.e. cummings)


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:50 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Weir)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 18:12:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4is68q$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4idjm1$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <sWnjFFAfDxTxEwR$@g6iqm.demon.co.uk>

Michael J Wooding <[e-mail]> shared the following
priceless pearls of wisdom:

>In article <[e-mail]>, Isaac Kohn
><[e-mail]> writes
>>checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
>>transmissions???

>Slope detection

>Mike

Ummm...I came within a couple of milliseconds of falling into that
same trap.  Slope detection works for listening to FM on an AM rig;
going the other way around requires imbalance in the ratio detector or
discriminator -- not hard to do on a cheapie radio where the diode
bridge are random diodes thrown into the board.

Jim


Jim Weir VP Engineering | You bet your sweet patootie I speak for the
RST Engineering         | company.  If I don't, ain't nobody gonna.
Grass Valley CA 95945   |
http://www.rst-engr.com | AR Adv WB6BHI--FCC 1/C phone--Cessna 182A N73CQ
[e-mail]        | Commercial/CFI-Airplane/Glider-----A&P Mechanic



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (J. L. Blanton)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: What paint for antennas?
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 22:14:33 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I have a HF vertical and some UHF Yagis which I want to paint to reduce
their visibility.  Does anyone know if there is a preferred type of paint
for antennas?  I painted a 2-meter antenna once using a thin coat of dark
brown primer spray paint.  It didn't seem to affect performance at all and
made the antenna really hard to see.  Many satellite dishes appear to be
painted or have some other protective coating.  Any info on what they
use?  Thanks in advance.

Lee, WA8YBT/6
Temecula, CA


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What paint for antennas?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:27:48 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J. L.
Blanton) wrote:

> I have a HF vertical and some UHF Yagis which I want to paint to reduce
> their visibility.  Does anyone know if there is a preferred type of paint
> for antennas?  I painted a 2-meter antenna once using a thin coat of dark
> brown primer spray paint.  It didn't seem to affect performance at all and
> made the antenna really hard to see.  Many satellite dishes appear to be
> painted or have some other protective coating.  Any info on what they
> use?  Thanks in advance.
>=============================================================================
=
Paint em. Probably won't make any difference.

Hardware store spray paint has pretty good dielectric properties.

One caution though. I'll bet you will be painting aluminum antennas.
Plastic paint won't stick too well on that. Will chip easily. So you will
want to prime the antenna first. The usual chromium compound primers are
fair rf conductors, so while there should be no problem painting
reflectors and directors, you should be careful around the driven element.

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:53 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Stockton)
Subject: Re: Where do S reports go to, anyway ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 14:47:34 GMT
References: <4i3pav$[e-mail]>


: Maybe the manufacturers will see it as a marketing opportunity and
: include a digital readout adjacent to or within the face of the analog
: meter.  They could add a button and it would freeze the display so the
: operator would not forget what it was.


    Given the microprocessors-with-everything style of current boxes,
with LCD S-meters, Digital, numeric readout of "S" is trivially easy.

     Just because something is written in numbers doesn't mean that it
will be usefully accurate, though.  The meter isn't the problem.  They
monitor the AGC line voltage, and so the meter reading is distorted by
the AGC'd amplifiers gain versus control voltage relationship which is
not prticularly linear, and varies too much from unit to unit, and over
temperature, to make correction much help. Also, the thing is out of
action when manual RF gain is selected.

     Good S meters could be done, but a big chunk of IF circuitry would
need to be designed quite differently to the current traditional
style. Display doesn't matter too much if the foundation of the
measurement is dodgy


: Anyway, I suspect if S reports had to go somewhere, that's where they
: would go, right?

   Like the Ancient Mariner's albatross ?   Right !

   Cheers
          David


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gordon Pritchard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Where do S reports go to, anyway ?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 21:01:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4i7d9o$[e-mail]>
References: <4i3pav$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (David Stockton) wrote:

>: Maybe the manufacturers will see it as a marketing opportunity and
>: include a digital readout adjacent to or within the face of the analog
>: meter.  They could add a button and it would freeze the display so the
>: operator would not forget what it was.

>    Given the microprocessors-with-everything style of current boxes,
>with LCD S-meters, Digital, numeric readout of "S" is trivially easy.

>     Just because something is written in numbers doesn't mean that it
>will be usefully accurate, though.  The meter isn't the problem.  They
>monitor the AGC line voltage, and so the meter reading is distorted by
>the AGC'd amplifiers gain versus control voltage relationship which is
>not prticularly linear, and varies too much from unit to unit, and over
>temperature, to make correction much help. Also, the thing is out of
>action when manual RF gain is selected.

>     Good S meters could be done, but a big chunk of IF circuitry would
>need to be designed quite differently to the current traditional
>style. Display doesn't matter too much if the foundation of the
>measurement is dodgy

        I for one wouldn't want to pay for an accurate S-meter.  I use my
TS-850's S-meter as a guide only.  The S report I give is based
on a myriad of factors, like background band noise, other
signals, my mood :-).
        If the band is darn near dead, but there's a guy who's twitching
the meter, I'll give him an S report that's more optimistic than
any meter reading.  Conversely, hot band (all readings high) and
I'll give a Scotch S report!

        So, yes, the technology is there, the engineering could be
applied, but I wouldn't thank you for it!  YMMV.


Gordon Pritchard, VE7AGW
***********************************************************************
*  My opinions only.                                                  *
*  E-mail:  [e-mail]                             *
*                               1954 Chev 1/2 ton (perpetual project) *
*                                 -small-block, posi, frame stretch...*
***********************************************************************



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Eric Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.space
Subject: Windload for helix antenna?
Date: 12 Mar 1996 16:49:36 -0500
Message-ID: <ericr.826667177@access1>


I have a 16-turn, 10 ft long G3RUH 70cm helix with an 18" square screen as
the reflector. I'd like to figure out the windloading for this antenna.
Can anyone suggest either the windload itself or how to calculate it.

Thanks,

Eric
--
Eric Rosenberg                  WD3Q, EI4VPS, YJ0AER, J20BY, etc.
Washington, DC
[e-mail]          [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:57 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Windom comparisons
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ic6nh$[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 17:59:28 GMT

Wow, what a question. One could write a book on this. Hmmm, maybe they
already have. I believe we are trying to reach utopia. All bands, low
swr and no loss. Anything you try is going to be a compromise! Windoms
work but keep in mind that on the higher bands you will experience some
very deep nulls and sharp lobes. This goes for any antenna used on
frequencies higher than 1/2 wavelength. Even a dipole has directional
qualities but not as severe as an 80 meter dipole or windom on 15 meters!
You will experience dead zones.

All of these antennas will work to an extent BUT don't expect it to have
a low swr on all bands. If it does, something is wrong. Probably there is
a bunch of RF loss on either your tuner, feedline or balun.

As for Radio Works Carolina Windom , they just took of advantage of a bad
thing. That is "feeder radiation". By feeding the windom with unbalanced
line, it simply radiates. Then they attempt to choke it off at about the
21ft point from the feed point. I would think that different amounts of
radiation would occur at various frequencies. How much? Who knows. Anyone
been able to figure that out?

: I'm considering putting up a windom-type antenna, ie an off-center fed
: dipole. I've seen three different companies that advertise them: Antennas
: West, Fritzel, and Radio Works. Has anyone done a comparison of these? Is
: there much difference between them? I do know that RadioWorks has a
: vertical radiator that is part of there antenna. Does that make much
: difference?  Finally, any comparisons between these type antennas and a
: G5RV?


--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:58 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: wire beams
Date: 19 Mar 96 15:20:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello all I would like to build some wire beams between 2 towers here,
possibly trees or poles. Need antennas to work 20-15-10 meters and have
about 100' spacing to play with between towers.
Wonder if some of you could give me any ideas, what worked for you ?
73 Kyle
-------------------------------------
Name: kyle chavis
E-mail: [e-mail]
Date: 03/19/96
Time: 10:20:00

This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------




From [e-mail] Thu Mar 21 13:42:58 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Craig Harlamoff KF6BJW <[e-mail]>
Subject: WTB Johnson Match box
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 04:46:11 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hi,
WTB a Johnson Match box to tune my HF antenna.
[e-mail]    Santa Cruz CA  KF6BJW


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:20:51 1996
From: Isaac Kohn <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "floating" the output of a tuner.
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:16:00 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hsvn5$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Gary Coffman wrote:
> L1----)))----x----)))----L3
>              |
>    IN        =     OUT            *unbalanced* T net
>              |
> L2-----------x-----------L4
>
> L1----)))----x----)))----L3
>              |
>    IN        =     OUT            *balanced* H net
>              |
> L2----)))----x----)))----L4

Would it be possible to add a balun (1:1 or otherwise) to the input of
the H network and therefore have an unbalanced-to-balanced-tuner??
That way, you could combine the transition from coax to balanced with
the tuner.  Anyway, doesn't it make sense that the place where you
switch from one impedance line to another is the same place where you
tune impedances??

Just a thought....
Isaac




From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:20:54 1996
From: John Passaneau <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:18:04 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4iev07$[e-mail]>
To: Derrick Cole <[e-mail]>

Derrick Cole wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> At the Charlotte HamFest last weekend, I purchased two 40M "HamStick" antenn
as
> (HF mobile whips?) consisting of a coiled mast and an extendable metal "whip
",
> which, when adjusted, supposedly allow for tuning for a certain center
> frequency.  I also bought a mounting bracket so as to create a dipole from
> the two 'sticks.
>
> Suffice to say, I've not had much luck.  Initially, with the whips fully
> extended, I could only achieve 3+:1 across 40M except for the upper 30KHz,
> where I could get 1-8-2:1.
>
> Wanting a lower SWR in the lower 100KHz, I set out to actually read the
> confusing instructions about the whip and tuning for a certain frequency.
> Choosing a frequency of 7.1MHz, this implies an exposed whip length of
> 39".  I cut both whips to 39.5" (39" of which was exposed), tightened
> everything up, tuned up on 7.1MHz, and now enjoy 5:1 SWR everywhere.
>
> Obviously, I've done something wrong.  Can anyone offer ANY advice on such
> a contraption?  Where might I obtain replacement whips (which were originall
y
> 48.25" long)?  What should I do?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> DerrickHi Derrick:
I have made a cross dipole antenna out of 4 hamsticks (2 on 40 and 2 on
80) I had no trouble geting a 1:1 SWR on 80 or 40 meters. The SWR
bandwidth is only about 65KHz but that is no worse than expected. I made
a mounting fixture out of PVC pipe that mounts the antennas at right
angles to each other and forms a short mounting mast to use with a
chimmly mount. I looks like a big war club with out the whips on it.
I didn't need any caps or other stuff to get the SWR down I just adjused
the whips with the thing on a step ladder in the back yard. I would check
on one thing with your whips though. On some of the hamsticks, if you
push the whips tips too far into the black bit, you can snap the wire
that connects the metal tip the whips go through from the loading coil.
I would check the resistance from the metal mounting stud to the metal
tip on the end of the black rod. I should be quite low in resistance. I
found the cuting charts no to be much help when making dipoles out of the
hamsticks, as they are based on using the antennas as vertical on a car
body and thats not the way they are used in this case. I think that it
works just about as well as the text books say it should. It is not an
efficant antenna, no moble or very shorted antenna is.

--
  ***************************************************
  *            JOHN PASSANEAU, WB8EIY               *
  *   Penn State University, University Park, Pa.   *
  *    My opinions are my own, not my employers.    *
  ***************************************************


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:20:55 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Paul Moller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 2m antenna for travel
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:30:11 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Charlie Fortner wrote:
>
> I am going on a trip with the local Boy Scout troop out west this summer
> and I want some opinions on what antenna(s) I should bring for the times
> we are in a building (a hotel of some sort).  I have an Icom IC-T22A
> handheld with a Larsen 5/8 wave mag mount (to use on the van when we are
> mobile - I really don't want to have to take it off the van for use
> inside).  I was thinking about making a J-Pole out of copper pipe and
> using that, but it would be bigger than I would like it to be.  Any ideas,
> suggestions, or the like would be greatly appreciated.
> BTW - any mods for an IC-2000H would also be appreciated! Thanx!
>
> --
> Ted Fortner
> [e-mail]
> KF4GJR

MFJ makes a nice little "roll up" 2m j-pole. It can be hung from the
ceiling with a thumb tack. Or make your own.

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:20:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale Chidester)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m antenna for travel
Date: 22 Mar 1996 16:19:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4iujut$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I copied this from the newsgroup some time ago and thought it might be of inte
rest
again now.

        73,
                Dale



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale H. Chidester, PhD           N3HAL      "Against stupidity, even the
Cyanamid Agricultural Research Center        Gods in vain doth contend."
Process Development Facility                                    Schiller
PO Box 400,  Clarksville Rd.           Phone: [phone]
Princeton, NJ  08543-0400              Email: [e-mail]
------------------------------------------------------------------------


From [e-mail] (Clint Bradford)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: J-Pole antenna?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 10:17:00 -0500

RM>>Does anyone out there have the info on making a j-pole out of twin lead
  >>tv antenna wire?


     === 2m/70cm Dual Band J-Pole made from 300 ohm twin lead ===

              _____      _______       ___
                |       |       |       |
                |       |   O   |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
             54-1/4"    |       |    38-1/2"
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |      _|       |
                |       |   N |_       _|__
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |    15-3/4"
                |       |       |       |
                |       |_______| ___   |
                |       |       | 1/4"  |
               _|_      |       | ___  _|__
                        ^       ^
                        |       |
                    Coax Inner  Coax Outer
                    Conductor   Conductor


         SWR is 2:1 across the 2m band and from 435mhz to
                     450mhz on the 70cm band.


1.  Use good quality TV twin lead.
2.  Strip insulation at the solder point for coax feedline.
3.  Cut out and remove the 1/2" long notch N.
4.  Feed with a length of 50 ohm coax and terminate with the
    appropriate connector.  Tape coax at feedpoint to the twin lead,
    or use heat shrink, and make sure the joints are insulated from
    each other.
5.  Antenna may be sleeved inside 1/2" PVC for outside mounting or
    hung on a loop of string run thru hole O.

Clint

 * 1st 2.00 #8286 * "640k should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates, 1981.
---
 ■ wcECHO 4.1 ≈ AR-Net: ATTENTION to Details ■ Mira Loma, CA ■ 909-681-6221






From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:20:59 1996
From: Shelby Merrick <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 3 Element VHF Yagi
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:00:23 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Would anyone happen to have plans for a small 2 meter 3 or 4 element
yagi?  I am trying to build an antenna to go indoors in a second story
apt., but still get modest gain.  I have seen one made by mfj that is 3
element and 2.75' long.  Has anyone used here used this antenna before?
 If so, what's the gain on it, and does perform well?  Thank you for the
info.

73's
Shelby
KE4AKA


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:20:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB7ASR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 300 vs 450 ohm ladder line
Date: 21 Mar 1996 17:07:55 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4is2db$[e-mail]>

What are the major differences and advantages/disadvantages of using
either? What about wire gage? Catalogs sell different sizes.





From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:03 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: adhesive copper tape
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 09:44:47 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>


In Article<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]> write:
> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
> Path: li.net!news5.ner.bbnplanet.net!news.ner.bbnplanet.net!howland.reston.a
ns.net!Germany.EU.net!Frankfurt.Germany.EU.net!news.maz.net!news.allcon.net!jg
fl1!griffin
> From: [e-mail] (Jens Goerke)
> Subject: Re: adhesive copper tape
> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
> Organization: Private Multi-Site
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> References: <[e-mail]>
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 20:25:43 GMT
> Lines: 23
>
> [e-mail] wrote:
> [...]
> > My own application is installing a counterpoise system inside a fiberglass

> > sail boat for an automatic antenna tuner working the 40M to 15M bands.  (2
50W
> > PEP?) The antenna is the backstay which, on my boat, puts the tuner in a b
ad
> > spot for a direct-to-the-water ground of sufficient area.  (Plus potential
 for
> > electrolysis problems.)  So, I'm going to use counterpoise system below wa
ter
> > line.  I don't want to use loose wires for that and attaching them or regu
lar
> > copper foil to the hull would be an adventure with all the structural stuf
f in
> > the way.  The self-adhesive feature might solve this, too.
> [...]
>
> How about a metal rudder <sp?>
> IMHO this would make a rather good ground connection.
> What about the keel? On smaller sailing boats they are usually made
> from lead, so that would be another possibility.
>
> Just my $.02,
>       Jens, DB9LL
> --
> Missing coffee error - operator halted.
>
> This message may not be distributed via the Microsoft Network.

de KD2FT

Hi, Jens - thanks for the thoughts on grounding.  Normally, these would
be worthy possibilities, but the specifics of my boat preclude me from
making effective electrical contact with either.

In building my boat (35' double-ended cutter, 6' draft), I had to cast my
own keel.  It is 6300 pounds of lead, but it is all internal, down in the
molded fiberglass keel cavity.  To manage that job, I cast it in three layers
of many separate blocks each.  Each block was carefully cast to match the
shape of the keel cavity at the place where that block would go, and in a size

that I could carry up into the boat and back down into the hull (no internal
structures yet) and position properly in the keel cavity, without getting
killed.  These blocks run about 100 to 150 pound each.  After a layer of
blocks was positioned, I "potted" the blocks in resin and than fiberglassed
over the whole layer as both a securing agent for that layer, a base for the
next layer and to form a water-tight layer in the (hopefully unlikely) event
that I ground the boat and cause the existing bottom of the fiberglass keel to

leak.  Then the next layer was cast, installed, potted and glassed over, etc.

The net result is that the keel is now composed of many separate and
electrically isolated blocks.

As for the rudder, I also made that.  It has a large, very rugged "core" of
stainless plate and the rudder stock, but it is inside a fiberglass shell
filled with microballoons.  The rudder stock runs through a trunk made of
fiberglass tube from the hull to deck-level.  At deck-level, it enters the
tiller-head.  It would probably be OK as a capacitively-coupled ground, but
the result here is that it, too, is electrically unaccessable.  The only
moving connection I could envision would be some kind of brush or wiper
contacting the rudder stock through the fiberglass rudder trunk.  I don't
think this would be a good connection for long.

Net result is that I believe I have to consider another method than the rudder

or the balast.  That leads me to the counterpoise system, and thence to the
installation problems of regular (wide) copper foil, now that all the interior

structures and systems are in the way.  There-in lies the reason for inquiring

about foil counterpoise systems in general, and the self-adhesive, thin foil
tape in specific.

Thanks very much for your thoughts - all help is greatly appreciated as it
helps me avoid "reinventing the wheel".

73   KD2FT
Frank Fitz... and the crew of the mighty Draco
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Aerial length
Date: 24 Mar 1996 00:24:43 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4j24ob$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
Mark Nissen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I've got a Radio controlled car with no aerial on the control device
>which reads 27.145 MHz.  Could some one tell me  the correct length of aerial
>I need to put on it?

If you are a purist, go get a 109 inch whip from Radio Shack.
If you are not a purist, a foot or so will do.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:05 1996
From: [e-mail](Kevin Alfred Strom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: AM antennas???
Date: 19 Mar 1996 09:02:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4ilt73$[e-mail]>
References: <4i8cbj$[e-mail]> <4il2su$[e-mail]>


One of my favorite 75/160 mtr antennas is an inverted L, 150 feet in
total length, fed against just 4 120' radials lying on the ground. I
have made the vertical portion anywhere from 40 to 90 feet of the
total, depending on local trees. The "vertical" portion can in fact be
curved to fit the outer shape of a large tree without any problems, in
my experience. I feed with an L network at the base. Always beats a
dipole on 75, I have found.

AND IT MAKES A GREAT BCB antenna!

I recently lived near the WV/VA line, and WLW Cincinnati was a
full-quieting daytime signal on my inverted L! 50-kw Washington DC,
Richmond, Detroit, Chicago, South Carolina, Louisville and Cleveland
stations were all readable in the DAYTIME via GROUNDWAVE, as long as
there were no nearby thunderstorms. Almost EVERY channel had a readable
signal on it. Receiver was a Kenwood TS440 with the MW attenuator
disabled.

I highly recommend such an inverted L as a MW antenna.

Good luck,

Kevin Alfred Strom, WB4AIO


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (DABLOODGOD)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Analyzers: AEA vs. MFJ
Date: 21 Mar 1996 08:56:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4irn73$[e-mail]>
References: <4id1p0$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (DABLOODGOD)

I have an MFJ 209 HF/VHF analyzer - which works well, BUT check the
calibration before you use it - mine was WAY OFF. I got a 3 dB and a 6 dB
pad from work, and used them to simulate a 6, 12 and 18 dB return loss (
screw them on, leave other end open ). With the cal pads on, there is a
pot inside the unit to adjust the meter reading. I didn't get a schematic
with mine, so I can't really be more precise, than to say to adjust the
pot that is in series with the meter.

Good luck and 73's de Dave, kd6pro


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:06 1996
From: Isaac Kohn <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna for apartment
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:25:16 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hicb8$[e-mail]> <4hmtb0$[e-mail]> <4i49nl$[e-mail]> <4i4h8a$[e-mail]>

WB3U wrote:
>
>    [e-mail] (Steve Silverwood) wrote:
>
> >Just out of curiosity, is there a real advantage between using
> >twin-lead for the feed over using coax with a balun?
>
> A balun is likely to cause problems in this situation whether it's at
> the tuner (twinlead feeder) or at the antenna (coax feeder).  In your
> situation, assuming the feedline is short, losses in the line will
> probably be secondary to problems that will potentially be
> generated by a balun.
>
> As Tom, W8JI, has pointed out, a choke balun is the most immune to the
> ill-effects of feeding a high impedance load.  However, even if it
> doesn't consume power, it will can still lose balance.  Given your
> situation and the need to keep RFI to an absolute minimum, a balanced
> tuner is the optimum solution.
>
> 73,
> Jack  WB3U

Hi, I've been following this because I have the same problem.  If I use
twin-feed and a balanced tuner, then would I just put a balun before the
tuner, or would I have to do something more fancy?
Also, is a loop-skywire impractical?




From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna for apartment
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 19:33:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4iuvld$[e-mail]>
References: <4hicb8$[e-mail]> <4i4h8a$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ilp33$[e-mail]> <4iuic9$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~) wrote:
>WB3U <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>A link-coupled balanced tuner eliminates the need for a balun.  It
>>transforms the unbalanced output of the transmitter to balanced feed
>>by means of tuned L/C components.

>Hi Jack, my balanced tuner positions a single variable capacitor
>across the 300 ohm ladder-line to eliminate reflections at that
>point so I have an SWR of 1:1 on the ladder-line at the shack.
>I'm presently using a 4:1 voltage balun at that point. Do you
>think a link-coupled air-core transformer would work better?

Hi Cecil,

I guess the answer to that depends on your situation.  After the
thread on baluns, single-ended tuners etc., I did some more reading on
the subject.  The configuration you're describing has one shortcoming;
common mode currents can travel through the balun and tuned
components.  At least three potential problems can result.

First, if you live near a strong BCB or other commercial station,
common mode current generated on the antenna and feedline by those
signals may be only slightly attenuated by the tuner before reaching
the front end of the receiver.  Second, if your transmitter exhibits
less than optimum harmonic rejection, they can also travel through the
tuner with little or no attenuation.  Finally, according to Tom, W8JI,
even a symmetrical system like this can generate high on-frequency
common mode voltages on the feedline.  That means the voltage will be
across your balun, and that the balun's inter-winding capacitance can
allow RF current to flow back to the chassis of the rig.

I'll admit that I don't understand the mechanism that causes common
mode voltages to appear in a symmetrical system though.  Maybe it's
time to take Tom up on his offer to explain this in more detail.  In
any event, an air-core link doesn't allow those voltages to create
significant current flow between the feedline and transmitter.

The tuner you're using is the same as the "Measures" tuner - you've
just eliminated some of the L/C components.  I've run into a number of
people on the air who were using a symmetrical tuner with an input
balun, and none seem to be experiencing problems as far as RF currents
in the shack.  In addition, most of the operators are using current
baluns, which I would expect to be more susceptible to the problem
than your voltage balun.

So, at this point I'm wondering just how likely it is that a
symmetrical tuner, feedline and antenna will create common mode
voltage sufficient to be problematic in the real world.  I'm referring
only to shack RF currents here - in many situations, outside signal
sources and harmonics aren't a big concern, although the potential for
those problems still needs to be recognized.

>>The best solution is to either build a balanced tuner or buy a used
>>Johnson Matchbox (manufactured in the 50's/60's).

>My balanced tuner is a single variable capacitor so it is a very
>simple and inexpensive way to go. Yes, a single variable capacitor
>will cause an SWR of 1:1 when it is positioned and adjusted
>properly. I'm working on an autotuner that will do just that
>automatically.

That system won't work for me due to unrelated restrictions, but I
like the simplicity.  The only question that remains is whether you
will experience symptoms of common mode voltage.  This is why I was
trying earlier to build a balun with very low inter-winding
capacitance.  If that could be accomplished, it would allow using any
simple means to tune a balanced line.  As long as the technique was
symmetrical (like your parallel capacitor), none of the problems
mentioned above would exist.

Good luck with the autotuner.  Do you think the control circuitry
would be applicable to a link tuner with three variable caps and
a 9 position bandswitch? ;)

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna for apartment
Date: 22 Mar 1996 15:52:41 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4iuic9$[e-mail]>
References: <4hicb8$[e-mail]> <4i4h8a$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ilp33$[e-mail]>

In article <4ilp33$[e-mail]>,
WB3U <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>A link-coupled balanced tuner eliminates the need for a balun.  It
>transforms the unbalanced output of the transmitter to balanced feed
>by means of tuned L/C components.

Hi Jack, my balanced tuner positions a single variable capacitor
across the 300 ohm ladder-line to eliminate reflections at that
point so I have an SWR of 1:1 on the ladder-line at the shack.
I'm presently using a 4:1 voltage balun at that point. Do you
think a link-coupled air-core transformer would work better?

>The best solution is to either build a balanced tuner or buy a used
>Johnson Matchbox (manufactured in the 50's/60's).

My balanced tuner is a single variable capacitor so it is a very
simple and inexpensive way to go. Yes, a single variable capacitor
will cause an SWR of 1:1 when it is positioned and adjusted
properly. I'm working on an autotuner that will do just that
automatically.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Help - don't be mad
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 09:26:33 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ijpvl$[e-mail]>

In article <4ijpvl$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rod Upfold) wrote:

> Please do not get mad.....
>
> I have looked for other antenna groups but could not find one.....
>
> My problem is with a television antenna. I have a combination head hooked
> up to an antenna pre-amp.
>
> My question is: can connect via a 300 ohm flat wire another uhf head to
> the combination head...and both go through the pre-amp....
>
> I relly could use the help....local sellers do not know "dick" and I need
> help from an expert.
>
> Thank you
> Rod Upfold
> --

========

Yes maybe. Make sure that:

You don't overload your amp. Causes cros-mod (squiggly lines on the picture)

Radiate signal like a transmitter to interfere with your neighbors.

