World of Ham Radio 1997/WOHR97_AmSoft_(1997-02-01).iso/usenets/1996_06/_antenna.txt

Text File | 1997-02-01 | 435KB | 11,431 lines

The World of Ham Radio CD-ROM



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:14 1996
From: [e-mail](Anthony Severdia)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 1/2 wave dipole vs. full wave question.
Date: 31 May 1996 23:53:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4oo0p8$[e-mail]>
References: <4okppt$[e-mail]> <4ons6d$[e-mail]>

In <4ons6d$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Parf) writes:
>
>Assuming you are still intending on center feeding the antenna:
>The feed impedance would be VERY high (somewhat dependent upon
conductor diameter).

    Yes, the impedance will be very high but it is easily transformed
to low <something> with a 1/4 wave ladder line.  Is so?

>
>From memory, I believe the pattern is cloverleaf- both halves are in
>phase.

    "Stoking" my memory, this is correct for an antenna 1/2 wave above
earth.  For 1 wave antenna the cloverleaf is quite broad and at lesser
heights becomes even yet broader.  Perhaps someone with a "magic"
program can confirm this.
>
>Look in the Handbook @ extended double Zepps- a little more gain and
feed techniques.

    Good advice, Dale!  Anyone seriously exploring must pound the books
for the best available information.

    -=Tony=-    W6ANV       San Francisco



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 1/2 wave dipole vs. full wave question.
Date: 2 Jun 1996 03:33:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4or22k$[e-mail]>

  The impedance of a center-fed 1/2 wave dipole varies around 72 ohms,
depending on its height.  The impedance of a center-fed full-wave
dipole varies around about 800 ohms depending on height.

  A full-wave dipole is two 1/2 wave dipoles in phase.  Its main lobe of
radiation is perpendicular to the wire, and somewhat narrower than that
of a 1/2 wave dipole.  This gives it a bit of gain compared to a 1/2 wave
dipole.

  "Open-wire" feedline matches this kind of antenna quite well.  A simple
tuner can match the antenna and feedline to 50 ohm coax over a very wide
frequency range.  This "two half-waves in phase" design has been very
popular over the years.

  Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:16 1996
From: Steve Richards <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 2.4 GHz antennas
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 22:45:46 +1030
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4olr3d$chd$[e-mail]>

Roger Cox wrote:
>
> There is a BIG difference between a $A700 WLAN antenna and a
> US$10000 MMDS "Broadcast" antenna.  WLAN is limited here in the
> states to 1 watt.  The antenna can have no more than 6 dB gain,
> otherwise the transmitter output power must be reduced by the
> same amount that the antenna gain is over the 6 dB figure.  Most
> of the WLAN companies transmit less than 100 mW anyway.  Typical
> range is less than 3 miles, even when using directive antennas.
> Some people have gotten around the FCC limitations by using the 6
> dB gain antenna only on transmit, and using 20 to 30 dB gain
> dishes on receive.
>
> The MMDS antenna is meant for HIGH-POWER broadcasting, and it
> costs more because of that.
>
> 73, Roger WB0DGF
>
> --
> Roger CoxI'm not sure about what you are saying Roger. I know that you are s
tating the obvious ,  so what are you trying
to say?
Steve


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:17 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 40 Meter Quad - Any Manufacturers?
Date: 1 Jun 1996 21:27:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4oqckn$[e-mail]>
References: <4om0kh$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <4om0kh$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry R. Johnson) wri
tes:
>Does any Quad company manufacture a 40 MEter Quad? Lightning Bolt used to
>make them, but the demand just wasn't there to keep them in production.
>Anyone know if any other companies make them?
>Thanks,
>Larry Johnson
>
>[e-mail]
>
>--
>Larry Johnson - Portland, OR - [phone] home, [phone] work
>Ham Radio: K7LJ - 145.39 K7LJ/RPT, 443.400 , 29.6 FM

You rattled off the only one I recall...

    except, perhaps,

         Larry R. Johnson & Company...

             :)  Humor intended!


Mike W5WQN as a guest at leviathan.tamu.exu (No mail address there)


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:18 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 440 Antenna Plans?
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 15:36:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4oscdm$[e-mail]>

Does anyone have plans with demensions for a 442 Mhz antenna. I would
like to build one for emergency use with a PVC boom that will split in
the middle for easy transport. Boom lenght 5-6 feet.
73 John VE3DOS




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:19 1996
From: Erik Skovgaard <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: AEA 6m Halo Antenna
Date: 1 Jun 1996 04:46:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4ooi03$[e-mail]>

I noticed that AEA is advertising a 6m halo antenna in the June QST.

Has anyone managed to get information on it? - price?

73 de VE7MDL                 ....Erik.




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas (Part II)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 96 18:28:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4p4ji1$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovf2u$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p3vbd$[e-mail]>

In article <4p3vbd$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Keith A Monahan) wrote:
>Ken Bessler (KG0WX) ([e-mail]) wrote:
>
>: Hey Keith, why don't you get a license and learn for yourself? Remember
the
>: old saying: Give a man a fish.........
>
>
>:              73's and good luck on your test (if you take one)!
>: --
>
>:                                 Ken Bessler KG0WX
>:                                 Design Services Company
>:                                 http://www2.southwind.net/~kg0wx
>:                                 Model railroad designing
>
>Ken,
>
>       How about simply answering my questions?  There is nothing wrong
with
>people who have more experience sharing knowledge with people of less
>experience.  Even if the answers to my questions were found in test
material,
>I would *still* ask for people's opinions.
>
>Keith

Alas, Ken was being too subtle. Keith, it seems from your post that you
have no license to transmit on the frequencies you quoted. Hams in general
are reluctant to help anyone transmit illegally.  We have enough trouble as
it is with unlicensed operators without helping them out. Consequently, I
don't think you'll get much help in this newsgroup, but it doesn't have
anything to do with your lack of experience -- just your lack of a license
to legally transmit.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:25 1996
From: Merv Stump <[e-mail]@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Bobtail Curtain - Gain Versus Feedpoint
Date: 4 Jun 1996 21:42:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4p2aki$[e-mail]>

I can't easily find the original postings on the subject, but there were 3
or 4 items on Bobtails and feeding them at voltage nodes versus current
nodes.  I modeled the antenna optimizing for gain and resonance at 7.175
when fed at a current node (top of the center section). First interesting
result is that the antenna appears to be electrically short - for a
frequency of 7.175 the vertical sections needed to be 36.6 feet to
approach resonance.  The horizontal sections came out to be 66.7 feet.
The model was done over "average" ground.  Results were as follows:

Fed at the CURRENT NODE:  GAIN 2.88dBd
                          Impedance 47 +j.3
                          SWR 1.07
                          Maximum Radiation Elevation Angle 22 degrees
                          3 db points 49 degrees.

Fed at the VOLTAGE NODE   GAIN 2.94 dBd
                          Impedance 5380 -j1074
                          SWR 109
                          Maximum Radiation Elevation Angle 22 degrees
                          3 db points 50 degrees.

I then repeated the model with the addition of 100 radials, made of #12
wire, 70 feet long.

Fed at the CURRENT NODE:  Gain 4.25dBd
                          Impedance - No Change
                          SWR - No Change
                          Maximum Radiation Elevation Angle 24 degrees
                          3db points - No Change

Fed at the VOLTAGE NODE:  Gain 4.31dBd
                          Impedance 5272 -j1042
                          SWR 111
                          Maximum Radiation Elevation Angle 24 degrees
                          3 db points 49 degrees.

If this model is infact valid two things appear obvious:  1. In any event
you need a good ground system to make it perform. 2.  Going to all the
trouble to match at the voltage node seems hardly worth the trouble for
06 db.

Question is:  Does anybody really believe this?  Comments? Questions?
Corrections?

Regards, Merv




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR antenna
Date: 3 Jun 1996 18:50:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4ovc5k$[e-mail]>
References: <4nfi1d$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4of131$[e-mail]>

In article <4of131$[e-mail]>, eal says...
>
>Madjid <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>The DDRR antenna as presented in the ARRL Handbook is just an
>>approximation of the real thing.
>>
>>The DDRR was designed by Dr. Boyer for Northrop in the 60's and
>>first described in Electronics Jan 11 1963 "Hula-Hoops antennas".
>>Comments that it is based on "idiotic" theory are completely Wrong!
>>
>Since I was the person who posted the "idiotic" comment, I will expand
on
SNIP . . .
 Well said Ed.  The notebook Idea included.  Occaisionally (not too
often) when I read these comments I think of the Blind Men and the
Elephant parable, except here - too few commentors have ever touched
a DDRR.
Jim W0OOG/5  147.180 & 14.243 (subvets net 11:30 CST)



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DEMAW'S  160m Shortened Vertical
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 13:33:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4outt7$[e-mail]>
References: <4otrq2$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Steve McDonald) wrote:

>Just wondering if anybody has seen the latest CQ article (by
>Doug Demaw) describing short top-loaded vertical wire antennas for
>top band and 75m?  They look extremely interesting.
>Has anyone had experience on 160 with a similar type of antenna?

Jerry Sevick has been building these and publishing articles on
their construction for years.  If you're interested in this
approach, his work is highly recommended.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Distance between antenna and Rig ?
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 16:39:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4opvvr$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

   "jaiyoung,yi" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Is it real true that distance between antenna and rig should
>accurately be made to meet the requirements of electrical length
>of that antenna?

In the case of coaxial feed to a balanced antenna, feedline
length will have no significant impact (other than its normal
loss) as long as A) the antenna is resonant, B) the impedance
of the antenna matches the feedline, and C) a balun is used at
feedpoint of the antenna.

>In my case, on the top of building,where antenna is installed,
>the VSWR from 2 element quad for 14.230, which I may believe
>that might be resonant point, shows 1.1:1, however it indicate
>same VSWR with frequency goes up automatically.

Sorry, but could you rephrase this?  I don't understand what
you mean.

>I have heavy TVI, Tel.I complaing from neighbours.

This could be the result of direct radiation from the antenna
or unwanted radiation from the feedline.  The lattrer might be
resolved by using a choke balun at the antenna (assuming you're
using coaxial feed).  Can you provide a more detailed description
of the components in the feed system?

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:28 1996
From: "jaiyoung,yi" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Distance between antenna and Rig ?
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 08:46:33 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Is it real true that distance between antenna and rig should accurately
be made to meet the requirements of electrical length of that antenna?
In my case, on the top of building,where antenna is installed, the VSWR
from 2 element quad for 14.230, which I may believe that might be
resonant point, shows 1.1:1, however  it indicate same VSWR with
frequency goes up automatically. I have heavy TVI, Tel.I complaing from
neighbours.
some body say that I should pay my attention to the legnth of cable
feeder. Is it true ? any body give me some solution will highly be
appreciated.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:29 1996
From: Steve Dobak <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: FM band preselector question
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 11:05:27 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4obiuq$[e-mail]>
To: "[yr{s, Pertti Olavi" <[e-mail]>

[yr{s, Pertti Olavi wrote:
>
> Hello
>
>
> Is it possible to construct a FM band 87.5-108 MHz preselector equal
> to that often used on medium and short waves to add extra selectivity
> (and sensitivity).
>
> I have big problems associated with a nearby transmitter tower with 6
> pieces of 60 kw transmitters, only 3 kms away from my QTH. These cause
> severe difficulties with intermodulation signals and it is very difficult
> to practice any dx-listening on the FM band. I thought it would be
> possible to reduce or eliminate my problems by using a preselctor with
> tuned circuits ahead my receiver, and possibly some traps for the
> local transmitters. But I do not know how to make them and if it is
> possible or not. Any help appreciated!!
>
> 73
>
> Pertti
Lots of luck, you need either commercial grade filtering which does not come c
heap, a move
or maybe a good voo-doo dance, While employed at a 50 kw fm station I would ge
t nasty-grams
quite often from people within a few miles of the station and trying to listen
 to a station a 100 miles away
with his antenna pointing right at the tower, and didnt understand why he hear
d us all over the band.
Checking out the sites where we caused interferance truly made me wonder about
 the average IQ
of the human race, The fixes or the closest I could come uasually involved red
oing the entire setup,
throwing all the radio-shack preamps in the garbage, I one case I found 6 in l
ine, and put good cable and
tuneable filters in line, but the preamps if any were good pro gear, the traps
 likewise (Blonder-Tounge)
put new feedline up and make sure everything had a good solid connection, with
out going into to much detail
dont extect to have perfection with a $50 K-Mart stereo, and dont even bother
with any addons from radio
shack, perple couldnt quite hear what they wanted so the salesman at the local
 radio-shack would be
glad to sell then all the garbage they wanted to buy, I got all the problems r
esolved but still have nightmares
I shudder to think some of these people are on the road when I also am, I hope
 they drive better
than they put up antennas      Later  Steve-wb3amg


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:30 1996
From: Andy Barrow <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: G5RV Dimensions
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 13:36:53 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Anyone know the dimensions of a 40meter G5RV?  I'm thinking it's just a
1/2 wave dipole with a 1/4 wave section of balanced feeder, but I don't
want to go to all the trouble and find out that's wrong.

73,

Andy Barrow
WD6CWR
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (J. L. Blanton)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help homebrewing a mobile GPS antenna (quadrifilar?)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 12:30:53 -0800
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Steve Peters wrote:

> >I am looking to build a homebrew antenna that will function in the band
> >used to receive GPS signals.

You might try an etched cavity-backed spiral antenna.  It's circularly
polarized, low-profile and cheap (but also low-gain).

Lee WA8YBT


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:32 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help With 2 meter T-match
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 22:09:08 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Al, NW2M wrote:

>I need some help.  I have build a long 2 meter yagi (34 feet) with a
>balanced T-match.  I do not know the formulas for caculating the
>matching dimensions.  The driven element is 3/16 (.177) brass tube and
>the T match is .2 diameter brass rod. Spacing is 1.25 inches.
>
>After looking at the K1FO design, I made the matching section the same
>length.  My diameters are different.  So, My match exceeds 3:1 when the
>two shorting stubs are out near the ends of the T-match where they
>belong.  As I slide the shorting stubs inward, the match finally appears
>1:1, but only 3 inches on either side of the boom.
>
>Does anyone have the caculation for a T-match using a 3/16" driven
>element?

There are possibly some misconceptions here about where the shorting
stubs "belong", and what is the right place for them.

The feedpoint impedance of the yagi (the impedance you would measure if
you opened up the centre of the driven element) will have a resistive
component somewhere in the 15-50 ohm region, depending on the dimensions
and spacings of the parasitic elements as well as the dimensions of the
driven element. The feedpoint impedance will also have a reactive
component which depends mostly on the length of the driven element
itself.

Unless your antenna design is very similar to the K1FO, your feedpoint
impedance may be wildly different from his, and Steve's T-match
dimensions will be no guide at all.

A T-match is actually two gamma matches back-to-back, and the whole
thing is symmetrical about the midline. Thus you are designing to
transform one-half of the feedpoint impedance to 100 ohms. If you know
the feedpoint impedance from a computer simulation, you can calculate
the gamma-match values using the GAMMA program on the ARRL Antenna Book
disk. If you don't know the feedpoint impedance, it's back to cut-and-
try, although some theoretical understanding can be very useful if it
doesn't work first time.

For a gamma match, the variables are the diameter ratio of the driven
element and the gamma arm, the spacing of the gamma arm (as a ratio of
either diameter), the position of the shorting bar, and the series
capacitance. Each configuration of diameter and spacing ratios has a
limited range of impedance matching; some impedances cannot be matched
with any combination of shorting bar position or series capacitance -
you have to relocate the gamma arm and/or change its diameter.

One difference between the classical gamma and T-matches and the usual
VHF/UHF implementation is that there are no series capacitors in the
matching arms. The trick is to adjust the driven element length
(feedpoint reactance) so that no capacitor is needed.

The "correct" location for the shorting bars is wherever it matches. If
you require the shorting bars to be right out at the far ends, the T-
match has turned into an "unequal folded dipole". In that case your only
variable parameters are the diameter and spacing ratios, and the overall
length of the driven element. Such a configuration cannot really be
adjusted, except by rebuilding it each time.

If you really want the shorting bars to be farther out than they are at
present, you'll probably need to make the T arms thicker and/or closer
to the driven element.

>
>The antenna works great!

If the SWR is OK and you're happy with the gain and pattern of the
antenna, what else needs fixing? Move on to the next step - more power!

Hope this helps.


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] Wed Jun 05 20:33:34 1996
From: grant [e-mail] (Grant Burris)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Larsen glass mount antennas
Date: 3 Jun 1996 01:07:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4otdsr$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4nqe7c$[e-mail]> <4nqts7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4of1gk$[e-mail]>

In article <4of1gk$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Collie
r
Chun) wrote:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >I was concerned about the effectiveness of glass mount antennas through
> >the shading pattern
> >on my 92 Chev Corsica, so I bought a cheapo Midland glass-mount dual
> >band and did an
> >experiement (naw, that's too easy!  It's better to talk it to death...)
> >
> >I applied the antenna to the side window, then to the back window, both
> >times using masking
> >tape to hold everything in place.  I then measured the transmit SWR with
> >a good Bird meter. I couldn't measure receive signal strength because
> >I'm using a recycled commercial mobile.
> >
> >To my surprise, the SWR was slightly better on the back windshield
> >(1.4:1 vs. 1.5:1 typically).
> >My conclusions:
> >1) the shading has no effect;
> >2) the height of the antenna above the car roof is important (that would
> >explain the
> >   performance of the antenna on the side window of your friend's van).
> >3) alignment of the inside and outside portions is very important.
> >
>
> Something to note: many of the glass-mount antennas have matching
> networks located on the inside of the glass, then do a high-impedance
> capacitive coupling to the passive antenna element through the glass.
> According to the Larsen engineer who spoke at one of our club meetings
> some time back, this has several interesting effects, namely, since the
> matching network is on the inside of the glass, you can almost match
> with NO antenna outside.  Low SWR indicates that little power is being
> reflected back to the transmitter, and does not necessarily indicate an
> efficient antenna (e.g.: dummy load).  Another effect is that the antenna
> system is more vulnerable to conductive objects near it, like wipers,
> defogging grids, etc.
>
> The Larsen coupling system uses a low impedance coupling through
> the glass; hence the two capacitive plates you see on the mounting
> area.  The matching network is actually located  in the outside box,
> hence the large size of the outside mounting box.  This reduces or
> eliminates the effects mentioned before.
>
> 73's,
> Collier Chun
> NM7B
>
I have a condition (phenomenom) related to installation of a Larsen glass moun
t
antenna. I'm wondering if the SWR has any bearing on this phenomenon or what h
as
set this condition in motion.

I installed a 220 mhz band Larsen antenna on a vehicle rear window that does n
ot
have a rear defroster grid. SWR measures about 2.5:1. When transmitting, the
radio also transmits ANY and ALL static sounds that are generated by touching
one piece of metal to another in the general vicinity of the transmitter.  The
sensitivity (?) is beyond anything I've seen.  Example: Movement of the thrott
le
linkage (while sitting stationary with engine dead) will make a conversation
almost unreadable. Rubbing a small knife blade along the teeth of a file will
produce a sound like canvas ripping and makes all conversation unreadable.  Yo
u
get the idea.  ANY metal moving against ANY metal anywher near the vehicle wil
l
result in this condition.  Conditon did not exist prior to installation of gla
ss
mount antenna. Radio operates fine in other vehicles, in home with power suppl
y,
and in the subject vehicle when a magmount Larsen antenna is stuck on the roof
.
I originally began with the KG220 antenna kit.  I used a BNC connector first.
I
replaced it with another BNC connector. Finally I installed the PL259 connecto
r
that can in the kit.  No change from one connector to the other. I've always
been pretty handy at assembling connectors and these are no exception. I've
tested for shorts and opens, etc.  In the receive mode, everything is close to
normal except for a faint alternator whine that I never had before.

If anyone has any suggestions I'd appreciate hearing them. Radio is a Kenwood
TM2530A.

Grant [e-mail]
N6XRR




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:34 1996
From: Raimo Makela <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: List of radiostations 2.3 to 5.7 MHz
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 16:42:10 +0300
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

New Bookmark! See our list. Over 600 shortwave radiostations from 2.3 to
5.7 MHz.

http://www.yle.fi/sataradio/tropical.html


/RM



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:37 1996
From: Steve Dobak <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: MFJ-259/AEA-ISOLOOP/MFJ-1621
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 1996 10:52:05 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ob94m$[e-mail]>
To: Jonathan Helis <[e-mail]>

Jonathan Helis wrote:
>
> I have an MFJ-259 antenna analyzer that I use to tune up my AEA-Isoloop
> and MFJ-1621 54 inch whip antenna for HF.
>
> The problem is that I don't get an accurate reading on the 1621.
> Example:  Yesterday, I adjusted the 1621 to an SWR of 1.2:1 on 40
> meters(something I have done many times before at another QTH), but when
> I hooked up the rig to it, the rig shut down from too high an SWR!  On
> the other hand, when I tuned up the Isoloop to an SWR of 1.7:1 on 10
> meters, 20 meters, and an SWR of 1:1 on 17 meters using the analyzer,
> when I hooked up the rig, the SWR matched and I was able to work some
> stations.
>
> The rig is a Kenwood TS-140S, I have a Daiwa SWR meter, an MFJ low pass
> filter and antenna switch.  When I connect the analyzer, I connect it to
> the SWR meter, the same way I connect the rig so it sees what the rig
> sees.  I don't have problems with inaccurate readings on the Isoloop,
> just the 1621.
>
> Anyone know what is causing this?
>
> 73,
>
> Jon Helis, KB5IAV
Are you sure that the bridge was calibrated, You can check the bridge with a k
nown resistive source
before each use, also the readout for the reactive componet can be frequency d
ependant. Also make sure the
analyzer is seeing the same value as your rig as, unless you have a 1 to 1 swr
 the value you measure
will change as you measure the impedance at other places in the line
steve wb3amg


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mike Morrow)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: MFJ1798 Capacitance Hat Vertical -- Opinions, please
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 96 19:44:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4oq6d6$[e-mail]>

This is a repost with an expanded subject line.

I am looking for experiences with the antenna in the subject.

This is the one with the capacitance hat on the top and the bottom.  I wonder
how they work, do they need additional grounding, do the 'like' additional
grounding.

Someone must have some experience with one of these.

Thanks for any info,
Mike/AV6NN

    _/_/    _/_/    _/   _/  _/    _/_/_/_/
   _/ _/  _/ _/    _/   _/ _/     _/          Mike/AB6NN
  _/  _/_/  _/    _/   _/_/      _/_/_/      [e-mail]
 _/   _/   _/    _/   _/  _/    _/          Fully MIME capable
_/        _/    _/   _/    _/  _/_/_/_/_/





From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Multi-banding a bug catcher?
Date: 2 Jun 1996 19:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <4ot80t$[e-mail]>
References: <4oj5br$[e-mail]>

In article <4oj5br$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Cecil A. Moore~) writes:

>So for mobile operation on 75m and 40m and
>20m-10m, only two relays are needed. The bugcatcher
>coil is modified so that it resonates on 3.8 MHz with
>no shunts. One relay shorts out part of the coil to
>resonate at 7.25 MHz. The second relay shorts out
>the entire coil for 10m-20m operation. How does that
>sound?
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)
>
>

Sound good if the relays will take the voltage on 3.8 MHz.

Why not just put a large hat on top of a thin mast and feed the thing with
a SGC-like tuner on all bands? The upper frequency limit (for low angle
radiation) is where the mast is over 5/16 wl long.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:40 1996
From: Brian Olliver <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: Re: need help with wire dipole
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:07:30 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <4okuue$[e-mail]>, Chuck Bland
<[e-mail]> writes
>[e-mail] (WB3U) wrote:
>>   [e-mail] (Charlie Fortner) wrote:
>>
>>>I'm planning to put up a 250 ft (approx. full wave 80m) wire
>>>dipole and feed it with ladder line for use as a multiband antenna.
>>
>>What method are you planning to use to drive the ladder line?  A
>>balun will probably be less than satisfactory due to the high
>>impedances involved on some bands.
>>
>>73,
>>Jack  WB3U
>
>A link-coupled tuner would do the job quite nicely. Sure, it may set
>technology back about 30 years, but the system would be better than a
>"mere balun".
>
>Chuck - n6dbt
>
>

-i don't think a full wave dipole will radiate "check it out"
maximum voltage will be at the centre of the half conductors
thus cancelling each other-
Brian Olliver


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:41 1996
From: Brian Webb <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Tandy Coax any good?
Date: 31 May 1996 23:00:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4ontlu$n08$[e-mail]>
References: <4oaubn$[e-mail]>

If you're operating at VHF or UHF, the quality of the connectors
and cable makes a big difference. At HF it probably still
matters, but less so.

Why spend big bucks on ham radio gear and the skimp on the
connectors and coax?  Radio Shack connectors and cable have
both been condemned by hams who have compared RS's products
with their counterparts from other manufacturers using test
equipment.

I'd use Belden 9913 or fat RG-8 and commcerical-grade amphenol
connectors (first choice for me are silver/teflon mil-spec con-
nectors).

73s

Brian KD6NRP (Admitted perfectionist)


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Vinicio Coletti)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Small HF Quad ideas
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 01:38:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4oooet$[e-mail]>
References: <4o18dg$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Monty Wilson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Soundsa likea Father Guido Sarducci hasa gottena interesteda
>inna radio, eh?

>Youre'a fiva by nyna my child.

>--
>.........Monty.
>[e-mail]


I think this is NOT so polite.

Vinicio Coletti
[e-mail]
http://www.webcom.com/vcoletti



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:42 1996
From: Edward Oros <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: The Elmer HAMlet is moving...
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:01:35 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

The old address was...


    http://www.4w.com/ham/antenna


Our new address is...



   http://qth.com/antenna




73-- AC3L


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:43 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Tonna Antennas
Date: 2 Jun 1996 21:07:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4osvqm$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Is their stuff any good?

The quality is reasonable, they are a good buy for their money.
There are surely better quality antennas around.

73, Moritz DL5UH


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's a good AM tuner?
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 02:22:36 GMT
Message-ID: <4otmid$[e-mail]>
References: <4om63u$[e-mail]> <4omdde$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

   Cameron Hughes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Anthony Severdia wrote:

>> How does your message (crossposted) relate to
>>rec.radio.amateur.antenna?
>>
>>     Bah humbug!

>You're kidding, right?  Okay, let me make it simpler.  I like the
>Kiwa antenna.  What's a good AM tuner to put it on?
>
>Instead of the sarcastic reply, how about a little help?