You may want to do all of this using coax instead of twin lead. You might
want to combine signals with a balun type splitter connected as a
combiner.

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Modeling Software
Date: 20 Mar 1996 23:03:07 -0500
Message-ID: <4iqkdr$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Hi Scott,
QST recently reviewed several packages. I own about all of them and find
K6STI's software the most flexible because it allows optimization- i.e.
you can enter element lengths, spacings etc. as variables or equations.
The optimizer then can be set w/ tradeoffs between gain, f/b, match etc.
His Yagi program is YO6.5 while general wire modeling is AO2.5 (think that
is the latest).

73,  Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:13 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Antenna or Mast Amp - which is better ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4i2538$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:14:00 GMT

In article <4i2538$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Jones) writes
:
>This is a VHF/UHF TV question, I know, but please bear with me - I couldn't
>find any newsgroups on Antennas other than this one...
>
>I live in Delta, B.C., about 120 miles north of Seattle, WA and wish to
>recieve more US TV channels... I have a roof mounted antenna which is
>capable of recieving one Tacoma station, albeit very noisy. I want to
>recieve Seattle stations, too, and wanted to know if it was better to buy a
>mast mounted "booster" amplifier (with say 20 to 30 dB gain) or replace my
>antenna with a "deep fringe" type. My antenna is about six feet long, with
>about 20 elements, I recall.

The "deep fringe" all channel antennas don't have good patterns, so one
of those may not help much. However, a long boom single channel yagi can
improve things dramatically. A preamp can also be used to set the system
noise floor, but the typical wideband TV preamp won't do. You need a
commercial quality single channel low noise amplifier. Both of these
items are available from commercial suppliers.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (ZANDOR1)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Beam Antenna for 27Mhz
Date: 22 Mar 1996 00:10:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4itcnb$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ZANDOR1)

I would like to try something different and would appreciate any help that
can be given. I do not want to get a linear for my car. I would like to
know if it is possible to build or buy a beam antenna for CB radio? If so
how is it done?

Thanks in advance for any help


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (Douglas R Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Car AM Antennas to 2 Meter
Date: 17 Mar 96 00:50:25 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Here is the results after searching the Thomas Register for Stico

Sti-Co Industries Inc.

Orchard Park, NY 14127-4187 USA
716-662-2680
FAX: [phone]

Antennas, Couplers, Tuners & Systems.


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Koellner, Guenter)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: RE: European 4 to 5 wavelength boom 144
Date: 18 Mar 96 21:27:00 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


| Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 09:05:14 +0300
| From: Ilkka Kontola <[e-mail]>
| Subject: European 4 to 5 wavelength boom 144 MHz Yagis?
|
| Is there European manufacturers for four to five wavelength
| boom 144 MHz Yagi antennas?
| If any is there any references concerning their usability
| in four or six yagi EME arrays?
|
| --
| Ilkka Kontola                           Amateur radio: oh3njc
| Nokia Mobile Phones
| Tampere, Finland
|

Hello,

I would prefer the DJ9BV yagis as they were introduced in a DUBUS. They are
available ready-made, e.g. here are prices as for Eisch electronic, Ulm,
Germany:

Name    Elem. Gain     Boomlen  Price      Boom Support
BVO2-2   8ele 12.1 dBd  4.285m  DEM 226,-  single boom only
BVO2-3  10ele 13.4 dBd  6.404m  DEM 295,-  overhead cord support
BVO2-4  15ele 14.2 dBd  8.340m  DEM 363,-  overhead cord support
BVO2-5  18ele 15.0 dBd 10.495m  DEM 385,-  overhead cord support
BVO2-6  20ele 15.65dBd 12.520m  DEM 454,   v-brace/cord support

Originally these yagis were designed by DL6WU, but DJ9BV optimized them. The
description in DUBUS gives all datas for homebrewing. As they are very easy
to be built and if you have simple machines they are easy to be homebuilt.
Just lately they became available ready-made, too.

There are some others available by M2 from somewhere, but their prices is
even higher.

If you want to see the antennas watch my homepage...

vy 73, Guenter, DL4MEA@DB0KCP.#BAY.DEU.EU   (AX.25)
                [e-mail]            (Internet)
                http://www.scn.de/~koellner (WWW)


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:17 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: G5RV coax length
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <4i7itu$[e-mail]> <4icldt$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:45:24 GMT

In article <4icldt$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) writ
es:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
>writes:
>>Further, when a line has a mismatch like yours, the swr will appear to
>>vary for different lengths of line on any given frequency.
>
>Not so at all !!! SWR remains constant except for the reduction of SWR
>caused by attenuation unless:
>
>1.)  The feedline is improperly installed.
>2.) The bridge or line have different design impedances.
>
>>Sometimes a decent compromise can be achieved by experimenting with
>various >short sections of coax added to your feeder. This is real easy on
>the higher
>>bands where just a short 3ft jumper from the tuner to the rig can make a
>>huge different in swr READINGS.
>
>If changing the length of the 50 ohm line changes the SWR measured by a 50
>ohm VSWR meter, one of the above rules is being broken. Either repair the
>meter, buy a real 50 ohm line, re-route the feedline as it leaves the
>antenna, or de-couple the feedline with a choke balun. Something is very
>wrong, OTHER than line matching or SWR".      73 Tom

Tom's exactly right. However, changing the coax length *can* result
in an impedance presented to your tuner that's easier to match, IE
the coax is acting as a transmission line transformer, and varying
distances around the Smith chart will be capacitive, inductive, etc,
so you may be able to find something your tuner likes better by
experimenting with feeder length.

That won't change the VSWR on the line, but as Tom noted, it takes
quite a lot of line loss to make the additional loss from VSWR on
the feeder significant.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:18 1996
From: jackheller <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: GAMMA-MATCH FOR 2M YAGI
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 15:05:34 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ih96m$[e-mail]>

George P. Thomas, Jr. wrote:
>
> Does anyone have or know where I can find DETAILS regarding building a
> gamma-match for a 3 element 2m yagi?  Thank You and 73's...KB0QVT

George,
        That sounded like a simple request.  I looked around and I can
see why you asked.  I did not find specific dimensions, but in the ARRL
Antenna book, there is instructions for "Calculating Gamma Dimensions."

Then I looked at the 4 ele. I have down and you may be interested in the
dimensions.  Stub is 8" long and 3/8" diameter.  The shorting clip is
placed at 5 1/4" from the feed point.

Something for starters.   73  Jack KB7NO


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:19 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: HARDLINE CUT LENGTH!
Date: 22 Mar 1996 18:30:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4ivd6q$[e-mail]>

maybe with the topic in all caps, someone will read it :)

anyway, i have 3/4" 75 ohm hardline obtianed from the local tv CO.
i would like it to have good SWR's and low loss...i can either waste 70$ on
connectors, or cut it to the 146mhz electrical length.  i've heard of cuting
it this way, but i dont know how
PLEASE reply!
thanks

DAvid
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         David Roseman       |          [e-mail]       OUTTA ORDER!
|      SysOp of NODE 3 BBS    |          The Flying HAm - BBS    |      |
|     Running OBV/2 Software  |          Technomage - BBS        |      |
|         610.838.2989        |          N3SQE/1     - HAm       V      |
|       (Parttime system)     |  [e-mail] - Packet  |
|-----My AWESOME home page :) http://www.lehigh.edu/~c002/c002.html-----|


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HARDLINE CUT LENGTH!
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 11:08:01 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ivd6q$[e-mail]>

In article <4ivd6q$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>From: [e-mail]
>Subject: HARDLINE CUT LENGTH!
>Date: 22 Mar 1996 18:30:34 -0500

>maybe with the topic in all caps, someone will read it :)

>anyway, i have 3/4" 75 ohm hardline obtianed from the local tv CO.
>i would like it to have good SWR's and low loss...i can either waste 70$ on
>connectors, or cut it to the 146mhz electrical length.  i've heard of cuting
>it this way, but i dont know how


David:

Assuming that by "the 146 MHz electrical length", you mean a 1/2 wavelength
multiple, you will have a difficult time doing this without some accurate
electrical measurement equipment. Also, I don't understand why you believe
this alleviates the need for connectors.

Even if you knew the velocity factor (which might vary over the length of the
cable) reasonably well, cutting a 1/2 wavelength piece won't be too difficult,

however, cutting a piece many 1/2 wavelengths long is non-trivial, if you are
relying on physical measurements only.

Your best options are to: 1) construct matching networks for the 50 to 70 ohm
transformations at each end; 2) use a 70 ohm system throughout; 3) use it
without any matching and accept the mismatch; 4) if the run isn't extremely
long, forget the whole idea.

If you select option 1, there have been a number of articles published on ways

to do this. YOU must decide whether the results are worth the effort.

Regards,

Wes -- N7WS


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 21 Mar 1996 03:02:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4ir2fe$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Cecil Moore
<[e-mail]> writes:

> W8JI has compared half wave dipoles and G5RVs and found the
>lower G5RV outperformed the higher half-wave dipole.

Actually on 80 and 40 no one could tell the difference between my open
wire fed dipole at ~135 feet (matched with a KW Matchbox at the bottom of
the 140 ft feeder and brought into the house through 150 feet of 1"
diameter 50 ohm line) and my G5RV at 85 ft (fed with 60 feet of RG-8X
cable through a choke balun).

Since the ladder line fed dipole was such a pain in the @3$%% to keep up
(with the feeder blowing in the wind), I replaced it with the G5RV. Now
the G5RV is fed with 1/2 inch hardline coming down the tower to a T
network.

Works great for me. The SWR is still low on 80, 40, and 20.

73 Tom






From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:23 1996
From: John Fleming <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:34:15 +0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]>

Check out the Antennas West article on it.

http://www.far.net/antennaswest

John N9NDH


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:24 1996
From: Edward Lawrence <eal>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 21 Mar 1996 14:46:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4irq3l$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ip9fo$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
Some snipped
 I was also speaking of the whole HF spectrum. The G5RV has gain
>over a half-wave dipole on all bands except 80M. Since most antennas are
>not over 1/2 wavelength high on 80m, it's hard to tell the difference on
>that band. W8JI has compared half wave dipoles and G5RVs and found the
>lower G5RV outperformed the higher half-wave dipole.
More snipped
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC

Cecil, I think we agree that a G5RV is a good antenna! :)  And that the basic
question has been over answered.
        I do have one of my own.  What is an OOTC?  Only been licenced for
32 years, but I don't know this one.



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 21 Mar 1996 08:00:13 -0500
Message-ID: <4irjst$[e-mail]>
References: <4iqmj5$[e-mail]>

In article <4iqmj5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
writes:

>
>Common mode load impedance and operating power levels do not cause loss
or
>heating in the choke balun. The only loss is a very small transmission
>line mode loss in the parallel wires (or coax) used to make the balun,
and
>it is never affected only by the length of the transmission line used to
>make the balun. The loss is very small line section in a well designed
>choke balun.
>
>

Woops. That should have been "Differential mode load impedance and
operating power levels" that don't cause loss in the core........

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 22 Mar 1996 09:47:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4iueis$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Hi Graham,
In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Graham Seale) writes:
>
>I have since come across G5RVs often, and have always been disappointed.
>Usually I can hear stations I cannot work. On 80m it behaves like any
>low dipole.
That's cause it IS a low dipole. My G5RV is up 130 ft now, it behaves like
a high dipole!

>The signal goes straight up and comes down all over Europe
>(from UK @ 12metres high).
My signal goes out and lands all over Europe also, I have the same problem
from the SE USA.

>Any DX is a real struggle unless you work somebody off the vertically
>polarised feeder radiation. The variety that uses 75 ohm coax seems prone
>to feature in TV/RFI problems.
That's why a choke balun helps. But then, I use one on regular dipoles
also. So far as feeder radiation, the G5RV is NO WORSE than feeding a
regular dipole with coax and no balun!

>Now that I know all the most useful highest current nodes are usually
>somewhere inside the balanced feeder part, doing a fine job of cancelling
>each other, I won't use it again.
It's not really all that bad, and that only applies to 80 meters anyway!
Of course it would be better on 80 if it were loaded with a lumped
inductor, but look at how blissfully happy people are with antennas like
KLM beams. Those antennas are loaded by folded lines carring out of phase
currents! It's called linear loading in those antennas, and people LOVE
it. In a G5RV the same basic function is called a lossy "mistake", and
people HATE it.

I find it fascinating technical "reasonings" used to critique the G5RV
exist in other antennas, but no one ever mentions them in other
applications! To the contrary, the same electrical functions that are
blamed for poor G5RV performance are touted as advantages in other
antennas! Talk about prejudicial technical analysis!

Examples? I don't hear many compliants about dipoles or loops close to the
ground being poor low angle radiators (and with no ground screen poor high
angle radiators), yet they certainly are. I don't hear belly-aching about
the efficiency of linear or stub loaded antennas manufactured by KLM,
Uni-hat, Hygain, and others; but the efficiency problems are the same as
in the stub of the G5RV! I don't hear whining about feedline radiation in
beams, dipoles, and EVEN verticals (with poor grounds), but without a
proper choke balun those antennas (yes, EVEN the vertical) have the same
problem!

73,
Tom



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:28 1996
From: Edward Lawrence <eal>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 20 Mar 1996 15:50:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4ip9fo$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Edward Lawrence <eal> writes:
>
>>for what it takes to bulid.  I like them, but a full length dipole for each
>>band
>>will get out far better. (If you have the space.)  I am now in an apartment,
>
>You're likely to get some arguments from that statement. For instance, on
>17m, the G5RV has 4 lobes each with 10dbi gain over ground while a 17m
>dipole has two lobes each with 7dbi gain over ground. In addition, the
>G5RV has a lower take-off angle than the dipole. The dipole will not get
>out as well as a G5RV on 17m. Where did your "far better" opinion come from?
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


Cecil, I was speaking in of the whole HF spectrum.  And as a general rule, wha
t
I said was correct.  Since the lobing of a long wire is known to be a factor,
then I don't feel that my statement was mis-leading.  The lobes cause deep
nulls
between them, as well as the increased strength at the lobe.
A dipole has a single broad node with a very narrow null off the end.  And,
since you mention gain over isotropic, why did you not mention the gain of a
simple dipole over isotropic?   My references state that antenna height is wha
t
determines 'take-off angle' for simple wire antennas.
Gain reffered to a dipole is the much more appropriate reference point.
It all depends on how you are going to use it, dosen't it?  If you want gain
and
controlled directivity, use a beam!  If you want a simple wire multi-band
antenna, then a G5RV or one of its variants is perhaps a good choice.



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:29 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 21:02:48 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ip9fo$[e-mail]>

Edward Lawrence <eal> writes:

>Cecil, I was speaking in of the whole HF spectrum.  And as a general rule, wh
at

Hi Edward, I was also speaking of the whole HF spectrum. The G5RV has gain
over a half-wave dipole on all bands except 80M. Since most antennas are
not over 1/2 wavelength high on 80m, it's hard to tell the difference on
that band. W8JI has compared half wave dipoles and G5RVs and found the
lower G5RV outperformed the higher half-wave dipole.

>since you mention gain over isotropic, why did you not mention the gain of a
>simple dipole over isotropic?   My references state that antenna height is wh
at

I did... I did. I said the 17M halfwave dipole had a gain of 7dbi. But I dis-
remembered. EZNEC says 5dbi for the halfwave dipole and 8dbi for the G5RV. So
the G5RV is about 3dbd on 17m. Two lobes at 0dbd for a halfwave dipole on 17M
and four lobes at 3dbd for a G5RV on 17M. That's 12db! ;-) <==Joke! Joke!

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ahmed M Kamel)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Interference pattersn
Date: 20 Mar 1996 23:29:26 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hello. CAn anyone suggest a program or algorithm to calculate
interference pattern of 2+ antennas given the infdividual patterns?
Thanks
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Lee Buller)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: loop antennas
Date: 21 Mar 1996 22:35:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4islis$[e-mail]>

Hey, has anyone out there have any experience with loop antennas for
the HF bands?  I had a delta loop several years ago on 40 meters and
it was a good antenna.  Is anyone using loops on the new WARC bands?

Thanks for any feedback

Lee Buller
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (MREISING)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mfgrs of 5 ft Stainless Steel Whips?
Date: 22 Mar 1996 08:56:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4iubhh$[e-mail]>
References: <4itcgt$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MREISING)

Just go to Radio Shack or any CB dealer and get a 102" ss whip and shorten
it.  You can cut it using a grinder or file to notch the wip and then snap
it off in a vise.  (Be sure to wear safety glasses when doing this). 73 de
mark, wb9bvv


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (gudmundur)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ-1786 Hi Q LOOP  questions
Date: 23 Mar 1996 01:37:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4ivkl6$[e-mail]>

Hello all from KD3SH,

Bought an mfj hq loop and used it once in the vertical mode (loop
standing up and raised 10 ft above pavement) worked florida, me with
100 watts pep, them with 1000w pep. Their sig was 10-20 over 9 and
my sig was S8 at their end. (14.250 mhz at 10 PM EST). Here's my
questions.  What has been your experience with the antenna and how does
it compare to other small antennas. How does it compare to the AEA
unit. And finally, the book says never go beyond 150 watts through
the control head. At what point power wise will it blow up? Say with
a reasonable VSWR of 2:1 or less, will it take 400w pep or 300vpp at
14 mhz. What if I tune it, remove the control box at my end of the coax
and then place the coax direct into 400w transceiver and go to full
power. I know this sounds like a dumb CB'er question, but I am serious.
I want to use this antenna on field day, and I have added some touches
to a Yaesu 747 to produce 400w cw or 400w pep ssb. Yes, you need big
batteries and heavy cable to get that kind of power, and the original
back panel power connector will become a flaming mess if not replaced
with something more substantial.   73   KD3SH     Don



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Kashinsky)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mobile Antenna Spacing
Date: 20 Mar 1996 18:10:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4iphlv$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Everyone seems to miss something here! LLoyd can only use one band at a
time.

The FT-736 will not allow 6 and 2 meter operation simultaneously.

I have not looked at the schematic for the 736 but the various rf inputs
are probably protected from overload (burnout) as a matter of design.

Jeff


In article <[e-mail]>, Paul Moller <[e-mail]>
writes:
|> lloyd korb wrote:
|> >
|> > I plan on running my Yaesu FT-736R from my van.  I can space the 6
|> > & 2 mtr antennas about 8 feet apart on the roof.  I'm concerned that
|> > the close proximity of the two antennas will cause excessive RF to
|> > the receiver front ends.  Does anyone have experience with a similar
|> > installation?
|> >
|> > 73, Lloyd   K8DIO
|> >
|> > [e-mail]
|>
|> A good rule of thumb is that two dipoles will have 30dB of coupling loss
|> when exactly aligned with each other, and spaced by 1 wavelength, and in
|> free space. From there out it goes as 6dB/octave distance in free space.
|> On the roof of a vehicle there are many other factors such as edges of
|> the roof which can change the coupling of ground plane antennas due to
|> ground currents, etc.
|>
|> I like to figure that another receiver should get no more than +10 dBm
|> into it from a nearby transmitter. This is from a "safety" viewpoint.
|> However at +10dBm many recievers will be in saturation. If you can keep
|> the level to 0dBm (or even lower)that would be better.
|>
|> Remember that when one radio transmits and the other receiver
|> (temporarily) goes quiet/dead, there are two likely causes.
|> 1) Excessive incoming signal strength causing gain reduction in the
|> receiver, thus showing up as bad sensitivity. and
|> 2) Noise in the RX band coming out of the transmitter of the first
|> radio. This can easily be as high as 40-50 dB over thermal for a
|> comercial radio, and is likely higher for a ham rig. That is why a
|> repeater needs a duplexer with 70 or more dB of isolation.
|>
|> In summary, shoot for the 10dBm rule, and learn to live with the
|> desense.
|>
|> [e-mail]

--
Jeff    WU2A/6
reply to: [e-mail]
phone: [phone]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Curtis Langston)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: New J-pole lengths (apt. antenna)
Date: 21 Mar 1996 06:07:38 GMT
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4iqrna$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: ????@???.???????.???

I have found the lengths given in several articles for the 300 ohm twin
lead J-pole antenna (VHF) to be too long. By using a Bird thru-line
wattmeter with a 2.5 watt slug,I found the SWR to be too high.

The following lengths gave a very low SWR and good results on both 2meter
and 440 bands.

                    |o|  do not short this end. start with a 50" piece
          _ _       | |  of twin lead,assemble bottom first,measure from
           |       |   | coax solder points for the 47 1/4" & 16 1/4"
           |       |   | lengths,trim the wires leaving center plastic
           |       |   | to make a small hole to hang with string or
           |       |   | fishing line.
           |       |   |
           |       |   |
                   |   |
        47 1/4"    |   |
                   |   |
           |       |   |
           |       |     <== 1/4" gap
           |       |          _ _
           |       |   |       |
           |       |   |       |
           |       |   |     16 1/4"
           |       |   |       |
           |       |   |       |
         __|__     |   |      _|_
coax ctr. cond.==> *   * <== coax shield to "gap" side
         -----     |   |
        1 1/2"==>  |   |
         -----      -*-  <== strip 1/8",fold wires together & solder

After soldering coax to points, make three  1" to 2" turns in coax and
tape together, this will prevent the coax from "radiating".
Use at least 72" of coax,(I found 72" or 95" works well). (RG 58/U)
**** DO NOT use foam twin lead, use only 300 ohm "FLAT" twin lead ****
If you have a wattmeter or swr bridge you can "trim" the top for lowest
SWR, but I found these lengths best for 145 to 147 mhz (also good on 440)

Send me a note & tell me how it works, 73

KF4FVH



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Paint on a Vertical
Date: 17 Mar 1996 15:16:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4ihacc$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>I'm about to move into a development with the usual antenna
>restrictions. Just wondered if anyone has had any luck applying
>a coat of dark colored paint to a vertical? I realize the paint
>would have to be a non-metalic type.

You don't have to paint the metal antenna with a non-metalic paint!
Just like wire with insulation, you'll just have to allow for the
velocity factor (in other words mistuning the antenna) at least to
a small degree. Go ahead and use a metalic paint.

Brian



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:37 1996
From: Gerald Schmitt <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:22:27 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Jay wrote:
> Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used
> for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
> auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end


Go to a pet store. They sell them to tie your dog to. Also they are
sold in sets of three for more money to tie your airplane to the
ground at aircraft supply houses. I have a bunch they are great for
field day.


                73 de3 Jerry


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: 21 Mar 1996 13:48:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4is894$[e-mail]>
References: <4irtac$[e-mail]>

>>Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used

>>for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
>>auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end for
>>attaching guy wires to.
>
>>Tnx in advance for any suggestions etc...
>
>>Jay [e-mail]
>
I buy my parts direct from Cable TV equipment suppliers. The prices I paid
last year were:

1/4 inch EHS guy strand ......$ 8 per 100 feet
6 foot long screw type guy anchors........7.92 each
guy grips....................$0 .79 each
guy insulators ..........$2.50 each

Try the Yellow Pages first.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale Chidester)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: 22 Mar 1996 16:05:11 GMT
Message-ID: <4iuj3n$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Jay,
You might try a house trailer/ mobile home center.  They sometimes use them to
anchor trailers to the ground against high winds.
        73,
                Dale


In article [e-mail], Jay <[e-mail]> writes:
>Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used
>for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
>auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end for
>attaching guy wires to.
>
>Tnx in advance for any suggestions etc...
>
>Jay [e-mail]






From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:20:15 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Jay <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used
> for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
> auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end for
> attaching guy wires to.
>
> Tnx in advance for any suggestions etc...
>
> Jay [e-mail]

=====================================

Uh well Jay your neighborhood pet store probably has some pretty
substantial screw anchors for leashing dogs to one's back yard.

If its solid enough to hold a Rottwiler (a dynamic load).Three or four of
em should be able to anchor your antenna guys.

Tae a look anyway.

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Edward Soniat du Fossat Jr)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Seeking Power mobile antenna raise/lower mounting.
Date: 22 Mar 1996 15:14:18 -0500
Distribution: usa
Message-ID: <4iv1mq$[e-mail]>



I am looking for a way to be able to lower my antenna so that I can
garage my car.  I need power because it is very difficult to reach the
mounting with out climbing on the seats.  Since I am forced to ware
a rediculous costume consisting of an expensive wool jacket, silk tie and
coton shirt every day climbing up on the roof is not a good option.
If I could just flip a switch on the dash it would be perfect.

Can anybody recommend one and know where I can find it.  I've
ordered a bunch of catalogs but I haven't seen one yet.

Thank you.
Ed
--
 _|  | _ Edward C. Soniat  KE4TFT  Internet:[e-mail]
 _| -|_  Mass transfer:  1854 Bishop's Green Dr
  |  |   Marietta GA 30062-6079    [phone]



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:42 1996
From: (Gary) [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 21 Mar 1996 11:47:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4irfkh$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

I just have one thing to say


_ . _   _ .  _ _ _   . _ _      _ , _ .   _ _ _    _ . .   .



 "73" Gary KF9CM





From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (bill harris)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 21 Mar 1996 11:06:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4iruql$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

>so i started touching the underside of the PCB, where all the
>soddering connections are.

If you tried soldering the connections instead of soddering them they
might work.



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:44 1996
From: Ray Woodward <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 18:21:05 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imv4v$[e-mail]>

In article <4imv4v$[e-mail]>, Horney Byte <[e-mail]>
comments :

>FUCKED!!!!!!!
>
>Open your ASS and I will FUCK YOU!!!!!
>
>Pervert & Dirty Mouth.......
>
>Horney Bite

The really sad thing is that excrement like that get to vote ..:-(


--

Ray


       /////\\
       ( # # )
-----oOO-(_)-OOo-----------------------------------------------------
 ++++ My WWW page: http://homepages.enterprise.net/raywoodward/ ++++
---------------------------------------------------------------------


                       [[e-mail]]



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:45 1996
From: Francis Lyn <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 21 Mar 1996 12:44:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4iriut$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Try a soap and water mouthwash; It worked for me when I was a kid!



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (mlmitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 21 Mar 1996 17:18:02 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

cRiTTa66 <[e-mail]> wrote:

>ok, heres the story,
>A friend and i built the "FM-25" yesterday. We turned it on and
>nothing.. So we looked at the troubleshooting guide, "check all the
>capacatators for correct poplaraty" so well what do you know i fucked up
>on C4. So i re did c4 which is a 10uF ec. tried it again, it worked!
>After a little while of use (1 hour) is just stoped. no nothing, just
>static. I was prety MAD. So i took a lot at the PCB, it looked fine, no
>bridges or anything. My friend lookd at it and held it in her hand.. It
>suddnelt worked again. After this i set it up again to play some music
>from my walkman while listinging from my stero system in my room. after
>the fm-25 stoped working again is was ovious something is really fucked
>up with it.. but it was geting late and she had to go home. So today i
>was resoddering all the parts to see if i could fix the problem...
>It works again. Ok this is good, then it fucked up again! Dam i was
>pissed. so i started touching the underside of the PCB, where all the
>soddering connections are. it still wasnet working. Even though the
>light for "freqency LOCK" was on the transmiter wan't working. before
>the led would just be off.
>
>i also have this problem geting stero on the fm-25 before the unit
>completly broke. any ideas?
>
>Well im having trouble , should i send it in to be repaired for $36?
>Or just send in the BA1404 and the program IC's to see if there fucked
>up? i dono. well if you have any suggestions please e-mail me at
>[e-mail].
>
>Thanx in advance
>
>PS i can be reached on IRC (undernet) on #god or #troy
I hope that you DO NOT use such foul language while talking on the
FM-25 if and when you get it working.
Bill


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bruno Beckers)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 23:04:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4iku4u$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

First of all, try to use decent english
Bruno Beckers
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 21 Mar 1996 02:51:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4iqg8c$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ijvsq$[e-mail]> <4imtsp$[e-mail]>

Roland Burgan ([e-mail]) penned:
: If this fellows kitmaking skills are of the same caliber as
: his language, I can see why his kits don't function properly.

AMEN!

--


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:49 1996
From: [e-mail](Al Williams )
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 22 Mar 1996 02:29:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4it3a7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4iriut$[e-mail]>

In <4iriut$[e-mail]> Francis Lyn <[e-mail]>
writes:
>
>Try a soap and water mouthwash; It worked for me when I was a kid!
>
I'm sure the rest of the net all the cross posted dribble on this
thread.


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:50 1996
From: Gary - KJ6Q <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: 24 Mar 1996 02:01:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4j2adv$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iruql$[e-mail]> <4itlar$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Doctor Who <[e-mail]> wrote:

>You people are a bunch of pretentious old farts. So the guy gets a
>little frustrated and says he accidently FUCKED UP his transmitter. Big
>deal. That's the way alot of people really talk. The Internet is a
>common meeting place, that is not censored (at least not yet) and if you
>are going to get so bent out of shape over a little bit of profanity,
>you are not going to be able to reap the advantages of the net. So get
>real, okay? He's not really that bad...
>
>-----------=?> Doctor Who <?=-----------

WELL *HELL*, let's REALLY liven things up!

This was a pretty decent group until all the CBers found it, and started
trashing it up with all their odorous and offensive operating habits and
gutter language....

THERE, that should about do it..... :-)
--
Gary... KJ6Q... I am the NRA | Annoy a Liberal - say NO to gun control!
============================ | Annoy a Democrat - say BYE BYE CLINTON!
Those who choose to "beat    |==================================
their swords into plowshares"| "It's *EASY* to be a liberal, it's
may end up *PLOWING* for     | OTHER people's money you are giving
those who DON'T!             | away! (or living off of!)




From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Stupid question regarding baluns
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 06:39:35 GMT
Message-ID: <4itht9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   Lisa Kohn <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I know this is a stupid question, but I can't seem to find a good
>answer.  What is the difference between balanced voltage and balanced
>current?? Thanks

Since I coined the terms "voltage balun" and "current balun" to make the
distinction, guess I need to give this a shot.

"Balanced voltage" means that the voltages at two points are equal and
opposite relative to some reference. In regard to a balun, "balanced
voltage" is achieved when the voltages at the two balun output terminals
are equal and opposite each other with respect to the "cold" terminal of
the balun's input. That is, if we call the "cold" input terminal the
reference, or zero volts, and find that the voltage at one of the output
terminals is + 1 volt at a given instant, then the voltage at the other
output terminal is -1 volt at the same instant.

"Balanced current" means that the currents on two conductors are equal and
opposite. That is, if the current in one conductor is + 1 ampere at a given
instant, the current in the other conductor (measured directly adjacent to
the first measurement) is -1 ampere. When current balance is achieved on a
coaxial cable, all the current is inside the cable; when unbalanced, some
current flows on the outside.

Current and voltage balance occur simultaneously only if the impedances
from both terminals to the reference are equal.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: 20 Mar 1996 02:01:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4ioah2$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rick Rikoski) writes:

>I'm fascinated with the idea of building a couple of Sturba curtains for
>UHF and also VHF (2 separate antennas) tv reception.
>
>Can they be made broadband enough? Suggested design dimensions? General
>comments?
>
>For you old timers:  wasn't there a 4 stack antenna sold and quite
popular
>in the "50's in the US for VHF tv that looked like a Sturba? Help me out
>here. Was it a Sturba? Anybody remember details?

Hi Rick,

I've built some Sterbas in the past. Bandwidth is not good, mainly because
of phase shift accumulation as current moves through the elements. The
array works better if it is fed near the center, current distribution is
more even. Sterbas are single band (or part of a band) antennas! They are
one of the most "difficult to tune" curtain antennas, since the elements
are series fed (in a closed RF loop).

A better curtain array can be made with an arrangement of dipoles with
screen reflectors. These types of arrays are used at VOA and other short
wave BC stations, and have more gain than much larger Rhombics. This is
probably the type of antenna you are remembering from old TV antennas.

The dipole with reflector array (aka USIA Curtain, CIA Curtain, etc) is a
combination of broadside and collinear elements with a screen or wire
reflector. Gain is very high, performance is good over at least 2.5 : 1
frequency range with careful design of dipole elements, and over wider
ranges with interlaced or stub decoupled elements. This type of antenna
uses a tiny portion of a Rhombic's required area, and has much higher gain
and F/B ratio.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 08:15:31 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4io4i3$[e-mail]>

In article <4io4i3$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] wrote:

> In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick
Rikoski) writes:
> >I'm fascinated with the idea of building a couple of Sturba curtains for
> >UHF and also VHF (2 separate antennas) tv reception.
> >
> >Can they be made broadband enough? Suggested design dimensions? General
> >comments?
> >
> >For you old timers:  wasn't there a 4 stack antenna sold and quite popular
> >in the "50's in the US for VHF tv that looked like a Sturba? Help me out
> >here. Was it a Sturba? Anybody remember details?
> >
> >--
> >Rick Rikoski
> >Chicago/Indiana Dunes
> >[e-mail]
>
> Finey (Sic?) Corporation made them and they were known in the trade as a
> colinear array.  I know where there is STILL one of them up that is still
> standing in Bryan, Texas on a TV mast over in the west side of town.
>
> I have NO idea what would happen if I tried to buy it or whatever, but, lo,
> all these years later is is STILL pointed at where our first television
station
> came from 100 miles away, channel TWO in Houston.
>
> Now THAT was a REAL TVI challenge...!
>
> Mike W5WQN as a guest @leviathan.tamu.edu (no mail address there...)

==================================

Ah yes, Finco colinear array! thank you.

I know of two of them, both in South Bend aimed toward Chicago 90 miles away.

Channels 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 all at 1400 feet above sea level on the Sears or
Hancock buildings and well below the horizon at South Bend.

Do you remember whether this antenna had any UHF response? Is Finco still
in business?

(I think I like antennas like this one because they provide spacial
diversity whereas a log periodic or wideband yagi doesn't)

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:55 1996
From: Dave Heil <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:03:54 +0000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Rick Rikoski wrote:
>
> I'm fascinated with the idea of building a couple of Sturba curtains for....
(snip)

It's  STERBA


Dave OH2/K8MN
>


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:56 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Super J-Pole antenna
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 22:10:25
Message-ID: <4iucmf$[e-mail]>
References: <4ho8js$[e-mail]> <4i9bdi$[e-mail]>

Gary,

I tried to access your homepage to have a look at your j-poles & data.  They c
ouldn't be accessed
from this part of the world...  Are they still on line or could there be a pro
blem this end?

Please reply via e-mail (I don't check in here regularly)

Regards,

Rob...
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: The FM-25 flame - apology
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 21:28:32 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

For all this group.

I guess I just got angry and didn't think! It was all very well
to let *troy (alias *god) have the benefit of a little choice
invective, but it was plain careless of me to not to redirect it.
For allowing it to perpetuate under that same rude heading (unmodified!),
I am very sorry - and I apologise unreservedly.

G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tower Guy Spacing
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 11:24:00 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hpihd$[e-mail]> <4i3p1h$[e-mail]>

In article <4i3p1h$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (mike de
l pozzo) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (mike del pozzo)
>Subject: Re: Tower Guy Spacing
>Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:00:45 GMT

>[e-mail] (Jim Rowley) wrote:

>>Hello all.  This is my first time posting so I hope I do it right.
>>I remember reading somewhere that if you are limited on space that
>>you can reduce the distance from the tower base to guy anchor point
>>from the recomended 80% of tower height to something like 50% by
>>going to 4 guys spaced 90 degrees.  Rohn shows this in their catalog
>>but only for the foldover towers.  I plan to install 70ft of Rohn 45G
>>and would like to space the guy anchors between 35 and 40 ft from the
>>base.  Anyone out there know about this or has used this method?
>>Thanks and 73
>>Jim, KG9CC

>Hello Jim,
>yup , I have a 70 ft. Rohn 25 W/ a 4 el Quad on top . Previously had
>all three Hygain Long Johns on top ( 5 el. 10/15/20 beams). It seems
>to be a nice arrangement , especially if ground space is somewhat
>limited. My guys are at 90 deg. intervals and located at 20ft , 40ft ,
>and 65 ft. The material used is of 5/16 dia stranded . The tower has
>been hit with better than 70 MPH wind with the beams on top and did
>not even budge. I will suggest however that you put some serious work
>into the guy anchors ( cement embedded screw anchors or similliar ).
>My anchor points are 45 & 50 feet from the base and are the above
>arrangement. Gud luck es 73 de
>KR4TG ,Mike

I'll add my 2 cents worth on here as my newserver has lost the original
posting.

I am currently installing a Rohn 45 fold-over so I am familiar with the four
guy system.  I believe that Rohn uses this only because of the need for the
guys to be out of the way of the foldover mechanism.

There is no added strength in this method. Consider that the wind is blowing
on a line that parallels one drawn from a single guy anchor to the tower. The
overturning moment is resisted only by the single guy wire/anchor. The other
two(or three) guys could be removed without effect. So, in this worst case,
there is nothing to be gained by increasing the number of guys. Does worst
case actually happen?  Maybe not, but I think you should design for it.

Good luck,

Wes -- N7WS






From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:21:59 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Tribander trap loss?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 12:53:17 GMT

Adds for triband beams promise nearly 6db of gain but how much power is
lost in the traps? They usually have at least 6 traps and I'm sure they
aren't lossless.  I would think this would be of concern when comparing a
trap beam to a quad.

--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joe Barkley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Vhf, Uhf Log Periodic??
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 12:50:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4ijiqu$[e-mail]>

Someone mentioned to me there is a 6meter-1.2ghz log periodic on the market.
Anyone know of it or had experience with it. I am just getting on 6 meters and
want a decent directional antenna and only have roomfor one yagi an top of A-4
hf yagi.  Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.

Tnx

Joe


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ed Griffin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Vhf, Uhf Log Periodic??
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 12:12:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4j0q0e$[e-mail]>
References: <4ijiqu$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Rick Rikoski) wrote:



>> Someone mentioned to me there is a 6meter-1.2ghz log periodic on the market
.
>> Anyone know of it or had experience with it. I am just getting on 6 meters
and
>> want a decent directional antenna and only have roomfor one yagi an top of
A-4
>> hf yagi.  Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.
>>
>>================
>
> Joe, there is one. It is called the "Create" It think it is made in
>Virginia, the land of the CIA.

>Costs $300 or $400 bucks. I understand that it has the gain and rejection
>qualities of a 4 element yagi-uda on any frequency in this range. Pretty
>small too.

>I'd be interested in buying one, if I could get a good price.

>--
>Rick Rikoski
>Chicago/Indiana Dunes
>[e-mail]

My recomendation is TENNADYNE........a quality product that I'm very
pleased with.  Contact Chuck Brainard, 123 W. 11 th St., Rockport, TX
78382.   Phone is 512-790-7745
He's a good guy to do business with, from my experience.  Tell him
' Ed sent ya '
73



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Lill)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Vhf, Uhf Log Periodic??
Date: 20 Mar 1996 19:21:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4iplrf$[e-mail]>
References: <4ijiqu$[e-mail]>

Joe Barkley ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Someone mentioned to me there is a 6meter-1.2ghz log periodic on the market.
: Anyone know of it or had experience with it. I am just getting on 6 meters a
nd
: want a decent directional antenna and only have roomfor one yagi an top of A
-4
: hf yagi.  Any comments or suggestions would be helpful.

It *IS* made by Create, but is made in Japan, not VA. It is sold by a VA
company, EEB. They were in Vienna VA the last I knew.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lill                  [e-mail]
http://www.vectorbd.com/users/jpll/home.html
         wa2zkd@wb2psi.#wny.usa.na



From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Lundgren)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Date: 21 Mar 1996 02:44:01 GMT
Message-ID: <4iqfph$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imjob$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Steve Work ([e-mail]) penned:
: Dennis Nuetzel ([e-mail]) wrote:
: : >There is a small, minor detail: Air transmissions were AM, last time I
: : >checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
: : >transmissions???

: :    If close enough, it will.  I have picked up CB radio transmissions (Als
o
: : AM) on a nearby FM reciever.

: "AM rejection" is a spec which applies to FM radios.  It is worse on
: cheaper ones.

I'm assuming that by worse, you mean is has poorer AM rejection.

: The circuitry used to detect FM signals can respond to changes in the
: amplitude.  Especially when the circuit is cheap, and under conditions
: where it is overloaded.

Actually, when the circuitry is overloaded, it should limit and prevent
AM from getting thru.  Maybe the circuitry is not overloaded enough. ;-)


--
#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
|    John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. |    jlundgre@     |
|    Rancho Santiago Community College District  |   deltanet.com   |
|     17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706   | http://rsc.rancho|
| My opinions are my own, and not my employer's. |    .cc.ca.us     |
|   Most FAQs are available through Thomas Fine's WWW FAQ archive:  |
|http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/FAQ-List.html|
|      "You can flame your brains out -- it won't take long."       |
#===T=u=z=l=a==C=o=m=p=a=n=y=.=.===t=h=r=e=e='=s==L=e==C=r=o=w=d=!==#


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Wideband Dipoles
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:03:37 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hello All

This is about those small "wideband" dipoles that look like a mess of
oversized coat hangers tied together - basically a sparse wire grid
spaceframe of a 3D "bowtie". They seem abound in advertisments for EMC
test facilities and are probably used in EMC screened chambers, metallised
tents, and maybe open field test sites.

Assume we already know that expanding a dipole wire into a "cage" has a
broadbanding effect, the questions are:-

* Are all the "elements" the same length - ie. is it a symmetrical frame?

* How wide is the typical bandwidth of these antennas?

* How flat is the typical frequency response over the band?

* Could such bulbous shapes (scaled down) be usefully placed as the driven
  element in  multielement antennas (YAGIs etc.) ?

* Is there any mileage in visualising whole sets of directors all made up
  of little "multiple coathanger dipole" shapes?





--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:05 1996
From: [e-mail](Kevin Alfred Strom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Windmill Towers?
Date: 19 Mar 1996 09:58:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4im0fc$[e-mail]>

Does anyone have any experience with disassembling / re-erecting
windmill towers for antenna supports and/or shunt-fed radiators?

They are common here in the Minnesota countryside, and since so many
are apparently unused, could probably be acquired cheaply. I like their
fat footprint and built-in ladder (some even have a platform near the
top) for obvious reasons. But maybe I am overlooking some problems.

I am most interested in your thoughts.


Thanks -- Kevin WB4AIO in Rochester Minnesota


From [e-mail] Sun Mar 24 17:22:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (mike del pozzo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: wire beams
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 11:49:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4irfp1$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:

>Hello all I would like to build some wire beams between 2 towers here,
>possibly trees or poles. Need antennas to work 20-15-10 meters and have
>about 100' spacing to play with between towers.
>Wonder if some of you could give me any ideas, what worked for you ?
>73 Kyle
>-------------------------------------
>Name: kyle chavis
>E-mail: [e-mail]
>Date: 03/19/96
>Time: 10:20:00

>This message was sent by Chameleon
>-------------------------------------
Hello Kyle,
I have built the 3 element inverted Vee array described in ON4UN's Low
Band DX'ing book with great success. Not alot of elevation is required
with this but 1/3 wave above ground, and it proved to be a great
addition to the alluminum farm here. The beam was built for 40 mtrs
and directed towards VK with great results. I imagine with 10 / 15 /
20 mtrs the task would be even easier. I guess what you need to figure
out is what direction you would like to work , unless it's everywhere.

in that case a rotary beam would work much better. GUD LUCK es 73
de KR4TG, Mike






From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tony Angerame - Sun SSE)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles
Date: 21 Mar 1996 21:49:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4isiu4$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Seems that a 3 to 1 swr with 52 ohm coax feed indicates an impedance of about
17 ohms
at the feed point. I'd wind a three to one toroidal transformer if the core wa
s handy.
Then remeasure the swr to see if it was acceptable i.e less than 2:1. You coul
d also
try a "hairpin" match. I haven't seen one for a while but the Handbooks should
 give
you an idea. Cut and try never mind that silly engineer stuff.


                                                        Tony WA6LZH








From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:24 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: "Hamstick" dipole troubles SOLVED
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 21:21:23 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ih53s$[e-mail]> <4j1u55$[e-mail]>

Derrick Cole <[e-mail]> writes:

>Last tip: buy an antenna analyzer.  I opted for the MFJ 259.  I can't describ
e
>how handy it's been...

Save your money. Use ladder-line and a 20 cent pick up loop and learn
exactly the same things about your antenna system that the MFJ259 tells
you. I kid you not. Ladder-line is *all* slotted line. Think about it.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:25 1996
From: /PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=attmail/C=us/@safe.ia.GOV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 28 Mar 96 16:26:14 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>From /PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=attmail/C=us/ Thu Mar 28 1
0:27:17 CST 1996 remote from osiint.safe.ia.gov
Date: 28 Mar 1996 10:25:11 -0600
X400-Trace: US*ATTMAIL*IADPS
        arrival 28 Mar 1996 10:25:11 -0600
        action Relayed
From: /PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=attmail/C=us/@osiint.safe.
ia.gov
To: "/RFC-822=Ham-Ant(a)UCSD.EDU/OU=OSI-INTERNET/O=WALLACE/PRMD=IADPS/ADMD=ATT
MAIL/C=US/"@osiint.safe.ia.gov
In-Reply-To: <"\"/RFC-822=199603251230.EAA21047(a)mail.ucsd.edu/OU=OSI-INTERNE
T/O=WALLACE/PRMD=IADPS/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=US/\""@osiint.safe.ia.gov>
Subject: A-B antenna switch
Importance: normal
Autoforwarded: FALSE
Message-Id: <werl0328102246aa*/PN=Scott.C.Werling/O=wallace/PRMD=iadps/ADMD=at
tmail/C=us/@osiint.safe.ia.gov>
P1-Message-Id: US*ATTMAIL*IADPS;IDPS3550 werl0328102246aa
UA-Content-Id: werl0328102246aa
P1-Content-Type: P2
Priority: normal
Received: from osiint.safe.ia.gov by iadpshub.safe.ia.gov; Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10
:27 CST
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 820

Question for you: I have 2 antennas (a long wire and G5RV) and 2 hf rigs
(HW 9 and a Galaxy V). What I want to do is build or buy a switch of some
kind which will handle up to 475 watts (the Galaxy manual sez it will do
that much on CW and 300 on SSB) to switch antennas between these 2 rigs.
Like an A-B switch for computer printers.  Is there such a thing now available
?
I am using 450 ohm ladder line on the G5RV and multi-strand wire for the long
wire.  I am NOT a tech whiz by any means but am interested in building things
for my shack.  So if a relatively easy-to-build thing would be available from
parts, pse advise the HOW TO.

Scott
N0XZY @ WA0RJT.#EIA.IA.USA.NOAM
[e-mail]  (this one)  [e-mail] (home)
www.angelfire.com/free/n0xzy.html  (under construction)



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6rjan_Johanson?=)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (none)
Date: 30 Mar 96 10:15:56 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

add ham-ant



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (Nick Lansley G1KZI)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: (removed)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:10:36 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imv4v$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Please bear in mind that with most news clients, when you reply or
comment on an article, the original (complete with offensive words) is
included - so anyone doing a search for such stuff for disciplinary
investigative reasons could argue YOU sent offensive stuff too.


    <<< Nick Lansley G1KZI>>>

For legal reasons, any messages in this article that reveal
I may have taken part in any illegal activity (either directly
or indirectly) are hereby disclaimed. I hereby state that I
have taken no part in any such activity.
-----------------------------------------------------
Home:   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/nicholas_lansley
E-mail: [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ***help**** with a apt ant
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 20:28:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4jc8pl$[e-mail]>
References: <4j2l0k$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (steve eizenberg) wrote:

>i live on the 4th floor of a 6 floor apt building. i can only put up
>an ant on the window a/c unit. the walls are made of concreet and
>rebarb, it is an old building built in the 1940's, does someone have
>any idea for an ant i can use with my mfj 900 ant tuner?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "on the window a/c unit."  Can
you run a thin wire out a window and let it hang down the side of the
building?  If so, you could use your tuner in conjunction with the MFJ
Artificial Ground.  Some of the RF from the antenna will still be
absorbed by the building, but at least you'll get your power to the
antenna instead of radiating it from the transmitter itself.  If you
do this, the rig should also be as close to the point where the
antenna exits the building as possible.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rob M.)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: ...(Heading deleted to protect the innocent)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 04:27:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4jaeds$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imqpg$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Nick Lansley G1KZI) wrote:

>Karl Kurz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Hear, hear..... postings like this make me really excited about
>>demonstrating Ham Radio and Newsgroups to my students.
>>
>I agree - maybe writers of news client programs (such as Free Agent -
>the one I'm using) could add kill file facilties to blank out articles
>with rude words in them.

>I suppose the only problem is it would kill articles with words such
>as "Poshitridge" - a village near where I lived in the Midlands..!

>This is off-topic but a thought anyway...

>I haven't looked - are other newsgroups where the original article was
>posted having this conversation? Nice bit of bandwidth and disk
>storage used up if they are...


>    <<< Nick Lansley G1KZI>>>

>For legal reasons, any messages in this article that reveal
>I may have taken part in any illegal activity (either directly
>or indirectly) are hereby disclaimed. I hereby state that I
>have taken no part in any such activity.

So why are you letting the "kiddies"'  who could probably
teach you a few four letter words, check into
alt.pirate.radio?  Training subversives are we?
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Home:   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/nicholas_lansley
>E-mail: [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Zacharias Liangas)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 2-loop antenna questions
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:10:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4jeugp$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

dear friends of the list
this time i am intending to make an  2-loop antenna for two different
bands namely 30 and 60 m (SW use only ) , qhich as per my opinion
vould be nice to be included in one mast together so that the 30 mb
tobe co-centeresd with the other of 60 mb
As per theory the 30mb can be 1.1 m per side and 2.2 m for the 60m
They will mainly be used fo local noise cancelling
and instead of using variable capacitor to use varactor  so that I can
remotely yune them

Thi is my idea at all. What is your opinion . Can  both operate well
or the one can effect the other?

TIA

Zakaria Liang!
(namanya untuk kawan sahaja!)



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Chappelear)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m 1/4 Wave Glass Mount Advise
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 14:46:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4j70m5$[e-mail]>
References: <4j4j60$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Chappelear)

>
> 2m 1/4 Wave Glass Mount Advise
>You wrote

> Anyone have any comments on using a 1/4 wave glass mount antenna
> for 2 meters? any and all comments or suggestions would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Dave

Yes I'm using one of those RAT SHACK 1/4 wave glass mounted 2m with a
Yaesu-2400.  I'm having no problems whatsoever getting out to any of the
repeates that I tap from my base station.  It is a little less sensitive
 than my Discone that is up about 30 feet but then that should be
expected.

I was very carefull to adjust for the lowest possible SWR (about 1.2:1)
immediately after installation.

Porky
KI0AS


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:32 1996
From: Rich Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m antenna for travel
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 21:27:02 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Rich Griffiths wrote:
>
> Charlie Fortner wrote:
> >
> > I am going on a trip with the local Boy Scout troop out west this summer
> > and I want some opinions on what antenna(s) I should bring for the times
> > we are in a building (a hotel of some sort).
>
> I think the suggestions in favor of a twin lead dipole are very good.
> I have used one and thought it's a good traveling antenna.  Take a
> roll of tape with you.

Sigh ...  Freud really knew somthing when he talked about slips.

I meant to second the suggestions about twin-lead JPOLES, not dipoles.

sri   W2RG


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:34 1996
From: Rich Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m antenna for travel
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 17:49:00 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Charlie Fortner wrote:
>
> I am going on a trip with the local Boy Scout troop out west this summer
> and I want some opinions on what antenna(s) I should bring for the times
> we are in a building (a hotel of some sort).

I think the suggestions in favor of a twin lead dipole are very good.
I have used one and thought it's a good traveling antenna.  Take a
roll of tape with you.

I've also used TV rabbit ears with good results.  Every TV I've bought
came with a set of collapsible rabbit ears.  I took the center insulator
apart on one (held together by two screws), removed the twin lead,
replaced the twin lead with a short length of RG-58, and reassembled
the center insulator.

Pretune it by extending each leg to about 19 inches and then fine tuning
using a VHF SWR bridge or just watching the output meter on your rig.
Then mark where the smaller-diameter bits of the telescoping tubes enter
the larger-diameter ones (you only need to do this on one tube of each
side, if you think about it), and you can readily reset the antenna to
the proper length in your hotel room.

THis antenna is small and light, so it travels well.  I've pulled
gimmicks like removing one of the plastic rods that are used to slide the
hotel room's curtains back and forth, taping the center insulator of
the antenna to it at right angles, and sticking the antenna out the hotel
window a couple of feet.  This can work great if you're a few floors up.