I think you missed his point.  "Radio.Amateur" as it's used in
the name of this newsgroup means ham radio.  It doesn't have much
to do with BCB AM receivers.

Regards,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 05 20:33:45 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB ARRL book "Reflections"
Date: 1 Jun 1996 14:11:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4oqbl7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4nnk86$[e-mail]> <4o0phu$[e-mail]> <4o1rll$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
: Cecil: "Reflections" will be published again by another publisher in the Ama
teur
: Radio field. I'll give you three guesses who and the first two don't count!
: N6WR

Armond, you know you will have to re-edit that book. Mr. Maxwell
says the G5RV is a 102 ft *dipole* designed for 20m. :-)

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:06 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: ! June 96 CD-ROM Available !
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 20:37:35 PDT
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.834118688.6173.amsoft@dx4_120>


AmSoft announces the June 1996 release of its CD-ROM "The World of
Ham Radio".  This CD-ROM contains the World's largest collection
of amateur radio, electronic, and engineering software, plus the
most recent FCC amateur radio license database available on CD-ROM.
The current FCC database includes calls issued up to 22 April 1996.
This software collection is the best available anywhere in the World
for electronics, engineering, and the hobby of Amateur Radio.  Over
20,000 files and programs for the hobbyist or professional.  Stop
by our WWW SITE: http://hamster.ivey.uwo.ca:80/~amsoft/  and see.

At $19.00 plus $4.00 Shipping anywhere in the World AmSoft has the
lowest price for any CD-ROM offering these services.

TELEPHONE: [phone]   FAX: [phone]
or send E-MAIL: [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 5/8 CB Ant Question
Date: 6 Jun 1996 18:37:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4p7mii$[e-mail]>
References: <4p6a7s$[e-mail]>

In article <4p6a7s$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (KJ4UO)
writes:

>
>I measured the lenght of the antenna and it is 18 feet, this puts it at
>the lenght of a 1/2 wave.  The manufacturer states it is a 5/8 wave.  The
>base has a loading coil which is 12 turns with the fourth turn grounded
>back to the outer conductor of the coax and radials.  The question is how
>can this be a 5/8 wave when the lenght is that of a 1/2 wave?  How does
>the loading coil working by grounding out the fourth turn from the base?
>
>

Be glad that it is a 1/2 wl antenna, because a 5/8 wl doesn't have any
more gain unless the groundplane is VERY LARGE, perhaps a few hundred feet
across for ten meters.

As a matter of fact, the 5/8 w can have less gain in real world
conditions.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 6m antenna
Date: 6 Jun 1996 16:04:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4p6vhm$[e-mail]>
References: <4p6l9v$[e-mail]>

In article <4p6l9v$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>I would like to try out six meters on ssb and cw.  What types of
>antenna would work for this.  Homebrew would be ok also.  Thanks,
>KC5OQE
>
 One of my favorite 6 or 2 meter horizontal polorized antenna systems
for general work is stacked big wheels.  If you have a fax number,
I will fax the patterns to build a big wheel.

Jim W0OOG/5 147.180 in Plano, TX



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Kissell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 6m antenna
Date: 6 Jun 1996 11:17:03 -0500
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <4p709v$[e-mail]>

If you're thinking about getting on 6m, probably your smartest initial move
would be to shell out 14 bucks for a (postpaid) copy of "Six Meters: A Guide
to the Magic Band" by Ken Neubeck, WB2AMU.  It's a very good introduction to
the band for newcomers, and it has a chapter on antennas.  The convention on
6m is vertical polarization for FM, and horizontal polarization for the other
modes.  However, during band openings, polarization really doesn't matter.
(For example, over the past few weeks, I have worked from New Mexico to New
Brunswick on 6m SSB using my Diamond brand 6m ground plane.)

The book is available from:

Worldradio Books
Box 189490
Sacramento, CA  95818

You might also want to subscribe to the VHF DX e-mail reflector out of
Stanford University: [e-mail]

73,

Rick WB9GYT
Milwaukee, WI
EN62ax


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:10 1996
From: Gene Marcus <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re:   6MX eggbeater
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 23:09:41 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4oibfo$[e-mail]> <NEWTNews.2626.833468728.Postmaster@hfs08>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Adam VK3ALM writes:

>  Has anyone had any experience with eggbeaters, particularly on 6MX?
>  What's the performance like?
>  Any there any good articles you could make me aware of?


I have built a number of eggbeater (loop turnstile) type antennas for 2 meters
 and
70 cm.  The antennas are very good performers that exhibit omnidirection horiz
ontal
polarization at the horizon and circular polarization overhead.  A very intere
sting
review of  the M2 eggbeaters appeared in the Sptember 1993 QST.   I have used
my homebrew loop turnstiles for low earth orbit digital satellite,  terrestial
 ssb,
and ATV  communications with good results.  I have also built a stacked array
of
four 70 cm  loop turnstiles to replace an Alford slot antenna on our local ATV
in-band repeater.

Eggbeaters are surprisingly easy to build.  The antenna consists of two
perpendiculary mounted full wavelength loops feed in phase quadrature.  I feed
one loop with  a quarter wavelength  of  RG62 (93 ohm) coax used as a  90 degr
ee
delay line. I believe M2 uses lumped components to introduce reactance in seri
es with
one of the loops. The terminal impedance of each loop is approximately 120 ohm
s,
therefore, the  delay line and remaining loop may be fed in parallel resulting
 in
a good match to 50 ohms.

The dimensions for  the 70 cm loop turnstile are as follows:

wire loops (2)  -  28 inches #12 solid vinyl covered  electrical wire
90 degree delay line - 5.8 inches RG-62 coaxial cable (93 ohm  - velocity fact
or 0.86)

I used a 1 inch PVC pipe to support the loops.  To change the circular polariz
ation
sense, simply  move the feedpoint to the opposite side of the delay line.

I have not built a six meter version of this antenna, but it would be a simple
exercise to recalculate or rescale my dimensions.

Hope this helps.

73... Gene W3PM  GM4YRE
Huntsville, AL
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:10 1996
From: Rick Miller <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna for 11m fox hunt?
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 13:30:17 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

What kind(s) of antennae might be good for a fox hunt in the
FM Broadcast Band (88-108 MHz)?  I'm especially looking for
something that would be simple enough to make without too much
expense, but functional enough to actually find the fox.

What kinds of attenuators might be easily used by people who
aren't (yet) into amateur radio?  I know that doing it by ear
(rather than a signal strength meter) isn't the best way to
go about it, but I'm aiming for a low-budget hunt.

If the broadcast doesn't cover a large enough area to make it
interesting, might I use the Citizens' Band?  Practically any
kid I know can come up with a CB channel-14 walkie-talkie.

Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.

Rick Miller



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Doug Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antennas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 09:16:55 -0100

to: [e-mail]
PM>What are the basics of antenna design?

Hi Peter.

That's a pretty open ended question and could never get a very straight
answer.  But here are a couple of my rules-of-thumb:

The most basic antenna is the half-wave dipole, center fed.  The
approximate length is 5904/frequency (MHz) = inches.  This is the same
as 150/frequency (mHz) = meters.  A dipole is the easiest standard of
comparison for other antennas.

Considering only properly designed and built antennas, the bigger the
better and the smaller the worse.  An antenna smaller than a physical
half-wave (or quarter-wave) antenna will not work as well as the full
size article.  When making big antennas you have to double the size each
time you want double the performance.

If you are intending to DESIGN some antennas, get yourself a copy of the
ARRL Antenna Book and study it.  The answers to just about any question
you have will be in there.  For just starting out and playing with beam
antenna designs, I've found YAGIMAX 3.11 to be a good program to
get me in the ballpark although I'm going to have to try NEC for
multi-band designs. Versions of NEC are the standard of comparison for
design programs but is more complex to use and slower to run.

If you just want to BUILD an antenna, find any book or magazine article
that has what you want and get started.  Then, when you are all done,
get the ARRL Antenna Book and study it to find out what you built and
why it works or doesn't.  I've also found some good stuff in the RSGB
Handbooks. The RSGB books compliment the ARRL books quite well.

This is about all I'll give you based on your question.  If you want a
better answer, we'll need a better question.  Good luck.

Doug Reed, N0NAS                email: [e-mail]
St Paul, MN, USA

 * SLMR 2.1a * All wiyht.  Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (JAMES MCEWEN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antennas (Part II)
Date: 7 Jun 96 15:43:27 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>



Subject: Antennas (Part II)

Keith A Monahan wrote:

>         I am using a dual-band handheld transceiver.  I am interested in
> operating on all bands that my radio can.  In brief, 108-128mhz, 140-170mhz,
> 440-470mhz, and 800-999mhz.  Obviously, I am operating locally, no DX contac
ts
> or anything like that.
>
>         I recently purchased a Comet SH-55 16" whip.  I am not sure if this
> is appropriate for use on the bands I've mentioned.
>

(Technical thought)It seems that some people missed the obvious, from
the frequency description this seems to be a scanner, and I doubt that
it has transmit capabilities on all these frequencies, if any transmit
capability at all.
(Political thought!)  I think it would be better for the mail
list/newsgroup (and ham radio) if people were politely encouraged to
get a ham license and continue their study of electronics beyond the
minimum required for the FCC test.  Trying to be a moral policeman
makes you look like a crabby old man from Cape Cod.

Jim KA6TPR

Disclaimer:  The views stated above may not reflect the position of my
employer or other right wing groups, nor be politically correct when
viewed in the light of left wing rhetoric.



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:14 1996
From: "Ken Bessler (KG0WX)" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antennas (Part II)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 15:00:18 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ovf2u$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p3vbd$[e-mail]> <4p4ji1$[e-mail]>
To: Roy Lewallen <[e-mail]>

Roy Lewallen wrote:
>
> Alas, Ken was being too subtle. Keith, it seems from your post that you
> have no license to transmit on the frequencies you quoted. Hams in general
> are reluctant to help anyone transmit illegally.  We have enough trouble as
> it is with unlicensed operators without helping them out. Consequently, I
> don't think you'll get much help in this newsgroup, but it doesn't have
> anything to do with your lack of experience -- just your lack of a license
> to legally transmit.
>
> Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Boy are you right, Roy! Here is what this little bootlegger sent me in the
mail:

Quote:
#1> Then do not respond at all to the post.
#2> "who appears to be bootlegging" I do not bootleg. I do NOT transmit on
    *any* frequency.  'Cept maybe 46/47mhz when I talk on my phone. Do not
    assume anything.

I did NOT ask you to assist me in doing something illegal. As a matter of
fact I spoke with a few members of the ARRL, who were more than happy
to provide the information I required.  I highly doubt the ARRL would aid
or abet in a crime.

Take your hypotheses elsewhere.
Unquote.

Here was my response:

You DID mention transmitting in your original post:

quote:
"Whenever I say effective, I mean getting decent reception and decent
transmitting ability.  For instance, would a smaller antenna receive
signals more clearly than my 16" whip at 440mhz?"
unquote

I shall not assist you in illegal activity. You have already indicated that
you intend to use the information gathered by your request to do so. When and
if you ever get a license, I will welcome you to the amateur fraternity.
Until then I will not make myself liable by assisting you.
--

                                Ken Bessler KG0WX
                                Design Services Company
                                http://www2.southwind.net/~kg0wx
                                Model railroad designing


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Beam vs dipole at low height
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 00:01:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4p579c$[e-mail]>

First of all I know that the higher the better...I hate looks of
antennas. so my question is. If I put a 20/15/20 meter beam only on
the top of the peak of my single story house am I wasting my time and
money..If I don't do that I have two other plans: Butternut vertical
at ground level or a dipole up 20 feet. Would the beam do me that much
good at being just at house peak level..thanks for your time..Jeff



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:16 1996
From: "John T. Young" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Beam vs dipole at low height
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:23:11 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4p579c$[e-mail]>
To: Jeff Hall <[e-mail]>

Jeff, I just went from a dipole to a Moseley beam (TA33JR WARC) at 38'.
The change was incredible. I kept the dipole up for comparisons for
several days. In reception, the beam gave me a 5 s-unit improvement! Same
with transmission. By all means get the beam. Best, John, KI7JB.

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Jeff Hall wrote:

> First of all I know that the higher the better...I hate looks of
> antennas. so my question is. If I put a 20/15/20 meter beam only on
> the top of the peak of my single story house am I wasting my time and
> money..If I don't do that I have two other plans: Butternut vertical
> at ground level or a dipole up 20 feet. Would the beam do me that much
> good at being just at house peak level..thanks for your time..Jeff
>
>
>



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cecil A. Moore~)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Beam vs dipole at low height
Date: 7 Jun 1996 18:00:44 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4p9qoc$[e-mail]>
References: <4p579c$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>
,
John T. Young <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Jeff, I just went from a dipole to a Moseley beam (TA33JR WARC) at 38'.
>The change was incredible. I kept the dipole up for comparisons for
>several days. In reception, the beam gave me a 5 s-unit improvement! Same
>with transmission. By all means get the beam. Best, John, KI7JB.

Hi Jeff, that means your beam has a gain somewhere between 15 and 30
dBd. That is a little too incredible.

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




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Kelly Gray)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Bicycle Moble Dual Band J-pole
Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:06:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4oqpfg$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4oaubn$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Paul Davis ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I read the previous posts about the dual band j-pole with interest.
: However, I am looking for somthing to mount on a bicycle. The
: 300ohm twin lead sounds like it would do the trick. Would I need a
: diplexer or somthing to use two antennas? BTW the bands in question are
: 2m and 70cm.
: --
: Paul Davis
: [e-mail]
: http://www.mindspring.com/~paul1/

I too am looking for an antenna to mount on my bicycle, although I'd be
satisfied with a single band 2m version.

The problem with the twinlead J-Pole is that it is VERY sensitive to changes
in the material near the lower part of the J. Even placing it up against
a wooden surface is enough to seriously detune the antenna!

It has been suggested that I could just stick a standard mag-mount on my rear
carrier, but that's where I ususally carry my cargo (backpack full of books
etc) so I have no room there.

so far, the best idea I can come up with is to bury a coax dipole inside
a fibreglass whip. Anyone know where I might be able to obtain a 6ft hollow
whip? I'd even be willing to tolerate the high losses and use RG-174 cable
for the antenna itself if I could find a whip to fit it in.

73 de ve3vgp
       Kelly Gray



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Bobtail Curtain - Gain Versus Feedpoint
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 96 10:23:57 GMT
Message-ID: <4p6bib$[e-mail]>
References: <4p2aki$[e-mail]> <4p4fsj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p544m$[e-mail]>

In article <4p544m$[e-mail]>,

>Roy, if you don't mind posting it here, what is the difference between
>EZNEC and ELNEC with regard to ground and radials?

Ground is used for two separate purposes by both programs. The first is in
determining the antenna impedances and currents. Once the currents are
determined, the radiated field is calculated. A direct ray is added to the
ray reflected from the ground to find the radiation pattern. Determination
of the strength and phase of the reflected signal is the second use of the
ground model.

MININEC (hence, ELNEC) always assumes that the ground is perfect for the
impedance and current calculation. This is a good approximation for
vertical wires and for horizontal wires higher than about 0.2 wavelength.
NEC-2 (hence EZNEC) also has reflection-coefficient and Norton-Sommerfeld
ground calculation methods. The former permits accurate modeling with
horizontal wires down to about 0.1 wavelength; the latter, down to about
0.001 wavelength. As implemented in NEC-2 and EZNEC, neither permits
modeling of buried wires or structures, so none of the methods gives an
accurate picture of losses in buried ground systems.

MININEC and NEC-2 (and ELNEC and EZNEC) use the same general method of
ground reflection coefficient calculation to determine the field reflected
from the ground in determining the radiation pattern.

All programs also use the same general method for modeling radials. The
average conductivity of the wires at a given distance from the antenna is
put in parallel with the ground conductivity, and the combination used to
determine the reflection coefficient for pattern calculation. The radial
model isn't used for impedance or current calculation. The wires are
"smeared" over the ground, so to speak, so there's no consideration of
which direction they're actually pointing. Nor is there any consideration
of nonuniform current distribution on them, or end effects. I've run a few
tests of the radial model against a model with actual buried wires using
NEC-4, which does model buried wires, and found rather poor agreement. I'm
sure that the models agree better in some circumstances than others, but I
haven't determined which. I recommend against putting much faith in the
radial model, and force EZNEC users to set an environment variable to
enable the radial model in the hopes that in looking in the manual to
figure out how, they'll read about the limitations of the model.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:20 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Bobtail Curtain - Gain Versus Feedpoint
Date: 7 Jun 1996 07:02:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4p9cop$[e-mail]>
References: <4p78fa$[e-mail]> <4p8rsq$[e-mail]>

W8JI  Tom <[e-mail]> wrote:

: My 40 meter dipole at 85 feet easily beats a 1/4 wl vertcal on 40 most of
: the time.
: A dipole I had at 350 feet easily beat my 1/4 wl vertical on 160.

Thanks Tom, let me rephrase the question. Why would anyone spend
good money for an all-band HF vertical when a dipole will
outperform it on all bands except 75m? Have you looked at the
atrocious prices on 0 dBi store-bought verticals?
--
73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Pricemw)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR
Date: 6 Jun 1996 16:27:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4p7evf$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Pricemw)

Jim....WD5OOG writes:
>This Last weekend - compared signal strengths between a Texas Bug
>Catcher - and a DDRR.  The DDRR was close to 6 DB more signal at
>.3 miles from the antenna.  I then modified the DDRR upon the
>suggestion of one of the threads.  The modification was to raise the
>height of the DDRR above the ground plane.  As I did this, the vertical
>component of the signal was reduced and horizontal component began to
>appear. (With the DDRR 11" above the ground plane, the horizontal
>component was -20 Db below the vertical component.)  As I continued
>to raise the height the horizontal component became stronger until
>the height was four feet.  At this point the horizontal comp. was +8.5
>Db greater than the vertical, and the radiation angle was 66 degrees.
>   I have gone back to the classical DDRR design where almost all the
>radiation is vertical, and the vertical pattern peaks at 16 degrees.
>   My conclusion is: - Even though the antenna looks like a top
>loaded vertical laid down on a ground plane - Electrically it is a
>slot antenna when (and ONLY WHEN) it is very close to the ground plane.
>As soon as I moved the radiator away from the ground plane, it did
>start to a loaded vertical.

Very interesting....I assume the tests were performed at 75/80 meters.
What was the construction of the DDRR....copper pipe, tailpipe, etc.
...and the ground was...chicken wire, copper wire, etc?  How would you
account for more vertical radiation when the vertical part is shortest?
Is there any Brewster effect involved?

--Wayne  W5GIE in Redlands, CA


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (Pricemw)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR antenna - Test Results
Date: 6 Jun 1996 18:38:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4p7mlm$[e-mail]>
References: <4p49i3$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Pricemw)

Jim WD5OOG writes:

>This Last weekend - compared signal strengths between a Texas Bug
>Catcher - and a DDRR.  The DDRR was close to 6 DB more signal at
>.3 miles from the antenna.  I then modified the DDRR upon the
>suggestion of one of the threads.  The modification was to raise the
>height of the DDRR above the ground plane.  As I did this, the vertical
>component of the signal was reduced and horizontal component began to
>appear. (With the DDRR 11" above the ground plane, the horizontal
>component was -20 Db below the vertical component.)  As I continued
>to raise the height the horizontal component became stronger until
>the height was four feet.  At this point the horizontal comp. was +8.5
>Db greater than the vertical, and the radiation angle was 66 degrees.
 >  I have gone back to the classical DDRR design where almost all the
>radiation is vertical, and the vertical pattern peaks at 16 degrees.
>   My conclusion is: - Even though the antenna looks like a top
>loaded vertical laid down on a ground plane - Electrically it is a
>slot antenna when (and ONLY WHEN) it is very close to the ground plane.
>As soon as I moved the radiator away from the ground planoaded vertical.

>Jim W0OOG/5  147.180 and 14.243 @ 11:30 CST (subvets net)

<this is a repost of my response that seems to have fallen in the
bitbucket>

Jim--
Very interesting test results.  You should consider an article.
I have a few questions:
1. I assume the test was done on 75/80 meters?
2. How "good" was the DDRR construction?  Was copper pipe, or auto
tailpipe used for the radiating element?  Was the ground "chicken wire" or
copper radials?
etc,etc
3. How do you account for a shorter vertical height producing a larger
vertical component?

--Wayne  W5GIE in Redlands, CA


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Doug Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Design For 1/4 wave z xfm
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 07:50:13 -0100

to: [e-mail]
PM>  Looking for a real world design/ideas  for 1/4 wave coaxial
PM>linetransformers      Pete/wa4hei .

I ran across an article in June 1994 QST, "The World Above 50 MHz"
column.  It talks about using 75 ohm CATV hardline on VHF/UHF and
references March 1988 QEX for one article on building matching sections
and also mentions W8ZD as one manufacturer of matching sections.  This
is the company I was thinking of.  Matching sections were about $35
to $40 for the pair from ZD Engineering, 605 Balsey Ave, Findlay, OH,
45840, phone [phone].  (Address & phone from 6/94 QEX article.)
The ATVQ magazine articles I mentioned must have been from around the
same time.  73's.

Doug Reed, N0NAS                email: [e-mail]

 * SLMR 2.1a * --T-A+G-L-I+N-E--+M-E-A+S-U-R+I-N-G+--G-A+U-G-E--




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (UNITOG)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Easy and Efficient Wire Antenna For 160M?
Date: 7 Jun 96 18:26:35 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Has any one tried a wire antenna as described in the Arrl Antena Book,
14th Edition, page 8-8?

It has one vertical and one horizontal 30' radiator and it's elevated feed
point is fed with ladder line. The text claims high efficiency on both 40m
& 80m. "Higher than it would be for a ground plane"!!!  Sounds too good to
be true.

What can be expected if both radiators are 60' for 160m?

HR3TFD
Todd DeWire
[e-mail]







From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:24 1996
From: Bill Kleronomos <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 7 Jun 1996 03:10:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4p86ik$[e-mail]>


Greetings, fellow Sons of Marconi!

Having recently bought the 'lot in the sticks'
I'm going through the iterations of various antenna
designs. One configuration involves a 160/80/40 meter band
ground mounted bottom fed vertical (90 feet tall)working against
the usual radial ground system. Since the antenna
will be some 500 feet from the shack and I'd like to
avoid remotely operated motor driven  matching components
I'm thinking about just feeding the thing with some stout
open wire line with the ATU in the shack.

Since the antenna could be classified as unbalanced, I'm
looking for comments re: feeding the thing with a balanced
line- like about line radiation, etc.

Howzabout feeding the thing with a hi-voltage rated balun
between the line and antenna- necessary?

Needless to say, the line VSWR is gonna be horrible from band
to band.

Thanks-

Bill, KD0HG
Lyons, Colo.




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:25 1996
From: Edward Oros <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Field day antennas...
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 20:45:13 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Are you ready for field day yet? It's
just a couple of weeks away!

Now you can design your own QUAD,
Ground Plane, Dipole or Inverted Vee

                 at

  http://www.4w.com/ham/antenna



Come and visit today.



Ed -- AC3L


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:26 1996
From: [e-mail](Jeff Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: G5RV TVI
Date: 5 Jun 1996 12:41:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4p3v90$[e-mail]>
References: <4p2rgu$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> N1SQJ <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>Tom wrote:
>>
>> I just installed the G5RV antenna.  I am now experiencing
>> heavy TVI and Telephone interference when on both
>> 80 and 40 meters.  I am using a MFJ 945 tuner to bring
>> the SWR down to 1 to 1.    I would like to hear from anyone
>> else that is experiencing the same problem and what steps were
>> taken to fix the problem.   Notes:  my tuner is not grounded, my
>> tv is on cable tv,
>> .

There may be nothing that you can do at your antenna end, other than
moving it far far away from the telephone(s) in question.  It's
possible that the G5RV's RF field pattern is stronger at the
telephone/TV than the other antenna you had been using.  Many modern
phones have all kinds of electronic critters inside them that act as
non-linear devices to strong RF fields.  You may need to filter both
the handset cable and the telephone cable where they enter the phone
(and if there's a DC power source, you should filter that too).

The house power-wiring may also be acting as an antenna, and this is
how, perhaps, the cable TV is being affected.



- Jeff, WA6AHL


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:27 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Jack GF Hill)
Subject: Re: G5RV TVI
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:21:05 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4p2rgu$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Tom ) writes:
> I just installed the G5RV antenna.  I am now experiencing
> heavy TVI and Telephone interference when on both
> 80 and 40 meters.
You do not say exactly how your feedline is managed... are you using
the "classic" G5RV design with ladderline connected to coax before the
tuner? Ladderline all the way to the tuner?

> I am using a MFJ 945 tuner to bring the SWR down to 1 to 1.
This also may be the problem... not the MFJ, but the design of the
tuner... problem here is that the tuner uses three tuning components
(input coupler capacitor, output tuner capacitor, and inductor) and
there are really only two "equations" to solve these three "unknowns"

What this means is that this tuner design has "imaginary" solutions --
imaginary in the mathmatical sense -- that give you false readings of
SWR and result in unbelievably bad harmonic suppression and spurrious
radiation because the system simply isn't tuned at all!

The G5RV was built to be optimized on 20 meters, and offered
reasonable matches on other bands, due mostly to the losses in
feedline configuration... Perhaps you could give us a bit more *data*
to go on...

> Notes:  my tuner is not grounded, my tv is on cable tv,
I don't think that the failure to ground your tuner is the entire
problem, though you really should have a single point of grounding for
the entire shack and *system*... it is for your own protection and
safety, and it won't negatively impact performance...

Is the interference ONLY on your own TV? I just caught the
implication... if so, then the problem may well be with the set
design...