Rich Griffiths, W2RG


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:35 1996
From: Tim Rourke <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m antenna for travel
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:37:58 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: Charlie Fortner <[e-mail]>



On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Charlie Fortner wrote:

> I am going on a trip with the local Boy Scout troop out west this summer
> and I want some opinions on what antenna(s) I should bring for the times
> we are in a building (a hotel of some sort).  I have an Icom IC-T22A
> handheld with a Larsen 5/8 wave mag mount (to use on the van when we are
> mobile - I really don't want to have to take it off the van for use
> inside).  I was thinking about making a J-Pole out of copper pipe and
> using that, but it would be bigger than I would like it to be.  Any ideas,
> suggestions, or the like would be greatly appreciated.
> BTW - any mods for an IC-2000H would also be appreciated! Thanx!
>
> --
> Ted Fortner
> [e-mail]
> KF4GJR
>
Charlie-
You might try making a simple J-pole out of some 300 ohm twin-lead TV
antenna wire.  This is explained fully in a number of sources,
including the book "Your Ham Antenna Companion" published by ARRL
($10).  After construction, you can easily roll this one up and
stick it in a backpack.  Another idea is a 2-element quad made of coat
hanger or other stiff wire and a few pieces of wood.  It looked like it
could be dissassembled for packing.  The plans were in a recent issue of
QST (within past 6 months).  Good luck and 73,
Tim Rourke KC7IYH



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale Chidester)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m antenna for travel
Date: 25 Mar 1996 19:08:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4j6qvp$[e-mail]>
References: <4iujut$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

The original article from Clint wasn't too clear on the feed line arrangement
at
the stub for attaching the coax.  It's no problem for those aquainted with J-p
oles,
but might cause confusion otherwise.  Here's my revision of his original drawi
ng.
In tests, it works much better than the rubber duckie on 2 meters with the fee
d point
at 1" rather than 1/4", but isn't quite as good on 70 cm. as the rubber duckie
.
Oh well, can't have everything.

        73,


                Dale


     === 2m/70cm Dual Band J-Pole made from 300 ohm twin lead ===

              _____                     ___   Leave wires open at top (don't s
hort)
                |       |       |       |
                |       |   O   |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
             54-1/4"    |       |    38-1/2"
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |      _|       |
                |       |   N |_       _|__
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |       |
                |       |       |    15-3/4"
                |       |       |       |
                |   ,-> |       | <---. |    Attach coax 1" up from bottom
                |   |   |       | 1"  | |
               _|_  |   |_______| __  |_|__  Short wires together at bottom
                    |                 |
                    |                 |
                Coax Inner        Coax Outer
                Conductor         Conductor


         SWR is 2:1 across the 2m band and from 435mhz to
                     450mhz on the 70cm band.


1.  Use good quality TV twin lead.  Cut to 54 1/2" overall.  Strip 1/4" at
    bottom and short wires together
2.  Strip insulation at the solder point for coax feedline 1" from bottom.
3.  Cut out and remove the 1/2" long notch N.
4.  Feed with a length of 50 ohm coax and terminate with the
    appropriate connector.  Tape coax at feedpoint to the twin lead,
    or use heat shrink, and make sure the joints are insulated from
    each other.
5.  Antenna may be sleeved inside 1/2" PVC for outside mounting or
    hung on a loop of string run thru hole O.




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:37 1996
From: NEWS@PSYC (NEWS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2m automobile antenna?
Date: 25 Mar 1996 05:32:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4j5b5s$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>
>        Just want to hear from anybody on a 2 meter antenna they use
>in their autos, that's easy to put on and off the vehicle
>Bud
hello Bud, just a short message about removeable 2m mount. I have
recently seen a rather neat idea in Mobile Ham, March 1996, I can send
you a copy if you wish. 73 Winton. [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jason Baack)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 3 Element VHF Yagi
Date: 26 Mar 1996 22:27:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4j9r0g$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>
>Would anyone happen to have plans for a small 2 meter 3 or 4 element
>yagi?  I am trying to build an antenna to go indoors in a second story
>apt., but still get modest gain.  I have seen one made by mfj that is 3
>element and 2.75' long.  Has anyone used here used this antenna before?
> If so, what's the gain on it, and does perform well?  Thank you for the
>info.
>
>73's
>Shelby
>KE4AKA

In the 1995/96 ARRL Construction handbook, there is a great design for a 3
element yagi made out of hobby rod and PVC pipe.  My total cost was 4 hours
and $12.00.   Much cheaper than the $30.00 MJF antenna + shipping.  I made
mine so it has retractable elements, BACKPACKING here I come.!
I put it to the test and measured a 1.3 to 1 at 144.5 and 1.6 to 1 at 148.00
(this was without additional tweaking and tuning..)
Dementions were some thing like this:

Boom = 2 18" sections connected py a PVC T connector (3/4" PVC)


|--   18"  -- |       |--  18"  --------|
--------------- ++++  ------------------

front element is 35" and 1/4 to 1/2" in from the end of the boom

director is 40" and 1\2 to 1\4" in from the back of the boom

16' from the director is the (middle of the two feed elements)


           _   |
           :   |
           :   | |----  16"-------------|
           :      |                    End element 40"
38-37"     :      |
           :      |
           :
           _


  Each lenght will be some where around 19.xx
there is a 1/4 " seperation between the two, and the stick out of the boom
approx 1/4" on theoppisite side of the reflector.
Braid to one side, center conductor to the other.
The support was 3/4" PVC at 42 inches (so I could store the elements in side
it)
Simple and esay to use.

Email me if you can't undstand my cryptic directions..
Jason
N1RWY
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 300 vs 450 ohm ladder line
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 16:21:51 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4is2db$[e-mail]> <4isdh6$[e-mail]>

In article <4isdh6$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (WB3U) wrote:

>    [e-mail] (WB7ASR) wrote:
>
> >What are the major differences and advantages/disadvantages of using
> >either? What about wire gage? Catalogs sell different sizes.

The 450 ohm ladder line will have significantly lower loss at vhf and uhf.

This will show up as improved signal to noise ratio at your receiver.

On transmit, the larger wire gage will give better efficiency, ie more
signal transmitted per watt coming from your final, everything else being
equal.

--
Rick Rikoski
Chicago/Indiana Dunes
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 300 vs 450 ohm ladder line
Date: 24 Mar 1996 04:20:25 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4j2ii9$[e-mail]>
References: <4is2db$[e-mail]>

In article <4is2db$[e-mail]>,
WB7ASR <[e-mail]> wrote:
>What are the major differences and advantages/disadvantages of using
>either? What about wire gage? Catalogs sell different sizes.
>
Haven't seen any answers so here's mine. 450 ohm ladder line is
lower loss than 300 ohm ladder line. #18 gauge wire will handle
more power than #20 gauge wire. 300 ohm ladder line matches low
impedances better than 450 ohm ladder line. 450 ohm ladder-
line matches high impedances better than 300 ohm ladder line.
The range of SWRs on 300 ohm ladder line that will result in
a 50 ohm SWR of less than 2:1 at a current node is 3:1 to 12:1.
The range of SWRs on 450 ohm ladder line that will result in a
50 ohm SWR of less than 2:1 at a current node is 4.5:1 to 18:1.
You can route 300 ohm ladder line closer to metal than you can
450 ohm ladder line. 450 ohm line has a higher velocity factor.
If you achieve a Z0-match you can get away with using a 4:1
balun on the 300 ohm ladder line. From a performance standpoint,
I doubt you can tell the difference.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (James G. Edmondson)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: ____, my FM-25 is ____ed! What to do??
Date: 24 Mar 1996 01:57:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4j2a6j$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iruql$[e-mail]> <4itlar$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>Wendell Millman wrote:
>>
>
>> Must we keep this stuff going, as this SUBJECT looks realy bad everytime
one
>> goes to read this news group......lets drop the SUBJECT guys it looks
bad.
>>
>
>You people are a bunch of pretentious old farts. So the guy gets a
>little frustrated and says he accidently FUCKED UP his transmitter. Big
>deal. That's the way alot of people really talk. The Internet is a
>common meeting place, that is not censored (at least not yet) and if you
>are going to get so bent out of shape over a little bit of profanity,
>you are not going to be able to reap the advantages of the net. So get
>real, okay? He's not really that bad...
>
>-----------=?> Doctor Who <?=-----------
Nobody said that that the author of the profane article was "bad"
nor made any personal attacks in the newsgroups that I follow.  Does your
comment reflect YOUR true feelings - that he is "bad"?

1.)  Talking and broadcasting are two very different activities.  One
usually knows exactly who they are talking to, but not who is listening to a
broadcast.  Therefore, a little more restraint is in order for the latter.

2.)  He did not just say he ____ed up his transmitter, he said it over and
over again.  Not only that but he went into excessive detail about things
that had nothing at all to do with the radio problem to the point of
distraction.

3.)  Your only as old as you feel and I feel pretty young.

4.)  Compared to other resources, the "net" is more full of chaff than
wheat.  Anything we can do to change that is a positive.  Did the profane
post elucidate anything for anybody?

Jim



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Douglas R Davis)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Adhesive Copper Tape
Date: 25 Mar 96 05:14:51 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

H&R Company
18 Canal St
P O Box 122
Bristol PA 19007-0122
Voice - 1-800-848-8001
FAX - 215-788-9577

Has 1" wide x 18 yards Copper Shielding tape for $14.50 per roll.

Doug
KC8CGX


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (MCEWEN, JAMES)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna info from the Internet
Date: 27 Mar 96 17:01:32 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

     If you only have E-Mail access to the I-Net, there are several
     ways you can get info mentioned in Ham-Ant.  One is to use an
     Agora server <a World Wide Web to Internet E-Mail gateway>.
     For example, to get a sample page of the RadioAdventure
     newsletter( from AntennaWest), send the following E-mail

     TO:  [e-mail]
     SUBJECT:  <leave blank>

     Body:  send http://www.far.net/radioadventure/weekly.htm


     For more info on how to access the Web through E-mail get
     "Accessing the Internet By E-Mail", a free publication updated
     about 4 or 5 times a year.

     To get the latest edition, send e-mail to one of the addresses
     below.

     To: [e-mail] (for US, Canada & South America)
     Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
       send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email

     To: [e-mail] (for Europe, Asia, etc.)
     Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
       send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt

     You can also get the file by anonymous FTP at one of these sites:

     Site: rtfm.mit.edu
        get pub/usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email
     Site: mailbase.ac.uk
        get pub/lists/lis-iis/files/e-access-inet.txt



     Jim McEwen, KA6TPR


     My disclaimer: "I only wish I got paid for doing this!"



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (MCEWEN, JAMES)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna info from the Internet
Date: 29 Mar 96 17:46:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

     If you only have E-Mail access to the I-Net, there are several
     ways you can get info mentioned in Ham-Ant.  One is to use an
     Agora server <a World Wide Web to Internet E-Mail gateway>.
     For example, to get a sample page of the RadioAdventure
     newsletter( from AntennaWest), send the following E-mail

     TO:  [e-mail]
     SUBJECT:  <leave blank>

     Body:  send http://www.far.net/radioadventure/weekly.htm


     For more info on how to access the Web through E-mail get
     "Accessing the Internet By E-Mail", a free publication updated
     about 4 or 5 times a year.

     To get the latest edition, send e-mail to one of the addresses
     below.

     To: [e-mail] (for US, Canada & South America)
     Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
       send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email

     To: [e-mail] (for Europe, Asia, etc.)
     Enter only this line in the BODY of the note:
       send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt

     You can also get the file by anonymous FTP at one of these sites:

     Site: rtfm.mit.edu
        get pub/usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email
     Site: mailbase.ac.uk
        get pub/lists/lis-iis/files/e-access-inet.txt



     Jim McEwen, KA6TPR


     My disclaimer: "I only wish I got paid for doing this!"



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:49 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Modeling Software
Date: 27 Mar 1996 03:23:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4jacb9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Scott, check page 184 on the April 1996 QST.  There is an ad on the top left c
orner for Brian Beezley, K6STI who writes antenna
modeling software.  On page 164 of the same issue of QST is an ad for W7EL.  C
heck the ARRL home page for links to an FTP site
with some software.  Try FTP://VE7TCP .ampr.org/arrl for a mirror of the ARRL
site.  There are some antenna modeling programs
and optimizing programs available there also.  Hope this helps!
73 de Dave, KB9KQA




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna Modeling Software
Date: 29 Mar 1996 06:57:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4jg1ku$[e-mail]>


Scot Souva asked


Anyone know what software is available for antenna modeling and
design?  The only thing I have ever heard of was the ARRL "Method of
Moments" software.  But, I can't seem to find any reference to it.
Ideas?

Scot
        See Roy Lewallan's ads in QST for ELNEC and EZNEC

Charlie,  W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:50 1996
From: John Fleming <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna Myths Dispelled, Part I
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:39:51 +0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Check out the weekly news article from RadioAdventure,

Antenna Myths Dispelled, Part I:
Antenna Patterns, Radiation Angle, and Gain

http://www.far.net/radioadventure/weekly.htm

John N9NDH


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:51 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (John Unger)
Subject: Re: Antenna Myths Dispelled, Part I
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:45:14 GMT

John Fleming  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Check out the weekly news article from RadioAdventure,
>
>Antenna Myths Dispelled, Part I:
>Antenna Patterns, Radiation Angle, and Gain
>
>http://www.far.net/radioadventure/weekly.htm
>
>John N9NDH

Interesting, but where are the figures?

73 - John, W3GOI


--
John Unger  <[e-mail]>


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Don Stoner)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna Restrictive Covenants Home Page
Date: 29 Mar 1996 14:03:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4jgqjv$[e-mail]>

Finally, the Antenna Restrictive Covenants Homepage is up and running on my
system. The new address is:

http://www.gate.net/~donstone/antenna.html

I would appreciate any suggestions on how this resource can be made more usefu
l
and any contributions (particularly on hidden antennas) are welcome.

73 Don Stoner, W6TNS



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert A. Lanier)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: antennae for spread-spectrum
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 23:27:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4isodo$[e-mail]>

I am looking for information on antennae to use for spread-spectrum
communications. Can you use a regular Yagi or dipole? Does it have to
have special characteristics, other than a wide bandwidth?

Also, I would like to hear from those who QSO to europe on a regular
basis. What pitfalls can a rookie avoid, what can he/she do to have a
successful QSO?

Any help would be much appreciated.

73s de
Tony,  KE4ATO



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Heiler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: are the bands dead
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 10:28:16 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


 I live in an apartment and have not been on HF for about 2 years because of
no place to put an antenna I have just now put one up.  I put up a loop 30' x
60' I can tune most bands flat. but I don't here any thing.  I was wondering
if the bands are dead or if it is my antenna. Because of restrictions I had to
hide my antenna so I used avery small wire(from the wiendings of a deflection
yoke from a tv).  My loop gose around the apt. bldg. by the way no one can see
it. unless they were trying to find it. I stappeld it about 10' up and under
the botum side of the lapp sidding.  this was done at night so I would not be
seen and asked what I was doing. i am telling this incase any one may wont to
try it.

 I did try using 2- 80mtr. ham sticks in an inverted V but mu reception then
was bad and I just thought that it was the atenna.  I then tried using only
one ham stick  1/4 wave , and tying the other end to the hot-warter heatig
system.  this seemed to get me out a littlle better but not good. sme thing.
poor reception.  any way any help would be great.

mike KA0ZLG /  AFA3JQ



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dave Dabell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ATV antenna
Date: 27 Mar 1996 15:08:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4jblm4$[e-mail]>
References: <4jaib2$[e-mail]>

Both the arrl handbook and antenna book have plans for 432 yagis
designed by K1FO.  Included in the article is information on
building them in a variety of sizes and scaling them to atv freqs.

  73,  dave  wa3u

[e-mail] wrote:
: I want to build an ATV Yagi but am having a hard time finding any
: documentation even in the ARRL Antenna hadbook. I want to build
: something on the order of a 13 <-> 16el yagi, Any help would be
: appreciated. This is my first message to any newsgroup so i hope it
: makes it alright.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:56 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: balanced tuner techniques
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4j27k7$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:06:08 GMT

I did the same thing a few years ago. It works but it is a bit messy.
I've been looking for bungie feeders ever since. Yes, bungie wire would
allow us to just pull on the feeder and change the tuning. No more messy
relays. Just two pieces of strech wire and a couple of cloths-pins is all
you need.



--
Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:57 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: balanced tuner techniques
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 96 10:19:18 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4j27k7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Steve Ellington <[e-mail]> writes:

>I did the same thing a few years ago. It works but it is a bit messy.

Hi Steve, since when did hams worry about being messy? :-)
Why didn't you publish information on your design? It
would have saved me a lot of time. Seriously, the mess
can be located outside and the tuning is a lot easier
than my balanced tuner and equal or better in efficiency.
It is ideal for automation. And mine's not all that
messy. On my particular antenna, the longest loop is
only 8 ft. long (2.5 feet diameter).

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: baluns in G5RV???.
Date: 26 Mar 1996 16:34:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4j9nt5$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Anibal Aguirre) writes:

>Electromagnetics theory affirm that if exist an impedance change surface
in
>this surface appears a reflected wave.The solution at this are the
baluns.
>In "the reality".What`s true??.
>Any answers will be appreciate.
>thanks.
>Anibal Aguirre

What is true is the G5RV or any dipole type antenna should have a balun
where the transition of balanced to unbalance conditions are made. A
choke-type balun, made either with a sleeve of beads, a twisted pair or
coax coil over a core, or a twisted pair or coaxial line over an air core
all work very well.

I use the coax over an air core myself. Not using a choke balun is
foolish, since they are so easy to build.

73 Tom




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:14:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: baluns in G5RV???.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 19:00:32 GMT
Message-ID: <4jc3kf$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Anibal Aguirre) wrote:

>HI FRIENDS: in the discution about the message "ingnorant
>question....G5RV" many friends says that: "..G5RV works well without
>balun for match 50 to 300omhs lines.." Electromagnetics theory affirm
>that if exist an impedance change surface in this surface appears a
>reflected wave.The solution at this are the baluns.
>In "the reality".What`s true??.

The purpose of the balun in most systems (including the G5RV) is not
impedance transformation.  The impedance seen at the feedpoint of the
ladder line varies greatly from band to band and no single
transformation ratio will match it.

Rather, the purpose of the balun is to make the transition from
unbalanced transmission line (coax) to balanced feed (ladder line or
twinlead). This keeps RF current within the coax from flowing back to
the rig on the outside of the shield.

Unfortunately, the variation is feedpoint impedance presented by the
G5RV can deteriorate the performance of the balun, as discussed in
the other thread.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Beam Antenna for 27Mhz
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 19:34:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4iuvm5$[e-mail]>
References: <4itcnb$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (ZANDOR1) wrote:

>I would like to try something different and would appreciate any help
>that can be given. I do not want to get a linear for my car.

That's good.  It's illegal.

>I would like to know if it is possible to build or buy a beam antenna
>for CB radio? If so how is it done?

There are no designs available for such an antenna.  It was discovered
many years ago that 27 MHz is useless for communications.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (MCEWEN, JAMES)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Collapsable Whips
Date: 29 Mar 96 17:19:59 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

     Dave WB0GAZ [e-mail] asked:

     >I am interested in finding some really long COLLAPSIBLE whips,


     Small Parts, Inc.
     13980 N.W. 58th Court
     PO.Box 4650
     Miami Lakes, FL 33014-0650

     1-800-220-4242

     Call them for a catalog.   They have telescoping tubing in
     brass,copper and aluminum, and 304 Stainless and Stainless wire
     in various sizes an lengths.  Also of interest to the antenna
     experimenter are stainless steel nuts & bolts, metric & inch
     sizes; Teflon & phenolic rods & sheets,nylon screws & nuts,
     and lots of other "good junk".

     Jim McEwen, KA6TPR

     standard disclaimer: "I only WISH I was getting paid for doing
     this."



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:01 1996
From: Steve Lewis <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Corner Beam
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:51:24 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

73 magazine just did a review of the Arrow Corner Beam manufactured by
Antennas West. It boasts 10db gain, 40db FTB ratio, and an SWR of 1.2:1
over the entire band. If anyone out there has any experience with this
antenna, let me know what you think of it.  Thank You in Advance

--
Steve Lewis ([e-mail])

Just my opinion!  :-)  73 cul


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (t▓s)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Corner Beam
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 15:17:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4ja1bd$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Steve Lewis <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>73 magazine just did a review of the Arrow Corner Beam manufactured by
>>Antennas West. It boasts 10db gain, 40db FTB ratio, and an SWR of 1.2:1
>>over the entire band. If anyone out there has any experience with this
>>antenna, let me know what you think of it.  Thank You in Advance
>>
>>--
>>Steve Lewis ([e-mail])

>>Just my opinion!  :-)  73 cul


Actually I have had good success with the dual band version of this
antenna.

Assembly was a bit painful due to the number of elements and the
instructions left a lot to be desired.

The fasteners used to secure the elements to the boom were also not the
best choice. I found that using stainless steel socket head cap screws
instead to the round head machine screws made the assembly easier.



t▓s
[e-mail]


**********NOTICE**********
Unsolicited *commercial* email is subject to
download/archival fee of $525.00 US per message.
Viewing this message and/or E-mailing to the
forementioned address denotes acceptance of these
terms.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: cross polarization losses at 2m
Date: 28 Mar 1996 00:03:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4jd6is$[e-mail]>
References: <4j7j3o$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Typically cross polarization losses are stated to be 20 dB- a huge loss if
there is no scattering of the polarization. You will be better off to
preserve the polarity of the station you are trying to work. End fed half
waves (like a J pole) are easy to build and mount vertically.

73,  Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (JPARDELAN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Cushcraft R-5 on wrong bands
Date: 25 Mar 1996 14:03:11 -0500
Message-ID: <4j6qlf$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (JPARDELAN)

Jay,
The R-5 has a balun transformer and an impedence matching transformer in
the black match box at the bottom. If you use this antenna on bands it was
not designed for, I guarantee that you will burn up the impedence matching
transformer in the black box. These transformers are ferrite toroids and
will heat up, melt the plastic box, burn the circuit board black, and
crack the ferrite material. You can "match" with a tuner but on "not
designed for" bands much of your power will be given up as heat in the
toroids (especially the impedence matching transformer).
Cushcraft wants over $100.00 to replace the matchbox. My advice is to use
this antenna ONLY on the bands it was intended for (believe me, I know
others who found this out the hard and expensive way).
73, John (KF9SF)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:06 1996
From: "Carmine M. Iannace" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Delta Loop Question
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:34:27 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I've been reading William Orr's "Antenna Handbook" and have found some interes
ting plans
for a  G3AQC delta loop. The antenna is basically a vertical full wave loop on
 80m
(about 280 feet of wire)shaped like an equalateral triangle with a horizontal
side at
the top and two sides sloping inward to form the feedpoint at the bottom like
the letter
V. This type of bottom apex feed produces vertical polarization.

This antenna is supposed to be the best type of antenna for the lower HF bands
 according
to the book, since it exhibits both low angle (30 degrees) and high angle radi
ation
which a horizontal dipole cannot do if mounted at a 1/2 wavelength or less abo
ve the
ground.

I am considering building this antenna as a main HF multiband antenna. I would
 like to
hear from anyone who has tried it. I am also concerned about blasting my neigh
bors with
RFI since this antenna's feedpoint is near ground level as opposed to a dipole
 that
would have a feedpoint at 40 or so feet above the ground and thus would probab
ly cause
less RFI. As you can guess a 80m dipole fed with open wire feedline is my alte
rnative.
Any comments regarding this matter are appreciated.

Carmine Iannace KA2PAP
The Mountain Top Homepage
http://members.aol.com/greeneny


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:08 1996
From: Charlie Panek <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Delta Loop Question
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:13:32 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Carmine M. Iannace wrote:
>
> I've been reading William Orr's "Antenna Handbook" and have found some inter
esting plans
> for a  G3AQC delta loop. The antenna is basically a vertical full wave loop
on 80m
> (about 280 feet of wire)shaped like an equalateral triangle with a horizonta
l side at
> the top and two sides sloping inward to form the feedpoint at the bottom lik
e the letter
> V. This type of bottom apex feed produces vertical polarization.

  I don't believe this is correct.  Feeding a full wave loop at the bottom (or
 top) center,
(no matter what the shape), will result in horizontal polarization, not vertic
al.  Feed
it at the side for vertical polarization.  though I'm not sure where the "side
" would be
on a delta loop.

>
> This antenna is supposed to be the best type of antenna for the lower HF ban
ds according
> to the book, since it exhibits both low angle (30 degrees) and high angle ra
diation
> which a horizontal dipole cannot do if mounted at a 1/2 wavelength or less a
bove the
> ground.

  "Best antenna" is a pretty ambiguous statement.   Kinda depends on what you
want.
If your mostly interested in DX, a vertical with a good ground system may be y
our
"best" transmitting antenna.  Maybe "best comprimise" is what you're trying to
 say.

>
> I am considering building this antenna as a main HF multiband antenna. I wou
ld like to
> hear from anyone who has tried it. I am also concerned about blasting my nei
ghbors with
> RFI since this antenna's feedpoint is near ground level as opposed to a dipo
le that
> would have a feedpoint at 40 or so feet above the ground and thus would prob
ably cause
> less RFI. As you can guess a 80m dipole fed with open wire feedline is my al
ternative.
> Any comments regarding this matter are appreciated.

  I'm a little confused here.  How high off the ground are you mounting the de
lta loop?
If it's only 40 feet, the feet point will be lying on the ground! (if you try
to maintain
that equilateral triangle shape).  The height of an an equilateral triangle wi
th
lamda/3 sides, is about lambda*.29, or around 78 feet on 80 meters.

  If you're limited to a height of 40 feet, I'd stick with the dipole.

  All that being said, I shouldn't give the impression that I'm against delta
loops.

  I've had a 20m loop up as my main high band antenna for about 10 years now.
 I've
worked DXCC with it, and it's been a great antenna.  (It was actually inspired
 by
W6SAI, but that's another story; as seems to be typical with Orr, his design (
from
the old Ham Radio mag) didn't *quite* work the way he said it would, but after
 a little
tweaking, I had a great 3 band antenna).

  Our club also uses a delta loop beam to great effect on 40 meters for Field
Day.
The triangle is upside down in this case, with the apex at the top (about 90 f
eet between
two tall cedar trees), and the feedpoint about 40 or 50 feet up in the middle
of the
horizontal section.  Not the optimal orientation, but easily supported with on
e rope.