How about you give us a bit more data to work with?
--
73,
Jack, W4PPT/M (75M SSB 2-letter WAS #1657/#1789 -- both from the mobile! ;^)

+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--+
| Jack GF Hill        |Voice: [phone] -             Ham Call: W4PPT |
| P. O. Box 1685      |Modem: [phone] -  Bicycling and SCUBA Diving |
| Brentwood, TN  37024|Fax:   [phone] -          Life Member - ARRL |
| [e-mail]  - "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" |
+--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--+


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:30 1996
From: Samuel Geller <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: H A M F E S T  and Computer Fest
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 09:57:33 -0400
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.93.960608095612.25630L-100000@mail>


     ------------------------------------------------------------------
     |                   The Famous BRATS Maryland                    |
     |                                                                |
     |        H A M F E S T  and  C O M P U T E R   F E S T           |
     |                                                                |
     |                    Sunday July 28, 1996                        |
     |                                                                |
     |       At the Maryland State Fairgrounds, Timonium, MD          |
     |   (On York Road, just North of the Baltimore Beltway (695))    |
     |                                                                |
     |       Air Conditioned Building   LARGE Tailgating Area         |
     |                                                                |
     |                   Plenty of Free Parking                       |
     |                Accessible to the Handicapped                   |
     |   For Information, or table reservations, call [phone]   |
     |  OR [e-mail]  OR our home page: http://smart.net/~brats |
     |                                                                |
     | Talk-in on the BRATS Repeater System 147.030(+) and 224.960(-) |
     ------------------------------------------------------------------




From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:30 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help!  High SWRs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 07:12:58 -0400
References: <4ouari$[e-mail]>
To: Decibel7 <[e-mail]>

Decibel7 wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
>   For lack of a base station I have tried mounting an antenna on top of a
> Pole in the ground (ground wired at top) and running the coax into my car
> to the radio.  The SWR is around 4-infinite.
>
> Is the grounding of one end to ground and the other to vehicle ground the
> problem?
>
> If so how do I fix this?
>
> If not, what is it and how do I fix it?
>
> Good speed to your modem
> Decibel7

If it's a typical mobile whip antenna you a talking about then the
problem is lack of radials when it's mounted on the pole.  You'd be
better off with a dipole or some other balanced antenna on the pole.

73, Bob (AA4PB)



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Brian Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF antenna for apartment
Date: 2 Jun 1996 19:56:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4osrm4$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Vincent D'Elia, Jr ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I'm thinking of putting my hf on the air and was wondering I should use
: as a antenna.
: I'm using aYeasu FT-901 and a MFJ tuner
: Any suggestions?

: Vince
: KC6ISS

Hi Vince,
  I use a B&W AP-10 at my apartment. It is only $70 and comes with coils
to enable its use on 40 through 2 meters. It is a simple vertical that is
base loaded and uses a counterpoise to match it. I cant compete with the
big boys but I have worked some DX only using 100 watts. AES sells it,
BTW.
  I have it mounted on my balcony using bent coat hangers. Later tonight
when I am done I'll take it down. Works great for $70.

Brian
AC5GL


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Is RG-389/U (military stuff) Any Good ?
Date: 6 Jun 1996 18:20:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4p77gg$[e-mail]>
References: <4p6ghh$[e-mail]>

david james ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Greetings,

: Came across some military surplus coax recently. It is labled
: RG-289/U.
: Uses humongo connectors but N adapters are available. Lengths are 40'.

Is it 289 or 389?

dB/100 ft:

         10MHz   100MHz   400MHz  1000MHz
RG-289/U  .04     .15      .30     .50
RG-389/U  .20     .70     1.50    2.50


--
Cheers,
Tom
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:33 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
Subject: Re: need help with wire dipole
Date: 4 Jun 1996 20:01:02 -0700
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4p2t9e$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Brian Olliver <[e-mail]> wrote:

: -i don't think a full wave dipole will radiate "check it out"
: maximum voltage will be at the centre of the half conductors
: thus cancelling each other-

Hi Brian, just because maximum voltage occurs at the center of
a dipole doesn't mean it won't radiate (unless, of course, one
is using coax to feed it directly. :-)

One of the very interesting things about 450 ohm ladder-line is
that the SWR will be the same when feeding a 45 ohm
half-wave dipole and when feeding a 4500 ohm full-wave dipole.
That means that the SWR is somewhat consistent when using 450
ohm ladder-line so it really doesn't make any difference what
the length of the dipole is (as long as it doesn't go below
approximately 3/8 WL).
--
73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:34 1996
From: David Rice <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Plans needed for 1296MHZ vertical
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 10:39:38 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Does anyone have any plans for building a 1296MHZ vertical?
Hopefully some type of colinear. I have many plans for directional
antennas, but would like a simple vertical design for working
local FM repeaters. Please E-mail me any designs.

Thanks!


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:35 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: VHF and UHF antennas at airports for ATC
Date: 4 Jun 1996 19:42:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4p23i8$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Howdy,
 I couldn't tag on to the original post.  The guy you want to get a hold of is
 Donald Madison KB9IHT. He has been the builder/supplier of these antennae for
 years. He isn't on the net, and is seldom on the air, but 'knows his stuff'

                                                       Jim WD9AHF


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (JJ Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: vhf and uhf antennas at airports for atc
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 15:27:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4p6mca$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Graham Seale) wrote:

>In message <[e-mail]> Darran Bogden wrote:

>> Can anyone tell me where I can find information on the vhf and uhf
>> antennas used at major airports and air traffic control facilities?
>>
>> The ones I've seen at most airports look like a ground plane antenna,
>> with four thin elements pointing down at about a 60 degree angle, with
>> a single, much thicker (pipe?) vertical element pointing up.  (Is the
>> pipe the antenna, or is there something else in there?)  The uhf ones
>> are much smaller of course, but of the same design.

Although they may have changed a lot in the last 10 years or so,
discone type antennas were employed frequently...at least on the
military UHF frequencies.  Vertical type "popsicle" antennas were used
for VHF a lot too during the 13 years I was a USAF air traffic
controller.
===========================================
cheers! jim martin, wk1v
lowell, mass
http://www.shore.net/~jjmartin/jjm.htm



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:37 1996
From: [e-mail] (JJ Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: vhf and uhf antennas at airports for atc
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 16:38:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4p9esq$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p6mca$[e-mail]> <4p7gfl$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jim Garver) wrote:

>I hate discones.  They seem to shoot the energy down, opposite of a
>1/4 wave ground plane antenna.  Maybe good for a hilltop.

I don't believe these antennas were used by ATC for DXing purposes.
They worked well at line of sight...they appeared to anyway.
Occasionally we'd have the morning and evening enhanced conditions and
we'd get our radio checks with other ATC facilites when we could work
'em.

===========================================
cheers! jim martin, wk1v
lowell, mass
http://www.shore.net/~jjmartin/jjm.htm



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:38 1996
From: Maude Schyffert <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: WTB Full size 3/4 el 17m & 40 yagi beams
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 12:58:28 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4p41cd$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Stan Sanderson wrote:
>
> Hi & thanks for reading this. I want to but a full size 40 m and 17 m
> beams. I prefer 4 element but 3 el maybe ok. Stan Sanderson VA3DS,
> Bainsville, Ont. CANADA
> email: [e-mail]

Good idea,

Just get an antenna handbook and read.

Good luck / SM0BKZ


From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Stan Sanderson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WTB Full size 3/4 el 17m & 40 yagi beams
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 13:08:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4p41cd$[e-mail]>

Hi & thanks for reading this. I want to but a full size 40 m and 17 m
beams. I prefer 4 element but 3 el maybe ok. Stan Sanderson VA3DS,
Bainsville, Ont. CANADA
email: [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Sat Jun 08 13:00:39 1996
From: "G. Keown" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WTB:  Tower
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 20:05:32 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Interested in buying a used (but in good condition) 40-50 ft. tower with
a top section.  Prefer Rohn 25 or similiar. Reasonably priced.  Prefer
the Austin or central Texas area so I can pick-up.  Contact me via
E-Mail


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:43 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bruce Fanker <[e-mail]>
Subject: (no subject)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 18:00:11 GMT



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:44 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 6m antenna
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:29:34 -0400
References: <4p6l9v$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:
>
> I would like to try out six meters on ssb and cw.  What types of
> antenna would work for this.  Homebrew would be ok also.  Thanks,
> KC5OQE

Horizontally polarized.  A beam is best.  A horizontal loop (halo,
sqalo, etc) will do.  Stay away from verticles.

73, Bob (AA4PB)



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:45 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (James Aeschliman)
Subject: Re: 6m antenna
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (James Aeschliman)
References: <4p6l9v$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:40:29 GMT


In a previous article, [e-mail] () says:

>I would like to try out six meters on ssb and cw.  What types of
>antenna would work for this.  Homebrew would be ok also.  Thanks,
>KC5OQE
>
For "trying out" I would stay with something simple and put up a simple
6 meter dipole.  Check an ARRL Handbook for the standard formula for
length and have fun.  If things get serious, then look into a better
antenna.
--
Jim Aeschliman                      [e-mail]
Black Diamond, Washington           KD7MK


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:46 1996
Date: 11 Jun 1996 12:39:02 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Hugh Duff)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Subject: 6m verticals on SSB


> It's perfectly true that the standard polarization for SSB work is horizonta
l
> and thus yagis, dipoles, square loops, etc. are best on sideband/CW/AM.
> However, it's also true that polarization doesn't matter that much during ba
n
                                           ***************************
> openings.  For example, over the past few weeks on 6m, I have worked from
>              _______clip______

> 73,
>
> Rick WB9GYT
> Milwaukee, WI
> EN62ax
>


Not entirely accurate.
Signal orientation may or may not become distorted during "band
openings"...it is always better to keep antenna polarity the same on
both sides...degradation can be as high as 20db loss).  Not to say a
station working vertically will not be able to work stations horizontally
polarized (as you pointed out) but there's no doubt that you would
probably have had even better success on 6m SSB if you were working
horizontally.

One of the reasons for the convention of horizontal antenna polarization
on SSB (versus vertical) is to escape a lot of man made noise which is
noticeable on AM (SSB) modes.
This noise is most detectable in the vertical polarity.
Going horizontal could drop your noise level low enough to pull out
weaker stations that may have been buried in the noise when you were
vertically polarized.

Of course, it's a lot more convenient to use a vertically polarized
antenna on the car. It's also less of an eyesore than a horizontal omni
antenna.  I prefer to drive around with a 6m 1/4 wave vertical on the
rear deck of the car and live with the loss and higher noise level.
I've worked all over the place with my mobile on SSB.

Regards...
Hugh Duff  VA3TO  Toronto



---
 ■ NFX v1.3 [000]


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:47 1996
From: "Anthony R. Gold" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Address/Phone for Sommer???
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 15:06:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pmj0p$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In article <4pmj0p$[e-mail]>
           [e-mail] "Larry" writes:

> I am looking for some info on the Sommer Co....they make beams, etc, for HF.

> If someone has their address I would appreciate it.  Thanks and 73.

`Alf' Sommer DJ2UT
Sommer-Antennas
395 Osceola Road, P.O. Box 710
Geneva FL 32732
Phone [phone]
Fax   [phone]

He also has an email address of [e-mail], he but doesn't
seem to check it too often, so a call to him or Charlotte is best.

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


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (Larry)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Address/Phone for Sommer???
Date: 12 Jun 1996 14:08:25 GMT
Message-ID: <4pmj0p$[e-mail]>

Hi,

I am looking for some info on the Sommer Co....they make beams, etc, for HF.
If someone has their address I would appreciate it.  Thanks and 73.

Larry, KE8GW


--
===========================
[e-mail]
NASA Lewis Research Center
21000 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, Ohio  44135
Work Voice(216) 433-5219
Work Fax[phone]
Home Voice(216) 774-6848
===========================



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:49 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna paints
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:48:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4pqd9c$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Bruce Fanker <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Does anyone know of any brand name NON-metallic spray paints to paint
>conductive antenna parts?  ex. Vertical radiator of an R7?

>Thanks,

>Bruce
>de N0pfe

Hi Bruce,
     I used a clear lacquer coating  by Simpson on mine. I simply
wiped it on with a rag. It had no effect on antenna performance. It
was, and is still, a mediocre antenna with a great SWR. Mine is an R5,
not an R7.




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:50 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bruce Fanker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antenna paints (Ignor empty post)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 18:01:17 GMT

Does anyone know of any brand name NON-metallic spray paints to paint
conductive antenna parts?  ex. Vertical radiator of an R7?

Thanks,

Bruce
de N0pfe




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:51 1996
From: Denis Weir <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna's & Condos
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:38:57 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

San Jose, Ca.

Some time ago (6 mos?) , I read in the San Jose Mercury News about a new
law that limits the powers of homeowner associations regarding
outdoor antenna installation. Basically the law states the association
cannot flat out deny ones request to install an antenna.

Can anyone point me to a document that I can arm myself with when I
approach my association?

BTW, After 9 years of undetected use, I just found my dual-bander all
bent up and in the dumpster. The bums even yanked my coax from the
outside wall, attempting to pull my gear through a very small hole.

Enough is enough!


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Don Stoner)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna's & Condos
Date: 13 Jun 1996 22:57:32 GMT
Message-ID: <4pq6cs$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Dennis... I'd suggest that you start by calling the police and reporting the
destruction of federally licensed equipment. Make sure they file a report on
it. Write the president of the HOA reporting what happened, stating that some
vandal has destroyed federally licensed equipment and you intend to prosecute
whoever is found to be responsible. I'd also suggest you visit the Antenna
Restrictive Covenants home page: http://www.gate.net/~donstone/antenna.html.
You may get some other ideas. Please keep me advised of what happens on this
situation. Regards don stoner, W6TNS




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:53 1996
From: Robert <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: auto tuner AT-11, jan 95 QST
Date: 10 Jun 1996 23:36:12 GMT
Message-ID: <4pibhc$[e-mail]>

hello all,

can the AT-11 be modified to work the 6 meter band??  I would like the
coverage to be 160-6 meters to go with my ICOM IC 706


73 rob n4yhd



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:54 1996
From: Merv Stump <[e-mail]@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Beam vs dipole at low height
Date: 12 Jun 1996 20:28:11 GMT
Message-ID: <4pn98r$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

I ran a couple of quick models of a 20 meter dipole at 20 feet above
average ground; and a 3 element close-spaced (total boom 1/4 wave length)
yaggi at 20 feet above ground.

The dipole shows a gain of 3 db over a dipole in freespace and the maximum
radiation angle is 50 degrees.(Not much dx on that one)

The yaggi shows a gain of 7 db over a dipole in freespace and the maximum
radiation angle of 36 degrees.(That's still pretty high, but a big
improvement)

Bottom Line:  Yes, the beam will be a significant improvement over the
dipole even at 20 feet.

Regards, Merv



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:54 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Russ)
Subject: black twin-lead phone line; How many Ohms?
Message-ID: <6c7cc$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 03:24:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Does anyone know anything about using the black 2-wire out-door
telephone line as a feed line? Wonder what the feedline impedance on
this stuff would be? At any rate, it looks like it would make good
dipole and longwire stock.  Anyone used this stuff before?

de N5EJS
Russ in LA.





From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:56 1996
From: Siegfried Rambaum <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: black twin-lead phone line; How many Ohms?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:20:58 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <6c7cc$[e-mail]>

> Does anyone know anything about using the black 2-wire out-door
> telephone line as a feed line? Wonder what the feedline impedance on
> this stuff would be? At any rate, it looks like it would make good
> dipole and longwire stock.  Anyone used this stuff before?

I would propose, that you read the ARRL Handbook. This stuff has an
impedance, if used for the intended use. But this impedance might be of
no concern to you, when you use it differently. If you cut that stuff
into dipole segments, and use all the wires inside the plastic jacket,
then the dipole resulting from it will have the impedance any other
dipole of the same geometrical arrangement will have too. However, I am
not sure, if you would have to adjust the dipole elements' lengths to
adjust for operating not with a single wire dipole but a multiwire dipole.

A good thing to have, when building antennas, is a noise bridge anyway.
So get yourself one, ghood used ones should be around for 40...50 bucks,
and less if they were homebrew...


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Frits Jensen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Butterfly antenna from Butternut any good?
Date: 10 Jun 1996 11:08:53 GMT
Message-ID: <4pgvo5$[e-mail]>

I also has limited room for big antennas. Using now simple vertical for 20M up

about 20 feet. Works ok, but some directivity (F/B) is wanted to reduce QRM.

The butterfly antenna has been in ads for many years, so it must be
sold! Is it value for money, or will my vertical give the same DX-results?.

I will like to hear from users (happy and unhappy) of this small 5-bander.

Vy 73 de OZ2Q - Frits in Copenhagen - [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:57 1996
From: Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butterfly antenna from Butternut any good?
Date: 11 Jun 1996 10:53:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4pjj7s$[e-mail]>
References: <4pgvo5$[e-mail]>

Hi Frits, I have tested and tuned two Butterfly beams and in all cases
this antenna leaves a lot to be desired.  The traps and matching devices
are mounted very flimsy. It will not stay in adjustment. The swr is not
stable. Front to back ratio reverses on two bands. I recommend that you
stay away from this cheaply built piece of junk! It is a mechanical
monster!  73  Jesse (W6KKT)



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:58 1996
From: Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butterfly antenna from Butternut any good?
Date: 11 Jun 1996 10:57:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4pjjeb$[e-mail]>
References: <4pgvo5$[e-mail]>

Frits, a much much better alternative would be to try and find a used
"Miniproducts" MiniQuad. They are no longer in business, but every once
in a while I see them advertised in the used market...73  Jesse (W6KKT)



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:52:59 1996
From: Jim <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V Vertical: Opinions?
Date: 13 Jun 1996 17:55:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4ppkln$[e-mail]>
References: <4pp9i6$[e-mail]>

Not my very first choice for portable, but could be for somebody.

The HF6V is mostly self-supporting.  On mine, I always used three nylon cords
for guys, located half-way up the antenna -- because we occasionally
get heavy winds here.  It's a "YMMV" issue but since the manufacturer
suggests guying the middle of the vertical, take it for what it's worth.

None of my various installations were portables -- I always installed
elevated, resonant radials, the more the merrier.  I had better bandwidth
on the bands with more radials, but this is not JUST a factor of the radials.
Anecdotal reports I've seen suggest that multiple radials work better
than the counterpoise kit.  The 160 meter kit will KILL bandwidth on
80, hurt 40, and generally make all tune-up more difficult, incidentally.

Because of the way the resonant traps/straps/capacitors/coils attach to
the vertical mast, I would not recommend an HF6V for a "quick setup
portable operation" antenna.  It just doesn't lend itself to easy, rapid,
repeated assembly or disassembly, especially with the radial issue.

But I would whole-heartedly recommend it as a DX-pedition antenna, because
once set up -- a couple of hours -- it gives one of the best values for
the money as far as a combination of bandwidth, short-term durability, and
disposability.  It's cheap enough to leave behind.  And there is the
UPS-shippable HF6VX (export) model, which has the longer mast sections
cut into 3-foot lengths.

When I think "portable" I think "easy as a walkie-talkie."  So I would
forego a little performance in exchange for ease of use, and get a DK3
"screwdriver" antenna, or load up a 9-foot whip with a tuner at the base.

When I think "field day" I think dipole or long-wire.  They're traditional.

When I think "DXpedition" I think performance, reliability, redundancy, and
cost is no object.  An HF6V would definitely be in my DXpedition kit,
along with as many yagis as I could haul, and as many dipoles as I could
roll up.

N6OTQ
WAS 40 phone on an HF6V, incidentally.




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR antenna -reply to comments
Date: 12 Jun 1996 22:33:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4pnum9$[e-mail]>
References: <4pn69b$[e-mail]>

In article <4pn69b$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
writes:

>Other comments.  -  I cannot account for why their was more vertical
>radiation when the vertical part is shortest.  I also cannot account
>for the reduction in vertical signal strength as I lengthened the
>vertical section (until 4 ft, then it incresed again).  I am also
>suprised that when I placed a neon bulb along the pipe, (with 75 watts)
>the bulb lit bright on only the horizontal areas (clssical DDRR config-
>uration only).

Are you saying the bulb lit anywhere on the horizontal area the same
brightness, and never on the vertical section?

Tom


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 8 Jun 1996 22:53:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4pdec2$[e-mail]>
References: <4pctgq$[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Ellington) writes:

>This problem lies in feeder radiation. Obviously, you can't bring the
>feeder away from the antenna at a right angle since it would lie on the
>ground unless maybe you used two heavy coax cables to make up your
>balanced feeder.

With either coax or open wire line, feeder radiation is ultimately caused
by uneaqual currents in the conductors.

Even if the open wire line was brought away from the antenna at an angle
that eliminated field coupling to the feeder, a balanced line would still
radiate if the currents weren't kept exactly equal.

Shielding it won't do any good, because a shield only works when it
carries equal and opposite currents to whatever it is shielding.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 9 Jun 1996 13:03:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4pf05v$[e-mail]>
References: <4pdec2$[e-mail]>

Hi Steve,
>
>My idea with the coax was to keep the feeder on the ground so you could
>get away from the near field of the antenna before starting with the open
>wire line. I would think it would work at least a little better than
>trying to run the open wire right up to the base of the antenna but maybe
>not. If the shield was not resonant with the transmitted signal, would it
>not act to prevent direct coupling with the center conductors?

Maybe it will help a little, or maybe not at all.  It might even make it
worse.

Anything that causes parallel currents to flow on a transmission line
causes feeder radiation, and there is no way to shield the line to prevent
the problem. The problem has to be eliminated by changing the "thing"
causing the problem.

What we really need is the line to have a very high common mode impedance
at the right places, generally accomplished by properly designed and
placed chokes or decoupling sleeves.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:02 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4p86ik$[e-mail]> <4pg7gv$[e-mail]> <4pg9pc$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:52:57 GMT

Back to the vertical question.....If one were to bring the open wire out
from the base at 45 degrees, would the lines then be balanced since they
are equaldistance from both the vertical and ground?




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


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Lee)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 22:59:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4pi5vu$[e-mail]>

In message <[e-mail]>
        [e-mail] (Steve Ellington) writes:

> Back to the vertical question.....If one were to bring the open wire out
> from the base at 45 degrees, would the lines then be balanced since they
> are equaldistance from both the vertical and ground?
> --
> Steve Ellington [e-mail]  Louisville, Ky

Hi,
   As I understand it a quarter wave vertical can be seen as one half
of a half wave dipole working against a mirror image in the ground
directly below it (rather than working against the ground surface).
If this is the case an open wire feed parallel to the ground (a foot
or so high) twisting to vertical at the feed point should work fine. I
appreciate that with a non-resonant pole there may be some feeder
radiation but what the heck, as long as it's not in the shack, radiation
is what we're after. Perfect patterns are not possible on earth, who
knows you may get a lobe just where you need it.
    Hope you have more luck this time Steve.

73 de Dave G0ROX
   ________________________________________________________________
  |  Dave Lee                              E-mail  [e-mail]  |
  |  Weymouth. Dorset.                     Packet  G0ROX @GB7BNM   |
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 16:37:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4pkbo1$[e-mail]>
References: <4pj65o$[e-mail]> <4pjot9$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:
>[e-mail] (WB3U) writes:

>>I don't think the vertical is the only problem here.  Even if
>>the antenna was a dipole, it might be difficult to find a tuner
>>that would be so well-balanced that radiation losses on 500' of
>>open-wire line could be ignored.

>VOA does it all the time, as I have with two wire Beverages that
>use the antenna as a feedline.

Tom, I don't understand what this has to do with the antenna
system under discussion.  First, VOA (as far as I know) isn't
using non-resonant, high SWR antennas that are being switched
from one band to another.  Second, the beverage antenna is
extremely inefficient.  Aren't they used only for receiving
applications?

>The real problem isn't the source end, there are dozens of
>simple and obvious solutions there.

Yes, there are solutions.  But again, I don't know of a past
or present commercial tuner that can feed a non-resonant
antenna on multiple bands and maintain such perfect balance
that radiation losses from 500' of open wire could be ignored.
If you know of a reason why this statement is wrong, please
tell me.  I may have a use for a longer feedline myself.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 11 Jun 1996 23:22:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4pld61$[e-mail]>
References: <4pkbo1$[e-mail]>

Hi Jack,
In article <4pkbo1$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (WB3U) writes:

>Tom, I don't understand what this has to do with the antenna
>system under discussion.  First, VOA (as far as I know) isn't
>using non-resonant, high SWR antennas that are being switched
>from one band to another.  Second, the beverage antenna is
>extremely inefficient.  Aren't they used only for receiving
>applications?

I'm sorry. These were meant to be examples of cases where the feedlines
are long and don't radiate or intercept signals. My point was proper
treatment of the line eliminates the problems, so the open wire line will
work just fine IF (<big if) the line is properly terminated on both ends.
>
>>The real problem isn't the source end, there are dozens of
>>simple and obvious solutions there.
>
>Yes, there are solutions.  But again, I don't know of a past
>or present commercial tuner that can feed a non-resonant
>antenna on multiple bands and maintain such perfect balance
>that radiation losses from 500' of open wire could be ignored.
>If you know of a reason why this statement is wrong, please
>tell me.  I may have a use for a longer feedline myself.

If the line has any appreciable length compared to the wl, the radiation
problem would still exist.

Certainly any balun can be improved on, but I don't think things are so
bad the system would be unworkable. I plan on taking some measurements
under real world conditions over the next few weeks as part of a tuner
project.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 13 Jun 1996 04:05:28 GMT
Message-ID: <4po428$[e-mail]>


        If this thread considers feeding a vertical against ground
system then I don't seem to see anything about how the balanced
line is connected to the antenna.  Or I just missed it.
        At any rate, the balanced line should be driving the antenna
through a ballanced to unbalanced balun at the antenna.
        I have seen some try to feed a vertical against ground by
grounding one side of the balanced line at the antenna.  This is
a no-no.  It is even worse if the transmitter end of the line is
fed from a balun with a grounded center tap.  Then the grounded
center tap is connected to ground as is the antenna end for a
completely ridiculous system.

Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:09 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 12 Jun 1996 17:54:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4pnore$[e-mail]>
References: <4pi5vu$[e-mail]> <4pj035$[e-mail]> <4pj65o$[e-mail]> <4pjqei$[e-mail]> <4pkbos$[e-mail]>

WB3U <[e-mail]> wrote:

: No, not SWR.  Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me
: that passing RF current through a single 100' wire will radiate
: more power than passing the same current through a 1' wire.
: Isn't that the same effect as common mode current traveling on
: a balanced feeder?

Well, in the two cases of 100/500 ft and 100/1 ft both 100 and
500 are appreciable percentages of the wavelengths involved
but 1 ft is not. I'm not convinced that 15% unbalance on 500
ft will radiate appreciably more than 15% unbalance on 100 ft
at the frequencies being discussed.

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:10 1996
From: VE4KLM <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: help me build .001 microhenry inductor (stripline or piece of wire ?)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:53:02 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


I am building a 6th order butterworth bandpass filter for the 2 meter
band (hoping to kill the intermod problem at my location), but some
of the inductors are just too small to wind using conventional air
coil designs. I have seen the use of strips of metal to do this, but
I do not know the calculations involved. The ARRL book I have shows
lots of projects using pieces of wire or strips of metal, but they do
not tell you how to calculate the inductance.