  One nice feature about loop antennas in general is that they are somewhat lo
wer in
noise, especially if polarized horizontally.
>
> Carmine Iannace KA2PAP
> The Mountain Top Homepage
> http://members.aol.com/greeneny

--
Charlie Panek KX7L              Hewlett Packard Company
[e-mail]            Lake Stevens Division
                                Everett, Washington


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Merv Stump)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Delta Loop Question
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 20:09:17
Message-ID: <4jfd9b$[e-mail]>
References: <4je8r3$[e-mail]>

I've used full-wave loops on 80 meters in a variety of
configurations and orientations including the one you describe
(although my dimensions were approximately 40 feet on the vertical
sides and 95 feet on the horizontal sides).  It did perform well
from the east coast into Europe, but I found that the longer I
could get the vertical sides (up to a quarter wavelength) the
better it performed.  However, the configuration which performed
best at low angles was a delta with the apex at the bottom, and fed
in one of the top corners.  Regards, Merv



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:11 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: diplexer design
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:17:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4j75nl$[e-mail]>

the project I am working on requires a diplexer to be designed:



Transmitter:

                            ____   /|
                           |          |/ |
                           |             |           <--horn antenna
                           |____ |\ |
                               ||       \|
                               ||
                               ||
                               ||
                               ||                   <--    coax
                               ||                    (tower)
                               ||
                       ___ ||____
                      |                 |
                      |                 |            <--   Diplexer
                      |________|
                        ||          ||
                        ||          ||
                    __||__   _ ||___
                    |         |   |          |      <--transmitters
                    |____|   |____ |

                 XMTR#1  XMTR #2


In this system, the outputs of two transmitters operationg at
different frequencies are combined using a device known as a
"diplexer", are sent up a long cable to the top of the tower, and are
transmitted using a horn.

The diplexer, to operate, must take energy from transmitter #1 and
deliver it to the antenna, without letting any enrgy get to
transmitter #2, and vice versa.

What I was wondering is how a diplexer design can be acheived.  That
is after BP filtering the desired frequencies from each transmitter
with parallel stubs, can I just connect the two XMTR output lines and
expect them to mix?


Thanks for responding.


 >
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Dust in yer reflector
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 22:37:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4j77ig$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Rick Rikoski) wrote:

>Suppose I want to make a UHF or microwave parabolic-reflector
>antenna.
>Suppose I don't want to make the reflector out of metal.
>Suppose I have the means to cast epoxy into a precisely parabolic
>form.
>
>Could I simply mix aluminum dust or graphite into the liquid epoxy
>and then cast the mixture into parabolic shape and expect the
>resulting dish to reflect signal?
>
>How well might this work? What are the limitations? Has anyone
>actually built antennas this way?

I don't have a precise answer to your questions, but it sounds as
though the process could be difficult to control.  For instance, what
if the particles settle before the epoxy cures?

If I had a parabolic mold, I would line it with aluminum or stainless
screening, then layer the metal screen with fiberglass cloth saturated
with epoxy.  Alternately, you could take the mold and screen to a
fiberglass fabricating shop and let them blow on a nice thick coating
of 'glass with their chopper gun.  :)

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (LMcKelp)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Failed HF Mobile Attempt
Date: 29 Mar 1996 08:30:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4jgol0$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (LMcKelp)

Earlier this week I attempted to work HF mobile using a borrowed company
car on a company trip.  My setup was as follows:

Icom 735
MFJ 941E tuner
Valor 40M mobile whip
"CB" style trunk mount

My problem was that the SWR would not remain constant with the application
of power.  With much difficulty, I could get the SWR down to acceptable
with the radio in low power mode, but when I raised the output power, the
SWR jumped to infinity each time.  This occurred on 40, but when I
replaced the whip with a continuously loaded 4 ft long CB antenna, the
setup worked fine on 10, 11 (on a CB radio that I brought along also), 12,
and 15 and 17 meters.

As it was a company car that I was to return at the end of the trip, I
didn't attempt any special grounding of the trunk mount, using only the 2
Allen set screws cutting through the paint on the underside of the trunk
for connection.

Any idea why this would not work on 40, but worked fine on the higher
bands?  By the way, I peaked the 40 meter setup on receive to get close
and save my finals first, and after adding power and losing the match, the
receive signal was lower also.

Help!  The company cars are my only chance at HF mobile, as my Nissan
Maxima has a big console that allows no place to put the radio
permanently.

Thanks in advance,
Levi N5ZFM


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (KK5EP)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Force 12 rotatable dipoles
Date: 27 Mar 1996 16:31:11 -0500
Message-ID: <4jcc2v$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (KK5EP)

I'm considering buying one of the Force 12 rotatable dipoles for 80 meters
to mount above a C4XL.  Has anyone had any experience with this particular
antenna?  73, Mike  KK5EP.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Toste)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: free TH6-DXX beam in Toronto
Date: 26 Mar 1996 05:28:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4j7va8$[e-mail]>
References: <4j5vv2$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Toste)


David Stock ([e-mail]) writes:
> I have a TH6-DXX tri-band beam that was carefully taken down on
> Saturday March 23.  It is in good shape except for the rusty hardware.
> It is now behind my garage in Toronto.  It is available free to anyone
> who can disassemble it for moving and take it away.
> David Stock    e-mail [e-mail]
>


Sorry for the second message. Can you reply back to me at :
[e-mail]
Since this address(I know it's ottawa but I use it for usenet mail) is
alittel flakey. Or if your awake and want to call me after 12am-6am (at
work) 416-203-5945

Thanks

--
 David Toste [VE3TOS]        Internet - [e-mail]
 Don Mills, Ontario.          SWLOGit - The Ultimate Shortwave Listeners
 ftp.virginia.edu  /pub/swlogit/        Software. (Fidonet: 1:250/930)
*NEW* http://www.interlog.com/~saturn/SWLOGit.html (SWLOGit Web Page)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:17 1996
From: "Carmine M. Iannace" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Full Wave Loop Question
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:33:47 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I've been reading William Orr's "Antenna Handbook" and have found some interes
ting plans
for a  G3AQC delta loop. The antenna is basically a vertical full wave loop on
 80m
(about 280 feet of wire)shaped like an equalateral triangle with a horizontal
side at
the top and two sides sloping inward to form the feedpoint at the bottom like
the letter
V. This type of bottom apex feed produces vertical polarization.

This antenna is supposed to be the best type of antenna for the lower HF bands
 according
to the book, since it exhibits both low angle (30 degrees) and high angle radi
ation
which a horizontal dipole cannot do if mounted at a 1/2 wavelength or less abo
ve the
ground.

I am considering building this antenna as a main HF multiband antenna. I would
 like to
hear from anyone who has tried it. I am also concerned about blasting my neigh
bors with
RFI since this antenna's feedpoint is near ground level as opposed to a dipole
 that
would have a feedpoint at 40 or so feet above the ground and thus would probab
ly cause
less RFI. As you can guess a 80m dipole fed with open wire feedline is my alte
rnative.
Any comments regarding this matter are appreciated.

Carmine Iannace KA2PAP
The Mountain Top Homepage
http://members.aol.com/greeneny


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (David, Michaela & Benjamin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: GAP Titan vs Hygain DX-77 Vertical
Date: 25 Mar 96 02:15:28 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail].198.186.186.2>

I don't know what happened to my recent posting, but here it is again.  =
Sure hope it stays on long enough to get some feedback!
I am cutting back to a minimal setup for a couple of years & need the =
best vertical (for a reasonable price) that does not require ground =
radials.
I think I'm down to the GAP Titan and the Hygain DX-77.
I am hoping for complete coverage (or close) for 10-40 incl. WARC.
I'm hoping to learn about installation & tuning, durability & operation =
during bad weather, and actual band coverage (vs marketing hype) for =
these two antennas.
All feedback is welcome & responses sent here at [e-mail] are =
requested so all may learn along with me.  Thanks & 73, David AA1FA


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Spencer Trombly)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ham-Ant Digest V96 #147
Date: 21 Mar 96 04:21:08 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

I put some RG 8 X inside a 100 foot length of open braid polyprop line
today for strain relief and anti-chafe. Works very well, very strong, and
reduces kinking when handling the wire


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Pedro Braz)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 13:54:23 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: HF Antenna

Hello All.

Hi dudes.

I Need plans for a HF multiband antenna preferably something of a dipole
style that uses 3,7/7/14/18/25/28 MHz

Please e-mail to: [e-mail]

If you are going to send .gif files please use uucode


                  thks in advance

Pedro



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:22 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Joe Mack)
Subject: Re: How do I make a 2m 5/8 antenna?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ii727$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:34:15 GMT

In article <4ii727$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jospav) writes
:
>I am wondering if anyone here can tell me how to make a 5/8 wave antenna
>for use in the 2m band? Can I just get a piece of wire and cut it a
>certain length, or is there more to it than that? Is wire something good
>to use to make and antenna, or should I use some tubing, or a solid metal
>rod? Can anyone here help, by giving a SIMPLE way to make an antenna for
>2m use? They appear to be about the same size in the mag mount version as
>a CB antenna, can I just cut it the same lenth and use the CB antenna I
>already have?
>
>Thanks for any help
>
>Josh

A 5/8 is non resonant, you need a coil at the base of the antenna
to resonate it. So you need a mag mount (or similar), 5/8x2m (approx is OK)
of self supporting wire and a coil to resonate the antenna. Start
with about 11 turnsover about 3 inches long and 1/2" diam. Use a
SWR meter to get the lowest SWR (you may be way off here and
will need to do a bit of cut and try).

        Joe NA3T
        [e-mail]









From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How?  6 Meter J-Pole?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 18:38:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4is7bn$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Buster <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Been thinking about doing a 6-meter J-Pole

>I tried modifying the 2-Meter twin-lead design, but I think
>my feed points were too low on the antenna.

>I'd like to make one out of antenna whip.

>It's gonna be big.  Preliminary estimates put the 3/4~ side
>at 150.5" and the 1/4~ matching stub at 50".


>Anyone have experience/measurements for different construction
>techniques.  I've heard of some with 3/4" copper pipe.  I'm
>A Little more interested in a finer whip, like Stainless Steel?


>Buster, KC7KMJ
>Tucson Arizona DM42
>6 & 2 SSB

Hi Buster
Take a look at my web page  http://www.inlink.com/~raiar  I have the
numbers already worked out.  If you want to use stainless wire, it's
simple to recalc and leave out the K-Factor in your measurements.

TTUL - 73+ de Gary - KG0ZP





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:24 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:42:20 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

G5RV - Isaac Cohn's question.

Hi folks

I know I replied first to Isaac, and I deliberately made it anodyne.
The G5RV must be one of the most analysed antennas ever, and surely
is one of the first ever tried by the new Ham with the smell of fuser
oil still fresh on his ticket. To find an antenna that can be put up
for less than $15 plus some fun time, that will allow at least an
initial exploration of most of the HF Ham Bands has an obvious attraction.

The nitty gritty is different! I have always thought it probable that
the G5RV was built first and analysed later to aquire the implied kudos
of "designed" . The whole thing looks like a field day lash-up,
especially the feeder. When I first saw it, I thought to myself..

"This is a serendipity antenna! They were short of feeder, so they hung
together the pieces they had to hand. Subsequently, to their delight,
they discover that a reasonable match can be coaxed out on several bands"

Ahh, such uncharitable thoughts get rapidly tempered when one considers
the norms that were prevalent at a time when the "matcher" was usually
part of the output stage, "aerial current" was everything, QSY was not
so easy, etc. So, deferring to more experienced opinion, I put one up.

I have since come across G5RVs often, and have always been disappointed.
Usually I can hear stations I cannot work. On 80m it behaves like any
low dipole. The signal goes straight up and comes down all over Europe
(from UK @ 12metres high). Good for local chat at night if you can stand
QRM. Any DX is a real struggle unless you work somebody off the vertically
polarised feeder radiation. The variety that uses 75 ohm coax seems prone
to feature in TV/RFI problems.

Now that I know all the most useful highest current nodes are usually
somewhere inside the balanced feeder part, doing a fine job of cancelling
each other, I won't use it again.  The tradeoff for low cost, quick setup,
all bands was just too severe! You can get multiband dipoles by simply
driving them from a common feedpoint, or other ways, with less downside.

Perhaps my experiences were untypical, and there are thousands of you out
there who never had these kind of struggles. I recognise the contribution
the G5RV has made to Amateur Radio, but I do not want to contribute to an
unjustified mystique.

73s G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:25 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 96 22:51:38 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4imi61$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ip9fo$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4irq3l$[e-mail]>

Edward Lawrence <eal> writes:

>       I do have one of my own.  What is an OOTC?  Only been licenced for
>32 years, but I don't know this one.

Ya'll young sprouts only been licensed 32 years will just have to wait
8 more years. The Old, Old Timers Club, 3191 Darvany Dr., Dallas, TX
75220-1611 requires 40 years or more. We think the QCWA guys are still
wet behind the ears. :-)

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:27 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Senie)
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Message-ID: <4j4uqq$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4ioh6b$[e-mail]> <4ips4p$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 02:02:02 GMT

In article <4ips4p$[e-mail]>,
Cecil Moore  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>[e-mail] (WB3U) wrote:
>>   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>on 17m, the G5RV has 4 lobes each with 10dbi gain over ground
>>
>>Is that before or after subtracting the loss in the balun?  ;)
>
>Hi Jack, the original G5RV didn't have a balun :-) Remember
>W6SAI reported an SWR of 1.84:1 on 17M using a G5RV with
>no balun.
>
>I was quoting gains from memory. I reran them with EZNEC and it
>gave the dipole a two-lobed 5dbi gain over ground and the G5RV
>a four-lobed 8dbi gain over ground on 17M. Why would someone
>choose 5dbi in two directions when they could have 8dbi in four
>directions?

I guess I'd rather have the gain in the direction I'd want the signal
to go. Those 4 lobes on the G5RV will go at different angles than the
lobes produced on 80 meters, or 20 meters, or whatever.

Having separate antennas can produce separate results, even if less gain,
since the gain can then be oriented in a desired direction. For example,
from here in New England, I prefer to have wire antennas that produce
2 lobes, one to the Northeast (Europe) and the other Southwest (toward
the rest of the USA).

Significant amounts of gain on antennas that can't be rotated can produce
less useful antennas.

I do have, and use, a G5RV. It's the compromise antenna that I leave up
as a backup to the antennas that DO perform in the desired directions. If
I lose an antenna to wind or other weather, the G5RV will radiate sufficiently
to not be off the air.

Dan


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:28 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Senie)
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Message-ID: <4j4vib$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ils2n$[e-mail]> <4ioivl$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 02:14:35 GMT

In article <4ioivl$[e-mail]>,
WB3U <[e-mail]> wrote:
>   [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:
>
>>Some people hate G5RV's, and "write bad things on walls" about them.
>>But they are pretty good antennas for the effort, especially on 80,
>>40 and 20 meters.
>
>Guess I'm one of the graffiti guys, 'cause I still don't understand
>what the fuss is all about.  In the configuration most people use
>these in, they're practically a dummy load on 15 & 10m.  The only way
>to make this antenna perform well on all the bands is to ditch the
>balun and drive it with a balanced tuner.  Once you do that, it's just
>a plain ole 102' dipole with a low-loss feed system, not a G5RV.

I guess I bought the "right" G5RV then, several years ago. The one I have is
from Antennas West, and does NOT have a balun. I feed it with coax to the
bottom of the ladder line without any direct matching... well sort of. I do
have a current balun made of a dozen or so 1" long ferrite beads over the
coax. The antenna generally performs acceptably, though not outstandingly,
on all bands 80 through 10. It's a good all-around back-up antenna...

Dan


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Levine)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 21 Mar 1996 19:50:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4isbtd$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Isaac Kohn <ikohn@vertex.
ucls.uchicago.edu> writes:
-->Subject says it all....  What's a G5RV???  (antenna tuner??)
-->
-->73's
-->Isaac

A very famous ham in England.  QSL via BURO

also a dipole antenna cut to a specific length and fed with (typically)
ladder line to make a resonant antenna on 80,40,20,15, and 10m.  Some
longer versions also work on 160.

Usually 26' size 10-15-20m
52' size 10,15,20,40m
105' size 10-80
210' size 160-10

Antennas West makes the best (IMO) and have lifetime guarantees.



--
/*****************************************************************
 *      Bob Levine                                               *
 *      Manager of Application Engineering                       *
 *      Mercury Computer Systems                                 *
 *      Amateur Radio Callsign KD1GG                             *
 *****************************************************************/




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 20 Mar 1996 23:40:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4iqmj5$[e-mail]>
References: <4iq1c0$[e-mail]>

Hi Jack,

Rather than go over everything you said, let's first try to agree about
what a choke balun does, and how it functions. We disagree almost
completely at this point of time! :-)

There are two separate problems a balun must deals with, common mode (like
a parallel line excited by a voltage source) and differential mode (like a
normal transmission line). Before getting into balun operation, we have to
agree that common and differential modes are entirely different
parameters, and do not have to be related to each other in any way.

In other words, a system can have a low impedance line (high differential
currents, low differential voltages) and very high common mode voltages,
or vice versa. The common and differential mode voltages can also be
nearly the same! They are unrelated except by happenstance or coincidence.

If we agree on that, let's also agree what a choke balun is. By choke
balun, I mean any balun that has a high common mode impedance, and a
differential mode impedance unrelated to it's common mode impedance.
Examples include sleeves over coax and solenoid windings of coaxial or two
wire lines with either air or ferrous cores.

All of the above "choke baluns" function the same way. "Load impedance"
doesn't directly affect the choking ability. Normal differential mode
excitation does NOT cause magnetic fields to appear in the core material.

Common mode load impedance and operating power levels do not cause loss or
heating in the choke balun. The only loss is a very small transmission
line mode loss in the parallel wires (or coax) used to make the balun, and
it is never affected only by the length of the transmission line used to
make the balun. The loss is very small line section in a well designed
choke balun.

Only the common mode voltage (or current) causes core heating and core
power loss. Common mode parameters are not directly related to the
transmission line Z at the balun. The common mode voltage can be very low
with a high Z load, or very high with a low Z load.

Because of this, I disagree with most or all of your analysis.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 24 Mar 1996 22:08:16 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4j4h4g$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ioh6b$[e-mail]> <4ips4p$[e-mail]> <4iscvu$[e-mail]>

In article <4iscvu$[e-mail]>,
WB3U <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Using the variable-length matching sections that you've described (in
>conjunction with a balun at the feedpoint), or using a balanced tuner,
>perfomance of a 102' dipole could be exceptional ...

Guess I'm going to have to design a "G57BK" that has super high
efficiency on all HF bands and a 50 ohm SWR of 1:1. I've already
done 90% of the design and it works like a charm. It would be
easy to turn into an autotuner completely transparent to the
operator. The key is the single tuning component is in exactly
the right place on the transmission line for maximum efficiency.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 26 Mar 1996 20:40:56 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4j9koo$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ioh6b$[e-mail]> <4ips4p$[e-mail]> <4j4uqq$[e-mail]>

In article <4j4uqq$[e-mail]>,
Daniel Senie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Those 4 lobes on the G5RV will go at different angles than the
>lobes produced on 80 meters, or 20 meters, or whatever.

Here in Aridzone, those four
lobes allow me to cover Europe, South America, Asia/Pacific, and
New Zealand. With a half-wave dipole, I could cover either
Europe and New Zealand or South America and Asia/Pacific or be
forced to put up two half-wave dipoles or rotate it.

One antenna that works well from the West is an 88ft dipole. It's
an EDZ on 20m giving broadside 3dbd coverage and has a beautiful
2dbd clover-leaf pattern on 17M to cover everything else except
Central Russia and the South Pole.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:34 1996
From: John Fleming <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:49:51 +0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ils2n$[e-mail]> <4ioivl$[e-mail]> <4j4vib$[e-mail]>

Check out the Antennas West G5RV at:

http://www.far.net/antennaswest

>
> I guess I bought the "right" G5RV then, several years ago. The one I have is
> from Antennas West, and does NOT have a balun. I feed it with coax to the
> bottom of the ladder line without any direct matching... well sort of. I do
> have a current balun made of a dozen or so 1" long ferrite beads over the
> coax. The antenna generally performs acceptably, though not outstandingly,
> on all bands 80 through 10. It's a good all-around back-up antenna...
>
> Dan


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Levine)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 27 Mar 1996 18:24:11 GMT
Message-ID: <4jc14b$[e-mail]>
References: <4j4vib$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

If you are really interested in G5RVs and all the details, Antennas
West has a publication called G5RV Technote. It is about 25 pages
and answers a lot of questions.  I think the price is $6.95 last
time I knew.  I used to sell Antennas West products from my Radio
Devices business and their stuff is constructed nicely.  I dont
own that business anymore, but you can email the new owner
Rhyne at [e-mail] for details.
Also they are http:\\www.raddev.com\biz\raddev on the WWW.

--
/*****************************************************************
 *      Bob Levine                                               *
 *      Manager of Application Engineering                       *
 *      Mercury Computer Systems             KD1GG/VK2GYN/7J1AIS *
 *****************************************************************/




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:36 1996
From: Dave Benzel <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Improving F/B ratio with lossy dielectric?
Date: 28 Mar 1996 21:23:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4jf005$[e-mail]>

I am wondering if anyone has experience with improving the front/back
ratio of an antenna by placing a lossy dielectric (RF poor plastic)
rearward?  If so, are there any recomendations as to the type of
dielectric and thickness required?

Specifically, I have a patch antenna for 900 MHz with a specified F/B
ratio of 18 dB, but I need at least 22 dB.  I would like to mount the
patch (a Cushcraft Data Patch antanna) on a roughtly 16x16 inch sheet of
plastic.

Thanks - Dave




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:37 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Improving F/B ratio with lossy dielectric?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 18:49:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4jhbnh$[e-mail]>
References: <4jf005$[e-mail]> <4jh7j0$[e-mail]>

   Dave Benzel <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I am wondering if anyone has experience with improving the front/back
>ratio of an antenna by placing a lossy dielectric (RF poor plastic)
>rearward?  If so, are there any recomendations as to the type of
>dielectric and thickness required?

I've heard of that being done at 2.5 GHz in order to reduce multipath
from reflective objects behind the transmit antenna.  Unfortunately, I
think the absorptive material was a commercial product made for that
purpose (at 2.5 GHz) and that it was expensive.  Andrew Corp. or
other manufacturers with a good test facility would probably have
additional information on this.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:39 1996
From: "E. Wade Thompson" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Indoor AM Antenna Question (again)
Date: 29 Mar 1996 11:16:57 GMT
Message-ID: <4jggr9$[e-mail]>

I received 2 responses to my previous post about getting AM reception in
the office building I work in.

ie. (part of my original post)

> I'm asking for suggestions/help on picking up AM stations where I work
> (my office in particular). For about 2 years I've been listening to a
> Chicago station (WLS, 890) and have had no problem with reception because
> my office was close to an outside wall (and window). Unfortunately my boss
> made me move to an interior office and now I can't pick up 890 (or any AM
> station). I had a cheap radio, so I went looking for a better one with SW
> capabilities and an external antenna connection. I settled on a Radio Shack
> DX-390 after a lot of looking and even though I think it's probably not the
> best, it was the best I could find fairly quickly (I miss WLS). Anyway, it
> does no better than my cheap radio, even when I connect to the external
> and run it down the hallway almost to the window.

I really appreciate it, but unfortunately I can't implement them for a number
of reasons (they were to get a low power FM rcvr/xmitter and place my radio
near
a window). And now I've found out something different. I can get 890 by my
office door as long as I keep the radio close to the floor. It's weak and ther
e
is quite a bit of interference, but the signal is there. So, I've been reading
more and more and am trying a new tack.

How about a GE Superadio III in combination with a Select-A-Tenna? If anyone
thinks this might work can you direct me to where I can find a Select-A-Tenna?
I've tried the net and the only link I find to it comes back with an error.
If the Select-A-Tenna is as good as I've heard it might work with my 390, but
I've more or less decided I'd like to keep it home for the SW.

Also again, could you please email to me direct. I'm having problems reading
news groups. They seem to be disappearing before I read them and I'm not
sure what I've got set wrong. Although if you posted to the group, I might
be able to catch it and figure out what I'm doing wrong.

Thanks,

Wade

[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:40 1996
From: Eric <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: KENWOOD TH415E
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:57:43 -0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4ijvsq$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4iu54f$[e-mail]> <4j2rrd$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

I'm looking for the instructions manual of the KENWOOD TH415E UHF FM
Transceiver.

Could anyone help me ?

Thanks,

Eric.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:42 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder Line for VHF/UHF
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:44:07 +0000
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ivp9i$[e-mail]>

WB3U wrote:
>I've seen a few articles here recently about the use of balanced
>line for VHF and UHF transmitting.  I just wanted to mention that the
>self-cancelling feature of this line is related to its spacing.  All
>the literature I have says the spacing should be no more than 0.01
>wavelength.
>
This is not a 'hard' limit - just somebody's idea of the spacing at
which losses *might* become significant.

It doesn't mean a lot that "all the literature" says the same.
It's mostly an indication that the people who write all the ham
literature have read all the other literature first  :-)

The radiation loss is caused by the spatial phase difference between two
quite closely spaced conductors carrying equal currents in antiphase.
G6XN calls this "W8JK mode" because it's like the close-spaced W8JK
flat-top antenna with a 180deg twist in the phasing line. The maximum
radiation is bidirectional, sideways in the plane of the transmission
line.

The power radiated sideways from a balanced line (currents exactly equal
and in antiphase) is proportional to:

 (I - I*cos(S))^2

where I is the current and S is the spacing expressed as an angle, ie
360deg = 1 wavelength. Because cos(S) remains close to 1 for spacings
well beyond 0.01wl, this source of radiation loss is negligible.

Quoting a different analysis from Terman, G6XN gives the power radiated
from a balanced line carrying I amps as:

  P_r = 160 * (pi * D)^2 * I^2

where D is the spacing as a fraction of a wavelength.

[ BTW, this equation has the strange property that P_r is independent of
the total length of line. I don't have the 1943 edition of Terman's
'Radio Engineer's Handbook' (not the more common 'Radio Engineering')
which G6XN references - can anybody comment, please? ]

>The chart below shows what this means in terms of the maximum
>allowable distance between conductors:
>
>Freq (MHz)  0.01 WL (Inches)
>   50         2.3616
>   144        0.82
>   222        0.531892
>   420        0.281143
>
>This would seem to put a limit on 1" and 3/4" ladder line within the
>VHF range, even if loss is acceptable at those frequencies.

It depends how you build the line. Straight runs of 200-ohm and 300-ohm
line built from #10 enameled copper with the least possible number of
PTFE spacers will have losses at 432MHz comparable with half-inch
hardline, and far lower than RG213 or 9913. Many moonbouncers have
confirmed this - and the spacing required is about 0.4in.

Self-supporting open "wire" made from quarter-inch aluminium tubing
works even better because it eliminates most of the losses in the
spacers and supports. Even though the spacing is as high as 0.75in, the
total losses are so low that they're very hard to measure. This is
currently the method of choice for interconnecting yagi arrays for
moonbounce.