Can anyone give me dimensions for a .001 microhenry strip, and also maybe
some strip line formulas, so that I can create my own inductors.

Thank you very much,

Maiko
VE4KLM


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



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:11 1996
From: VE4KLM <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: help me build .001 microhenry inductor (stripline or piece of wire ?)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 09:25:21 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4pkub8$[e-mail]> <4pl1fs$[e-mail]>


>     Very good!  (mine would have been less kind). The poster gentleman
> simply has not recognized the departure between mathematically
> theoretical and practicable.  ;)
>
>     -=Tony=-    W6ANV
>

Tony, if you can't answer the question, than don't turn around and slam me
for it. You're talking to a Electrical Engineering person who specialized in
microwave engineering, electromagnetics, etc. I simply can not seem to find
a good source on constructing a simply stripline inductor.

Any positive information YOU can contribute would be appreciated.
Thank you

VE4KMLM
Maiko Langelaar
Winnipeg, Manitoba

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



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:12 1996
From: Matt Strandberg <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Help! 6 mtr antenna problem
Date: 10 Jun 1996 16:17:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4piadd$[e-mail]>

I recently tried to make a 6 mtr vertical antenna.  I made a normal
coaxial-fed dipole, with the correct length of wire.  I measured it five
times just to be sure.

Then, I turned the antenna vertical, so that the wire was running "up
and down", so that it would be a vertically polarized antenna, for FM,
rather than an SSB/CW type antenna.

The SWR is 4:1, and I am sure that the lengths are correct.  I am using
No. 16 insulated copper wire, and I can't figure out why it doesn't
perform properly.  Any information would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

matt
KJ7DX
[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:13 1996
From: "Terrence R. Redding" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How to connect coax to a quad antenna ???
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:04:34 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4nu277$[e-mail]> <4oepiu$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Robert G. Strickland wrote:
>
> [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS) wrote:
>
> >Robert G. Strickland
> >[e-mail]
> >        said, in response to a queastion about connecting a common
> >feed line to the several driven elemtns of a quad -
>
> >I have done some modeling of common feed quads using EZNEC, and the
> >general picture is that on 10m, the pattern is semi-useless. Also, for
> >a five band quad, all feeds tied together with one 2:1 balun, there
> >are significant drive impedance mismatches. My conclusion is that each
> >band is best driven separately, with matching adjusted for each band.
>
> >Robert,
> >        Wouldn't this modeling in EZNEC be subject to the requirements
> >shown in the *Crossed dipole* model shown on page 29 of the EZNEC
> >manual?
> >       The required minimum length of .02 wavelengths for the wire
> >containing the source would seem to distort the quad from its real
> >length and shape.
> >       I have run into this problem before trying to model some
> >of the multiband verticals etx.../
>
> >charlie, W7XC
> >--
> Charlie...
> Not being an "expert" at these things, I can only hazzard a guess. In
> my 3 band, common feed model, I use the short section and tie the
> three driven elements to it. From a common sense point of view, the
> length of the common section seems pretty short. Also, actual
I just put up a GEM quad this past weekend.  I used a 1:1 balun to feed
the driven element on 10/15/20 meters.  It works well.  I have less than
1.5:1 at the design frequency.

On the air gain tests/comparisons with local hams provided a tie with a
204B mono band 4 element 20 meter yagi (he was at 55 feet, I was at 35
feet), a 2 S unit advantage for the GEM quad against a Hygain 20 meter 4
element monobander with both antennas at 35 feet.  I also did a
comparison against a 3 element triband beam with him at 35 feet and my
antenna at 55 feet.  I won out with a 2 to 4 S unit advantage.

You commented earlier on the 10 meter performance of the quad with a
common feed.  My experience is the opposit.  10 meters is my best band
with 1.1:1 SWR and obvious high gain.  I work stations in Texas and
Arkansas from here in West Palm Beach, Florida with S 3 to S 7 reports
that on my inverted vee can't even be heard.

I can't comment on the 5 band common feed.  But I am very pleased with
the results of the GEM quad and a 1:1 balun common feed.  73 Terry




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert Strickland)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How to connect coax to a quad antenna ???
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 02:12:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4pl960$[e-mail]>
References: <4nu277$[e-mail]> <4oepiu$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Terry...
Congrads on your new Gem Quad. They make a niffty unit, and your
results show it! My experience has been good with my Lighting Bolt
Quad. However, 10m sort of died before I could really give it a good
test up there. My "experience" has been via the EZNEC program. People
have doubts about modeling quads, but no one seems to have "facts."
Funny that there's so little actual measurements with the quad and
quad - modeling comparisons. Lets hope this changes. STay in touch.
...Robert


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



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary Fiber)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: IC-706 Mic
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 03:50:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4p88tt$[e-mail]>
References: <19960606023915151.AAA219@LOCALNAME>

[e-mail] (Gary Bishop) wrote:

>This is a note concerning the audio with the IC-706 with the use of the Heil
>Pro Set.
>When using the proset...I noticed the radio isn't driven all that great....
>unlike the hand mike that came with the radio.
>Called Heil....and they gave me some advice.  Then I called Icom .... Icom
>told me about the samething.... however, I was told by the service tech that
>Icom would mod the radio so it would have more audio gain to make up for the
>lower audio output from
>the Heil headset.  The mod would be done for free as a under warranty type fi
x.
>The down fall with this mod...is that with the use of the hand mic ...or anot
her
>Icom type mic.... the gain maybe a little high.  You may want to Icom to get
>a feel of what it is all about.
>Will be going to 5W and KH8 in July .....how do I get ahold of the DX
>Reflector via the internet to post the dxpedition ?

>Brian   KG8CO

The modification appears in " Radio / Tech Modifications " published by Artsci
,
Inc at 818-843-4080.  It is NOT an authorized ICOM, Inc nor ICOM America,, Inc
modification.

It is merely a field modification that gets the audio up, HOWEVER it will also
greatly increase background noises picked up by the mic.  Might make it hard t
o
use the radio with car windows open,  I receive wind noise complaints after
doing this modification to my 706 when driving with my truck windows open now
the weather has warmed up.

Gary



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Voges)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Info required for telescopic mast.
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:00:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4pjfee$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [Default: blank]

I have a telescopic mast (pump-up type) which has the name CLARKE
engraved on it.
Can someone tell me where I can find information on this mast ?.
I need to service it and and also replace all the O-rings.

Regards
Dave



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:17 1996
From: "Ian White, G3SEK" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Info required for telescopic mast.
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:09:51 +0100
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pjfee$[e-mail]>

David Voges wrote:
>I have a telescopic mast (pump-up type) which has the name CLARKE
>engraved on it.
>Can someone tell me where I can find information on this mast ?.
>I need to service it and and also replace all the O-rings.
>

CLARK (no E) MASTS
BINSTEAD
ISLE OF WIGHT
PO33 3PA
ENGLAND

Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

They're very helpful with spares, but be sure you're sitting down when
you find out the prices.


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] Fri Jun 14 11:53:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder Line Quick-Disconnect
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 04:29:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4pgcmk$[e-mail]>
References: <4pah1t$[e-mail]>

Many thanks to everone who took time to respond to this.

I've decided against using a knife-switch, simply for fear
that it might not be sufficient to block the strike if the
antenna takes a direct hit.  The Johnson KW Matchbox I'm
using has no direct connection between the ladder line and
the input side of the tuner.  It seems unlikely that normal
static buildup could jump the air gap between the input link
and the secondary, so the purpose of the quick disconnect is
strictly to prevent a direct hit from charcoaling the tuner
itself.  Once the plug is disconnected, there will be a
large physical separation of the downlead and the rig.

Cecil, if I can find "Molex" connectors at Radio Shack that
aren't made in China, I'll give 'em a try.  I hadn't thought
about using these, but they'll eliminate the minimum order
charge by the sources that sell the double banana jacks.

Again, thanks to all.  If the connectors fry, I'll
post it here.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Magic Raibeam 2 el array
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 05:58:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4poe23$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

>FORREST GEHRKE <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>Has anyone done any serious measurements of this
>>antenna?  These specs are beyond belief.
>
>And the Easter Bunny will leave a dime under your pillow.

Talk about misinformation.  How are we supposed to have a decent
technical discussion when people always come along and get the
facts all screwed up.  The Easter Bunny does *not* leave dimes under
anybodys pillow.  The Tooth Fairy is the one who puts the dimes under
the pillow. But only in poor neighborhoods. In most places now, the
Tooth Fairy puts quarters under pillows.  Let's give credit where
credit is due.

The East Bunny lays eggs in the front yard.  Colored eggs. And
sometimes plastic ones with candy inside.

So come on Armond, if you don't know what you're talking about, look
it up in the ARRL antenna handbook before you post it next time.

73, Jim KH2D




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rob Neff (N7ORY))
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Magic Raibeam 2 el array
Date: 13 Jun 1996 12:21:02 -0700
Message-ID: <4pppmu$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4pnld9$[e-mail]>


Hi guys.

I know Chuck (WA7RAI), Woody (WB9CQX) and the rest that were on that
ad in ART. From what I hear from the people that use them, they work
real good.

Currently, there is some litigation going on among those who were
involved with the RAI product, so I can't tell you how well the
company is doing now.

But no, there's no such thing as a "free" in Phoenix. Trust me.

73

Rob Neff (N7ORY)






From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:21 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Jim Cluett)
Subject: Re: Need Windom antenna experiences...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 13:06:08 GMT
References: <4pqpie$[e-mail]>

In article <4pqpie$[e-mail]>,
BillV21572 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I'm sure this thread has gone by already, but being in a constant state of
>antenna experimenting, I'm now considering a Windom antenna, primarily to
>gain 80 meter band exposure which I don't have with my vertical.  I've got
>the real estate for an off-center fed antenna like this one, but not
>really
>for a true 1/2 wavelength 80 mb dipole (nor the height!).  A Windom would
>also offer me multiband capabilities, complementing my vertical.  A friend
>of mine tells me his has wide bandwidths all without an antenna tuner.
>Any Windom users, past and present: does off-center feeding and a
>radiating vertical portion add up to reasonable performance for the
>investment?  Thanks in advance for any help on this.
>73 de Bill   ka9hln
>
>
>Bill Vanstralen  KA9HLN  St. Paul, MN  [phone]  [e-mail]


Hi Bill. I'm using the Fritzel FD-4 and love it.
using it with a tuner from 80 to 10. great dx
on all bands. good signal reports. beautiful
hardware. no complains. it's abt 45 feet high.
using a yaesu ft-900AT with it. very saisfactory.
I bet the carolina windom advertised in QST is
good too. good luck, Jim, N1TOD



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:22 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: PRB-1 (WAS: Spider Antenna)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:17:23 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pbrvn$[e-mail]> <4pjk39$[e-mail]> <4pjnth$[e-mail]> <4pkbpv$[e-mail]> <4pmh6f$[e-mail]>

Yes, unfortunately PRB-1 has its limits.  What needs to be changed
is the general public's hostile attitude toward antennas of any kind.
They think they're getting "Beamed" with "Evil Radiation" and because
of this their kids will turn out weird.  Sad, but true.

Solution:  For those of you who do manage to get a permit to erect
an antenna, DONT USE IT FOR THE FIRST FEW MONTHES!  Let me relate
this interesting story to you...

At work, about ten years ago, we began erecting a terrestrial
microwave network.  We installed the dishes on top of our water
tanks and then erected the buildings.  There were delays due to
weather.  We didn't get the waveguide installed until much later.
Two monthes after we erected the dish in one neighborhood, we got
a call from an irate homeowner in the area.  He complained
bitterly that we were messsing up his TV reception.  Fortunately,
we hadn't even uncrated the radios yet.  Our staff engineer took
the call.  He let this guy blow of steam.  This was a really
determined nitwit --he even kept a log of when we were "beaming"
his TV with "interference."  After about a half an hour of this,
our guy said: "Gee, I really would like to help you, but somehow
I don't think we're at fault here --You see we havn't even hooked
up the radio yet.  I'll be glad to show you the station if
you're..." --That dude was so embarrassed, he hung up and we
havn't heard from him since.

It's easy to forget just how much you learned when you got started
with this hobby.  Your neighbors will never appreciate this when
you request something as benign as an antenna.  You must remember
the first rule of antennas: Public Relations.  It begins and
ends there.

73,

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:22 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Q: Gain of a 6m Saturn loop?
Date: 11 Jun 96 09:36:02 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Looking for information regarding the gain of a Saturn 6m mobile loop
antenna....
Any help appreciated.
Harry/N1QVE
[e-mail]
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:23 1996
From: Gareth Crispell <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Recommendations for Antenna Model Software?
Date: 8 Jun 1996 16:55:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4pcbag$[e-mail]>

Will anyone recommend a good antenna modeling software that will give me
lift < as well as Q,SWR,etc. I would need to very parameters quickly and

and with ease. Running a 586 - Dos 6.2 - WFWG 3.11.
Thank you people!

N1MSV


--






                 ..as for the mysteries of the
                Universe...they knew them not...


  And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run
  to and fro like sparks among the stubble.

  gareth     e-mail    [e-mail]




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:24 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S-Meter values Catalogue
Date: 10 Jun 1996 22:38:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4pj0np$[e-mail]>

Bruce G. Robertson <[e-mail]> wrote:

: 2. What is the right way to do this test with tools you might find
: around the home/lab ?

Hi Bruce, anybody working around osillyscopes will have access to
50 ohm attenuators. Signals at various 'S' meter levels can be
compared with and without a 6dB attenuator, for instance. Your
idea is an excellent one. Let's average the results and finally
define an 'S' unit. :-)

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ron Fitzgerald)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Sommer antennas
Date: 8 Jun 96 23:03:31 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Anybody out there had any experience with Sommer antennas.  Their =
propaganda makes the antenna out to be the best thing since sliced =
whatever.  Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:26 1996
From: Jim Thompson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Sommer DC 280 Discone - any comments?
Date: 6 Jun 1996 15:47:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4p6uj2$[e-mail]>

I saw the new Sommer DC 280 and DCL 280 HF-VHF discones at Dayton.  Looks like
 a nice antenna, but does it work?  Is anyone using it, yet?
I would appreciate any and all comments.

Thanks,

Jim, W4THU

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (W T Shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Spider antenna
Date: 9 Jun 1996 05:41:36 GMT
Message-ID: <wtshaw-0906960046120001@207.17.188.134>
References: <4pbrvn$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>


>
> Roger J. Buffington; AB6WR ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : I recently moved into a community which, alas, has restrictive CC&Rs which
> : do not permit antennas.  However, I have a nice attic two stories up,
> : towering over the ocean, an obvious site for my antenna array.  Has anyone
> : out there used those "Spider" multi-band dipoles advertised in QST?  These
> : seem like they would be ideal covert attic antennas.
>
> : Roger J. Buffington
> : AB6WR
> : USC Law School Class of '97

There are lots of possibilities.  I've used good attic antennas in the
past.  At present, I have a metal roof so that is not practical.  It all
depends on the room you have in your attic.  How about giving some
physical dimensions including vertical space and which way the roof
slants, if it does.

Bill, K5PCW
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
[e-mail]   Mac Crypto Programs
 You should at least know how to use ROT13.
"Fhpprff vf n Wbhearl, Abg n Qrfgvangvba."
 http://www.htcomp.net/wts/wtcrypto.htm
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Sir Barry Duxbury)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Spider antenna
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 07:39:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4pdsop$[e-mail]>
References: <4pbrvn$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In message <[e-mail]>
        [e-mail] (Steve Ellington) writes:

> Roger. I would stay away from vertical antennas in an attic. You would
> need some form of ground plane and it just isn't there.
> Roger J. Buffington; AB6WR ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : I recently moved into a community which, alas, has restrictive CC&Rs which
> : do not permit antennas.  However, I have a nice attic two stories up,
> : towering over the ocean, an obvious site for my antenna array.  Has anyone
> : out there used those "Spider" multi-band dipoles advertised in QST?  These
> : seem like they would be ideal covert attic antennas.

> : Roger J. Buffington
> : AB6WR
> : USC Law School Class of '97

> : [e-mail]

> : "I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather.
> : Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers."


Roger, I think your question was misunderstood! The idea of using two
whips in dipole configuration is very sound, indeed if you wish to
demonstrate the performance you can try two one band whips which are
very reasonably priced. It works well for me when operating
portable.. and much better than trying to use a vertical whip against
a poor ground.
Best 73 ...Barry

--
 Barry Duxbury
[e-mail]
100031.2223@compuserve
G4GAH Oxford UK



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:29 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bruce Fanker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spray paint for antennas
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
To: Antenna,paints
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:50:42 GMT

Does anyone know of any brand name NON-metallic spray paints to paint
conductive antenna parts?  ex. Vertical radiator of an R7?

Thanks,

Bruce
de N0pfe




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:30 1996
From: [e-mail](Glenn Sparks)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Stainless Steel wire as Antenna?
Date: 10 Jun 1996 19:35:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4phteg$[e-mail]>

I have a beach house near Galveston, Texas, and the environment
destroys my antenna system every year.  I have a 80 / 40 meter fan
dipole up about 45 feet.  I have been using galvanized wire for the
guys, and copperweld for the antenna and dacron rope.  First the guy
wire will rust into, about 8 months, then the copperweld will go, the
Dacron seems to hold up well though.

I bought Stainless steel guy wire and was told that it would work fine
for the antenna as well. Does anyone have any experience with this, it
is multistrand stainless steel wire, about 7 strand, looks about 14
gauge total size.  Does anyone have anyone have any experience with
this wire as an antenna?  I have some stainless steel hardware at the
beach house already, and while it lasts, it does get an ugly coating.
Will this coating (probably from the salt) effect radiation?  and
lastly how can I connect my feedline to Stainless Steel?

Any suggestions will be most welcome.

Thanks,
Glenn Sparks  KI5GY


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Frank Dinger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Stainless Steel wire as Antenna?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 20:43:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4pnca7$[e-mail]>
References: <4phteg$[e-mail]> <4piem7$[e-mail]>

In message <4piem7$[e-mail]>
        [e-mail] (Tom Bruhns) writes:

> Glenn Sparks ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : I have a beach house near Galveston, Texas, and the environment
> : destroys my antenna system every year.  I have a 80 / 40 meter fan
> : dipole up about 45 feet.  I have been using galvanized wire for the
> : guys, and copperweld for the antenna and dacron rope.  First the guy
> : wire will rust into, about 8 months, then the copperweld will go, the
> : Dacron seems to hold up well though.

> : I bought Stainless steel guy wire and was told that it would work fine
> : for the antenna as well. Does anyone have any experience with this, it

> I used stainless aircraft control cable for an antenna when I was at
> Adak, AK, "Birthplace of the Winds."  It held up in the weather fine,
> but I always felt it was a darned poor performer for an antenna.  At
> this point, I couldn't tell you if it was magnetic or not.  (See Roy
> Lewallen's posting.)

> I'm wondering what makes the copperweld go so quickly.  It seems like
> that's too fast even under moderate salt spray conditions, if it's
> properly installed.  You do have to be careful not to nick it.  What's used
> aboard ships for antennas??  Can you paint the wire with acrylic paint,
> perhaps by a dipping operation?

> --
> Cheers,
> Tom
> [e-mail]

 ========== response GM0CSZ / KN6WH
 Suggest to use black poly-ethylene or poly-propylene sheathed copper
or steel antenna wire ,in a saliferous environment. Exposed wire ends
can be covered with 2 component epoxy (glue) or wax oil.

Frank Dinger , Inver by Tain , Ross-shire IV20 1RX - Scotland
e-mail :  [e-mail]
Packet :  GM0CSZ @ GB7NOS.#76.GBR.EU



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:32 1996
From: burro <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: TA-33 Trap Help Needed
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:32:00 +0300
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Have TA-33 triband. Problem:  Have all the traps except there were three
reflector traps which means the director now has one director trap and
one reflector trap.  The driven element is OK.  The reflector is OK.
What problems might this create and is there a way to make the trap
correct for the director.  Any help offered would be greatly
appreciated.  Barry WB6LDL


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Test
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 22:59:41 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

This is only a test post



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:33 1996
From: Bob Smith <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.space,rec.radio.swap
Subject: Trade DSP-93 for DSP2232 or 1232
Date: 8 Jun 1996 02:17:04 GMT
Message-ID: <01bb54e0.94e406c0$25a447cc@desktop>

Hate to do it but I just have no time to tweak my DSP93 as I need to get
it going for sat work.  SO I wish to trade it for a DSp2232 or 1232.  It
is built and works perfectly.  Also includes the PACCOMM TNC board
installed.  Includes all docs and software.

Thanks for the bandwidth

Get me at [e-mail].

73.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Smith                                       N3FTU
Suwanee, GA
mailto: [e-mail]
http://www.wp.com/~bsmith
ARRL, TAPR




From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Egan)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Trap dipole with 450 ohm slotted line?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 16:34:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4pk787$[e-mail]>

Can 450 ohm slotted line be used as the feedline of a trap dipole?
I have a 130' inverted V with this slotted line currently. I get fair to good
reports on 40 and 80, fair to poor on 20 and 15 and no tune on 10.
I was thinking of replacing it with a 40/80 trap dipole. Can I reuse my
slotted line or am I going out to the store for new coax?
Thanks
Paul Egan VE3GFY


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Trap dipole with 450 ohm slotted line?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 21:23:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4pncho$[e-mail]>
References: <4pk787$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (Paul Egan) wrote:

>Can 450 ohm slotted line be used as the feedline of a trap
>dipole?  I have a 130' inverted V with this slotted line currently.
>I get fair to good reports on 40 and 80, fair to poor on 20 and 15
>and no tune on 10.  I was thinking of replacing it with a 40/80
>trap dipole. Can I reuse my slotted line or am I going out to the
>store for new coax?

Paul, is the dipole resonant on all the bands you're using
it on?  If so, ladder line can present more headaches than
benefits.  In fact, you may be losing power in some parts
of the system due to the mismatch between the line and the
antenna.  That could account for your poor results on 20,
15 and 10 meters.

IMO, you would be better off to install a current balun at
the center of the dipole and feed it with the appropriate
type of coax.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: two nearby towers (fwd)
Date: 12 Jun 1996 16:19:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4pmqlu$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Siegfried Rambaum <[e-mail]> writes:

>What will happen, when you both operate? The signal from one tower will
>overload the front end of the other guy. THERE SIMPLY IS NO WAY FOR YOU
>BOTH TO OPERATE AT THE SAME TIME !!!!!! repeat, there simmply is no way
>for you to operate at the same time. Twenty meters distance between both
>towers ... 66 feet ....

Not so.

I've operated lots of contests at a multi-multi site where the spacing
between antennas wasn't much greater than that, and we were running
max legal power on two or three transmitters simultaneously; proper
external bandpass filters and very very careful attention to bonding
handles the problem quite nicely.

regards,
Ross ve6pdq
--
Ross Alexander, ve6pdq  --  [phone]  --  [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:37 1996
From: Jesse Touhey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Vert gain vs Dipole gain 80 meters
Date: 10 Jun 1996 01:54:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4pfv9g$[e-mail]>
References: <4p78fa$[e-mail]> <4p8rsq$[e-mail]>

Tom: Here in California working very long path on 80 meters 5000 to 12000
miles my horiz dipole up 100' fed with 600 ohm feeders without exception
has never been beaten by a single element well designed vertical system.
I'm very surprised by you experience.  The 100' high dipole (both ends)
has almost the same performance as a 4square in its best direction. The
only systems that will do better is the very high full size yagi's etc.
Perhaps your path is shorter?  My dipole exhibits around 3.7 dbi at 20
degrees. Your single element vert unless it is over salt water wont do
that.  Respectfully,....Jesse (W6KKT)



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Vert gain vs Dipole gain 80 meters
Date: 10 Jun 1996 09:41:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4ph8lt$[e-mail]>
References: <4pfv9g$[e-mail]>

In article <4pfv9g$[e-mail]>, Jesse Touhey
<[e-mail]> writes:

>
>Tom: Here in California working very long path on 80 meters 5000 to 12000

>miles my horiz dipole up 100' fed with 600 ohm feeders without exception
>has never been beaten by a single element well designed vertical system.
>I'm very surprised by you experience.  The 100' high dipole (both ends)
>has almost the same performance as a 4square in its best direction. The
>only systems that will do better is the very high full size yagi's etc.
>Perhaps your path is shorter?  My dipole exhibits around 3.7 dbi at 20
>degrees. Your single element vert unless it is over salt water wont do
>that.  Respectfully,....Jesse (W6KKT)

Hi Jesse,

I don't know the real reason, I'm sure the good ground system helps.

My verticals have full size radial systems, and the dipole is up over the
radial system of the 160 vertical, absolutely broadside on Europe.

Looking at distance vs wave angle charts, it shouldn't be a wave angle
problem from being close to Europe. Besides, I get the same results into
ZL...and thats also broadside to the dipole.

I know NEC based programs say the dipole should be slightly better, but it
just doesn't work out that way in practice.

On 160 in Sylvania Ohio I had a 1/4 wl vertical and a dipole at 350 ft.
The dipole easily beat the vertical. But when the same dipole was only at
250 ft the difference wasn't so obvious, the antennas would often be tied.
Those were A-B tests and the antennas were about a mile or so apart on
flat black wet sandy loam soil.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:38 1996
From: Bill Levey <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Web Vendor Directory
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:54:23 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

A comprehensive directory of Amateur Radio businesses on the web is
available at: http://www.scott.net/~wa4fat/vendor.html


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:39 1996
From: phertler@  (Peter Hertler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Date: 10 Jun 1996 13:26:19 GMT
Message-ID: <4ph7pr$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovt9k$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: phertler@  (Peter Hertler)

In <4ovt9k$[e-mail]>, Peter Shintani <[e-mail]>
writes:
>Hi:
>       I  have an R-7 mounted on the side of my house. The base of the antenna is a
djacent
>to the eaves trough. The eaves trough is about 6m above the ground. It seems
to work,
>but QRN trash is about s-9 anytime of the day. 40 m performance seems ok, but
>20 and 15 m is too quiet, perhaps the antenna is not working well.
>
>I am considering remounting the antenna on to the peak  of the roof on top of
 a  4m
>mast. Would the additional 4m of height be significant ?
>I know that higher is better for most antenna's but in the case of a vertical
, and
>specifically the halfwave R-7 vertical does the low angle radiation worsen ?
>For example do strange lobes appear  when the antenna is raised to far above
the ground ?
>
>Peter
>
>


The manual specifies 8 feet off the ground is best.

Keep us posted.

Regards

[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:40 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Ferguson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:07:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4pm8gr$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovt9k$[e-mail]> <4ph7pr$[e-mail]>


>>
>>I am considering remounting the antenna on to the peak  of the roof on top o
f a  4m
>>mast. Would the additional 4m of height be significant ?
>>I know that higher is better for most antenna's but in the case of a vertica
l, and
>>specifically the halfwave R-7 vertical does the low angle radiation worsen ?
>>For example do strange lobes appear  when the antenna is raised to far above
 the ground ?
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>


>The manual specifies 8 feet off the ground is best.
>

My R-7 Manual says the dimensions recommended are based on the R7
approx. 8 feet above ground and 25 feet from surrounding objects. It
does not say 8 feet is the optimum height.  I assume  they are saying
the dimensions may change as you tune the antenna for min SWR.

I do not have the answer as to optimum height. Maybe someone has
modeled the antenna?

73,

Paul Ferguson
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Fri Jun 14 11:53:41 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Wire antennas in salty environment
Date: 12 Jun 1996 21:23:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4po535$[e-mail]>
References: <4pn1bk$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:
: I've been following the postings on stainless steel antennas and I wonder
: if somebody can conclude on which type of wire is best for antennas in
: a salty environment.

I believe that good insulation and a good paint would do the
job quite nicely. These two things have virtually eliminated
a static electricity problem I had. Course, Phoenix is not
all that salty or humid.

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:25 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 50 ohm adapters
Date: 16 Jun 1996 02:17:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4pvqsa$[e-mail]>

I apologize since this is not exactly about antennas. It is about
feedline connectors, so this seemed to me to be a reasonable group.

I have an HP-817A swept slotted line system in nice condition that I
would like to use at 2.3 to 10 GHz. This is your basic hamfest $50 or
less item since very few hams want these, and commercial places have
long ago moved to network analyzers. The output connector is an
Amphenol APC-7.

I would like to find an adapter from this connector to some more common
(at least among hams) type such as an SMA, N, GR-874 etc. with
reasonable performance, and pay less than I did for the whole rest of
the system. :-)

Does anyone have, or know of a surplus place that might have, these at
surplus/hamfest prices? The HP part number for an APC-7 to N female
adapter is 11524A, and from APC-7 to N male is 11525A if that helps.

I have a catalog from Pasternak Enterprises. Their price for a new
adapter, from a regular 7mm connector (I assume the APC-7 stands for
Amphenol Precision Connector 7mm) to an SMA female, is $170.00 in
single quantity. I'm looking for something considerably cheaper. :-()

73 Kevin [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:26 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: antenna
Date: 18 Jun 1996 22:59:02 GMT
Message-ID: <4q7cbm$[e-mail]>

pls include me in your mailing list


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:26 1996
From: John O'Brien <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: antenna design software
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 19:23:23 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

greatings!
i am a ham who likes to experiment with antenna designs,
trial and error and such, does anyone out there know of any good
windows based shareware, freeware, demo, whatever, antenna design
programs?
should allow cad type work, built in formulas, etc. for testing the
design before picking up a soldering iron and coax......thanks in
advance!
73's
N1NJI



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:27 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bruce Fanker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antenna paints
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
To: Neswgroup:rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:55:07 GMT

Does anyone know of any brand name NON-metallic spray paints to paint
conductive antenna parts?  ex. Vertical radiator of an R7?

Thanks,

Bruce
de N0pfe




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:28 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: webbte <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Antenna paints
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (webbte)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:15:26 GMT

Bruce - I asked a similar question about 3 months ago and was
generally told just to make sure is was non-metallic. The
concensus was a flat latex, green or brown, was the best for
concealment purposes. I also have an R-7 that I need to paint.
Hope this helps.

ted / ac4cs
>==========Bruce Fanker, 6/12/96==========
>
>Does anyone know of any brand name NON-metallic spray paints to paint
>conductive antenna parts?  ex. Vertical radiator of an R7?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bruce
>de N0pfe
>
>




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:29 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Antenna's & Condos
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:41:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4pqcs8$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Denis Weir <[e-mail]> wrote:

>San Jose, Ca.

>Some time ago (6 mos?) , I read in the San Jose Mercury News about a new
>law that limits the powers of homeowner associations regarding
>outdoor antenna installation. Basically the law states the association
>cannot flat out deny ones request to install an antenna.

>Can anyone point me to a document that I can arm myself with when I
>approach my association?

>BTW, After 9 years of undetected use, I just found my dual-bander all
>bent up and in the dumpster. The bums even yanked my coax from the
>outside wall, attempting to pull my gear through a very small hole.

>Enough is enough!
Hi Denis,
    I think what you are probably referring to is the new DSS law. As
I recall, it forbids CC&R's from stopping the installation of
satellite dishes up to 36 inches, and TV antennas for local coverage.
The law was pushed through by Pacbell (I wonder what they have up
their sleeve??).  It has no effect on ham antennas, unfortunately,
unless there is a loophole for amateur satellites. I, fortunately,
live in a condo that has no antenna restriction, so I didn't follow
the news all that closely.



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jake Hellbach)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Anyone use the MFJ-1798 ???
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 13:33:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4q12j0$[e-mail]>

Hello to all,
I was wondering if any has used or has any Feedback on the MFJ-1798
10 band antenna. How does it measure up to other antenna's of the same
type?

Thanks, Jake KK5HY
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
email via: [e-mail]
Check out the Westside A.R.C. Web page at:
http://www.accesscom.net/~kk5hy
Now updated with Boatanchor links!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:31 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Beam vs dipole at low height
Date: 14 Jun 96 08:08:43 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


I'm not an antenna expert, but I play one on TV....
From a practical, applied perspective, we ran a TH3JR tribander mounted
on a Rohn25 top section during the '94-'95 winter (waiting for the thaw
for the tower installation). The beam was up about 15'. We also ran
a G5RV up 40'. For DX, the beam outperformed the G5RV in all regards;
I cannot give an opinion on close-in performance as I can't recall
working the local-to-midrangers...

BTW, for a temp mount, we took a Rohn baseplate and welded it to one
end of a 36"x24" piece of 3/8" plate. Stacking cinder blocks around it
allowed the assembly to withstand that record-setting winter.

73
Harry/N1QVE



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (The Tie-Dyed Side of the Force)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Beam vs dipole at low height
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 06:52:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4ptmhq$[e-mail]>
References: <4p579c$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p9qoc$[e-mail]> <4pbgfi$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Norm Commo) wrote:
>I will second Roy's comments here.  I recently went through a design of a
>three element 40M beam for Field Day.  It needed to be supported by only two
>poles so it's elements droop.  I kept the angle to 38 degrees based on how
far
>away I wanted the anchor lines to be....
>At Field Day the antenna will be mounted at 40 feet on from two masts and a
>rope boom.  The wire size is #12 wire.

I've been wondering about wire beams, particularly because I don't have a
tower, but do have a large number of really tall redwoods.  Has anybody done
a multiple-tree-supported wire beam?  Has anyone tried making one that was
at least partly aimable (using ropes & pulleys)?



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:33 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: black twin-lead phone line; How many Ohms?
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:26:17 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <6c7cc$[e-mail]>

I can't be sure which wire you're writing about.  But I do have a
few generalizations regarding telephone wiring.  This comes from
a BELCORE technical publication:

The impedance varies with frequency.  I think it was intended for
either 600 or 900 ohms at audio but then drops to about 100 ohms
around 1 MHz. It was intended to look like the twisted pair stuff
they use.

Like Zip cord --this stuff was not intended for RF.

73,

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jake Hellbach)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butterfly antenna from Butternut any good?
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 13:46:38 GMT
Message-ID: <4q13bc$[e-mail]>
References: <4pgvo5$[e-mail]>

Hi Frits,
Well I am in the same boat as to using a small beam, My butterfly beam
works a little better than a dipole 20 meters, but good f/b.
On 15 to 10 meters it works great, sometimes 2 to 3 S units more than
my dipole. 12 meters works O.K. Don't even try 17 meters you can't
hear anything.

Hope this helps, Jake KK5HY


[e-mail] (Frits Jensen) wrote:

>I also has limited room for big antennas. Using now simple vertical for 20M u
p
>about 20 feet. Works ok, but some directivity (F/B) is wanted to reduce QRM.

>The butterfly antenna has been in ads for many years, so it must be
>sold! Is it value for money, or will my vertical give the same DX-results?.

>I will like to hear from users (happy and unhappy) of this small 5-bander.

>Vy 73 de OZ2Q - Frits in Copenhagen - [e-mail]


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
email via: [e-mail]
Check out the Westside A.R.C. Web page at:
http://www.accesscom.net/~kk5hy
Now updated with Boatanchor links!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V Vertical: Opinions?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:31:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4prm04$[e-mail]>
References: <4pp9i6$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Charles Teclaw) wrote:

>Would appreciate any comments on the HF6V, especially concerning whether
>it is really self-supporting, structural soundness, thoughts on radials
>vs. counterpoise system, and whether it might lend itself to quick setup
>portable operation from a pop-up camping trailer. I know some of these
>points have been discussed on the group, but deja news couldn't locate
>them.

>Thanks in advance. 73 de NT3G (Chuck)

Chuck,  I've used a HF6V for some time, and also an HF2V (?) the 40/80

meter version.  I guy mine with light nylon line. If it was ground
mounted temporarily, you could probably live without the guys.  I have
experimented with various radial systems, and a couple of tuned
radials on 20/40 seemed to do the job, but I really can't say I notice
a lot of difference without them. The 2V was mounted on top of an 8
story building with no radials at all and some U.S. stations had
trouble believing I wasn't using a beam (of course, we are surrounded
by salt water).  As for 'quick setup' I think you could have it
playing in 10 or 15 minutes if you leave it partially assembled when
you transport it.  The antenna has no traps, like some of the newer HF
verticals, and although it's been a few years since I bought one, I
think they were about half the price of some of the trapped verticals.
All in all I think it's an excellent antenna.  Only problem I've ever
had is that I melted one of the insulators that holds the 15 meter
wire away from the mast and cooked the wire itself, but that was very
easy to fix.

73, Jim KH2D




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Russell Blair)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Cable TV Hardline connectors.
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:30:24 GMT
Message-ID: <4pmd7o$[e-mail]>

I cant seem to find were in the Dallas area were to buy connectors for
Cable TV hardline. If anyone has a phone number please e-mail back.

Russell



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:37 1996
From: Hadley@.arva.com, N7REN@.arva.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Dual band J-Pole
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 09:50:41 PDT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


Looking for dimensions for 1/2" Cu. 146/446 J-Pole.
Thanks for the help.
Pls e-mail to [e-mail]
Hadley, N7REN




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:38 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Eggbeater Antenna
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 05:51:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4q07f7$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Mark Endicott) wrote:

>Somewhere in a former life I recall a design for the "eggbeater" antenna.
>It was used for space communications as it had a high angle pattern.
>Anybody have any of the design details.  73....Mark WB0NOO
>                                         [e-mail]

Has anyone used the 2m and 440 eggbeaters antennas to operate any
satelittes?  If so how did you do it, which satelittes, etc?





From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:39 1996
From: luis velis <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Eggbeater Any comments..?
Date: 19 Jun 1996 15:12:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4q95df$[e-mail]>

Hello all

I am interesting to know more about the eggbeaters antennas...
Are they any good..?
Can someone send me the plans...?


best 73's de Luis/n3tuk




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:40 1996
From: Doug Person <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Experiences with AEA ISO-Loop?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:42:14 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4prr1i$[e-mail]>

I have one and have used it off and on for a few years.  They work ok,
but have some operational drawbacks.  Tuning it can be very critical and
time-consuming.  It is often very difficult to find the point were it
resonates for the frequency you want.  Once tuned, the bandwidth is very
narrow.  AEA does offer an automatic tuner with which I have no
experience.  MFJ also sells a loop antenna which includes an automatic
tuner.  I Would be interested in a comparison between the AEA and the
MFJ, or if anyone has some words about the MFJ at all.

73, Doug - KI6BQ


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line?
Date: 13 Jun 1996 11:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4ppb7e$[e-mail]>
References: <4po428$[e-mail]>

In article <4po428$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (CHARLES J.
MICHAELS) writes:

>
>        If this thread considers feeding a vertical against ground
>system then I don't seem to see anything about how the balanced
>line is connected to the antenna.  Or I just missed it.

Hi Charlie, I did say something similar several times. But your reply was
more to thepoint. In one case I said:

Date:   9 Jun 1996 13:03:59 -0400

"Anything that causes parallel currents to flow on a transmission line
causes feeder radiation, and there is no way to shield the line to prevent
the problem. The problem has to be eliminated by changing the "thing"
causing the problem.

What we really need is the line to have a very high common mode impedance
at the right places, generally accomplished by properly designed and
placed chokes or decoupling sleeves."

My point was an isolating device (balun) is necessary, not a simple
untuned shield.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:42 1996
From: jvaldes <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: help me build .001 microhenry inductor (stripline or piece of wire ?)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 12:30:20 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

VE4KLM wrote:
>
> I am building a 6th order butterworth bandpass filter for the 2 meter
> band (hoping to kill the intermod problem at my location), but some
> of the inductors are just too small to wind using conventional air
> coil designs. I have seen the use of strips of metal to do this, but
> I do not know the calculations involved. The ARRL book I have shows
> lots of projects using pieces of wire or strips of metal, but they do
> not tell you how to calculate the inductance.
>
> Can anyone give me dimensions for a .001 microhenry strip, and also maybe
> some strip line formulas, so that I can create my own inductors.
>
> Thank you very much,
>
> Maiko
> VE4KLM
>
>  ---------------------
> |  SLM Software Inc.  |
> | [e-mail] |
>  ---------------------How about a small resonant cavity? I've made several o
ut of 2 inch pipe
and also square cavities from pc board stock. Mechanically their easy to
construct and not difficult to tune. You can even add a notch to the
bandpass characteristic if the offending frequency isn't too far away.
Generally speaking, to eliminate the intermod it's only necessary to
remove one of the offending frequencies to eliminate the mixing.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:43 1996
From: "Michael G. Katzmann" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: help me build .001 microhenry inductor (stripline or piece of wire ?)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:43:22 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: VE4KLM <[e-mail]>

VE4KLM wrote:

> Can anyone give me dimensions for a .001 microhenry strip, and also maybe
> some strip line formulas, so that I can create my own inductors.

The impedance looking into a lossless, shorted transmission line is Z0 tan Bl
 where B is the
2*PI/Lambda (in the medium), l is the length of the line and Z0 is the charact
eristic impedance.
There are many sources obtaining Z0 for varios geometries (single wire above a
 ground plane, a strip
above a ground plane are popular).  You'll find it hard to get much above 200
ohms for a microstrip
line (and it's useful to have a Hi Z0 to keep the line lengths down).

--
   |\      _,,,---,,_          Michael Katzmann  ( NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV )
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              -  Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
  |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'             -  Odenton, Maryland. U.S.A.
 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)          [e-mail]  (finger for PGP public key)


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:44 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: help me build .001 microhenry inductor (stripline or piece of wire ?)
Date: 18 Jun 1996 05:56:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4q5gev$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4pkub8$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

In <4pkub8$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Weir) writes:
>VE4KLM <[e-mail]> shared the following priceless pearls of
>wisdom:
>
>
>->I am building a 6th order butterworth bandpass filter for the 2
>meter
>->band
>->Can anyone give me dimensions for a .001 microhenry strip
>
>Well, since .001 uH = 1 nH, and since #22 wire is about 20 nH per inch
>in straight wire, about 50 thou of wire will do it.  Point being, this
>is an impossibly small inductance to deal with.
>
>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 1st phone---Cessna 182A N73CQ
>[e-mail]        | Commercial/CFI-Airplane/Glider-A&P-FAA Counselor
>

Howdy,

According to Coil_2.exe which is supposedly on the June 1996 QRZ CD-Rom.
A 1 turn, 1 inch overall length of wire, .21 inch inside diameter will give yo
u a
001007309 uh inductor. Use a drill bit for that .21 i.d.

                                                      Jim WD9AHF


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help! 6 mtr antenna problem
Date: 14 Jun 1996 07:42:54 GMT
Message-ID: <4pr55u$[e-mail]>
References: <4piadd$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Monty Wilson ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Matt Strandberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
: >I recently tried to make a 6 mtr vertical antenna.  I made a normal
: >coaxial-fed dipole...
: >
: >Then, I turned the antenna vertical...
: >
: >The SWR is 4:1, and I am sure that the lengths are correct.  I am using
: >No. 16 insulated copper wire, and I can't figure out why it doesn't
: >perform properly....

: A couple of questions, Matt.  Did you ever measure the SWR while the
: dipole was oriented horizontally?  This might tell you if the ground
: or some other nearby object is affecting the SWR.

: Also, the 468/f formula only gets you close, normally it comes out a
: little long and you have to trim the ends down to get to 50 ohms.  Is
: there a resonant point anywhere that you can find?

: If you're using an HF SWR meter, it probably works well enough for
: comparison (relative) measurements at 6 meters, but the accuracy in
: real numbers is probably not correct.


.......and, does the coax (assuming a coax feed) come away at right
angles from the vertical dipole, i.e. the coax should be horizontal
relative to the vertical antenna.....?

Peter, G4BVH
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:46 1996
From: jvaldes <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help! 6 mtr antenna problem
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:27:24 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4piadd$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Siegfried Rambaum wrote:
>
> > I recently tried to make a 6 mtr vertical antenna.  I made a normal
> > coaxial-fed dipole, with the correct length of wire.  I measured it five
> > times just to be sure.
> >
> > Then, I turned the antenna vertical, so that the wire was running "up
> > and down", so that it would be a vertically polarized antenna, for FM,
> > rather than an SSB/CW type antenna.
> >
> > The SWR is 4:1, and I am sure that the lengths are correct.  I am using
> > No. 16 insulated copper wire, and I can't figure out why it doesn't
> > perform properly.  Any information would be much appreciated.
>
> Did you consider the velocity factors?
>    Even copper wire has some velocity factor
> Did you use an impedance transformer?
>    If not, read about the impedance matching basics. Some ferrite beads
>    over the end of the coax (near the antenna) might help already...
>
> Else, you gave too few information about your antenna to figure, what
> might be wrong.

How is the feed line connected to the antenna and what are the element
lenghts? Given the insulated wire I might expect that they would have to
be a little shorter than the standard 1/2 wavelength dipole. The feedline
must be perpendicular from the plane of the radiator, i.e., for a
verticle dipole the feedline should have a horizontal run of at least 1/4
wavelength (I think that's right), check one of the handbooks.


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:48 1996
From: Anargiros Rentezelas <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Help! Need book(s) on how to start amateur and professional radio stations
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:07:03 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Dear group,

Can someone please help me end my total ignorance by giving me a list
of books on how to start an amateur and professional radio station.

Thanks.

Anargiros


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:49 1996
From: KD1YV <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 23:48:05 -0300
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

charles copeland wrote:
>
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>
> If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
> lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>
> I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
> and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
> Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
> are able to snag a QSO.
>
> What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor
?
> Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>
> Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>
> Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
> running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>
> If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>
> 400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>
> 30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>
> antennas?

Charles,

First, congratulations on your recent upgrade.  What is your callsign?

I run from 100 to 150 watts (depends on what kind of mood my old Hallicrafters
 SR-400A
is in that day), and have had phenomenally good luck with it.  I use a G5RV th
at I made
myself, up at about 45 feet, through an MFJ mobile tuner (300 W rating.)

I rarely have any problem making a contact, and have even broke through my sha
re of
pileups.  I have worked a fair bit of DX, including Antartica, Australia, New
Zealand,
Marshall Islands, and a few African stations, not to mention a ton of Europe,
Caribbean
and South America.  And all of this within the last year, at the "bottom" of t
he sunspot
cycle.  Most of my contacts are on 75 or 20 meters, since my old rig has no WA
RC bands.

It really sounds like your antenna situation needs to be improved, and it will
 make all
of the difference in the world.

73 de Jim, KD1YV


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:50 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:08:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4q6ra0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (charles copeland) wrote:

>This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?

I was stationed in Korea (South of course) from June of 1989 to June
of 1990 and obtained the call of HL9ZF whilst there.  I was billeted
on the second floor in what are now Korean condos.

Anyway, I used a Hustler MO-2 mobile mast with the 10, 15, and 20
meter resonators and had it attached to the rail on the balcony.  I
worked Montevideo (sp?) in Uraguay on 10 meters running only about 60
or 70 watts.  Can't get any farther than that....it's half way, almost
to the mile, around the world.

===========================================
cheers! jim martin, wk1v
lowell, mass
http://www.shore.net/~jjmartin/jjm.htm



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:52 1996
From: "Thomas W. Castle" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:02:17 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: charles copeland <[e-mail]>

In regards to only running a 100W, I basically only use 80-100W...
I run 7.251, 7.248, 14.305, 3847.5, 3945 in the mobile an at home.
At home I use a G5RV up about 40' with my IC-751 an Dentron Ant tunner.
I also work digital modes on 20, 40 & 80 at about 50W out due to the
heavy duty cycle on Pactor, Amtor & ect.

Its not so much the power, my mobile Atlas 210X only does 80-100w at
best, its how you get it to the antenna an type of antenna. The people
I talk with on a routine basis have no problem hearing me, even if I'm
not the strongest station they ever heard...

Your going to have to look hard at your antenna system, are re-consider
its layout or feed line or other factors which would apply...
I know this doesn't solve your problem, it just understates the fact
that a antenna system can either make or break you...

Just remember if your S-5 on a 100w, and if every time you double your
power you could come up 1 S unit; what would your signal be at 800W..?
100, 200, 400 & 800w Figure it out... Its not the difference of S-5 to
60/9... either.

There are some really sharp guys here on this newsgroup, an they will
probably have much better ideas on what you might need to do, than me.
Just don't give up...
73 De Tom




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:54 1996
From: AC6V <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 08:52:23 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
To: charles copeland <[e-mail]>

charles copeland wrote:
>
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>
> If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
> lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>
> I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
> and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
> Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
> are able to snag a QSO.
>
> What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor
?
> Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>
> Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>
> Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
> running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>
> If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>
> 400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>
> 30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>
> antennas?

Hi Charles. The sunspot cycle is at or near its low point for the cycle,
so the upper bands are very poor -- I suspect this is part of your
problem -- as it is with the rest of us.

Second the power out is not anywhere near as important as your antenna.
And No you don't need a huge tower and a beam. Several of us here in San
Diego with antenna restrictions have Cushcraft and Hy-Gain antennas such
as the R5, R7 and DX-77 and are quite successful at working DX when the
bands are open. These antennas are mounted at 6 to 10 feet off the
ground and since they are "half wave end fed antennas" they work quite
well without radials. These verticals have a good low angle of radiation
for DXing.

One of our group on the San Diego DX Cluster has worked 104 countries
with 6 watts and an R5. These may sound "incredible" unless you have
tried it, turns out from 6 Watts to 96 watts is about 12 dB or roughly 2
S-units. So the 6 watter compared to the 100 watter is down 2 S-units or
so. With 6 watts, several 10,000 mile plus contacts and QSL cards are in
the log.

For dipoles, inverted Vees and beams -- you need to get em up in the
air, as the radiation patterns are strongly influenced by height. In
general, the higher these antennas are -- the lower the radiation
pattern. That is why the big towers for the beams and dipoles. Note that
a properly designed vertical can work well at or near ground level.

And no, the 160-20M bands are not the exclusive territory of the "Big
Guns". I know several DXers who have worked DXCC with 100 watts and
antennas at 40 + feet as well as DXCC with 6 watts and a vertical as
mentioned before.

During the last hours of a contest or the last days of a big DXpedition,
many times the DX is begging for contacts --- easy pickins.

So hang in there -- when the sunspot cycle starts to pick up, you can
work 10M DX with a wet noodle and a coupla watts. I know of one DXer who
loaded up his rain gutters and worked many Asian African and Europeans
on 10 Meters.

73 and Good Dx
Rod
The R5er


--
_______________________________________________________________

A Man May Know Of The Whole World Without Leaving The Shelter Of His Own
Home.
..... Lao Tze

Hark! For I Have Hurled My Words To The Far Reaches Of The Earth!
What King Of Old Could Do Thus?
..... AC6V
_______________________________________________________________


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:55 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Pete Soper)
Subject: Ladder line variability questions
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:15:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

As I grease up my VISA card to buy another few hundred feet of
ladder line I'm bothered by W8JI's posting some months back about
some ladder line he got that was way off the expected impedance.

For a Lazy-H project I need the highest impedance I can get for
the phasing lines, but also absolute minimum weight and good durability,
as they will be dancing a lot in the wind. So I'm leaning toward
Wireman #553, which is listed as 450 ohm line with #18 stranded
conductors. Has anybody measured a sample of this? Likewise, for the
feed from the junction of the phasing lines I'm going with 300 ohm
line, but need to know ahead of time that it really is 300 ohms.

Here's my basic question. It seems that the various flavors
of line, with different conductor sizes, must be different widths
to maintain the target impedance. For instance, it seems impossible
that if "vanilla" 300 ohm ladder line has #20 conductors, the
type with #18 conductors could be the same width. But I've never
seen more than one size each of 450 and 300 ohm slotted lines, no
matter what the conductor size. Likewise, I see 450 ohm line with
everything from #18 to #14 conductors. The little bit I (think) I know
about how balanced line impedance relates to conductor size and
spacing would suggest either these different lines are different
widths, or else the "450" and "300" designations are bogus. What's the
real story here?

Incidently, plugging the numbers into the EZNEC transmission line
modeler, I can't come up with a plausible 300 ohm ladder line, based
on the dimensions and wire gauges I'm familiar with. That is, #20
conductors spaced around 1/2 inch comes out way, way over 300 ohms.
The model predicts 303 ohms for two #20 conductors spaced .2 inches
apart: much closer spacing than the conductors in the 300 ohm slotted
line I'm using for my tuner project . I must be missing something
fundamental about all of this. And I suddenly have an urge to
measure that "300" ohm line when I get home :-)

Regards,
Pete
KS4XG


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Kevin  AstirCS "1U"   KO0B)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Magic Raibeam 2 el array
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 17:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4pnld9$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (FORREST GEHRKE) wrote:

>They claim a F/B ratio greater than 25dB and twice the
>gain of a 2 el Yagi for this 20M version.  Can you
>believe it, all on a 7.125 ft. boom?