73 from Ian G3SEK          Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
                          'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Professionally:
IFW Technical Services     Clear technical English - anywhere.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder Line for VHF/UHF
Date: 25 Mar 1996 16:26:52 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4j6hgc$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Ian White, G3SEK ([e-mail]) wrote:

: Quoting a different analysis from Terman, G6XN gives the power radiated
: from a balanced line carrying I amps as:

:   P_r = 160 * (pi * D)^2 * I^2

: where D is the spacing as a fraction of a wavelength.

: [ BTW, this equation has the strange property that P_r is independent of
: the total length of line. I don't have the 1943 edition of Terman's
: 'Radio Engineer's Handbook' (not the more common 'Radio Engineering')
: which G6XN references - can anybody comment, please? ]

From Fredrick Terman, "Radio Engineers' Handbook," 1943, McGraw-Hill, pp
193-194:

"Radiation from Transmission Lines.--All transmission lines, except those
fo the concentric type, radiate some energy.  Such radiation is often of
importance, since it represents an additional energy loss, and in the case
of transmission lines used in association with directional antennas, may
seriously modify the directional pattern of the complete system.

  "The radiation from a two-wire nonresonant line is given approximately by
the following formula, [from Sterba and Feldman, "Transmission Lines for
Short Wave Radio Systems," _Proc._I._R._E., Vol 20, p. 1163, July, 1932],
provided that the length is at least twenty times the spacing and the
spacing is not greater than one-tenth of a wavelength and the line is
nonresonant:  [TVB: Boy, it must be really important that the line is
nonresonant!]

  Radiated power / I^2  =  160 (pi * D / lambda)^2               (74)

[TVB: note the lambda difference from what Ian wrote...but it's just a
different def. for D: ]
where D/lambda is the spacing in wave lengths, and I is the rms line
current.  This radiation is twice that resulting from a doublet antenna
carrying the same current as the line and ahving a length equal to the line
spacing.  In addition to the radiation given by Eq. 74, the terminating
connections also peoduce radiation, so that the total radiation from the
line with its terminations will be approximately four times the power
radiated from a doublet having length equal to the line spacing, and
carrying the line current."

--
Cheers,
Tom
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:44 1996
From: Kevin Schmidt <kschmidt>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder Line for VHF/UHF
Date: 25 Mar 1996 18:32:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4j6or7$[e-mail]>
References: <4ivp9i$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

"Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>The power radiated sideways from a balanced line (currents exactly equal
>and in antiphase) is proportional to:
>
> (I - I*cos(S))^2
>
>where I is the current and S is the spacing expressed as an angle, ie
>360deg = 1 wavelength. Because cos(S) remains close to 1 for spacings
>well beyond 0.01wl, this source of radiation loss is negligible.
>
>Quoting a different analysis from Terman, G6XN gives the power radiated
>from a balanced line carrying I amps as:
>
>  P_r = 160 * (pi * D)^2 * I^2
>
>where D is the spacing as a fraction of a wavelength.
>
>[ BTW, this equation has the strange property that P_r is independent of
>the total length of line. I don't have the 1943 edition of Terman's
>'Radio Engineer's Handbook' (not the more common 'Radio Engineering')
>which G6XN references - can anybody comment, please? ]
>

This property isn't so strange. The transmission line equations are
usually derived by assuming an infinitely long transmission line made
of perfect conductors. You find that there is a nonradiating mode that
transports energy down the line with both the electric and magnetic
fields transverse to the direction of the wires, the TEM mode. Since
this is a solution to Maxwell's equations, and the fields die off
faster than 1/r as you move away from the conductors, it does not
radiate at all. So if you can excite a perfectly straight transmission
line by creating the proper TEM mode fields at both ends, you will not
have any radiation loss.

Generally, the excitation is more like a small generator connected by
wires to the transmission line. This then radiates more or less like a
small dipole.  The radiation is independent of the length because it is
an end point effect.  A similar thing happens at the load end. You
could minimize this loss by exciting a transmission line with the
conductors close together and slowly bring them apart (a tapered line)
to whatever spacing you wanted to increase the characteristic impedance
and lower the loss.  You would do the same thing at the load end. In
addition anything else that is different from the original assumptions
can cause radiation. In particular, if the line bends, you get
additional radiation losses which increase with the spacing. If it
rains, the bumpy dielectric produced can cause radiation. All of these
effects can be estimated, and lead to various rules people have about
the spacing.

Kevin Schmidt [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Scott D. Souva)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Ladder line length
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:54:33 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I'm about to hang a 160 meter dipole and will use 450 ohm ladder line
into an antenna tuner.  My question is-- how long should the feedline
be?  I've got 100 feet of the stuff and would like to cut it to an
optimal length.

If I end up cutting the feedline to a specific length, how should the
excess feedline be handled (coiled up...)?

Any ideas would be welcome.


Scott Souva
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:46 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line length
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 00:56:08 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Wes Stewart <[e-mail]> writes:

>The optimum length is zero.  The next best is 265' (1/2 wavelength).
>The most practical is the distance between the tuner and the antenna.

Hi Wes, there's another choice. Shorten the dipole until
the transmission line current maximum is exactly at the
transmitter. It's much easier to match that way.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:47 1996
From: "Carmine M. Iannace" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line length
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:22:27 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Scott D. Souva wrote:
>
> I'm about to hang a 160 meter dipole and will use 450 ohm ladder line
> into an antenna tuner.  My question is-- how long should the feedline
> be?  I've got 100 feet of the stuff and would like to cut it to an
> optimal length.
>
> If I end up cutting the feedline to a specific length, how should the
> excess feedline be handled (coiled up...)?
>
> Any ideas would be welcome.
>
> Scott Souva
> [e-mail]

I've been licensed since 1982 and have strung up many dipole antennas fed with
 different
types of line. Basically, your idea of feeding the dipole with 450 ohm open wi
re line is
the best way for multiband use. If your attaching the line to the balanced inp
uts of a
tuner the lenght of line is, in a practical sense, not important.  Just run th
e line all
the way to the tuner and simply cut off any excess. Be sure to keep the open w
ire away
from any metal at least twice the distance between the conductors of the line
(ie- 1
inch 450 ohm line means that it should be seperated by 2 inches from a gutter,
 etc.)
--
Carmine Iannace KA2PAP
The Mountain Top Homepage
http://members.aol.com/greeneny


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:48 1996
From: Tom Lewis <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Larson 2/70 open coil ant
Date: 26 Mar 1996 15:30:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4j92jd$[e-mail]>

FYI
I recently purchased a Larson 2/70 dual band OPEN COIL antenna for my
car.  When installed using the larson magmount, I discovered the antenna
was resonant above both 2 meters and 70 centimeters!  The SWR was 2.2
to one on the lower portion of the VHF band and 1.8 to one on the UHF.  I
talked with a Larson representative on the phone.  He admitted there was
a problem with the OPEN COIL stingers and the center frequency being
above the ham bands!  He then suggested I purchase the closed coil
antenna because it was tuned for the center of each band of interest.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my experience with everyone.

73!
Tom Lewis - AB5CK
AB5CK Dopplers
Doppler technology - Radio Direction Finding



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: loop antennas
Date: 24 Mar 1996 15:37:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4j3q8f$[e-mail]>

  I am getting pretty good results from in the northeast US, from
Maine to Virginia, with vertical loops on 75 meters.

  I use 1/2 wave loops, which start out as 1/2 wave dipoles and then
wrap around into a loop shape (ends not connected together).  In fact,
the ends overlap (again, not touching; a few feet of separation between
the ends), making these loops quite compact.  This approach requires only
one tall support, which also holds the feedlines and baluns.

  I went one step further, and placed two vertical loops at right angles,
and fed them 90 degrees out of phase.  This produces circular
polarization straight up, although the polarization becomes elliptical
at lower angles, and vertical at very low angles.  With proper "sense"
(which changes with time of day), circular polarization enhances
transmission and reception; I get stronger receive signals, and less
short-term and selective fading, on local and DX signals.

  I found it helpful to provide for separate adjustment of TX sense and
RX sense; the optimum TX sense setting does not always match the optimum
RX setting.

  It seems that the circular sense of DX is opposite that of closer
(500 mile radius) stations.  This allows receive antenna polarization
sense to provide some discrimination against local interference.

  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:50 1996
From: Dave Hand <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: loop antennas
Date: 27 Mar 1996 13:38:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4jbgce$[e-mail]>
References: <4islis$[e-mail]> <4ja8k7$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (robert morgenstern) wrote:
>
> Lee Buller ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : Hey, has anyone out there have any experience with loop antennas for
> : the HF bands?  I had a delta loop several years ago on 40 meters and
> : it was a good antenna.  Is anyone using loops on the new WARC bands?
>
> : Thanks for any feedback
>
> : Lee Buller
> : [e-mail]
> Lee;
> Just look for the formula regarding loop antennas, in the ARRL Handbook
> and fabricate one. I had a Delta loop on 20 for a few years and it was F.B.
>  by all the sig rpts.
> Gud luck et 73,s Bob WA2EAW
>


Lee, I have built several fw loops over the past few years and for the
simplicity and cost I dont think you can beat them, they work very well.
I much prefer my 40 loop to a long 160 m dipole for op on 40m.
I ran one on 17m and was very happy with it untill
I put up a beam. The easiest way to feed 'em is 1/4 of 75 ohm
coax as a matching stub but you can also gama match em.


Good luck!

Dave Hand WB4HYP
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Karl Shepard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Loop antennas for short wave reception?
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:08:34
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I am playing with antennas for my Yaesu FRG 100.

I have been reading the ARRL antenna handbook and I interested in hearing
about experiences with loop antennas.  I was considering building a 20 ft 3/4"

copper loop with a capacitor/stepper motor at the top for changing resonance.

I would mount this on an 8 ft wood post.

Will this provide any gain over a dipole hung at less than 1/4 wave of the
length (ie, omni-directional)?

This past weekend I put together a 96.5 ft half wave dipole hung at about
30 ft for the 60 meter band.  It gives me 2-6 dB gain in the 60 meter band
over the Radio Shack dipole that I bought.  In the 19 meter band  I get a
little less gain but still better than the RS antenna.  In the other bands it
is toss up.  Sometimes the antenna with the less gain picks up less
interferance.  The two antennas are connected to a Daiwa antenna switch.

I know that I will get greater directionality from a loop, but will it also
provide enough gain to be able pick up weak and distant stations?   For
example, on the 60 meter 1/2 wave dipole, I was able to get La Vox Evangelica
in the 60 meter band clearly.  This is a 3kw station in Costa Rico (I live
west of Portland Oregon).  Will a loop perform as well or better?   I am
looking for an antenna design that is not huge and does not have to be hung
over 30 ft and will give good performance.  Will a loop do it?

[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:53 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dean Denter)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mfgrs of 5 ft Stainless Steel Whips?
Date: 25 Mar 1996 16:05:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4j6g8m$[e-mail]>
References: <4itcgt$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
        Richard Kiefer <[e-mail]> writes:
>Like you Zack I have been trying to find a source of whips.  Radio Shack
>is the best source I have found, and I am unable to determine who their
>manufacturer is.  Any shop which caters to CB'er also sells 102" whips.
>I also found one wholesaler in Denver which carry them.  My interest is
>in using 102" units, or longer, as end elements for HF Yagi's

Have you tried a welding shop or machine shop?

I've found a couple that would sell me stainless steel stock, and
one that would even order stuff for me (no special orders, it got
ordered whenever they did their regular order -- kept the price
down that way).  The stainless stock seems to be almost as stiff
as CB whips, and you don't have to make your element 102" or
shorter (most of what I buy is 10-20' lengths

Unfortunately, I've moved across the country, and haven't found
another shop to do my orders for me (and I haven't got the
room to setup the antennas I already have built).

regards,
Dean.
--
Dean Denter                work -> [e-mail]
VA3CDD                     play -> [e-mail]
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[I speak only for myself]]]]]]]]]]]]]]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:54 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (David Feldman)
Subject: Re: Mfgrs of 5 ft Stainless Steel Whips?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4itcgt$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4jca36$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:54:45 GMT

In article <4jca36$[e-mail]> Will Flor <[e-mail]> writes:
>Richard Kiefer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Like you Zack I have been trying to find a source of whips.  Radio Shack
>>is the best source I have found, and I am unable to determine who their
>>manufacturer is.  Any shop which caters to CB'er also sells 102" whips.
>>I also found one wholesaler in Denver which carry them.  My interest is
>>in using 102" units, or longer, as end elements for HF Yagi's
>
>I imagine that for your use, such whips would work well.  For those of us who

>would like to use them for other purposes, like an end-loaded vertical mobile

>antenna - remember, CB antennas are not designed to handle high power levels,

>since 12W SSB is max out for a (legal) CB.
>
>73 de Will KB9JTT

I had a need for some longer-than-normal HAMSTICK whips ("stingers"). Lakeview
(who makes the HAMSTICK line) supplied several to me (I think they were in the

$7 range each). I think they are about 5' long, but I am not certain. They are
definately longer than the stock whip, and this permitted my 75M hamstick to
cover down through the bottom of the CW portion of the 80M band.

Might be worth giving them a call.

P.S., I am interested in finding some really long COLLAPSIBLE whips, like
were used on 1960's era CB HTs and some older shortwave sets. I asked VOCOM
(and one other vendor) who supplied whips for those "5/8 wave" 2M HT whips
but they didn't provide any useful info.

Any leads?

73 Dave WB0GAZ [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:55 1996
From: Will Flor <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mfgrs of 5 ft Stainless Steel Whips?
Date: 27 Mar 1996 20:57:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4jca36$[e-mail]>
References: <4itcgt$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Richard Kiefer <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Like you Zack I have been trying to find a source of whips.  Radio Shack
>is the best source I have found, and I am unable to determine who their
>manufacturer is.  Any shop which caters to CB'er also sells 102" whips.
>I also found one wholesaler in Denver which carry them.  My interest is
>in using 102" units, or longer, as end elements for HF Yagi's

I imagine that for your use, such whips would work well.  For those of us who
would like to use them for other purposes, like an end-loaded vertical mobile
antenna - remember, CB antennas are not designed to handle high power levels,
since 12W SSB is max out for a (legal) CB.

73 de Will KB9JTT




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (David, Michaela & Benjamin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ Multiband Verticals -- comments
Date: 26 Mar 96 18:24:34 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail].198.186.186.2>

Date: 25 Mar 1996 14:51:52 -0500
From: [e-mail] (ThomasM910)
Subject: MFJ Multiband verticals -- comments?

I am considering the 2M thru 80M vertical.  Does anyone have any comments
on this or its predecessor?

Thanks, Tom, AA0UU, [e-mail]

Tom Miller, Mpls., MN
Amateur Radio Station AA0UU

*** Tom:  I have been trying to gather information here on the several differe
nt
     multiband verticals in the same category as the MFJ, but for some reason
     the posting keeps getting dropped after it shows up just once  :-(

     I have received two positive reports about the MFJ, the most recent one
     from a Ham who generally doesn't respect the quality of MFJ products.  He
     said the antenna performed as specified, was rugged enough to survive the
     past winter without guys, and that other Hams have seen it work and then
     decided to get one as well.  Powerful testimony.

     The GAP Titan has been roundly panned by every Ham who has replied on
     packet, E-mail, and here as not much better than a dummy load.  I did get
     one good report on the Telex/Hygain DX-88, and one for the Butternut (but
     several others have said the Butternut is too flimsy for New England).

     There is supposedly a UniHat vertical out there, but I've been unable to
find
     useful info.  There is also the new Cushcraft R-7000 (and the + model for
     75/80), but little experience in the field yet.

     There you have it.  Hope this has been helpful.  73, David AA1FA



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (ThomasM910)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ Multiband verticals -- comments?
Date: 25 Mar 1996 14:51:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4j6tgo$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ThomasM910)

I am considering the 2M thru 80M vertical.  Does anyone have any comments
on this or its predecessor?

Thanks, Tom, AA0UU, [e-mail]

Tom Miller, Mpls., MN
Amateur Radio Station AA0UU

















From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:15:59 1996
From: VE4KLM <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: More Stuff on the Sterba Curtain
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 09:17:36 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Here is more information for Rick ([e-mail]) that I said I would
try to dig up.

Hi Rick,

My antenna appears as follows :

             B
     ------------------
     |                |
   A |                | A
     |                |
     ------\/----------
     ------/\----------
     |      C         |
     |                |
   B |                | B
     |                |
     |                |
     |                |
     ------\/---------- <-------- 300 ohm ------ transmatch ----- 50 ohm
     ------/\---------- <--------  feed  -------  for 2 m -------  HT
     |      C         |
   A |                | A
     |                |
     ------------------
              B

 The quarter wave sections are labelled A, the half wave sections are
 labelled B, The C is the ~ half wave transmission phase lines. Make
 sure you put one twist in them (for 180 degree shift).

 The intermod is not there because of the selectivity of the transmatch's
 tuned circuits. That did not dawn on me in my original response to you.

 If you want more detail on this antenna, see QST Issue October, 1991, an
 article by K1TN, 'Curtains for you'.

 Regards,

 Maiko Langelaar
 VE4KLM
 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

 ---------------------
|  SLM Software Inc.  |
| [e-mail] |
 ---------------------



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:00 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Henry Baker)
Subject: New Megawave TV Antenna on CNN today...
Message-ID: <hbaker-2403961754370001@10.0.2.15>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:54:37 GMT

Has anyone seen the 'Megawave' antenna designed by John & Glenda Benham of
Megawave on CNN this weekend??

Upon doing a web search, it would appear that US DOD ARPA is a supporter of
this effort.  Apparently, a popular science magazine did a story on this, as
well, but the track record of this particular magazine isn't very good at
telling what actually works and what doesn't. :-)

Does anyone know how it works or how well it works?

Philips has also developed a 'ghost eliminator' that is supposed to be
available right about now.  Can anyone compare & contrast?

(I have no relationship with Megawave, Philips, or any other vendor, but
am just curious as a potential consumer.)

Thx in advance for any help in this matter.

--
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:01 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: no tune antenna
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 18:56:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4j8sf1$[e-mail]>

can anyone give me info on a no tune antenna for 80-10m.
I have a problem with my tuner on my present antenna cut for 3700 khz.
Thanks
KD4DPB
Billy


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: no tune antenna
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 18:59:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4jc3j9$[e-mail]>
References: <4j8sf1$[e-mail]>

 [e-mail] wrote:

>can anyone give me info on a no tune antenna for 80-10m.  I have a
>problem with my tuner on my present antenna cut for 3700 khz.

A trap dipole would fit that description, but I don't know if there's
a commercial model that covers all the bands.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:05 1996
From: Dave Hand <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: OK...now i'm mad at the hardline!!!!!!
Date: 28 Mar 1996 13:42:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4je4vn$[e-mail]>
References: <4jcgs2$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> WEll, i did what ALOT of ppl said to do about useing 75ohm hardline
> let it go! install pl-259's and use it as is
> well...my swr's are down pretty good...but it seems like the cable is
> a 100db attenuator!!   now what should i do? buy 75-50ohm hardline connector
s
> from ZD enginerring? or TRY to make one myself?
> or have someone send me one for only the cost of shipping <hinthint:)hint>
>
>

Sounds like an operator problem ...:)

If the hard line is good ( I have seen some here in Fla that is lightning
or water damaged) you must have a problem with the ant or the connectors
shorts opens ect. If you connected yur pl259 with clip leads it would
not cause 100 db  loss . The 75 ohm hard line is by nature low loss

So Good luck!

Dave Hand Wb4hyp




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:06 1996
From: BOYCRUZ <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: phl.media,rec.antiques.radio+phono,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Popular Commun Free Back Issues
Date: 30 Mar 1996 18:04:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4jjt41$hsq$[e-mail]>

I have around two dozen POPULAR COMMUNICATIONS magazines from the
late
1980s     years 1987  88 and 89 and have no use for them anymore
I would be willing to give these away individually or all together
if you want to pay postage
Contact me for further info!
Lots of articles on shortwave, dxing, radio stations   etc


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jason Hanson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Problem with Indoor HF system
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 23:14:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4j9tul$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I have an Icom IC-730 HF rig powered by a Pyramid 30A power supply.  I
have just acquired the MFJ-1621, an indoor/portable antenna with
built-in tuning system.  I am having a problem however.

On most bands, especially 20M, if I try to key the transmitter the
transceiver dies completely, just as though the power were shut off.
Further, the power supply meters all go to zero.  The only thing on
the whole system that works is the power supply power light.  :)

The only way to get anything back to life is to cycle the power on the
power supply...

I suspect that this is some sort of RF feedback problem - throwing
random lengths of wire on the transmitter ground lug does some to
help.  Does this sound like RF feedback, or something else?  What
solutions do you recommend?   Thanks in advance...



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mike Keitz)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Problem with Indoor HF system
Date: 27 Mar 1996 17:31:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4jbu1f$[e-mail]>
References: <4j9tul$[e-mail]>

In article <4j9tul$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jason Hanso
n) says:
>
>I have an Icom IC-730 HF rig powered by a Pyramid 30A power supply.  I
>have just acquired the MFJ-1621, an indoor/portable antenna with
>built-in tuning system.  I am having a problem however.
>
>On most bands, especially 20M, if I try to key the transmitter the
>transceiver dies completely, just as though the power were shut off.
>Further, the power supply meters all go to zero.  The only thing on
>the whole system that works is the power supply power light.  :)
>
>The only way to get anything back to life is to cycle the power on the
>power supply...

The power has indeed been shut off.  Most power supplies contain a
"crowbar" circuit that fires a SCR to shunt out the output should the
voltage rise much above the rated value.  This protects your radio from
receiving 20-30 V should the regulator in the power supply fail.  Most
likely, RF is being rectified in the power supply and causing it to regulate
improperly, though it is possible that only the crowbar circuit is
being fooled. (it would be unwise to simply disconnect the SCR, of
course).

So the solution is to keep RF away from the power supply.  This could be
hard to do with an indoor antenna.  Obviously, the first measure is to
move the antenna as far as possible from the equipment.  The cord between
the power supply and the radio can act as an antenna.  So ideally shorten
it (you may not be ready to do that since those cords are expensive) or
coil it up to the minimum length possible with setting the power supply
right next to or under the radio.  Placing ferrite cores on the power
lead and the antenna coax may help too.  Now that the supply and the radio
are right next to each other, bond them together with a grounding strap.
Try putting a capacitor (0.01 - 0.1 uF disc) across the output terminals
of the supply, or even better a group of 3 capacitors in a triangle from
the two ouput terminals and the supply case.

If none of this helps, try operating from a 12V lead-acid battery instead
of the power supply.  This may uncover other problems, such as RF getting
into the microphone cord or on the radio case (the knobs feel "hot").  If
that is the case, better grounding or otherwise trapping RF from getting
back onto the outside of the coax is in order. It is tough to get a good
ground in an apartment situation which I assume you have.

-Mike KD4QDM



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tony Angerame - Sun SSE)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Quagi Question
Date: 27 Mar 1996 17:31:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4jbu1a$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I've decided to use a circular polarized Quagi for the 2 meter OSCAR downlink.
 I've
reviewed several articles all of them excellent but have not come across one s
imple
fact. Is the distance between elements measured center to center?? It would ap
pear
that it is but it's just a guess on my part. Since a measurement error of only
 1/8"
is significant to performance I'd rather not take a chance. Yagi dimensions ce
nter
to center??


                                                   TIA Tony WA6LZH



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:10 1996
From: Jack Swift <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: 21 Mar 1996 13:21:09 GMT
Message-ID: <4irl45$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

Try any True Value Hardware.... the SKU number is 139527 for a 40" ($11)
and 139535 for a 48" ($12)


Jay <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used
>for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
>auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end for
>attaching guy wires to.
>
>Tnx in advance for any suggestions etc...
>
>Jay [e-mail]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Swift          [e-mail]            N8WAV@W8YY.#UPMI.MI.USA.NOAM
Swift True Value Hardware             402 Shelden Ave. Houghton, MI 49931
906-482-0530, 0531, 7766   Alpha Phi Omega Epsilon Lambda Chapter Advisor
Houghton County Amateur Radio Emergency Service           Dereliction IS!
Keweenaw Peninsula Chapter American Red Cross CIO/Treasurer    Ham It Up!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (John Rice)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question, where can I find .....
Date: 24 Mar 96 15:52:18 CDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick R
ikoski) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, Jay <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone suggest where I might be able to buy a piece of hardware used
>> for anchoring guy wires call an "Earth Screw"?  It kinda looks like an
>> auger that can be turned into the ground with an eyeloop on the end for
>> attaching guy wires to.
>>
>> Tnx in advance for any suggestions etc...
>>
>> Jay [e-mail]
>
> =====================================
>
> Uh well Jay your neighborhood pet store probably has some pretty
> substantial screw anchors for leashing dogs to one's back yard.
>
> If its solid enough to hold a Rottwiler (a dynamic load).Three or four of
> em should be able to anchor your antenna guys.


Actually, that's not a good analogy. A 'Rott' is going to pull
latterally (sideways) and is highly unlikely to pull an anchor out of
the ground, from the end of a 15-20' tether, unless it's a 'wire type'
screw anchor and only a couple of feet into the ground. (Common design
for 'Pet' anchors. I have, however seen a Great Dane 'unscrew' a 3'
'solid' anchor :-).

An anchor used to guy a tower, on the other hand, is going to have most
of the strain directly upward and be much more susceptable to being
pulled out of the ground.

I've found them in ACE and TRUE-VALUE hardware stores. They're used,
among other things, to anchor House Trailers to the ground, in
wind-prone areas (read "the south during hurricane season), but I've
found them in the Chicago area, also.

I used 4' anchors, in sand, in Florida on a 50' Rohn and went through
some 70kt winds with no problems.



--------

   John Rice -  K9IJ       | "I speak for myself, not my employer".
   [e-mail]         |  Miracles, Magic and Sleight-of-hand done here.
   [e-mail]          |  Licensed since 1959
   (708)-438-5065 - (bbs ) |  Ex: K8YZR, KH6GHC, WB9CSP, W9MMB, WA1TXV


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: R7000+
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 08:28:03 -0700
Message-ID: <dragonsl-2403960828040001@192.0.2.1>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jae-Soo Yoon) wrote:

>Has anybody had experiences with Cushcraft's new vertical R7000+?
>R7000 looks basically the same as R7 with some improvements.
>R7000+ is R7000 with optional 80M add-on.  My current antenna
>covers 40-20-15-10 and I want to work on 80-30-17-12 in addition.
>R7000+ seems to be a good candidate if performance is good.
  Sorry I can't be of much help, I have the R-7 and think it's worth the
money. I have been trying to find out more about the R7000 but their
published email address has been bad <[e-mail]>. They also
have a homepage <http://www.cushcraft.com>

--
Ralph Lindberg N7BSN           e-mail to [e-mail] (read daily)
RV and Camping FAQ <http://kendaco.telebyte.net/rlindber/rv/
They call it "Surf'n the Net" 'cause you can wipe out so easy


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (Diagonal Cafe)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: research for book
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:47:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4iup4u$[e-mail]>

I am researching this   book:
Rockwell-Collins, Engineering  Compendium: HF Antenna Selection, 1969.
Please reply in the news group or by mail ( my  adress is in  the 1996
Call Book).
73, jacques.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (Diagonal Cafe)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Research for book(II)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:55:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4iupje$[e-mail]>

My call sign is    F5ULS
73, jacques Espiau



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (KK5EP)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Rohn 45g and the accessories
Date: 27 Mar 1996 16:22:35 -0500
Message-ID: <4jcbir$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (KK5EP)

Hello, I'm in the process of moving from Jackson, MS to Baton Rouge, LA
where no tower restrictions exist!  I need to purchase some Rohn 45
sections and would like to get around paying full new price if at all
possible.  Does anyone know of any sources for used Rohn 45g?  I have a
truck and will travel!  73, Mike Causey  KK5EP.


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:16 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: roof saftey
Date: 23 Mar 96 07:09:42 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

In a message dated 96-03-22 11:09:11 EST, Karl Kurz wrote:

>
>When I was younger a piece of line tossed over the peak and fastened on
>the other side to a car or tree worked fine, as I get older I tend to use
>my roof jacks to make a steady platform, better yet find a friendly
>lineman who will set it up with his hydraulic basket.
>
>Good Luck

When fastening to a car, ALWAYS make sure you have the coil wire in your
pocket!!

Bob
KD8WU

Any day ABOVE ground
is a GOOD day!!


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:17 1996
From: Art Gunderson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Re: Seeking Power mobile antenna raise/lower mounting.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:04:34 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4iv1mq$[e-mail]> <4j4fev$[e-mail]>

Brian Dunlap wrote:
>
> A friend of mine has mentioned that Motorola still does or used
> to manufacture a power Tx/Rx antenna for mobile installation!
>
> de Brian N9ROVHey Brian,
        I am assumming you are talking about a powered antenna as in
up-down retractable. If so a company named Stico will modify any powered
antenna to be a dual purpose Am-Fm and Vhf or Uhf antenna which is
functional and still goes up and down. They can be located at
716-662-2680. They usually require you to remove your existing antenna
and send it to them. They modify it and return it to you.. You will need
a splitter to connect the Am-Fm and the Vhf radios to the same coax. Ask
them about it.. good luck.    Art WB6VKR
--
                                                        73's  Art  WB6VKR


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Sorry, Just a Test - Don't Read
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 19:29:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4j6shl$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iueis$[e-mail]> <4ivh45$[e-mail]>

Sample Text
>                                   <
>                                   <
>                                   <
>                                   <
End


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: 24 Mar 1996 11:18:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4j3sjt$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rick Rikoski) writes:

>
>(I think I like antennas like this one because they provide spacial
>diversity whereas a log periodic or wideband yagi doesn't)

The Curtain doesn't provide more spacial diversity or "capture area" than
log's or yagi's having the same gain provide. Effective apature is related
to gain, not physical size. Besides that, space diversity is not useful
unless special combining techniques are used. Spacial diversity causes as
much fading as it eliminates!

Other than that, curtains do work quite well. The large Finco VHF (only)
antenna had more gain than other antennas available at that time. We used
them in Toledo Ohio to receive fringe Detroit  and Cleveland stations
before TV receivers had low noise front ends. They were the "hottest"
antenna around!

But the Finco was not a "Sturba" (Sterba), it was a curtain array. A
combination of stacked collinear elements with a reflector. Professional
antenna engineering textbooks discuss curtain arrays in detail. Cushcraft
made a similar two meter antenna.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:20 1996
From: Ian Cummings <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: 26 Mar 1996 16:32:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4j967g$7ig$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Hi,
  I put up a Sterba on 15M following a QST article a few years
ago.  Strung between 2 poles 50 feet high on each side.

  It had 10 elements if I recall correctly.  Beautiful north
south (it's orientation) propogation but very narrow beam and
narrow bandwidth.

  I am now playing with fixed quads (10 elements on 20M) beaming
my favorite directions (Europe, Equatorial Africa, Pacific and
JA, if I get that ambitious and if it works).

                        73's  Ian KB1SG

--
Ian Cummings, KB1SG


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sturba Curtain
Date: 26 Mar 1996 16:34:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4j9ntn$[e-mail]>
References: <4j967g$7ig$[e-mail]>

Hi Rick,
First let's be sure we agree the frontal area of an array has no direct
relationship to capture area or effective aperture.  An antenna's
effective area or aperture is A= lamda sqrd times gain/ 4pi. (Gain is the
directivity times the efficiency of the array.) If we agree on that, we
can ignore misused and abused buzz words like "capture area".

In a message dated 96-03-26 09:28:27 EST, you write:
>1. In a fading situation with both groundwave and skywave, both the phase
>and pathlength of the skywave are changing continuously. Most of the time
>when the amplitude is sufficient, the effects of these changes in the
>skywave are noticed only as destructive cancellation of the groundwave.
>Planar antennas such as the log periodic have no defense against this
>while the stacked antennas do because the wavefront of the skywave coming
>in at an angle arrives at different times at each of the individual
>stacked antennas.

More frontal area can NOT "cure" fading if phase and amplitude of
wavefronts are random. The signal will be in or out of phase just as often
with a large frontal antenna as in a small frontal antenna! If the phase
relationship is constant, then we only need to design a system of fixed
antennas combined with the right phase.

The spacial phase relationship is never so simple as occurs in a stack of
in-phase elements, unless the signal is a plane wave. When the signal
suffers from random phase interference, both systems offer the same
performance incentives. In either case, a yagi "works" as well as a
broadside array!

All diversity systems employ some means of dynamically adjjusting the
system to provide the best S/N ratio at any given moment in time. It is
all but impossible to reduce fading without detecting random phase shift
in multi-path signals, and compensating for it dynamically. Improving
directivity by focusing only on the direct wave or a steady indirect wave
can help, but an end-fire array is every bit as effective as a broadside
or collinear array in focusing.

>2. At UHF, especially noticable on television, there are "hot spots"
which
>are regular places at regular distances above ground where the received
>signal can be as much as 6 to 9  db better than at other spots. So if one
>aligns a UHF log periodic in a spot which is optimal say for channel 22,
>probably the reception on  channels 16 or 34 won't be optimal. The
>bedspring or 4 or 8 stack bowtie allows for a driven element to be placed
>in a hot spot for all of the received channels and thus performs better
>than the log periodic.
The likelyhood of signal improvement because more elements "land in a hot
spot" with a taller stack is untrue in nearly every case. A stack may
improve things if the "hot spots" (or more appropriately the *nulls*)
result from wave interference immediately in front of the array (in the
near field). But most "hot spots" (nulls) occur from random phase arrivial
of multiple interfering wavefronts. That effect changes not only with
height, but with distance and side movement of the antenna! The null
location also changes with frequency, and with other effects such as
ducting, or movement of objects between the source and receiving antennas.


In the common situation, either a stacked antenna, collinear antenna, or
end fire antenna is just as likely to have "dead spots" or fading. Moving
the antenna back and forth, or side to side, changes the signal level just
as up or down movement will! If you don't beleive that, roll your car
forward or to the side at a light when the radio fades! It's just as
effective (and less troublesome) as jacking the car up to eliminate the
fade!

>I suppose "special combining techniques" would be useful but even if you
>don't bother, the effect can be seen. For example a garden variety 8 bow
>tie with screen reflector Channel Master gives better overall broadband
>UHF fringe area reception than any UHF log periodic or corner reflector
>antenna that I have tried.
Only because the directive gain is higher! The corner reflector has a
broad "frontal area", it should support your theory. Why isn't it just as
effective?

>Parabolic reflector antennas work well in a broadband situation too.
>Since they average signals over a variety of heights above ground they
>perform well for exactly the same reason that the diversity array does.
Again if the wavefront is subject to multiple path arrivals of random
phase, the size makes no difference except as it affects gain. If
wavefront phase is shifting with height, you can be assured it is shifting
with depth or side movement. It all goes back to effective aperture!

>Do you know: If Finco is still in business; if so do they still sell the
>colinear? If not is it possible to get the design of that antenna? (I
>don't mind cutting quarter inch copper tubing)
So far as I know, they're long gone. As technology changed and other UHF
antennas improved, the mattress and stacked bowtie arrays went away!
73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Shlomo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: this is a test
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:17:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4je4ue$[e-mail]>
References: <4je4n9$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Shlomo) wrote:

>this is only a test.µΣσ °≈ ≡Θ±Θσ∩
µΣ ≥σπ ≡Θ±Θσ∩





From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:24 1996
From: [e-mail] (Shlomo)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: this is a test
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:13:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4je4n9$[e-mail]>

this is only a test.µΣσ °≈ ≡Θ±Θσ∩




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Tower Paint (fwd)
Date: 26 Mar 96 01:47:43 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Forwarded message:
From ve7tcp.ampr.org!lyndon Mon Mar 25 16:51:22 1996
From: "Goggans, Steve" <[e-mail]>
To: Dx-Reflecter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tower Paint
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 96 11:11:00 est
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Encoding: 30 TEXT
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Goggans, Steve" <[e-mail]>
X-VE7TCP-Loop-Detector: dx "Goggans, Steve" <[e-mail]>

I painted my Roan 25 with an off green water based paint (WEATHERBEATER
house and trim) I got from Sears surplus store.  Now the fun part.  I sat
the sections on 2X4 and painted with a regular pump up garden sprayer.

 I added enough water to the paint it would spray and adjusted the nozzle
for a small pattern.  I sprayed what I could, rolled the sections when dry
and sprayed the other side.  This gave me a mottled effect of different
densities of green and blends into the woods quite well.  As an added
benefit my hands or gloved relay GRIP the tower legs.

I had new tower sections and did no preparation what so ever,  I live in
rainy windy Seattle WA area.  The tower has been up for about 15 years and
the paint is still almost as good as when first sprayed.  There a few chips
here and there but it just helps with the blending into the forest.

I know the normal thing would have been to hit the Galvanizing with
something like vinegar to neutralize it first, then a primer, and then the
final coat.  That is not what I did.  I just put the paint in the sprayer,
added enough water to get it to spray and sloshed the sprayer while I
sprayed.

My luck was great and the effect was what I wanted.  It has been zero
maintenance since a neighbor and I erected it.  My hands or gloved still
grip the tower much better than the slick unpainted towers I climb for
others.

Good luck

Steve K7LZJ
-------
Forwarded via the Internet DX Mailing List.

Submissions: [e-mail]
Subscribe/unsubscribe requests: [e-mail]
DX info on the Web: http://ve7tcp.ampr.org/DX/

--
73 Robert  WB5CRG  [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Tribander trap loss
Date: 24 Mar 1996 11:18:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4j3sk7$[e-mail]>
References: <4j1p2l$[e-mail]>

>Adds for triband beams promise nearly 6db of gain but how much power is
>lost in the traps?

Probably not very much. If there was a lot of loss, the traps would melt
at fairly low power. For example if the loss was 3dB, at 1500 watts the
traps would be dissipating 750 watts. With six traps that would be 125
watts of heat in each trap. But we also know the lss isn't equal in each
trap, it's highest in the driven element. So the poor traps in the driven
element might have 200 watts or more dissipation in each trap.

No way could that happen and the molded plastic trap live long!!!

Traps certainly add loss, but so does any multi-banding system. If we
really want to "come down on ads", we should get down on the ones that
call traps "lossy" and then go on to describe the virtues of something
that is even more lossy, like coaxial stubs or folded up linear loading
systems!

>They usually have at least 6 traps and I'm sure they
>aren't lossless.

Neither is "linear loading", as a matter of fact it is usually more lossy
than a trap!!!!!! (I'm not speaking of stub decoupling with well
constructed parallel stubs, although there is some loss involved there
also.)

> I would think this would be of concern when comparing a
>trap beam to a quad.

I would think the very THIN wire used to make a quad would also be a
problem. Also the pure numbers involved. A single quad element has a
little gain (less tha 2 dB) over a dipole in freespace. But when the
horizontally polarized quad element is placed near earth (or another
groundplane) that advantage in gain drops. At some heights over some
ground conditions, the quad's advantage can go completely away, the dipole
can provide more gain!

As elements are added the difference drops also.

Someone actually measured the gain of quads over yagis in an extensive
test. They took a crank up tower and a two element tribander to other Hams
houses, and did actual FS comparisons. As I recall, the best antennas were
monoband yagis, they handily beat multi-element quads of the same
boomlength. Two element monoband quads roughly tied small three element
trap yagis like TA-33's.

I think the article was written by Wayne Overbeck N6NB? (or something like
that), and appeared in QST in the 80's. Anyone remember it? It makes good
reding and is supported by fact.

As further examples, look at the VHF antenna gain shootouts and commercial
point to point antenna installations. Not many quads place well in
shootouts, and point to point commercial installations never use quads.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tribander trap loss?
Date: 26 Mar 1996 19:08:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4j9faq$[e-mail]>
References: <4j543u$[e-mail]> <4j58ag$[e-mail]>

In article <4j58ag$[e-mail]>,
W8JI  Tom <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Traps certainly add loss, but so does any multi-banding system.

Hi Tom, I'm working on an approach that switches in 0-15 ft.
of ladder-line 25 ft. from a 102 ft. dipole. Given the
variable length line, all that is needed to perfectly
tune the antenna system is a single parallel variable
capacitor (remotely tuned). This is the least lossy
matching system that I can think of for an all band HF
dipole. What do you (and anybody else) think?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tribander trap loss?
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 00:31:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4j7e97$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4j543u$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Parf) wrote:

>The real loss is in the fact that  the parasite spacing is a
>compromise for all the bands perhaps except one.

Has anyone ever done any tests on a 2 or 3-element yagi with V-shaped
elements?  In other words, the driven element would be straight, the
reflector would be swept back and the director would be swept forward.
Wouldn't that provide variable spacing as the traps "open" and
"close" on the different bands?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tribander trap loss?
Date: 27 Mar 1996 01:52:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4jaoji$[e-mail]>
References: <4j91oi$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Hi Tom,

I agree w/ the 'bones to pick'. How does Cushcraft achieve the same dBD
gain on their 6EL 6M yagi (20' boom)  as the guys at M Square get out of
their 32'(?) 6EL? Are the guys at M Square just dumb? Or are they a little
less influenced by the marketing department? I think the latter.

Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Parf)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tribander trap loss?
Date: 27 Mar 1996 01:39:32 -0500
Message-ID: <4janr4$[e-mail]>
References: <4j7e97$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Parf)

Hi Jack,
The swept idea looks good at 1st blush but the current loop of each
element (center of a 1/2 wave) still remains at the same fixed distance.
The best that has been done is to add a second director for the highest
band (10M in the case of a triband) to adjust for what turns out to be too
wide a DE to D1 spacing. This then results in a 3EL on 20M,15M and 4 on
10. Fortunately, the gain VS spacing curves are relatively broad. It is
the F/B curves that are narrow. I constantly here hams speaking of the
nice broad VSWR curve of their long Yagis- this is probably the least
important parameter ( but the most easily measured). The Gain and F/B as
well as sidelobe patterns fall apart way b4 the VSWR curve begins to look
bad. In fact I am very suspicious of wide VSWR plots- time to check the
feedline and connex!  Dale WA2YPY


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (W. E. Van Horne)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Tribander Traps
Date: 28 Mar 1996 13:50:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4je5eq$[e-mail]>

There has been a recent discussion of power loss in tribander traps.  The
discussion missed one point: tribander traps are NOT resonant at any of
the operating frequencies.

Anyone who reads most ham antenna literature, e.g. the ARRL Antenna
Book, gets the impression that all multiband dipoles operate on the
"classic trap" basis.  In other words, the center wire is cut to
resonance at the highest frequency and a trap resonant at that frequency
is inserted at each end to "cut it off" when operating that band.  Then
the next piece of wire at each end is tuned to the next lower band, and
similar traps inserted, etc.  But I believe all commercial antennas work
in a different manner.  It is obvious when one looks at the fact that
many commercial designs put two traps, side-by-side, in the same housing.
Also, note the fact that Butternut verticals have all their traps at the
bottom.  (Almost all patents that have ever been issued for trap antennas
were assigned to Butternut!)

The principle of non-resonant "traps" has been explained by Yardley
Beers - W0JF in several articles over the last 10-years, or so.  See, for
example, "Designing Trap Antennas: A New Approach" in HAM RADIO,
August, 1987.  Also, I believe it is explained in some of Butternut's
literature.

73, Van - W8UOF
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:33 1996
From: "Dave J. Cook" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: was Re: ####, my FM-25 is ######! What to do??
Date: 25 Mar 1996 04:57:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4j593h$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iruql$[e-mail]> <4itlar$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4j4cei$[e-mail]>

PUNT.



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:34 1996
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Weird Radio Problem
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 14:21:15 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Isaac Kohn <ikohn@vertex.u
cls.uchicago.edu> writes:
>Michael J Wooding wrote:
>> In article <4idjm1$[e-mail]>, David Mark
>> <[e-mail]> writes
>> >What's happening is your radio is probably tuned to an FM station
>> >near the upper end of the band (around 107-108mhz) and you're
>> >probably under a flight path.  When a plane is nearby (there's
>> >that word again) and the pilot transmits on one of the lower
>> >airline frequencies, your radio's less than discriminating tuner
>> >picks it up.There is a small, minor detail: Air transmissions were AM, las
t time I
>checked!  How does an FM receiver with poor-selectivity receive AM
>transmissions???

Remember that the poor selectivity is in the receiver front end,
allowing the image signal into the receiver. This doesn't have
anything to do with IF selectivity. Now as to how an FM receiver
can demodulate AM, if the receiver uses a discriminator, it will
happily demodulate AM too unless the signal is strong enough to
have it's amplitude variations stripped off by the limiter stage.
If the receiver uses a ratio detector, it won't have a limiter
because a ratio detector is theoretically insensitive to AM
variations. But if the ratio detector isn't perfectly balanced,
it will still demodulate the AM signal too. So either of the
popular types of FM detector can demodulate AM under the right
conditions. One of those conditions is likely to exist in a
cheaply made FM receiver using a whip antenna.

Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | Due to provider problems
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | with previous uucp address
es
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | Email to [e-mail]
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:36 1996
From: Kevin Schmidt <kschmidt>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: What is a current node
Date: 26 Mar 1996 18:35:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4j9dd0$[e-mail]>

In physics and mathematics, nodes, when referring to vibrating systems,
are the places where no vibration takes place. For example for a square
drum head, there is a mode where the nodal lines form an X. You can see
the nodes if you sprinkle powder on the drum, and then strike it in a
way that excites that mode.

Here on rec.radio.amateur.antenna, I see references to "current nodes."
On an antenna, I would infer that that is a place where the current is
zero or nearly so. I therefore assume, perhaps incorrectly, that it
must refer to a current minimum (and therefore a voltage maximum) when
talking about a current node on a transmission line.

Here the common use for "current node" seem to be for positions along a
transmission line where the current magnitude is a maximum and the
voltage is a minimum.

Which is correct?

By the way, I believe the word node comes from latin for knot.

Kevin Schmidt [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:37 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What is a current node
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 21:30:30 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4j9dd0$[e-mail]>

Kevin Schmidt <kschmidt> writes:

>Here the common use for "current node" seem to be for positions along a
>transmission line where the current magnitude is a maximum and the
>voltage is a minimum.

Hi Kevin, I believe a "node" is defined as a point where the sign
of the slope changes. Current nodes are the points where the forward
and reflected currents add to a maximum. Voltage nodes are the points
where the forward and reflected voltages add to a maximum. The sum
of the currents is minimum at a voltage node and the sum of the
voltages is minimum at a current node. Current nodes are relatively
low resistance while voltage nodes are relatively high resistance.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:38 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What is a current node
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 00:18:16 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4j9dd0$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> writes:

>Hi Kevin, I believe a "node" is defined as a point where the sign
>of the slope changes. Current nodes are the points where the forward

I stand corrected. What I said is true for geometry but not for physics.
In physics, a node is a minima. Hey, whadda expect from an old geometry
teacher?

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What is a current node
Date: 28 Mar 1996 21:43:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4jf16p$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4jaov0$[e-mail]>

In article <4jaov0$[e-mail]>, Parf <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Nodes are points of minima- whether voltage or current and occur 1/4 wave
>from current or voltage loops (maxima).

Loops are also known as antinodes.




From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: What's a G5RV
Date: 29 Mar 1996 06:51:58 GMT
Message-ID: <4jg1ae$[e-mail]>


        Wouldn't this thread be simpler if it is recognized that
a *G5RV* is a 102 foot antenna fed in a specific way and if you
feed a 102 foot antenna in the center by any means the ANTENNA
will behave exactly the same in ALL ways .  I.E. patterns, height
abvoe br/// above br///
above ground effects etc...
        The only subject of any difference is in the feed system.

Charlie,  W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (ZaaX)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Wideband Dipoles
Date: 23 Mar 1996 10:13:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4j14f9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ZaaX)

If you want to see an interesting broadband dipole check out the ARRl's
"Antenna Compendium Vol.2" page 106-106. The design in here is very
broadband. How does .500khz for 80m sound or .951khz for 40m sound?

73 Zack Schindler
N8FNR


From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB: Mosley TW33 Beam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:44:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
References: <4hqevc$[e-mail]>

I want to buy a Mosley TW33 beam for 33, 17 and 12 meters. If you have
one for sale please call 205 833-6278 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Thanks, Gary W4AVY

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB: Mosley TW33 Beam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:44:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
References: <4hqevc$[e-mail]>

I want to buy a Mosley TW33 beam for 33, 17 and 12 meters. If you have
one for sale please call 205 833-6278 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Thanks, Gary W4AVY

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:43 1996
From: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB: Mosley TW33 Beam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:44:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
References: <4hqevc$[e-mail]>

I want to buy a Mosley TW33 beam for 33, 17 and 12 meters. If you have
one for sale please call 205 833-6278 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Thanks, Gary W4AVY

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB: Mosley TW33 Beam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:44:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
References: <4hqevc$[e-mail]>

I want to buy a Mosley TW33 beam for 33, 17 and 12 meters. If you have
one for sale please call 205 833-6278 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Thanks, Gary W4AVY

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB: Mosley TW33 Beam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:44:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
References: <4hqevc$[e-mail]>

I want to buy a Mosley TW33 beam for 33, 17 and 12 meters. If you have
one for sale please call 205 833-6278 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Thanks, Gary W4AVY

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!



From [e-mail] Sat Mar 30 14:16:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB: Mosley TW33 Beam
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 96 18:44:00 -0600
Distribution: world
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W4AVY)
References: <4hqevc$[e-mail]>

I want to buy a Mosley TW33 beam for 33, 17 and 12 meters. If you have
one for sale please call 205 833-6278 or e-mail at [e-mail].
Thanks, Gary W4AVY

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dave Morrow)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 2m 1/4 Wave Glass Mount Advise
Date: 24 Mar 1996 22:43:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4j4j60$[e-mail]>

Anyone have any comments on using a 1/4 wave glass mount antenna
for 2 meters? any and all comments or suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks,
Dave



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:19 1996
From: Ron <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Re: Shit, my FM-25 is Fucked! What to do??
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:57:42 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4iruql$[e-mail]> <4itlar$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4j2adv$[e-mail]>

> --
> Gary... KJ6Q... I am the NRA | Annoy a Liberal - say NO to gun control!
> ============================ | Annoy a Democrat - say BYE BYE CLINTON!
> Those who choose to "beat    |==================================
> their swords into plowshares"| "It's *EASY* to be a liberal, it's
> may end up *PLOWING* for     | OTHER people's money you are giving
> those who DON'T!             | away! (or living off of!)

Hey Gary, loved your taglines! Especially the one above about the plow-
shares:) I realize this is a bit off-topic, considering the newsgroup,
but do you listen to Rush?
Cheers, Ron Cain


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Clint Bradford)
Date: 27 Mar 96 19:35:00
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: (removed)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


>>For legal reasons, any messages in this article that reveal
>>I may have taken part in any illegal activity (either directly
>>or indirectly) are hereby disclaimed. I hereby state that I
>>have taken no part in any such activity.


Worthless, meaningless "disclaimer," Nick.


[e-mail]
---
 * TLX v4.00 * Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.
 * wcECHO 4.1 ~ AR-Net: ATTENTION to Details * Mira Loma, CA * 909-681-6221
--
|Fidonet:  Clint Bradford 1:2619/228
|Internet: [e-mail]
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:21 1996
From: Gary Watts <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: OK...now i'm mad at the hardline!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:27:08 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4jcgs2$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>


David..

On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Wes Stewart wrote:

> >AAAAARG!
> >and to think...i have a 800ft roll of this stuff laying in the backyard and
 i
> >find out its useless!!!
>
> You can always use it for ground radials!
>

Or he could make a 160 meter LOOP antenna !!  ;-)




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:22 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: baluns in G5RV???.
Date: 28 Mar 1996 15:49:29 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4jece9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Anibal Aguirre) wrote:
>Electromagnetics theory affirm that if exist an impedance change surface in
>this surface appears a reflected wave.The solution at this are the baluns.

Hi Anibal, baluns are usually designed for resistive loads. Unfortunately
the load a balun sees in a G5RV is never resistive on some bands. I
wouldn't run a G5RV without a balun and I wouldn't run a G5RV on 30M.

A lot of hams think that the impedance at the coax/ladder-line junction
in a G5RV goes from 50 ohms to 300 ohms. It almost never does. The
impedance seen by the coax at the coax/ladder-line junction on my G5RV
is around 12 ohms at resonance on 80M. A 1/4 balun would be better than
a 1:1 or 4:1 in that case.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:23 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: New Web Page
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 96 20:37:22 EDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


 Check it out, under construction !

http:www.moonstar.com/~/wa4pgm/welcome

What to add your link or anything else ???
Looking for ideas !!

73 Kyle



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:25 1996
From: "C. J. Hawley" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Failed HF Mobile Attempt
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:15:37 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4jgol0$[e-mail]>
To: LMcKelp <[e-mail]>

LMcKelp wrote:
>
> Earlier this week I attempted to work HF mobile using a borrowed company
> car on a company trip.  My setup was as follows:
>
> Icom 735
> MFJ 941E tuner
> Valor 40M mobile whip
> "CB" style trunk mount
>
> My problem was that the SWR would not remain constant with the application
> of power.  With much difficulty, I could get the SWR down to acceptable
> with the radio in low power mode, but when I raised the output power, the
> SWR jumped to infinity each time.  This occurred on 40, but when I
> replaced the whip with a continuously loaded 4 ft long CB antenna, the
> setup worked fine on 10, 11 (on a CB radio that I brought along also), 12,
> and 15 and 17 meters.