Note:  I am an no way supporting any manufacturers claims of
gain...But the underlying premise,  "longer must be better" of the
above posting, bears looking into.

The short boom isn't so amazing.  Short Yagis, for example, _ can_
show much better F/B  and forward gainthan long ones....at the expense
of very low feed impedance, and  poor bandwidth. (law of free lunches
at work)

With two elements, for perfect cancelation of rearward lobes (infinite
F/B) you would need _equal_ currents flowing in the two elements..of
course with the proper phase relationship....but if they are not of
same magnitude you can't get 100% cancelation, regardless of phasing.

With a Yagi, you have a tradeoff situation...to couple reflector most
strongly to driven element, (to get currents as close to equal as
possible)  you need to be at resonance, but then you have to detune to
get the required phase shift.  You want to be close for good coupling,
but that lowers radiation resistance, and hurts
bandwidth....compromise, compromise, compromise.

If you could have independant control of coupling, and phasing, I
would expect that much higher f/b could be achieved...and driving both
elements could achieve this.  But it surely opens a whole nuther can
of worms....namely the low feed impedances, actually producing the
required phase shifts into the VERY reactive elemnts, etc.

Close spacing also improves forward gain...the two elements are
running much closer to 180 deg phasing, so upward and downward
radiation is cancled to a much higher degree for close spacing, than
for far spacing.  The improvement in f/b and f/top ratio leaves more
radiation to go into forward lobe.

Imagine a  long, 1/4 wave boom for example.  You would want the two
elements in quadrature, so you only get 3dB  (relative to front lobe)
cancelation of upward radiation.  Compare to  a 7.125 foot boom, or 37
degrees spacing, driven at 143 deg ( for best f/b ratio) would give
you  5.5 dB front/top. (back of envelope calculation...by a no NEC!)

Note that the two elements  driven at close to 180 deg. cancle FORWARD
radiation to a substantail degree!  This is why the radiation
resistance goes into the cellar.    The cancelation does not result in
a decrease in forward gain, exept that it  will produce very high
circulating currents in the elements, and required phase shifting
/feed matching networks,  the resulting losses  will likely piss away
most /all/and then some of the advantages of the short boom.

No, short booms are not very popular.  The squirelly impedances, and
low radiation resistance present substantial problems in practice.....
Theoretical analysese which do not take losses of real elements coils,
etc. into account will yield deceptively optimistic performance
expectations.

I guess my point is, that to claim such outstanding performance
figures for a two element arrray, it would almost _have_ to be a short
boom design.

If I'm wrong, somebody will surely correct me.

If I'm right, somebody will surely correct me <g>

-73-
ko0b






From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Magic Raibeam 2 el array
Date: 13 Jun 1996 11:13:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4ppb7e$[e-mail]>
References: <4poe23$[e-mail]>

In article <4poe23$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jim Kehler) writes:

>The East Bunny lays eggs in the front yard.  Colored eggs. And
>sometimes plastic ones with candy inside.
>
>So come on Armond, if you don't know what you're talking about, look
>it up in the ARRL antenna handbook before you post it next time.
>
>73, Jim KH2D

That's right, and the Easter Eggs are never conjugately matched. If they
were, the Easter Bunny's work would only be 50% eggficient.

The Blooming Bunny Theory:]
In some baskets the eggs have to be hallow, in other baskets filled with
lead. What egg you put in what basket is determined by the side of the
bed.

It's all in the Awful Rabbit Rearend Leavings Handbook.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:58 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dexter N. Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Missing back-issues
Date: 15 Jun 96 22:31:20 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Greetings, all, from New Zealand!

   I keep an archive of this Digest on my 24-hrs Packet station
for local Hams who have no Internet.  Occasionally (though rarely),
either UCSD or my (Massey) mail server hiccups, and I lose one or
two issues.  I would like to keep the archive complete, so am
seeking issue:

V96 #300  (27 May)

  If any kind soul has kept this, I would appreciate a copy
(to email address below).

   Meanwhile, many thanks to Brian, and to all contributors.

Thanks in advance, and 73 de Dexter, ZL3LH

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dexter N. Muir          Manufacturing Pilot Plant Technician             |
| [e-mail]   Department of Production Technology              |
|                         Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand |
| http://www.massey.ac.nz/~DNMuir/                                         |
| "Honesty pays --- but not enough."   "Modesty pays --- but even less!! " |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:10:59 1996
From: (Steve Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Mobile Antennas??
Date: 17 Jun 1996 15:43:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4q3ue6$[e-mail]>

Hi

I am interested to know about experiences with the various dual band
antennas on the market (comet, ANLI, Larson, ect.).  What are your likes
and dislikes?   Is there a preferred mounting style?  Thanks for the help.

73s
Steve, WA6TAF


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:00 1996
From: Will Flor <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mobile Antennas??
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 12:04:31 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q3ue6$[e-mail]>

Steve Greenberg wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I am interested to know about experiences with the various dual band
> antennas on the market (comet, ANLI, Larson, ect.).  What are your likes
> and dislikes?

I've had good results with Larsen, but I've never used anything else, so
I can't really compare them to other brands.

>Is there a preferred mounting style?  Thanks for the help.
>

Best:  cut a hole in the car and permanently mount it.
Second best: mag-mount
Third best: trunk-lip or other non-glass mount
Last: glass mount

Nevertheless, I have had results that are quite good with
a glass-mount Larsen 2m/70cm antenna.  I don't transmit
with power over 10 watts with it, however, since there is
noticeable feedline radiation, due to no connection to the
car's body at the antenna.

73 de KB9JTT


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:01 1996
From: "Deni Watters (WB0TAX)" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Multi-Band Verticals
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:54:02 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I am soon to install a multi-band vertical and I desire to ground mount the
antenna.  I am also not interested in installing a radial system.  The antenna
will be used for 95% CW.  What are your experiences?  What are you using?  Wha
t do
you recommend and why??  Prefer responses to my email address.

Thanks and 73
Deni WB0TAX



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dennis `Deni` Watters   |   Owner, President, CEO, Chairman of the Board
   WB0TAX                  |               THE DUN MUVN FARM
   [e-mail]          |      unless of course, my wife overrules me!
   http://www.dwatt.com    |             she has the checkbook.
------------------------------318-747-2823------------------------------------


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:02 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need help feeding 80 mtr loop
Date: 14 Jun 1996 17:23:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4ps763$[e-mail]>

Now that I aqm about to put 279.2 feet of copper in the air for a 80 meter llo
op, there is only one question I could use some help on, since I am a neophyte
 when it comes
to wire antennas. I have read in this newsgroup that the feed point of this 80
 meter loop is going to be around 100 ohms. I plan feeding it with 213 and usi
ng it on all bands
thru a MFJ 949 tuner. In a message in this news group on this subject, someone
 said that a 4:1 balun should be used. It seems to me that 100 to 50 or 25 to
50 still comes
out 2:1. Is there some other reason for putting the 4:1 balun in the line (I w
as wondering if it has something to do with easier matching at higher freqs).
Sorry to sound so
ignorant, but I guess at this subject at this time, I am as I sound. Any help
appreciated. Thanks   73 de N2YZS


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:03 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: Need help feeding 80 mtr loop
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ps7di$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 03:06:04 GMT

You'll get a lot of different answers on this one. Most will advocate
using open wire feeders all the way to the tuner. Heres what I do on my
160m loop for multiband use.

At the feed point, use a 4:1 CURRENT balun. These are available from Radio
Works as either a kit or assembled. Inside them are 100 ferrite beads and
some RG-92 coax. They seems to have very stable characteristics across the
HF spectrum compared to the traditional 4:1 voltage balun. I then run my
RG-8 straight down to the shack. It's about 60ft long. I cut my antenna
for the lowest part of the cw band.

My SWR (readings) (at the rig), note how I qualified that, are below 3:1
on any band. On harmonics like 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters, my swr is
less than 2:1. The balun does not overheat while running a KW.

I learned the balun trick after 3 years of experimenting and umpteen
baluns. Give one a try!



[e-mail] wrote:
: Now that I aqm about to put 279.2 feet of copper in the air for a 80 meter l
loop, there is only one question I could use some help on, since I am a neophy
te when it comes
: to wire antennas. I have read in this newsgroup that the feed point of this
80 meter loop is going to be around 100 ohms. I plan feeding it with 213 and u
sing it on all bands
: thru a MFJ 949 tuner. In a message in this news group on this subject, someo
ne said that a 4:1 balun should be used. It seems to me that 100 to 50 or 25 t
o 50 still comes
: out 2:1. Is there some other reason for putting the 4:1 balun in the line (I
 was wondering if it has something to do with easier matching at higher freqs)
. Sorry to sound so
: ignorant, but I guess at this subject at this time, I am as I sound. Any hel
p appreciated. Thanks   73 de N2YZS

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


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (BillV21572)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need Windom antenna experiences...
Date: 14 Jun 1996 00:24:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4pqpie$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (BillV21572)

I'm sure this thread has gone by already, but being in a constant state of
antenna experimenting, I'm now considering a Windom antenna, primarily to
gain 80 meter band exposure which I don't have with my vertical.  I've got
the real estate for an off-center fed antenna like this one, but not
really
for a true 1/2 wavelength 80 mb dipole (nor the height!).  A Windom would
also offer me multiband capabilities, complementing my vertical.  A friend
of mine tells me his has wide bandwidths all without an antenna tuner.
Any Windom users, past and present: does off-center feeding and a
radiating vertical portion add up to reasonable performance for the
investment?  Thanks in advance for any help on this.
73 de Bill   ka9hln


Bill Vanstralen  KA9HLN  St. Paul, MN  [phone]  [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:04 1996
From: Wayne Carlson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Pro-Am (Valor) dual band antenna?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:19:33 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Does anyone have experience with the Pro-Am DB240 antenna?  How it is
electrically and mechanically?
--

            Wayne  Carlson  --  [e-mail]  --  K2DT  --  Tucson, AZ


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:05 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Question about antennas
Date: 14 Jun 1996 03:58:15 GMT
Message-ID: <4pqo0n$[e-mail]>

If you could put up an 80 meter loop 20 or so feet up, I think you would find
it to be a very good antenna (and also quiet). If you have the room and the su
pport for it, it is
an inexpensive antenna to use. Good luck.  Vern N2YZS  (I started at Tech+ and
 don't regret it!)


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (Joe Sullivan)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Question about feeding my long wire
Date: 17 Jun 1996 01:16:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4q2blq$[e-mail]>

I plan on putting up a long wire on my property.  I think that I could
probably string up about a 200 foot wire.  I am using an MFJ 949E tuner
with a connection on the back for a long wire.  My problem is ... Am I
supposed to bring this bare, long wire into my shack where people can
touch it?  If It is supposed to run directly into my shack then are there
any precautions that I should take, like avoiding sharp turns?  having it
touch metal?  How is this normally done?  The ARRL antenna book seems to
be silent on this subject.  What is the preferred method of hooking this
wire into my shack?

Respond here or to [e-mail]

Thanks,

KB7UEF



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:08 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Markey KN3C)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: REWindom
Date: 14 Jun 96 10:43:52 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>



Date: 14 Jun 1996 00:24:46 -0400
From: [e-mail] (BillV21572)
Subject: Need Windom antenna experiences...

I'm sure this thread has gone by already, but being in a constant state =
of
antenna experimenting, I'm now considering a Windom antenna, primarily =
to
gain 80 meter band exposure which I don't have with my vertical.  I've =
got
the real estate for an off-center fed antenna like this one, but not
really
for a true 1/2 wavelength 80 mb dipole (nor the height!).  A Windom =
would
also offer me multiband capabilities, complementing my vertical.  A =
friend
of mine tells me his has wide bandwidths all without an antenna tuner.=20
Any Windom users, past and present: does off-center feeding and a
radiating vertical portion add up to reasonable performance for the
investment?  Thanks in advance for any help on this.
73 de Bill   ka9hln


Bill, I used a "classic" windom at 2 different locations with good =
success.  By "classic", I mean single wire feed and roughly 130' in =
length.  I brought the single wire feed into the house with a feed-thru =
insulator, as well as a ground connection from an outside ground rod.  =
On the inside of the house was a short piece of ladder line which =
connected to a Johnson Matchbox.  In both cases, the antenna worked =
well, however  I never compared it to a dipole cut for a specific band.  =
I worked mostly 80 and 40 with it, and was also able to work 160.  The =
single wire version is prone to RF in the shack, so beware.  If you =
physical layout dictates a  Windom, go for it.

de Rick, KN3C


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S-Meter values Catalogue
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 17:50:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4ps8mt$[e-mail]>
References: <4pq6pj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Ward <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Why not just have the S-meter calibrated to an existing, well defined unit
>of measurement like dbm? I really don't see the need for a precisely
defined
>S unit when an an existing unit will work.
>
>Is there any technical problem with this? How difficult would it be to
make a
>meter circuit that would read over a range of something like 70 db with an
accuracy
>of +- 3 db for the frequency ranges of interest, say 1-30 MHz?
>
>Dave  VE3BIP

It would require a different approach to amateur receiver design than is
taken today. Current receivers have an AGC system whose sensitivity varies
more-or-less logarithmically with AGC voltage. The S-meter simply measures
the AGC voltage. To make the S-meter truly logarithmic would require
redesign of the IF and/or RF section for true logarithmic response to the
AGC voltage. Alternatively, the receiver can be designed like a spectrum
analyzer which has good wide-range logarithmic response, and the meter can
then measure the actual signal strength. In these, the front end is
designed to handle an extremely wide range of signal amplitudes with very
little distortion, but is not AGC controlled. Then the IF has a true
logarithmic response. Either approach would require a lot of development
time and a different philosophy on the part of the receiver manufacturers,
in addition to increased manufacturing cost. Would amateurs pay enough
extra for an accurate S-meter to make it worthwhile for them? I seriously
doubt it, and apparently so do the manufacturers.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:11 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S-Meter values Catalogue
Date: 13 Jun 1996 05:50:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4pp2pp$[e-mail]>
References: <4p579c$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4p9qoc$[e-mail]> <4pbgfi$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4pf7l6$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

This would provide a useful reference, since the US General class test questio
n pool
gives credence to S units. Many hams are suprised to find S-units have no
scientific reference. I think Collins tried to do this once as well.

Jim     N7TCF

>Roy's comments got me thinking. A list of S-meter to dB conversion
>tables for common rigs really would help everyone. We could make it a
>list project, for those of us who have access to the equipment. Take
>your rig to the lab, run the test, and post it to the list where I or
>others will make a web page out of all the results.
>
>Two questions abide:
>
>1. Is is safe to assume that all rigs of a certain model exhibit
>identical dB between S-meter values?
>
>2. What is the right way to do this test with tools you might find
>around the home/lab ?
>
>3. Should the test be done for each band?



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:11 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S-Meter values Catalogue
Date: 17 Jun 1996 11:08:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4q3scq$[e-mail]>
References: <4pr66j$[e-mail]>

In article <4pr66j$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roy
Lewallen) writes:

>Wouldn't it be nice if we could make all our S meters read in uniform 6
dB
>increments by defining the S-Unit to be 6 dB? While we're at it, let's
>define 1:1 SWR to be any condition with less than 100% reflected power.
>Then we can all have 1:1 SWR, too.
>
>Roy Lewallen, W7EL
>
>

An excellent idea Roy!

Perhaps we could define define "gain" as the number and length of
conductors in our antenna compared to a reference dipole.

A folded dipole would have 3 dB gain, a coaxial dipole 3 dB, a linear
loaded antenna with two wl of wire would have 6 dB gain.

It even works perfectly for a quad, now it has 3 dB gain in each element
over a yagi.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:13 1996
From: Jim Reid <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S-Meter values Catalogue
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 14:57:25 -1000
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q4fib$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Frank Dinger wrote:

--snip--

> Please also see a response from VE3BIP on this topic .
> He proposes to use the 'dbm' as unit of signal strength .

> Also the introduction of the dbm for S-meter readings would be a
> cultural shock to many hams .

Given that 0 dBm is 0.001 watt (1.0 milliwatt, or 1 mW), then
one-half microvolts across a 50 ohm resistor is dissipating
-113 dBm of power.

So,  the S-scale conversion would become:

        S-9     -73 dBm
        S-8     -79
        S-7     -85

and so on down, dropping 6 dB per S-unit, to

        S-1     -121 dBm.

Note that the ARRL labs report that most modern transceivers
have CW sensitivities of around -135 on down to -142 dBm,
presumably run with the 500 Hz CW filters in place to knock
down the thermal noise levels for these numbers to be real.

BTW,  an excellent book covering this topic is ON4UN's book
"Low Band DX'ing". He avers that for an SSB signal, when using
3 kHz bandwidth filters,  the reciever noise floor will be at
-129 dBm. He says that good operators need about 10 dB
signal to noise ratio to read a weak DX signal,  or that the
input signal level must be about -119 dBm. Just a couple dB
stronger than an S-1 signal of -121 dBm.

Where did John get -129 dBm?  Well he was using a Yaesu
FT-1000D,  which has an ARRL measured min signal capability
of -137 dBm,  per the ARRL labs.  Now the actual thermal noise
in a 500 Hz bandwidth of spectrum is -147 dBm,  per the old
standby kTB formula.  The added 10 dB by the FT-1000D measured
by the ARRL is the rigs added noise,  or its noise figure.  The
figure John uses, -129 dBm,  is the added lift in the noise floor
when the bandwidth is increased from the 500 Hz used by ARRL
to the 3 kHz bandwidth of which John is writing; that is
6 x's the bandwidth or, 7.7 dB(pretty close to John's
added 8 dB.

So,  hooray, it all works out,  just as it should!
It would be nice if our signal strength meters on our
affordable rigs could read out with these nice accruacies
and absolute dBm figures,  but am afraid not many of
us could afford the cost of, essentially an hp HF Spectrum
Analyzer as part of our rigs front end!

73, Jim, AH6NB


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (Frank Dinger)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: S-Meter values Catalogue
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:11:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4q4fid$[e-mail]>

In message <[e-mail]>
        Dave Ward <[e-mail]> writes:

> Frank Dinger wrote:

> > It is my understanding that at an IARU Zone 1 meeting in Budapest-Hungary,
> > in 1977 , 1 S unit was defined as a change of signal strength of 6 dB.
> >  For frequencies up to 30 MHz an S-9 signal was defined as 50
> > microvolts across 50 Ohms at the receiver input terminals and shown
> > on the S-meter at max RF gain.
> >
> > For frequencies above 30 MHz  an S-9 signal was defined as 5
> > microvolts at 50 Ohms across the receiver input terminals, etc.
> >

> Why not just have the S-meter calibrated to an existing, well defined unit
> of measurement like dbm? I really don't see the need for a precisely defined
> S unit when an an existing unit will work.

> Is there any technical problem with this? How difficult would it be to make
a
> meter circuit that would read over a range of something like 70 db
with an accuracy
> of +- 3 db for the frequency ranges of interest, say 1-30 MHz?

> Dave  VE3BIP

======== coments GM0CSZ / KN6WH
Expressing signal strength in dbm would be fine ,like in the IARU
scale case ,it is based on a reference which can be reproduced in the shack.
De dbm is nowadays a standard unit of measurement for RF signals
levels ,hence I would be happy with a signal strength scale in dbm .
Its introduction  would however be a cultural shock to many hams.
Has this at any time been proposed at ARRL level . I would be very
happy to support the proposal.

Frank Dinger , Inver by Tain , Ross-shire IV20 1RX - Scotland
e-mail :  [e-mail]
Packet :  GM0CSZ @ GB7NOS.#76.GBR.EU



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (david l. thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Stainless Steel wire as Antenna?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:20:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4pskfi$[e-mail]>
References: <4phteg$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail](Glenn Sparks) wrote:

>I have a beach house near Galveston, Texas, and the environment
>destroys my antenna system every year.  I have a 80 / 40 meter fan
>dipole up about 45 feet.  I have been using galvanized wire for the
>guys, and copperweld for the antenna and dacron rope.  First the guy
>wire will rust into, about 8 months, then the copperweld will go, the
>Dacron seems to hold up well though.

Fritzel Antennas from Germany has used covered stainless steel wire
for many years in the FD-4 dipole series.  There are well over 30,000
in use worldwide.

They would work very well in your type of environment.

Dave K4JRB



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:16 1996
From: "C.D.Sage" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 10:42:07 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

IAS Communications Inc.(1-800-668-5499) is developing this revolutionary
new radio frequency antenna that is 1/60 the height(length) and weighs
80% less than most conventional applications. The Department of Defense
(Navy) is currently testing the (THA) antenna. The company forsees being
able to replace a 150 foot tall radio tower with a three(3) foot tall
(THA) antenna. The company will provide technical info upon request.
 (PS)
  I am not an employee of this company.
                                                Regards,
                                                C.D.Sage


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:17 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 96 19:14:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4q1mcq$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   "C.D.Sage" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>IAS Communications Inc.(1-800-668-5499) is developing this revolutionary
>new radio frequency antenna that is 1/60 the height(length) and weighs
>80% less than most conventional applications. The Department of Defense
>(Navy) is currently testing the (THA) antenna. The company forsees being
>able to replace a 150 foot tall radio tower with a three(3) foot tall
>(THA) antenna. The company will provide technical info upon request.
> (PS)
>  I am not an employee of this company.
>                                                Regards,
>                                                C.D.Sage

Sigh.

This isn't the same bunch that brought us the "crossed-field" antenna, by
any chance?

What's your source of information? Do you have any affiliation at all with
this company?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:18 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:49:05 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> "C.D.Sage" <[e-mail]> writes:
>From: "C.D.Sage" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 10:42:07 -0700

>IAS Communications Inc.(1-800-668-5499) is developing this revolutionary
>new radio frequency antenna that is 1/60 the height(length) and weighs
>80% less than most conventional applications. The Department of Defense
>(Navy) is currently testing the (THA) antenna. The company forsees being
>able to replace a 150 foot tall radio tower with a three(3) foot tall
>(THA) antenna. The company will provide technical info upon request.
> (PS)
>  I am not an employee of this company.



Do they sell bridges too?

BTW, this is entirely possible if you want .001% efficiency.  (I didn't waste
time calculating this number, it's just a guess +/-20 dB.)




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Aurelio Bellussi)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Traps for 'BATTLE CREEK' ??
Date: 14 Jun 1996 13:57:22 GMT
Message-ID: <4prr42$[e-mail]>


The clubstation at the University of Technology in Eindhoven,PI4TUE-PI5EHV,
obtained some sketches from the designer of the BATTLE CREEK SPECIAL LOW
BANDS vertical. We built our own version from the sketches using coax for
the capacity needed in the two traps. We noticed during our trip to HB0 in
1994 that the tips of the coax were arcing when we applied more than 100 W
to the antenna.

Is there anyone that built the Battle Creek Special and if so what solution
did you use to form the traps ? We intend to take the Battle Creek to HB0
again this year between 7 and 16 july and operate 160-80-40 meters from a
mountain top 2010 meters above sea level.

73 de Aurelio-PA3EZL

************************************************************************
*  Aurelio M.M. Bellussi,   PA3EZL/AA2WH                               *
*  E-mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]       *
*  AX25-mail:  pa3ezl@on5vl.#lg.bel.eu                                 *
*  ------------------------------------------------------------------  *
*  Eindhoven University of Technology | University of Maastricht       *
*  dept. of Medical Electrical Eng.   | dept. of Biofysics/Image Proc. *
************************************************************************






From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (GeorgeS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: UHF / VHF TV antennas
Date: 14 Jun 1996 18:53:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4psceg$[e-mail]>
References: <4pdah5$[e-mail]>

In article <4pdah5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>Hi, folks - sorry to intrude here, but I didn't see any other newsgroups
>that discussed antennas.  Can someone please point me to a FAQ or
>something similar that explains how to choose a roof mounted TV antenna?
>You know, the kind you fasten to your chimney with a metal strap?  Also,
>I do NOT mean a DSS dish or C-band dish.  Just a plain-old TV antenna.
>I'm sick of paying $40 / month for cable.

An inexpensive solution is the top of the line radio shack UHF/VHF antenna wit
h
a rotor. The antenna should cost about $100, and the rotor about $50.

The way an antenna picks up a distant station is to "look" in a narrow beam.
Because the beam is narrow, you can often get two or more stations with the
same antenna. To get the different stations you use the rotor top point at
them. The other reason you need the rotor is the narrow beam makes the antenna

difficult to point, and is best done from the comfort of the living room.

As to specifics. The VHF (channels 2-13) use a log periodic design. All the
tines are wired together, but only certain tines are active for any given
frequency. This is the "big" part of the antenna.

The "UHF" part uses a folded Yaggi. Only one small dipole is wired. The rest o
f
the small tines are attached electrically to the mast, and act as reflectors.

I live on the Ma/NH border and pull in stations from Providence RI to Portland

Me.

If you want to read more about it, look up the ARRL and search on the Log
periodic and Yaggi words. This will give you more than you want to know.

regards
george



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:21 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Variable-length ladderline tuner: implementation issues
Date: 17 Jun 1996 09:49:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4q429t$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Pete Soper <[e-mail]> wrote:
: I got no responses to my recent posting about how to design the
: R/C circuit for damping relay coils as they are de-energized.

Hi Pete, I didn't see your posting. What was the subject? Are you
sure it got posted? What I have done is drive the relay with
double the rated voltage with a resistor in series equal to the
coil resistance and a 0.1 pf cap across the coil.

: My concern is that each time I flip off a relay as I switch the
: tuner a noise spike will be induced into the nearby ladder line,

I wouldn't recommend switching the relays with RF on them. What I
do is switch the relays without RF on them, then apply RF and write
down the results. From then on, simply consult the chart and preset
the relay position depending on frequency.

: Again, I'll initially simply hook the tuner up and see if I have
: RF in the shack, but I'm trying to anticipate how to handle this
: if it is an issue.

I try not to anticipate problems but solve them as they arrise.
Quite often an anticipated problem never occurs.

: Oh, another devilish detail came when I tried to connect the ladder
: line to the relay wiper contacts. I removed the internal wires
: connecting the wipers to the connector pins on the other end of
: the relay, figuring this would be hopeless from a balance point of
: view. So now the ladder line loops comes in the end of the relay,
: in line quite nicely with the two pairs of wiper arms. I cut slots in
: the plastic relay covers to allow the ladder line in while expecting
: to be able to seal the slot with coax-seal after everthing was
: sorted out. But it turned out there still wasn't clearance for
: the ladder line to pass through, so I had to abandon the plastic
: covers.