The thing that jumps to mind is corona at the top of the whip. You need to hav
e a
smooth, round ball on the tip. The corona problem is worse the lower you go in

frequency and the higher the antenna Q, and with higher power. You are getting
 a lot of
loss if you don't put the tuner at the antenna base and feed the vertical with
 a single
ended output (all you need for a valor is a capacitor across the feedpoint and
 gnd, of
about 500pf and adjust the whip to resonance.
--


Charles Jack Hawley Jr.
Amateur Radio KE9UW (A.K.A. 'Chuck' in Ham Radio)
BMW K100RS, BMWMOA #224 (A.K.A. 'Jack' in Motorcycles)
[e-mail]
Sr. Research Engineer Emeritus
Univ of Ill, Urbana-Champaign




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: test
Date: 29 Mar 1996 10:46:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4jh0lb$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)

test


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dale Chidester)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line length
Date: 29 Mar 1996 13:02:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4jgn13$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Scott D. Souva) writes:
>I'm about to hang a 160 meter dipole and will use 450 ohm ladder line
>into an antenna tuner.  My question is-- how long should the feedline
>be?  I've got 100 feet of the stuff and would like to cut it to an


Scott,
It should be long enough to get back to your tuner!  That way you'll be able t
o
work all bands from the antenna.  If you have to go through a wall with coax
or something, a 9:1 or 4:1 balun (There seems to be some question about the ra
tios)
can be used.  I wouldn't reccommend trying to get away without a tuner, in eit
her
case.  I've only got enough room for an 80 meter dipole with about 75' of home
 made
450 ohm ladder line, a 9:1 balun and a Drake TN-2700 tuner.  Works great on al
l
bands.
73 and good luck,
                Dale





From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What is a current node
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 17:40:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4jh795$[e-mail]>
References: <4j9dd0$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Kevin Schmidt <kschmidt> writes:
>
>>Here the common use for "current node" seem to be for positions along a
>>transmission line where the current magnitude is a maximum and the
>>voltage is a minimum.
>
>Hi Kevin, I believe a "node" is defined as a point where the sign
>of the slope changes. Current nodes are the points where the forward
>and reflected currents add to a maximum. Voltage nodes are the points
>where the forward and reflected voltages add to a maximum. The sum
>of the currents is minimum at a voltage node and the sum of the
>voltages is minimum at a current node. Current nodes are relatively
>low resistance while voltage nodes are relatively high resistance.
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC

This interesting definition explains a problem with communication we
recently had. I don't recall encountering the term "current node" in any of
my antenna or transmission line texts, and it isn't in the _IEEE Standard
Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms_, so I resorted to the
definition of node I'm familar with. Webster: "a point at which a wave has
an amplitude of zero". Because the current on a transmission line doesn't
drop to zero, I incorrectly assumed that you meant "current minimum".

Because your definition is almost opposite from Webster's, I'd suggest that
you instead use "current maximum" to reduce confusion and enhance
communication.

Out of curiosity, what references do you have which use "current node" to
mean point of maximum current?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL
Charter member, OFC


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Improving F/B ratio with lossy dielectric?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 17:46:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4jh7j0$[e-mail]>
References: <4jf005$[e-mail]>

In article <4jf005$[e-mail]>,
   Dave Benzel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I am wondering if anyone has experience with improving the front/back
>ratio of an antenna by placing a lossy dielectric (RF poor plastic)
>rearward?  If so, are there any recomendations as to the type of
>dielectric and thickness required?
>
>Specifically, I have a patch antenna for 900 MHz with a specified F/B
>ratio of 18 dB, but I need at least 22 dB.  I would like to mount the
>patch (a Cushcraft Data Patch antanna) on a roughtly 16x16 inch sheet of
>plastic.
>
>Thanks - Dave

Hopefully, you'll get some answers from people who have tried this and know
what to expect. If you don't, you might try ferrite-loaded absorbing
materials. Several varieties are (or were) available in the form of paint
and ferrite-loaded silicone sheet from Emerson & Cuming (617-828-3300).

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:30 1996
From: David Nulton <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need Guidlines for F.S. Tower Bases
Date: 29 Mar 1996 19:11:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4jhcl7$[e-mail]>

A friend of mine has a free standing tower and needs some info on
how to make the base for it.  We have two problems here.

1.  How big should the base be.  (i.e.  should the mass of the
concrete equal or be more than the mass of the tower?  Are we
trying to shift the center of gravity to below the soil?)

2.  In central Texas the soil has alot of limestone in it.  It is
very difficult to even dig a hole for a rose bush, let alone a
tower base.  We have talked to some drilling companies, but prices
are up in the thousands of dollars.  Explosives are out of the
question.  Any advice on how to dig the hole?  Can a compromise be
made by digging a shallower, but wider pit?

Any advice is appreciated.  My friend is going to seek help from
the County Engineer.  However at this point we no not what were
doing.

Thanks in advance
73s de KI5XW



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:31 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line length
Date: 29 Mar 1996 22:47:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4jhpak$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

"Carmine M. Iannace" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>If your attaching the line to the balanced inputs of a
>tuner the lenght of line is, in a practical sense, not important.

Hi Carmine, If the output of the tuner is balanced by a balun, the
length of the line matters a lot. Assume a 50 ohm antenna fed by
a quarter wavelength of 450 ohm ladder-line. Don't think the balun
is going to like feeding 4000 ohms.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:32 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's a G5RV
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 00:29:57 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4jg1ae$[e-mail]>

CHARLES J. MICHAELS <[e-mail]> writes:

>       Wouldn't this thread be simpler if it is recognized that
>a *G5RV* is a 102 foot antenna fed in a specific way and if you
>feed a 102 foot antenna in the center by any means the ANTENNA
>will behave exactly the same in ALL ways .  I.E. patterns, height

Hi Charlie, you're right in that any 102 ft dipole will radiate
the same percentage of power reaching it. It's the total power
that we are discussing. If there's neglible loss in the feed
system, the antenna will radiate more power than if there's
not neglible loss in the feed system. I haven't changed my
antenna but I am radiating at least double the RF power on 75m
after I gave the 4:1 a load of 300 ohms resistive instead of
the 1000+j2000 ohm load that I was previously giving it.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding dual-band antennas w/multiple rigs?
Date: 30 Mar 1996 01:02:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4ji17j$[e-mail]>
References: <4jbl70$[e-mail]>

In article <4jbl70$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] asks...

>   When feeding a dual-band antenna with a single feed point,
>will a duplexer permit you to feed it with 2 rigs ( 2M and 70cm,
>for example ) simultaneously, in both transmit and receive?
>And, if so, where I can I get more info about commerical offerings
>or plans to build one?

>Thanks,
>   - Rich

Any of the Comet, Diamond, etc. diplexers are able to be used
bi-directionally (Two antennas with one transmitter or one antenna
with two transmitters.

Brian N6ZAU




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line length
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 06:01:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4jij3k$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   "Carmine M. Iannace" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>If your attaching the line to the balanced inputs of a tuner the
>lenght of line is, in a practical sense, not important.  Just run the
>line all the way to the tuner and simply cut off any excess.

If you're using the typical modern tuner with a built-in balun, line
length is *very* important.  If the impedance seen by the balun
isn't correct, the balun ceases to function and causes A) feedline
imbalance and B) power consumption in the balun.

See Tom's post for more info.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Failed HF Mobile Attempt
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 06:08:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4jijh3$[e-mail]>
References: <4jgol0$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (LMcKelp) wrote:

>By the way, I peaked the 40 meter setup on receive to get close
>and save my finals first, and after adding power and losing the
>match, the receive signal was lower also.

To me, that usually indicates that an arc has occurred and that the
arc has left behind a conductive (carbon) path.  Probably, each time
you reloaded at low power then switched to high power, the arc was
depositing another (or more significant) path.  I wonder if the
setscrews were making good contact to the sheetmetal?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Failed HF Mobile Attempt
Date: 30 Mar 1996 07:59:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4jjb7e$[e-mail]>
References: <4jijh3$[e-mail]>

In article <4jijh3$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (WB3U) writes:

>
>To me, that usually indicates that an arc has occurred and that the
>arc has left behind a conductive (carbon) path.  Probably, each time
>you reloaded at low power then switched to high power, the arc was
>depositing another (or more significant) path.  I wonder if the
>setscrews were making good contact to the sheetmetal?
>
>73,
>Jack  WB3U

I agree with Jack, but I'd like to add it could be arcing from the trunk
to the car chassis either at the hinges, latch, or both

The entire CAR only looks like a few hundred pF of capacitance to ground
on 80 meters, image what the trunk lid "looks like". It's not a very good
ground at all except perhaps on ten meters and up! Any arc between the
mount and the deck lid, or the deck lid and the car body, will do exactly
what you describe.

And putting a tuner at the rig will only extend the range of frequency
slightly. A mobile antenna changes impedance much more rapidly with
frequency than a big antenna. The only "good place" for the tuner with a
physically VERY short (in relation to the frequency) antenna is right back
at the antenna.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 30 Mar 1996 07:59:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4jjb7u$[e-mail]>
References: <4jikjt$[e-mail]>

In article <4jikjt$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Cecil A. Moore~) writes:

>>Whatever scheme drives the currents, we face the physical fact that the
>>shorter the elements are, the more of the last high current node will
end
>>up wasted, cancelling itself inside the feeder,

>Here's what happens: If the antenna were 50 ohms resistive, the
>current from 100 watts would be 1.414 amps at the antenna. Now
>let's shorten the antenna to move the current maximum back down
>the transmission line and let's say it's still 1.414 amps maximum
>in the transmission line. The antenna impedance will have gone
>up - let's make it easy and say to 500 ohms for sake of illustration
>only.

Shortening the antenna makes the impedance DROP, not go up! Current IN THE
ANTENNA GOES UP, not down.

Only current causes the type of radiation we want. Let's say we have a
short antenna with a current of one amp throughout the entire length. With
the same amount of applied power, a triangular distribution (same antenna)
would now produce two amperes at the current loop (and zero at the Node)
and the SAME radiated power.

A fixed amount of power applied to a thin, short, linear diameter whip on
160 has MORE current at the feedpoint than the same whip when top loaded(~
twice as much). At the top current is zero in the base loaded antenna, at
the middle the currents are equal.

What really happens in the G5RV on 80 (or any other antenna that is
shortened while maintaining the same basic current distribution shape) is
the current in the antenna *increases* until the total power radiated is
the same. As the length of the radiating area is reduced with the same
power applied (it MUST be radiated if applied), the over all current
increases. Current from the G5RV does not "move into the feeder" and
become canceled. Current in the element goes up!

Think about it this way, do you worry about the "current that could have
been radiating" in your RG-8 fed dipole because current "moved into the
feeder? If feeder current was a real worry, we'd all be using folded
dipoles to keep current out of the feeder. The only current or radiated
power "lost" in the transmission line comes from normal line attenuation,
not because current is "there".

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:39 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (John Seney)
Subject: Mac Ham Users Group
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 09:07:41 GMT


"Macnet Roster" (ver. 739) has just been updated and is now a stand-alone
application! The version number = the number of hams using Macs.

"Macnet Roster" lists:

    o CALL SIGN @ HOME PBBS
    o FULL NAME
    o ADDRESS
    o CITY, STATE, ZIP
    o INTERNET ADDRESS
    o MACS USED
    o RADIOS USED
    o SOFTWARE USED
    o PASSIONS
    o COMMENTS

of every known amateur radio operator in the world that uses a Mac computer.

You can use "Macnet Roster" to find other Mac users that you can then
communicate with directly. Compare notes on software, applications, ideas,
hints and kinks, and make new ham friends that use the same computer you do.
(You already know how cool you are - imagine accessing "the rest of us"!)

      If you'd like the latest "Macnet Roster":

    Send me a formatted disk in a self addressed and stamped disk mailer
    that is in a large envelope clearly marked "ROSTER".

Or connect to my home page via the WWW

http://www.mv.com/ipusers/wd1v

Put YOUR INFO (via EMAIL or disk using TEACH TEXT) if you'd like to be include
d
in the "Macnet Roster" or send an update to your stats to me via pkt or email
anytime.


                 John D. Seney |_|_|_|_| e-mail: [e-mail]
             144 Pepperidge Dr |_|   |_| www http://www.mv.com/ipusers/wd1v
     Manchester, NH 03103-6150 |_|_ _|_| wireless: [e-mail]
      Voice Mail: 603-533-3472 | | | | | skytel page: [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:40 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 96 12:03:53 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4jikjt$[e-mail]> <4jjb7u$[e-mail]>

W8JI  Tom <[e-mail]> writes:

>Shortening the antenna makes the impedance DROP, not go up! Current IN THE
>ANTENNA GOES UP, not down.

Hi Tom, Sorry I forgot to indicate that my illustration was for the
G5RV on 20m, the band for which it was designed. I actually shortened
my G5RV from 102 ft. to 88 ft. and the antenna impedance went up, not
down. EZNEC says 117-j43 for a 102 ft. dipole on 20m and 165-j795 for
an 88 ft. dipole on 20m. The current maximum point moved away from
the antenna when it was shortened and the current into the antenna
dropped but it still radiated the same amount of power but into a
more desirable radiation pattern.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:41 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: <None>
Date: 30 Mar 96 15:16:22 CDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I would be interested in full or part of your mag collection
send response to WALCHWL.WKUVX1.WKU.EDU



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (LMcKelp)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Failed HF Mobile Attempt
Date: 30 Mar 1996 15:32:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4jk5pg$[e-mail]>
References: <4jjb7e$[e-mail]>

Well, now there are more clues to this mystery.

I brought the rig (and tuner( back into the house, where I had been using
it to good effect prior to my trip.  By the way, I live in a duplex
apartment with total antenna restrictions, so I've been using a random
length wire tuned by the tuner.

Now, I'm having the same problem on 40 meters in the house.  Also, I seem
to be getting enough RF in the "shack" to cause my radio to shut off when
loading up on 20 meters, EVEN WHEN PROPERLY MATCHED!  The power supply
stays on, but some internal circuit in the radio causes the power to go
off, and I have to shut off the power supply with the radio power supply
on to get the radio to come back on.  I've experienced this before with
random wires on trips to visit family, always on end fed, random length
wires, so I know what causes it.

I don't know what to do now, as the wire worked fine on all bands before
the trip.  I have an idea of trying one of the triple magnet mounts for
the trunk.  Any of you guys have any experience, either personal or
anecdotal, of how they work on the lower HF bands?  I'd like to know
before I plunk down $45 or so.

Thanks for the help and advise so far...

Levi
N5ZFM


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Failed HF Mobile Attempt
Date: 30 Mar 1996 19:14:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4jkiov$[e-mail]>
References: <4jk5pg$[e-mail]>

In article <4jk5pg$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (LMcKelp)
writes:

>Now, I'm having the same problem on 40 meters in the house.  Also, I seem
>to be getting enough RF in the "shack" to cause my radio to shut off when
>loading up on 20 meters, EVEN WHEN PROPERLY MATCHED!  The power supply
>stays on, but some internal circuit in the radio causes the power to go
>off, and I have to shut off the power supply with the radio power supply
>on to get the radio to come back on.  I've experienced this before with
>random wires on trips to visit family, always on end fed, random length
>wires, so I know what causes it.

You need a good RF ground. SWR has NOTHING to do with RF floating around
the shack. There are many ways to get an RF ground, but what they all
involve is having something that looks like a large electrical mass at the
rig. That can be as simple as a few counterpoise wires, as complex as
sixty or a hundred radials, or as innovative as lining the floor of your
shack under the carpet with aluminum foil that you ground to the radio and
power supply chassis ground post.

>I don't know what to do now, as the wire worked fine on all bands before
>the trip.  I have an idea of trying one of the triple magnet mounts for
>the trunk.  Any of you guys have any experience, either personal or
>anecdotal, of how they work on the lower HF bands?  I'd like to know
>before I plunk down $45 or so.

Hmm. That's strange. A triple mag mount may give you the same trouble you
had with the lip mount. I've seen mag mounts burn holes in paint at HF.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:46 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ignorant question: What's a G5RV???
Date: 30 Mar 1996 19:29:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4jk23n$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4jikjt$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~) wrote:

Before I get any more email on this posting: This example was
based on what happened to my TWENTY METER antenna impedance
when I shortened it from 102 ft. to 88 ft. The antenna impedance
went from a resonant 127 ohms on 14.33 MHz to 158-j752. I
exagerated the following to make a point. The point is: It
doesn't matter if the antenna impedance is high or low if the
delivery system is lossless.

>Let's
>assume that the antenna reactance is conjugately matched and not
>causing any losses. Also assume near-lossless open-wire feeder.
>Here's what happens: If the antenna were 50 ohms resistive, the
>current from 100 watts would be 1.414 amps at the antenna. Now
>let's shorten the antenna to move the current maximum back down
>the transmission line and let's say it's still 1.414 amps maximum
>in the transmission line. The antenna impedance will have gone
>up - let's make it easy and say to 500 ohms for sake of illustration
>only. The current at the antenna will be only 0.45 amp now but
>guess what? (1.414)^2*50 = (0.45)^2*500  Even though the current
>has dropped by 68% at the antenna, the power delivered to
>the antenna is still the same old 100 watts. It's not really
>that simple but I think this example illustrates why high current
>with a low impedance antenna can be identical, power-wise, to
>low current with a high impedance antenna. If the losses are
>made to be neglible, then the "last high current node" will
>not "end up wasted". The antenna impedance doesn't matter
>(within reason) if it is matched with a neglible loss
>delivery system. As a matter of fact, in the above illustration,
>unless one knows better, one can't tell that the 500 ohm antenna
>is not at the current maximum and the results will be almost the
>same for both antennas assuming similar radiation patterns.




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Douglas Rhodes)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Field Day Special
Date: 31 Mar 1996 01:41:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4jknrr$[e-mail]>

QST magazine had an article by W7EL about eight or ten years ago with
description and dimensions for a modified ZL-special for twenty meters,
which Roy Llewellyn called the Field Day Special. I've been using it
happily for two years, but would like to try something different on twenty
and re-cut the FD-special for 15 meters. Has anybody (including W7EL)
re-modelled it for other bands?

Doug Rhodes, VE7DFZ
Victoria, British Columbia




From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bostonian)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WTD: RCA WT-100A OR HICKOK 700 TUBE TESTER
Date: 31 Mar 1996 01:44:32 GMT
Message-ID: <4jko20$[e-mail]>

RCA WT-100A and/or Hickok 700 tube tester wanted.  Seeking unit in good
running condition, needing some repairs or for parts (if I later come across
a working unit).  Willing to swap for something or please state a fair price
for the respective unit.  I would prefer swapping something as cash is tight,
but I would have to find out what you are looking for -- I may have it.
Please indicate if you have manuals, schematics, charts and/or plug-in tube
sockets for the respective tube tester.

Kindly, email with details.

Thank you.



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:49 1996
From: Charles Bolland <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.swap,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.noncomm,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.swap
Subject: Shortwave etc database program....
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 10:51:57 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Sir,

A stand alone IBM compatible Broadcasting Radio Station Database
program for Longwave, Mediumwave, or Shortwave.  4000 records...
Completely read/write and updateable...

If you'd like a copy, send your EMail address and Postal Address
which will be used to pass you more detailed information on
the full featured program....

The above program will be sent via EMAIL...

All information will be kept confidential....

Chuck

KA4PRF


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:50 1996
From: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner,alt.radio.pirate,aus.radio,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.shortwave,uk.radio.amateur
Subject: Naughty Rude Words
Date: 31 Mar 1996 11:05:54 GMT
Message-ID: <4jloui$[e-mail]>


This thread having to do with the messed up FM-25 has certainly gotten the mil
eage.
We're all behaving like a bunch of politicians:  making a lot of noise about s
omething
that is not in the least bit important.  An emotional issue and therefore not
conducive
to rational discussion.
We're talking about words here, not some threat to personal or national securi
ty, or to
the health and general welfare of mankind.  Just words.
Every time I read another shrill and strident post on this subject
I think about what my son (10 at the time) said when Pee Wee Herman was busted
,
"Isn't that what people do when they watch porno flicks?"  Oh, that wonderful
purity
of a child's morality.  Come on folks, let's drop this thing for good. It's a
waste of resources
and time and it's getting ridiculous what with the patriots, the freedom fight
ers and the
moralists getting all frothed up.  What has finally done it for me is a messag
e I read today
that alludes to posts acceptable for "family channels" and "mixed company" yet
 has a
signature block that contains the suggestive double entendre "Hams do it bounc
ing off
the "F" layer."  What a hypocritical, self-righteous prig!


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rob Cheply)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: yagi antenna help!!
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 11:57:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4jlrmi$[e-mail]>

HI i was wondering if anyone knows if there is somewhere I can
download a diagram of a Yagi antenna with all the lengths of the
peices for the 143 - 144 Mhz range. If so please tell me
Thanx

Cory Cheply
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:52 1996
From: "H. Mark Nadel" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Hams helping Hams !
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:28:17 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

When you have an oportunity please check out the home page of the Radio
Amateurs Defense & Information Organization, ( R.A.D.I.O. )

We are in need of your support. The address is
http://www.islandlink.com/radio/radio.htm

Thank you
--

<<<>>>


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mark McAnally)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: * * * AFFORDABLE QSL CARDS * * *
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:58:59
Message-ID: <4jmkf1$[e-mail]>

After some checking, I found out that QSL cards cost anywhere from
$70.00 to $450.00 per 1000 cards to be printed up. I also found
out that you are pretty limited to the color of card, artwork and
color of ink to choose from. I have been printing cards for my ham

friends for some time now and I have been encouraged by my friends

to branch out and advertise a little.

I can print 1000 cards with black ink for only $50.00. Why should
you order your cards from me? Because $50.00 is it! No shipping
charges, no setup charges, no hidden costs. PLUS...you have your
choice of 13 card colors, unlimited artwork, and you can have up
to FIVE different layouts per order. Want color ink? For example,
do you want a red, white and blue US flag on your cards? That
would only be $65.00 per 1000, with 13 card colors to choose from,

up to FIVE different layouts, and unlimited artwork in black or
colors.

Your card color choices are white, blue, yellow, pink, green,
ivory, peach, gray, and the following eyepopping flourescents:
yellow, pink, green, blue, and red. Artwork is too numerous to
list all designs here, but just some examples would be an ARRL
logo, ARES logo, SKYWARN logo, flags of all 50 states, maps of all
50 states, antennas and radios, flags and maps of US territories
and foreign countries and 1000's more...
Custom artwork available at NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE!!! Just tell me
what you want!!!

Reply via private email for a FREE sample snail mailed to you
today!

To place an order call Mark at [phone] or FAX [phone]
or you can mail check or money order to:

McAnally and Associates
6223 Hwy 90
Suite 301
Milton, FL  32570-1708



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (Red5or7)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: OK...now i'm mad at the hardline!!!!!!
Date: 31 Mar 1996 15:48:15 -0500
Message-ID: <4jmr2f$[e-mail]>
References: <4jmo70$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Red5or7)

Hmmm. Somehow I missed this one. What is the problem...why is the hardline
causing you all this grief?  Perhaps this (old & broken down) ex-radio
engineer can help!  Re-post & I'll see what answers I can come up with.


From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:55 1996
From: David Nulton <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Propagation Query
Date: 31 Mar 1996 18:30:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4jmj0i$[e-mail]>
References: <4je44e$[e-mail]>

10 meters is rarely open during the day, but some contacts do
exists.  15 meters is almost as bad - some DX.  17 meters is
better bud signals are fading.  20 meters is good during the day,
but still suffers from fading.  Right now 160, 80 and 40 are
perferred for evenings and nights.  The noise level on these bands
is better than its been, with the exception of atmospheric noise
from thunderstorms.  We are definately at the solar minimum.
Solar activity should start to increase in 97 and be much better
by 99.  The bands are still worth using, and you can work good DX.
 However, you will have to look harder than you did 5 years ago.

73s de KI5XW



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:56 1996
From: David Nulton <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: no tune antenna
Date: 31 Mar 1996 18:36:50 GMT
Message-ID: <4jmjc3$[e-mail]>
References: <4j8sf1$[e-mail]> <4jem0t$[e-mail]>

I saw an ad for an all-band no-tune antenna in the last QST.  It
was only 30" long WOW!  Then again it was the april issue.

Seriously, what you ask is difficult.  Have you looked at trap
dipoles?  If you have a variable inductor, you may be able to set
a cheap verticle made out of chain link fence top rail, or
conduit.  Use the inductor to tune the lower bands.  Even then I
think you'll find 80-10m coverage hard to achieve.  With
conditions the way they are, if you could use 80, 40 and
possibley 20 you'd be doing great.  Perhaps you'll get the tuner
fixed, or better antenna by the time the solar conditions improve.

73s de KI5XW



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ron Ries)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: SSB DX antennas for 2M
Date: 31 Mar 1996 20:41:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4jmqmc$[e-mail]>

I am considering a 2m horizontally polarized gain antenna for 2M DX. I
live in an antenna restricted area but could get away with 12 foot boom.
Have considered the KLM, M2, and Lightning Bolt 10 element quad. Any
comments on performance or other factors that would influence a selection?

Any other suggestions of other mfrs?

73
Ron
KG7LR
--
Arizona Dreamin'



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:58 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ Antenna
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 96 21:20:21 EDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Anybody have a schematic of the MFJ "Tower In A Box"

This consists more or less of a 54" whip mounted on
top of a phenolic box with a tunner built into it.


?



From [e-mail] Tue Apr 02 09:01:59 1996
From: [e-mail] (Orrin Winton)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: rhombic design update
Date: 31 Mar 1996 23:24:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4jn47t$[e-mail]>

Was recently informed that one of the programs in my rhombic design
package had a bug; this is now fixed.  The bug was in a no-graphics
program called rhom.exe originally written in gwbasic; apparently the
QuickBasic 4.5 compiler didn't like some of the code and produced an
unusable program.  This is now fixed, and the source code in basic
is included.

The C-language version never had this particular bug (rhom112.exe).

The whole little collection can be gotten from my ftp site ; if you
use Netscape it's     ftp://redshift.com/orrin/112rhom.exe
A Windows version is  ftp://redshift.com/orrin/204rhom.exe

On a different note, i am making Web space available for articles
written by people 'out there' who feel they have been treated poorly
by packet-radio sysops -- this refers mainly to the more traditional
"all radio" network.  Details can be found on my Web page:
http://www.redshift.com/~orrin      and click on the link for
"The Sysop Syndrome."

[e-mail]