I kept the covers, brought the common wires out holes in the covers
and fastened them to the ladder-line outside the relay cover. I found
that trying to solder the ladder-line to the common moving arms
caused the relay electro-mechanical sensitivity to change for the worse.
I used a glue gun to seal the holes.

73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:23 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Pete Soper)
Subject: Variable-length ladderline tuner: implementation issues
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:17:34 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

I got no responses to my recent posting about how to design the
R/C circuit for damping relay coils as they are de-energized.
The Sams' Radio Engineering book rates a series resistor/capacitor
circuit as third in effectiveness after a single diode or back to
back diode pair for controlling high voltage as the relay coil field
collapses. I'm concerned that the diode route might get me into
trouble with nearby RF fields (i.e. as a nonlinear element and
thus potential RFI source), but 'm not savvy enough to chose the R/C
values for my relays (12 volt, 400 ohm coils), thus the posting.

My concern is that each time I flip off a relay as I switch the
tuner a noise spike will be induced into the nearby ladder line,
attempting to break my eardrums. Perhaps this is a non-issue?
Anyway, I'll go the empirical route and test for receiver "pops"
after wiring up the first relay.

This device I'm building is an array of seven relays spaced three inches
apart on a strip of lucite. Loops of 300 ohm ladder line of larger
and larger dimensions are switched in or out of the transmission
line connection between an antenna and the transceiver (via a 4:1 balun
and variable capacitor). The initial loops will run out from the
end of their relays and be held apart with more bits of lucite or PVC
while the longer loops will go up and around the back side of the
shack, held in place with insulated standoffs.

The goal is to arrange a 200 ohm resistive load at the balun to get an
effective match with low losses. This project is my best guess about
how to implement the tuner that Cecil Moore dreamed up and has alluded
to in frequent postings to the antenna group.

But the devil is in the details, and I'm now quite concerned that
my chances of maintaining balance with all the interconnects among
the relays will be poor. I'm wondering if (assuming imbalance),
I might tweak the length of one side of one piece of ladder line
to regain proper phase relationships? Would a dual trace scope
connected to each side of the line show me lack of balance and
allow this adjustment, preventing radiation from the ladder line run
from the tuner to the balun (i.e. at the operating postition)?
Again, I'll initially simply hook the tuner up and see if I have
RF in the shack, but I'm trying to anticipate how to handle this
if it is an issue.

Oh, another devilish detail came when I tried to connect the ladder
line to the relay wiper contacts. I removed the internal wires
connecting the wipers to the connector pins on the other end of
the relay, figuring this would be hopeless from a balance point of
view. So now the ladder line loops comes in the end of the relay,
in line quite nicely with the two pairs of wiper arms. I cut slots in
the plastic relay covers to allow the ladder line in while expecting
to be able to seal the slot with coax-seal after everthing was
sorted out. But it turned out there still wasn't clearance for
the ladder line to pass through, so I had to abandon the plastic
covers. So now I have seven "open frame" relays that are going to
be sitting under the floor of the end of my shack, effectively
outdoors. I'm now scheming some way to keep dust and insects out of
the contacts! A bit of Saran Wrap (cling film) is the only idea I
have so far.

Pardon me if this sounds idiotic (or IS idiotic!). I knew nothing
about RF just a few months back and am learning as quickly as I can.

Regards,
Pete
KS4XG


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:24 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Pete Soper)
Subject: Re: Variable-length ladderline tuner: implementation issues
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:12:37 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4q429t$[e-mail]>

>Cecil Moore <[e-mail]> writes:

>>Pete Soper <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>: I got no responses to my recent posting about how to design the
>>: R/C circuit for damping relay coils as they are de-energized.

>Hi Pete, I didn't see your posting. What was the subject? Are you
>sure it got posted? What I have done is drive the relay with

The subject was something like "making relays quiet" and I didn't wait long as
I'm running short of time. I'm not sure of anything to do with my Usenet feed.

When I get other's postings, in random time order or any order at all I count
myself lucky. You and many others can treat Usenet as a conversational device
with a few hours or day delay our thereabouts, while for me it's like the
Liberian Postal Service.

>double the rated voltage with a resistor in series equal to the
>coil resistance and a 0.1 pf cap across the coil.

Well that's another combination I wasn't aware of. I'll assume you meant .1uf.
So the shunt resistor provides snubbing action? I assume the capacitor looks
like a short to RF?

>>: My concern is that each time I flip off a relay as I switch the
>>: tuner a noise spike will be induced into the nearby ladder line,

>I wouldn't recommend switching the relays with RF on them. What I
>do is switch the relays without RF on them, then apply RF and write

I didn't mean to imply I'd be switching the relays with transmit power applied
.
I'll never do that intentionally.

Say I'm listening to my receiver, hooked via the tuner to an antenna. It's
time to change bands or whatever, so I deenergize one of the relays of the
tuner to switch the length of ladder line present. As the relay coil's field
collapses a back EMF potential of a few hundred volts appears and gets coupled
into the ladder line path to my receiver via the coil's ground return line and

from there ends up in my eardrums. This is my first concern. The second is
that I want to replace the mechanical switches controlling the relays with
logic operated devices in the future and I'm sure they won't want to see high
potentials coming at them. The last concern was RF flowing through a rectifier

(either part of a snubber or an indicator LED). If you say all or part of this

is a non-issue, fine, that's exactly what I'm looking for.

>I try not to anticipate problems but solve them as they arrise.
>Quite often an anticipated problem never occurs.

Granted, but trying to figure out what could happen and what I would do about
it is part of my personality and the way I learn about things in depth.
Different strokes, heh?

>I kept the covers, brought the common wires out holes in the covers
>and fastened them to the ladder-line outside the relay cover. I found
>that trying to solder the ladder-line to the common moving arms
>caused the relay electro-mechanical sensitivity to change for the worse.
>I used a glue gun to seal the holes.

This is a key point and has saved me horrible grief. This would have dawned
on me (like a load of bricks) as I was finishing the first solder joint (duh).
Limber but well-dressed wires of the right gauge and spacing "coming up". I'll
put some more lucite supports in place and run the "relay interconnect" ladder

line along one side with breaks adjacent to each relay and tie the limber
wires across to each side of each break. This should actually be a great deal
cleaner than what I was going to do. And it seems that this kind of
interconnect would be better for the loops too, as running the ladder line
loops right to the relay's end terminals is looking to be very messy. (In my
posting I incorrectly described the loops being on the moving arms, which of
course they are not).

So if I had it to do over again, I'd cut the moving arm wires at the relay
connector and thread them through small holes in the end of the relay's cover,
sealing them with a little blob of coax-seal (not glue, which is irreversible)
.

It looks like I should have started with a U-shaped channel of three
rectangular lucite strips cemented together. The middle would hold the relays
while the others would run on either side of the row, holding the ladder line
connections. Power and ground could come in from below the relays to be at
right angles to the ladder line and "limber interconnect" wire pairs. Then
the whole thing would be mounted on one side so the short loops could hang
down.

By direct mail Jay ([e-mail]) suggested a rectifier diode in parallel
with a 1000pf cap across the relay coils, saying this should prevent RF from
interacting with the relay. And Brian Olliver () suggested .1uf in series with
33 ohms across the coil as a "snubber".

Thanks to all.

Regards,
Pete
KS4XG


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:25 1996
From: Jay123a <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Variable-length ladderline tuner: implementation issues
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <31c6c09e.0@205.230.56.7>
Date: 18 Jun 96 14:43:42 GMT

[e-mail] (Pete Soper) wrote:
>I got no responses to my recent posting about how to design the
>R/C circuit for damping relay coils as they are de-energized.
>The Sams' Radio Engineering book rates a series resistor/capacitor
>circuit as third in effectiveness after a single diode or back to
>back diode pair for controlling high voltage as the relay coil field
>collapses. I'm concerned that the diode route might get me into
>trouble with nearby RF fields (i.e. as a nonlinear element and
>thus potential RFI source), but 'm not savvy enough to chose the R/C
>values for my relays (12 volt, 400 ohm coils), thus the posting.
>
>My concern is that each time I flip off a relay as I switch the
>tuner a noise spike will be induced into the nearby ladder line,
>attempting to break my eardrums. Perhaps this is a non-issue?
>Anyway, I'll go the empirical route and test for receiver "pops"
>after wiring up the first relay.
>

>Pete
>KS4XG


Hello Pete:

Just use a diode across the relay coils to attenuate the relays
de-energized reverse voltage pulse, and if you think that local RF will
effect the relays just add a 1000 pf disc capacitor across the doide, it
really shouldn't be bothered by local RF energy if you have a reasonable
SWR.

Jay



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What if I trim the dipole to fit
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 21:04:30 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Helene Maxwell
) writes:
>From: [e-mail] (Helene Maxwell)
>Subject: What if I trim the dipole to fit
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 06:37:51 GMT

>I'm setting up a 160-10 meter dipole but was a little too optimistic
>about the length from one corner of my little city lot to the other.
>The wire is now 134' long and about 14' too long to fit comfortably.
>My choices seem to be:

>1) Erect a pole on the roof of my house to raise the center into an
>inverted V and take up the slack that way.  It would be a bend of some 30
>degrees, not 90!

>2) snip those 14' right off (along with any hope for 160 meter contacts?).

>Can you comment on the pros and cons of either approach?  You can also
>tell me that 160 meters isn't worth trying to bother with 180 watts
>and a dipole, and I'll listen to you.  Thanks for any tips.   Randy
>--
Randy:

You don't specify how you anticipate using your dipole as a multiband antenna.

Traps, open-wire feed, parallel wires?  A 120' wire and some open wire line
and tuner would work nearly as well as a resonant length wire.  The bandwidth
of the wire will be very narrow on 160M anyway, so a tuner is probably in
order.

Of course, if the pole on the house adds height, this might be useful.  I
don't quite understand the angles you speak of, so maybe this approach is
counter-productive.

I haven't been on 160 in a while, but at this time of year, you may not be
missing much. I have a dual-band 20-80 meter trapped dipole about 35 ft high
in the middle and drooping to about 20'.  With extension wires on the end
which were about 5' off ground, I have used it on 160 and have worked the Far
East and Europe (once) from So. AZ running a KW.

73, Wes -- N7WS


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:27 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Patrick Tatro)
Subject: Re: What if I trim the dipole to fit
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 13:04:04 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Helene Maxwell) wrote:
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
>Path:
stortek!csn!nntp-xfer-2.csn.net!symbios.com!southw
ind.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-5.sprintlink.n
et!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-9.sprintlink.net!ta
nk.news.pipex.net!pipex!lade.news.pipex.net!pipex!
news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!news.nl.innet.net!INnl.
net!hunter.premier.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!ix
netcom.com!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!hmaxw
ell
>From: [e-mail] (Helene Maxwell)
>Subject: What if I trim the dipole to fit
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication
Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 06:37:51 GMT
>Lines: 16
>Sender: [e-mail]
>Status: N
>
>I'm setting up a 160-10 meter dipole but was a
little too optimistic
>about the length from one corner of my little
city lot to the other.
>The wire is now 134' long and about 14' too long
to fit comfortably.
>My choices seem to be:
>
>1) Erect a pole on the roof of my house to raise
the center into an
>inverted V and take up the slack that way.  It
would be a bend of some 30
>degrees, not 90!
>
>2) snip those 14' right off (along with any hope
for 160 meter contacts?).
>
>Can you comment on the pros and cons of either
approach?  You can also
>tell me that 160 meters isn't worth trying to
bother with 180 watts
>and a dipole, and I'll listen to you.  Thanks for
any tips.   Randy


Randy
   I have an 80-40 dipole on a 40'x90' lot. I
asked my neighbors if I could run my dipole over
their lot and then I asked their neighbors if I
could tie the ends in their trees. It's been
working fine now for almost 2 years. I have a snow
blower and show my appreciation by clearing their
sidewalks in the winter.

Good Luck
73's Pat N0WCG


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 05:58:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4poe26$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovt9k$[e-mail]> <4ph7pr$[e-mail]> <4pm8gr$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>>The manual specifies 8 feet off the ground is best.

>My R-7 Manual says the dimensions recommended are based on the R7
>approx. 8 feet above ground and 25 feet from surrounding objects. It
>does not say 8 feet is the optimum height.  I assume  they are saying
>the dimensions may change as you tune the antenna for min SWR.

>I do not have the answer as to optimum height. Maybe someone has
>modeled the antenna?

We have not not done any computer modeling or specific analysis with
elaborate test equipment, but pratical field testing of the R7 antenna
by several hams has here shown the optimum height for the antenna is
about one foot above a large trash can, right before you drop it in.

73, Jim KH2D




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Hank Turner)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 07:44:10 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ovt9k$[e-mail]> <4ph7pr$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

On 10 Jun 1996 13:26:19 GMT, phertler@  (Peter Hertler) wrote:

>In <4ovt9k$[e-mail]>, Peter Shintani <[e-mail]>
 writes:
>>Hi:
>>      I  have an R-7 mounted on the side of my house. The base of the antenna is
adjacent
>>to the eaves trough. The eaves trough is about 6m above the ground. It seems
 to work,
>>but QRN trash is about s-9 anytime of the day. 40 m performance seems ok, bu
t
>>20 and 15 m is too quiet, perhaps the antenna is not working well.
>>
>>I am considering remounting the antenna on to the peak  of the roof on top o
f a  4m
>>mast. Would the additional 4m of height be significant ?
>>I know that higher is better for most antenna's but in the case of a vertica
l, and
>>specifically the halfwave R-7 vertical does the low angle radiation worsen ?
>>For example do strange lobes appear  when the antenna is raised to far above
 the ground ?
>>
>>Peter
>>

I have an R-5.  I needed a antenna that covers many bands, and since I
live in one of those subdivisions where the folks hate antennas I
picked this one.

At first had it mounted at 10', it worked well. I know have it mounted
25'.  Only noticible difference is working local 10m.

If one just mounts the thing in the clear it will work.

KC5FLJ



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:32 1996
From: [e-mail](Anthony Severdia)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Date: 13 Jun 1996 07:44:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4pogsg$[e-mail]>
References: <4ovt9k$[e-mail]> <4ph7pr$[e-mail]> <4pm8gr$[e-mail]> <4poe26$[e-mail]>

In <4poe26$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Kehler) writes: (in part):

>We have not not done any computer modeling or specific analysis with
>elaborate test equipment, but pratical field testing of the R7 antenna
>by several hams has here shown the optimum height for the antenna is
>about one foot above a large trash can, right before you drop it in.
>
>73, Jim KH2D
>

    A CLASSIC come-back if I every heard one!  Many, many chuckles
at this QTH.  Thanks.

    -=Tony=-    W6ANV


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:33 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: webbte <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (webbte)
References: <4pm8gr$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:11:50 GMT

My two cents worth as a very satisfied user of the R-7. I have
mine mounted on the chimney at the 2nd story roof line level. It
is elevated from the RS chimney mount using a 5 foot piece of
chain link fence post. The ground plane clears the top of the
chimney by about 4 feet. So my estimate is that the base is
about 35' up. It has worked great for the past 2 years, working
a lot of 20/40 meter dx, usually from dxpeditions. The SWR
readings did change after adjusting for best match at ground
level. When mounted, the swr readings gave me diff. resonant
feed points, but not enough to risk climbing up and fixing. Had
no noticable change in noise level from alternate inverted V
when comparing the receive function.

ted / ac4cs
>==========Paul Ferguson, 6/12/96==========
>
>
>>>
>>>I am considering remounting the antenna on to the peak  of the
>roof on top of a  4m
>>>mast. Would the additional 4m of height be significant ?
>>>I know that higher is better for most antenna's but in the
>case of a vertical, and
>>>specifically the halfwave R-7 vertical does the low angle
>radiation worsen ?
>>>For example do strange lobes appear  when the antenna is
>raised to far above the ground ?
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>The manual specifies 8 feet off the ground is best.
>>
>
>My R-7 Manual says the dimensions recommended are based on the R7
>approx. 8 feet above ground and 25 feet from surrounding objects. It
>does not say 8 feet is the optimum height.  I assume  they are saying
>the dimensions may change as you tune the antenna for min SWR.
>
>I do not have the answer as to optimum height. Maybe someone has
>modeled the antenna?
>
>73,
>
>Paul Ferguson
>[e-mail]
>




From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:34 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4ovt9k$[e-mail]> <4ph7pr$[e-mail]> <4pm8gr$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:50:40 GMT


The optimum height varies per band. I got the best results on 40 meters at
a height of 5ft but performance on 20 and above was terrible until I
raised it to the top of my 60ft tower. Really, the thing is too flimbsey
to stick on a tower anyway!
This finding agrees with antenna theory. Changing the wavelength of any
antenna above ground will affect the angle of radiation. Since each band
has different charateristics and you want to work various distances etc.
Then there is no such thing as an Optimum height for a multiband antenna.
Everything about them is a compromise.

I suggest you just stick with the 8ft height. If you decide to put it up
heigher, sell it and put an inverted vee on the support fed with tuned
feeders. It will outperform the vertical, hands down.


: >>
: >>I am considering remounting the antenna on to the peak  of the roof on top
 of a  4m
: >>mast. Would the additional 4m of height be significant ?
: >>I know that higher is better for most antenna's but in the case of a verti
cal, and
: >>specifically the halfwave R-7 vertical does the low angle radiation worsen
 ?
: >>For example do strange lobes appear  when the antenna is raised to far abo
ve the ground ?
: >>
: >>Peter
: >>
: >>


: >The manual specifies 8 feet off the ground is best.
: >

: My R-7 Manual says the dimensions recommended are based on the R7
: approx. 8 feet above ground and 25 feet from surrounding objects. It
: does not say 8 feet is the optimum height.  I assume  they are saying
: the dimensions may change as you tune the antenna for min SWR.

: I do not have the answer as to optimum height. Maybe someone has
: modeled the antenna?

: 73,

: Paul Ferguson
: [e-mail]


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


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (david l. thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Wire antennas in salty environment
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:39:17 GMT
Message-ID: <4pslji$[e-mail]>
References: <4pn1bk$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] wrote:

>I've been following the postings on stainless steel antennas and I wonder
>if somebody can conclude on which type of wire is best for antennas in
>a salty environment.

>I used to live in Ostend, Belgium at 50m from the shore, which was
>great for low take off angles.
>But it also had its disadvantages...
>

You should give the Fritzel FD-4 a try...its stainless, coated and
gives a good account of itself on 80, 40, 20, 17, 12, and 10.  You
need a tuner for 30 and 15.

Dave K4JRB



From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:35 1996
From: Pam Scott
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WTB: Butternut HF6V Vertical
Date: 13 Jun 1996 12:39:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4ppqol$[e-mail]>

If you have one for sale please e-mail me the price and if
includes instructions and/or radials.
Thanks, Pam.
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Wed Jun 19 21:11:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jeremy Boot)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WWW Pages
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:06:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Ham Radio Page - nearly 12,000 visitors to date

        http://www.innotts.co.uk/~asperges/

Already reviewed by several magazines and review of the SWL
pages will appear in the July Edition of RadCom.

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you haven't yet seen it, come and see it now:
If you have, see the latest updates:

        * Extensive variety of subjects;
        * SWL Pages (including scanners);
        * Questions and Answers;
        * Links to all the major ham pages;
        * The new UK Radio Society;
        * Friends on the Net

Plus:   Non-ham subjects including historic Wollaton Park,
        Burns and his Works in his bicentenary year
        St George and the Dragon.

Thanks to all friend and visitors who have supported the pages
since they were launched late 1995 to date.

73 de Jeremy G4NJH
June 96
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (James Mimna)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: V.H.F. & U.H.F. RHOMBICS
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 12:45:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I wonder if there is any designs for an antenna for the VHF or th UHF
amatuer bands.Any information on the above would be greatly
appreciated. Many thanks in anticipation.
[e-mail] co.uk


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Markham)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Tnx, 1/4 wave z xfmr info
Date: 21 Jun 96 17:02:54 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


   Thanks for the many responses, public and private.

                                         Pete/wa4hei


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:01 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Unknown Balun
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:59:35 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I've come into possession of a "The Big Signal W2AU BALUN and lightning
arrestor Model 4-1" made by Unadilla Radioation Products Divison of
Microwave Filter Co, Inc, East Syracuse NY.

Anybody know of this product/company?  Might it be a 4:1 Balun?


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Flautt)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: diamond sg-2000 tuning
Date: 21 Jun 1996 06:42:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4qduat$[e-mail]>


--
                        [e-mail]
                        KB8CMW @ W8CQK.CMH.USA.NOAM
                        KB8CMW @ N8JYV.#CMH.USA.NOAM
                        [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (shane)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Wanted: 6-Meter Antenna For SSB Operation
Date: 18 Jun 1996 17:04:04 GMT
Message-ID: <4q6ni4$[e-mail]>

Wanted: 6-Meter Antenna for Sideband operation.  Please e-mail me if
you have an antenna you would like to sell.  [e-mail]

                                        73,
                                        Shane Reichenbach



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Decibel7)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Help!  build a loop antenna
Date: 21 Jun 1996 20:49:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4qffvg$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Decibel7)

Greetings,

  I have heard of a directional antenna that I can use for CB band that is
a "loop" antenna.  Can anyone tell me how to build this?

Good speed to your modem
Decibel7


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:05 1996
From: Jeff Hutchinson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Phased B-nuts
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:39:45 -0300
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Does anyone have experience with phased Butternut HF6-V vertical
antennas?  I have installed two of them, spaced 16.5 ft apart (1/4 u @
14mHZ,) and am using a 3/4 u phasing line between them.  My objective is
to enhance signal propogation to Europe from my east coastal Florida
QTH.I have a bunch of questions that would make sense only to a fellow
HF6 user.  Any comments?




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:05 1996
From: James Prentice <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: screwdriver antenna for sale
Date: 18 Jun 1996 01:05:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4q4vcp$[e-mail]>
References: <4pvebu$[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]

How much are you asking for ant ? has it been used etc etc.. more
details please. tj ant hi sierra etc..

pse send reply to

[e-mail]
tks



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:06 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Buried radials: Insulated or bare?
Date: 24 Jun 1996 03:25:29 -0700
Message-ID: <4qlqep$[e-mail]>

Hi there,

Can anybody tell me what is best: insulated or buried radials?

My guess is that the performance level of both should be about the same,
except that insulated radials will last longer.

73 de Serge, G/ON4BAA


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:08 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Help: tranmission lines equations
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 09:59:49 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

To anyone out there who might be able to help me out. I am after a reference
that will: a) give me the appropriate transmission line equations for a
shielded twisted pair line and b) show how these equations are derived.
Specifically I'm interested in how the number of turns per unit length affects

the equations. I'm an engineer, but electromagnetics is not my area, so I woul
d
appreciate anyone sending me a reference or giving me some idea of how to get
to what I'm after. Thank you.
If you wish, you can send a note to my e-mail address: [e-mail]



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:08 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V Vertical: Opinions?
Date: 24 Jun 1996 18:55:20 GMT
Message-ID: <4qmoao$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

I agree, the Butternut vertical is a strong, well designed atenna. I have
mine at ground level with 4 radials. The antenna has been up for 10 years
with not a problem. It has withstood many prairie blizzards, two near
misses by tornados and still works great.

The band width isn't anything special on 80, but with any tuner, the
bandedges are workable. Mine went up within 2 hours from box to tuneup.

Allen VE6BEQ


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Terry Simonds)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: GROUNDING AND LIGHTNING PROTECTION
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 14:10:51 GMT
Message-ID: <4q92l4$[e-mail]>

Here are two sites that contain quite a lot of good information on grounding
and lightning protection.

    http://www.powerclinic.com/examlist.htm     (mostly grounding)

    http://www.polyphaser.com   (grounding and protection. Read the
                                 newsletter issues that pertain to ham
                                 antenna/station protection)

Good stuff--73  Terry/WB4FXD


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim B. Wilson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: NEC Ford Broncho?
Date: 19 Jun 1996 14:59:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4q94lb$[e-mail]>
Keywords: NEC model Broncho

I saw it, but now I can't find it to save me.  Someone posted the URL or
ftp location of a NEC patch or grid model of a Ford Broncho or Explorer
(as I recall).  Can someone redirect me to this model so I can avoid a
tedious measuring job?

Jim Wilson
WA5BRB





From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:11 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: x <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antenna Design Information, Need Technical Information
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:39:29 -0500
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I am looking for recent technical information on antennas for receiving
all frequencies.  If you know of any books or other resources that spell
out theories of designs and materials please mail me.

[e-mail]

Thank you,

Mark Mason



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Pat Masterson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: cheap 440 beam ?
Date: 21 Jun 1996 11:54:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4qegjt$[e-mail]>

I need a cheap, 3 or 4 element beam for 441. It's going to be an
indoor antenna, so ruggedness is not necessary. Are there plans
anywhere for a simple beam that doesn't need any special feeds
or baluns, matches 50 ohms easily? I can use a wooden boom,
and 12 guage copper for elements. Thanks.
--
*  Pat Masterson  B38-111, Northrop Grumman Corp.*  Ham:KE2LJ
*  1111 Stewart Ave., Bethpage NY 11714          *  Packet: [e-mail]
*  516-346-6316                                  *  President Grumman Amateur
*  email: [e-mail]                        *  Radio Club  WA2LQO


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (david l. thompson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Magic Raibeam 2 el array
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 20:13:43 GMT
Message-ID: <4psk3l$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I talked the the ZL listed in their ads.  He had a good signal (4el
version on 10) but was about 6 to 10DB below ZL2APW and ZL4BO.

Reminds me of the W3 two letter guy with a VK call sign too who came
to Atlanta several years ago claiming his short boom 3el yagis had
12DBD gain!

Guess there is a sucker born every minute....

Dave K4JRB



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:14 1996
From: [e-mail] (KJ4UO)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: multiband folded dipoles (?)
Date: 23 Jun 1996 13:09:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4qjtp5$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (KJ4UO)

I would like to create a multiband folded dipole by doing the following.

Cut it for 30 meters lenght and then short across the folded dipole at the
20m, 17m, 15m, 12m, and 10m locations, thus  have a multiband folded
dipole.  I have never seen this done so I assume that it will not work.

Anyone know for sure?
Paul
KJ4UO

P.S. Anyone know Bill Orr's e-mail address?


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:15 1996
From: [e-mail] (MAlferman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: any info on Human Body acting as an antenna?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 00:50:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4qalb2$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MAlferman)

 I am looking for any information - research, etc - on how a human body
could act as a receiving antenna in the UHF range. This may not actually
be Ham Radio
related, but I know lots of Hams who have been involved with pretty
interesting research. Everyone has seen the effect -  touching a TV
antenna can improve the signal. Touch your
finger to the connector on your HT and you can hear stations. It should be
possible for the body to improve reception for a low-power wireless
application.

 Any ideas?



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:16 1996
From: Maude Schyffert <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 916 mhz yagi design ....help please
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:22:43 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q769j$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

MS wrote:
>
> Looking for a simple and inexpensive 916 mhz. yagi design.  Possibly a
> 6 or 10 element.  I have a design for 902-903mhz, but I don't know how
> to modify specs for higher freq.  I know basically nothing, so please
> include where coax is hooked to driven element.  Is shield also
> attached?  I am trying to increase range of video reception, and is
> there any type of  inexpensive signal booster available? All info will
> be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks so much.   Michael

Use the design you have for 916, it is only 2 per cent off....
SM0BKZ


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:16 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line variability questions
Date: 22 Jun 1996 04:16:14 GMT
Message-ID: <4qfs2e$[e-mail]>


Pete said about ladder line -
I'd thought about it, but dismissed it. So this is the missing factor? Ladder
line with thicker conductors have different insulation characteristics to get
the impedance back to the target?

No, Pete;
        The insulation is to hold the line together , the conductor
diameter is then selected to provide the specific impedance in the
environment of the insulation.

Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:18 1996
From: Cecil Moore <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: 18 Jun 1996 13:48:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4q6c3e$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (charles copeland) wrote:

> and a 64 foot folded dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment
> My luck has been rotten,

Hi Charles, this is not luck. This is a system designed to fail.
The percentage of energy not making it up out of your house has to
be in the 90s, probably in the high 90s. By all means get that
antenna up to 40 ft or higher. I regularly talk to New Zealand on
100w and a 102 ft dipole at 30 ft.

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




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:19 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Bart Rowlett)
Subject: Re: black twin-lead phone line; How many Ohms?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <6c7cc$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 02:29:57 GMT

In article <6c7cc$[e-mail]>, Russ <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>Does anyone know anything about using the black 2-wire out-door
>telephone line as a feed line? Wonder what the feedline impedance on
>this stuff would be? At any rate, it looks like it would make good
>dipole and longwire stock.  Anyone used this stuff before?
>
It depends on the actual insulation material.  Some of it is polyethelene
insulation over copperweld conductors with reasonable loss at HF.  Others are
very lossy at 7 MHz, apparently due to the material added to inhibit UV
deterioration.  Some is some sort of rubber and is several dB per half
wavelength at 7 MHz.  Zo tends to be about 175 - 250 ohms.

bart   wb6hqk



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (GeorgeS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Looking for surplus microwave reciver, for radio astronomy
Date: 19 Jun 1996 14:50:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4q9442$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>
>I am building a radio telescope on a shoestring.  I have a dish and converter

>and motor.  I don't need or want anything new or fancy.  All I need to do is
>to measure signal strength.  Feed that to a A/D and keep track of 24 hours a
>day on my p.c.

You could use an LNB that the tvro people use
        C        4 GHz
        Ku      12 GHz
The noise tempereature of the LNB is about 17 - 20 degrees Kelvin. See
        http://www.nmia.com/~roberts/robert.html
for references to vendors



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:20 1996
From: [e-mail] (Roy Lewallen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help in modelling this antenna
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 07:47:05 GMT
Message-ID: <4qavm5$[e-mail]>
References: <4q9s6h$[e-mail]>

In article <4q9s6h$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS) wrote:
>. . .
>I assumed 300 ohm line was tubular transmitting type and antenna
>of #12 wire at height of about 30 feet since seems unlikely that line
>is perfectly straight down and had to select a frequency in each
>band.
>
>. . .

Charlie also made another assumption he didn't mention: that the currents
on the feedline are balanced, that is, equal and opposite. This can be hard
to accomplish. If it isn't true, the feedline becomes part of the antenna
and the impedances can be quite different.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:22 1996
From: Will Flor <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Directional Antenna- help please
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 11:51:16 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q8jk8$[e-mail]>

Decibel7 wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
>   How can I build an antenna that is directional as far as Recieving is
> concerned?,
>
> Good speed to your modem
> Decibel7

Any of the "standard" directional antennas like yagis, quads, etc. are
directional in both receive and transmit; there are lots of plans available
in the ARRL handbook, etc. and lots of other publications available from
ARRL and many other places.

73 de KB9JTT


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:22 1996
From: Gareth Crispell <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Is a Balun Necessary?
Date: 21 Jun 1996 02:02:32 GMT
Message-ID: <4qcvro$[e-mail]>

I am going to put up a yagi monobander and am wondering if a 1:1 is at
all necessary? Any and all opinions will be appreciated.

--

  Gareth Crispell           /\  /\     *   /   /     /
  N1MSV                    /  \/  \/\     -----/\------
  [e-mail]     /\   \   \ \   /   / ||   /
  N1MSV@KC1KM            /  \   \   \ \        ||
  10X International                            ||

  # 63961
            ... and in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and
                run to and fro like sparks among the stubble.




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:23 1996
From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 07:48:52 -0500
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 6m antenna
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> In article <4p709v$[e-mail]>,

------------clip--------------

> Do the packet DX clusters also report 6 meter (and other VHF) band openings?
>


Yes !

Hugh Duff  VA3TO  Toronto


---
 ■ NFX v1.3 [000]



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:24 1996
From: USCG TELECOMMS <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HAARP info requested
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:09:14 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q6th0$[e-mail]> <4qgrlv$[e-mail]>
To: W8JI  Tom <[e-mail]>

When HAARP was proposed a couple of years ago, I objected to it on behalf
of the US Coast Guard.  Three sites were originally proposed, one in
Texas, one in California and one in Alaska.  After meeting with Air Force
officials and its contractor, they convinced us our circuits would not be
impacted by this.  Subsequently, they dropped the proposed California
site.  I believe they did same with the Texas site.  The Alaskan hams and
other communicators have been battling the Alaskan HAARP operation via
their politial representatives, but have not had much success to date.
What appeared to be disruption in communications by HAARP in the intial
stages of the game has turned into more of an environmental impact issue.
From our meetings with the HAARP proponents, bombarding the ionosphere
with such huge amounts of power does cause disruption, but the ionosphere
quickly goes back to normal after the power is cut off.

W4VR



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:25 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Duckworth)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Variable-length ladderline tuner: implementation issues
Date: 20 Jun 1996 08:42:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4qbgvo$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <31c6c09e.0@205.230.56.7>

Has anyone considered using stepping relays for switching the line segments?
4 x SPNT (N=# of segments + 1 for indexing)
A microcontroller could step until the index is found and then step to the
appropriate segment based on your lookup table.
Heck, you could generate a signal to crank the
RF down while stepping.

If anyone knows of some suitable relays.....

-bob


--
Bob Duckworth Consulting, 960 Ralph McGill Blvd. Atlanta GA 30306-4447
bobs' address is [e-mail]    404-888-0389(V) 892-2301(FAX)
Buy Sell Trade Surplus Computer Electronics Datacom Telecom since 1981.
Fax or email your list for a fast cash offer. Watch for listserv catalog.


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:26 1996
From: "Earl Needham" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Homebuilt mobile 6 meter / 2 meter antenna?
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 17:57:01 -0600
Message-ID: <01bb5fcd.56bd46c0$[e-mail]>


        I'm interested in a combination 6 meter and 2 meter mobile antenna.
However, at the price for commercially available gear, I'd end up spending
about $80 US for the antenna, $70 US for the mount, and probably $80 US
for the duplexer.

        Has anyone ever homebuilt an antenna for these two bands, perhaps using a
trap?  If so, would you mind giving me some pointers / ideas for doing so?
 Thanks!

--
Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM
Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76
Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis
Parachute Center)




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:27 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gerard Foley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: 20 Jun 1996 13:50:29 -0400
Message-ID: <4qc315$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

charles copeland ([e-mail]) wrote:
<snip>
: Yes, I've gotten a tremendous amount of e-mail (30!) on this and all agree
: that 100 watts is sufficient. All replies have focused on my antenna ...
: or lack of an adequate antenna.

: Thanks to all who replied! Its good to know that is hope at 100 watts.
<snip>

  In case noone else has mentioned it, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE YOUR
RESULTS BY GETTING AN AMPLIFIER!.  Putting 100 Watts into the antenna
you describe is risky enough.  More power might endanger your health,
or start a fire somewhere that you won't see it for a while.

K8EF

--
Gerry


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Glenn Elmore)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 916 mhz yagi design ....help please
Date: 20 Jun 1996 18:52:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4qc6lf$[e-mail]>
References: <4q769j$[e-mail]>

MS ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Looking for a simple and inexpensive 916 mhz. yagi design.  Possibly a
: 6 or 10 element.  I have a design for 902-903mhz, but I don't know how
: to modify specs for higher freq.  I know basically nothing, so please

You might be interested in the design on the web page listed below
under "Antenna Designs".

Glenn Elmore n6gn

amateur IP:     [e-mail]
Internet:       [e-mail]

|--------------- N6GN's Higher Speed Packet WWW Page -------------------|
|                                                                       |
|       http://www.tapr.org/~n6gn/index.html            |
|                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:29 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Steve Ellington)
Subject: Re: multiband folded dipoles (?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qjtp5$[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 19:21:18 GMT

You are quite correct Paul.


KJ4UO ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I would like to create a multiband folded dipole by doing the following.

: Cut it for 30 meters lenght and then short across the folded dipole at the
: 20m, 17m, 15m, 12m, and 10m locations, thus  have a multiband folded
: dipole.  I have never seen this done so I assume that it will not work.

: Anyone know for sure?
: Paul
: KJ4UO

: P.S. Anyone know Bill Orr's e-mail address?

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


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Terry Simonds)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Exceptional grounding for an antenna, does it work?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 14:10:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4q92kp$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Robert Miller) wrote:
>When I had a C.B. radio years ago I dug a hole were I put my grounding rod.
>I layered charcoal and rock salt does this do anything  I did it as I
>installed my antenna so I couldn't notice better gain.
>What effect does this have in transmissions or reciveing?
>

Robert--You don't say what type of antenna you are using (or want to use).
Connecting an antenna to a grounding rod is not a very good idea! Perhaps
grounding the antenna-support structure is a prudent move (particularly here
in Southeast Florida--the lightning capital of the world).

But, this will have very little, if any, effect on antenna performance.
Ground rods do an admirable job of trying to keep "free electricity" out of
the shack, but I doubt you will notice any difference at all in your received
and/or transmitted signal.

gl 73--Terry/WB4FXD


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dean Heinen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Belden 9913 Connector Source??
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 08:16:49 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q12ko$[e-mail]> <4q52gk$[e-mail]>

In article <4q52gk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>From: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Belden 9913 Connector Source??
>Date: 18 Jun 1996 01:58:44 GMT

>Terry... take a look at 9914, I've not had good luck with 9913 here on
>the Cape. The spiral wound center conductor tends to "suck up" moisture
>then it gets cold and the water condenses in the cable. I've had water
>run out of the coax connectors. 9914 uses a foam core, it's a little more
>lossey than the 9913 but it stays dry!!!
>Jim

Then you are most certainly installing it incorrectly.

Dean
N7ZRS





From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR antenna -reply to comments
Date: 22 Jun 1996 11:08:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4qh2a6$[e-mail]>
References: <4qbio5$[e-mail]>

Hi Jim,

In article <4qbio5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
writes:

>Yes - The baulb lit on only the horizontal sections - The vertical
>section is like this:
>
>     /-----
>    |      ^
>    |      feed (5.5" from vert. section)
> ground

So are you saying the bulb lights anywhere along the top ring, but no
where on the vertical section?

Does it light evenly along the whole ring?

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (Kebsch)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: What's the best height for an R-7
Date: 21 Jun 1996 07:06:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4qdhkv$[e-mail]>
References: <4pm8gr$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Waldemar Kebsch <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> webbte <[e-mail].c
om> writes:

> ...
> ... When mounted, the swr readings gave me diff. resonant
> feed points, but not enough to risk climbing up and fixing.
> ....

Sorry Ted,

the frequency, where you find the best (lowest) VSWR is the frequency
where your antenna has a radiation resistance close to 50 Ohms, which is
the output impedance of your tranceiver and the wave resistance of your
feeding coax cable, usually. But in allmost all cases it is *not* the
resonance frequency from your antenna.

Sorry for my English, but I hope I could make is clear enough ..?

73 de Waldemar, DK3VN
--
E-Mail:  [e-mail] .. or .. Packet Radio:  DK3VN @ DB0NOS.#NRW.DEU.EU
Big antennas, high in the sky, are better than small ones, low!          [adh]


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:34 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help in modelling this antenna
Date: 19 Jun 1996 21:41:37 GMT
Message-ID: <4q9s6h$[e-mail]>


Peter, G4BVH
Wanted input impedance to 40 foot 300 ohm line feeding center of
260 foot antenna over average earth on 160, 80, 40, 20,15 and 10
meter bands.

I assumed 300 ohm line was tubular transmitting type and antenna
of #12 wire at height of about 30 feet since seems unlikely that line
is perfectly straight down and had to select a frequency in each
band.

Band    Freq (MHz)       Z at antenna              Z at input to line
160        1.85           52.409 + j 18.846       86.07 + j 219.14
 80         3.8           6114 - j 4804.2              12.36 - j 103.85
 40         7.1             1584 + j 2176.1           34.86 + j 206.13
 20       14.2           445.28 + j882.15            52.02 - j 140.15
 15       21.2          199.45 + j 382.82        1059.12 + j 392.82
 10       28.5            191.3 + j 193.32         146.22 + j 98.32

Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (CHARLES J. MICHAELS)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line
Date: 24 Jun 1996 07:16:16 GMT
Message-ID: <4qlfc0$[e-mail]>


Stan said -
Charlie you are exactly right.  What is needed is "link coupling".
It is nothing more than a transformer.  I do disagree on your statement,
"It is even worse if the transmitter end of the line is fed from a balun
with a grounded center tap.  Then the grounded center tap is connected
to ground....".    No it's not.  The grounded center tap is ground to DC
but not to RF.

Stan,
        If it is grounded, it's grounded! And if it is grounded, and
the antenna end is grounded , then -
1. the end of the balun connected to the side of the line which is
grounded at the antenna has the earth loss of whaterver current flows
between the two grouded points.
2.      With one side of a "balanced" (it won't be balanced anylonger)
is connected to ground we no longer can even estimate its impedance.
3.      Ther3 is also the problem of how to keep this line out orf
the local induction field and radiated field of the antenna.
Charlie, W7XC
--


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Paul Cordingley)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need help with 2-meter mobile suggestions
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:36:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4qh7b1$[e-mail]>

I'm looking for ideas for a quickly-detachable, easy-to-carry mobile
antenna for 2 meters. My two constraints:
- it must be a quick-on, quick-off affair, no permanent attachment
- no magnets

I drive a lot in my job, but always in company or rented vehicles,
seldom the same vehicle two days in a row. I need something compact I
can throw in my bag, with my handleld. I haul around a laptop and lots
of floppy disks - hence the no-magnet constraint.

I was thinking of fashioning a clamp out of sturdy plastic to fit over
the top of a window or door. I'd attach a homemade quarter-wave
vertical. The problem I came to was, what about the ground plane?
I could add a couple of horizontal elements, which would fit flat
against the window , the problem is they'd be coupled to the car body
but not directly connected.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.
73
Paul
VA3MLW



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:36 1996
From: Burt Fisher <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: They do not come any phoneyer
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:29:19 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qgvrf$[e-mail]>

Jim Kehler wrote:

> Come back and tell us when YOU are dying Burt, that's
> something we'd all like to hear.
>
> 73, Jim KH2D

So typical of a phoney ham, wish someone death and best regards
in the same message.
You speak for all?
What is dying is hihi ham radio.


#================#=====================================================#
|  Burt Fisher   |  Teacher of video, broadcasting and electronics     |
| Amateur call   |         South Dennis, Ma. (Cape Cod)                |
|    K1OIK       |  The less you say, the more people will remember    |
#================#=====================================================#
|                            [e-mail]                          |
#======================================================================#

http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/qrz_gifs?k1oik.gif


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:37 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Bryan King)
Subject: HF multiband sloper
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 03:44:06 GMT

I recently bought an  Alpha-Delta DX-B 1/4 wave sloper that covers 160 -
30 meters.  I've been having alot of trouble getting it to perform
satisfactorily on all of the bands, except for 30 meters.  I currently
have this antenna fed by a 120' run of RG8-X. The feedpoint is at the top
of a 30' aluminum mast and I've attached an aluminum ground wire to it
that acts as counterpoise.  This is grounded from the feedpoint to a 4'
ground rod at the base of the mast.   I have very high swr with this
particular antenna and thus use an antenna tuner to match the xcvr to the
antenna system.  On 160, I cannot tune up properly, unless I attach a
capcitance hat at the end of the antenna closest to the ground.  That is
approximately 10' off the ground.  The guy wires for the mast are dacron
rope.  There is a 6 meter vertical on top of the mast.  To date this is
perhaps the best configuration of the antenna.

I've run out of ideas on how to get this antenna to perform properly.
Any ideas from the ham community would be greatly appreciated!


Thanks & 73,


Bryan


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:39 1996
From: [e-mail] (Curt Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Spider antenna
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 16:11:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4qeh8u$[e-mail]>
References: <4pjk39$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
   Bill Starkgraf <[e-mail]> wrote:
[snip]
>I wonder how that happened.  I attach the coax to the downspout
>and the ground side to the air conditioner copper tubing.  From the
>LA area I get out well 599 to Northern California.  The mesh in the
>stucco of my building prevents me from transmitting to the east.
[snip]
>part.  This now allows me to go way up into the state of Washington.
>Still the mesh in the building make this one very directional also.
>Now how do I place my apartment building on a rotor so that I
>can turn it?  Better yet, maybe I should find a place to live that

  Hey, you're in California dude!  Just tell'em you want to rotate
the building so your solar cells will work better and help the
environment. :-)

============ Opinions expressed are solely those of the author ============
Curt Phillips KD4YU (ex-WB4LHI)   |   Motto of the
Chairman, Tarheel Scanner/SWL Grp |   Tarheel Scanner/SWL Group:
ARRL Life; QCWA; Raleigh ARS; NRA | #2) The more they don't want you to
Energy/Recycling BBS 704-547-3114 | listen, the more interesting it must be.

==== [e-mail] === [Copyright 1996 All rights reserved]======


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:40 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 10:35:20 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q712o$[e-mail]> <4qa0q9$[e-mail]>

Roy Lewallen wrote:
> <snip> [lots of good criticism and claim debunking]

> In general, the claims were pretty vague (although you admittedly can't get
> much detail into six paragraphs), and some seem mutually exclusive. The
> announcement sounds pretty preliminary, with lots of "could be", "it is
> anticipated that", "is possible" type qualifiers. It sounds like an
> innovative antenna design with potential advantages in some applications,
> but not magic.

Roy I think the web page was written by someone who had little or no
idea of what s/he was writing about.  If this was indeed written by
the antenna developers, I'd dismiss the whole thing as just another
load of balderdash.  Stating antenna gain in percent seems too much
like salesmanship.

The impression I got was that they have made a helically wound loop
antenna.  I don't see how it could outperform anything.

And the claims about being smaller so that it wouldn't be as much of
a problem for low-flying aircraft was a bit too much.

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bob Duckworth)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: 19 Jun 1996 10:53:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4q949n$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

My advice for what it's worth.

Listen a lot. If the signal your receiving is strong then
they should be able to hear you even with an inefficient antenna
at your end.

Listen a lot and learn what band is open when. Sunspot low now
so 40m will be dead sometimes.

Try CW on 40m.

Think about better antennas.

I've worked into North Africa from the South Pacific on
75 phone with a measured 30Watts PEP output. THis is
halfway around the world. It's all in the antenna.

-bob

--
Bob Duckworth Consulting, 960 Ralph McGill Blvd. Atlanta GA 30306-4447
bobs' address is [e-mail]    404-888-0389(V) 892-2301(FAX)
Buy Sell Trade Surplus Computer Electronics Datacom Telecom since 1981.
Fax or email your list for a fast cash offer. Watch for listserv catalog.


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:42 1996
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Shea)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: ?Measuring Axial Ratio?
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 14:43:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4pui8u$[e-mail]>



 In an attempt to build a circular polarized antenna (a
1.7 GHz axial mode backfire helical antenna to feed a
parabolic reflector ( a 1 meter dish)) it would be great
if I could measure the cicularity i.e. the axial ratio of
the antenna.  I haven't found any "how to" references.
I've heard that one can do it with a network analyser.  I
don't have access to one. but I do have access to signal
generator, a sweeper and a spectrum analyser.

 Any ideas or pointers would be greatly appreciated.

 BTW the antenna is for receiving RHCP signals from polar
orbiting weather satellites.

 Kevin N9JKP
.

****************************************
* Kevin G. Shea  N9JKP                 *
* 4460 Dahmen Pass                     *
* Cross Plains, WI 53528 USA           *
* 608.789.4326,voice; 608.798.1747,fax *
****************************************


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:43 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:38:42 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (charles copela
nd) writes:
>
>Thanks to all who replied! Its good to know that is hope at 100 watts.
>
>I'll have to work in this, as it is quit hard being on the first floor
>and surrounded by neighbors on all sides and above. When my lease is
>up, I'll have to do some serious prospecting on a more suitable apartment.

As Carlton Sheets would say, "Why pay the other fellow's mortgage?"
Forget apartments, buy a house. It has tax advantages, it builds
equity, and if you work the deal right you can put cash in your pocket
at the closing. But most important from an amateur point of view, you
can put up good antennas.

If you're really slick, you'll buy an apartment building. Then you can
put up whatever antennas you want, and your other tenants pay the mortgage.
In fact, talk to the owner of your current apartment building. You might
not even have to move.

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 Jun 24 21:12:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (Curt Phillips)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder Line Quick-Disconnect
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 16:01:24 GMT
Message-ID: <4qeglv$[e-mail]>
References: <4pah1t$[e-mail]> <4phstp$[e-mail]>

In article <4phstp$[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail](Glenn Sparks) wrote:
>I use a ceramic and copper double throw, double pole knife switch that
>I found in my grandmothers basement.  It is heavy stuff with the blades
>about 2 1/2" apart, and the knife portion about 3" long.  Believe it or
>not she was using it for the basement light.  I have the other throw
>connected to my ground.

  Though no doubt not as nice as the switch you got from your grandmother,
Radio Shack sells a knife switch which works well enough for my
purposes.


>I recently was in a customers office and he had a double throw six pole
>knife switch, where the knife portion rotated to each of the poles,
>anyone else ever seen one of these, looked like a great antenna select
>switch for multiple ladder line, but I couldn't talk him out of it.

  That DOES sound interesting... do you know what this type of switch
was originally used for?

========== Opinions expressed are solely those of the author =========
Curt Phillips, CEM KD4YU (ex-WB4LHI)  |    Motto of the
Chairman, Tarheel Scanner/SWL Group   |    Tarheel Scanner/SWL Group:
ARRL Life; QCWA; Raleigh ARS; NRA; AEE|  #1) If it's expensive and
Energy/Recycling BBS 704-547-3114     |      electronic, we like it.
== [e-mail] === [Copyright 1996 All rights reserved]===


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:46 1996
From: [e-mail] ()
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: 20 Jun 1996 16:47:07 GMT
Message-ID: <4qbvab$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4q712o$[e-mail]> <4qa0q9$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

>Roy I think the web page was written by someone who had little or no
>idea of what s/he was writing about.

Indeed it looks like written by someone trying to explain the advantages
to some one with no knowledge about antennas. But that's policy.

I think the concept can ba challenged on simple grounds:

Why should the antenna have a high radiation resistance?
Although full wave, it is just a magnetic loop.

(Think about the combined merits of a rubber duck and an Isoloop).

73, Moritz DL5UH


  If this was indeed written by
>the antenna developers, I'd dismiss the whole thing as just another
>load of balderdash.  Stating antenna gain in percent seems too much
>like salesmanship.
>
>The impression I got was that they have made a helically wound loop
>antenna.  I don't see how it could outperform anything.
>
>And the claims about being smaller so that it wouldn't be as much of
>a problem for low-flying aircraft was a bit too much.
>
>Jake Brodsky, AB3A
>"Beware of the massive impossible!"




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Frenning)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Multiband-dipole HELP needed!
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:43:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4qm2hj$[e-mail]>
References: <4qjcvr$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Mika Antero JΣppinen) wrote:

>Hi,

>       I am looking for multiband dipole antenna for HF which would
>       cover 80-40-20-15-10 meter bands.
>       Biggest promblem is that I had to hang it over metal-roof approx
>       6-7 feet high from it and this is same as put it inna ground level..
>
>       So is there any antennas (dipole-horixzontal no yagis) which might
>       perform atleast well on these kind of circumtanses?

>       I guess I had to go and buy vertical 8(

You lucky bastard you - you actually have the perfect ground-plane for
erecting a multitude of verticals!

Us poor suckers have to try to string spools and spool of wire to get
something useful.

/peter


******************************   OZ1PIF   **************************
Peter Frenning, UNIX Product Mgr., Siemens-Nixdorf DK, Ph.: [phone]
Snailmail: Dybendalsvaenget 3, 2630 Taastrup, Denmark, Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail](...!dkuug!sni.dk!pef)(NERV: pfrenning.cph)
X400:C=DK; A=400NET; P=SCN; O=SNI; S=Frenning; G=Peter; OU1=CPH1; OU2=CC
       Private connection: [e-mail]
******  Come visit us on the web; URL http://www.sni.dk  ******



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:48 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: NEWBIE: impedance of 2m 5/8 wave ground plane
Date: 24 Jun 1996 09:52:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4qm6io$[e-mail]>
References: <4qm5bl$[e-mail]>

In article <4qm5bl$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken
McCoy) writes:

>
>Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer; I haven't been able to
>find it anywhere. Is the angle of the ground plane segments for a 5/8
wave
>vertical the same as that for a 1/4 wave for 50 ohms (i.e., 45 degrees).
>
>Or, what is the impedance for a 90 degree angle?
>
>Thanks and 73,
>Ken KF4BQF

Hi Ken,

The 5/8 wl antenna requires a very large flat groundplane in order to have
gain over a smaller antenna (like a 1/2 wl antenna). If the groundplane is
less than several wl long in each direction, the antenna won't have the
gain most people claim.

If the groundplane is angled down, a 5/8 wl antenna can actually have less
gain along the horizion than a 1/4 or 1/2 wl antenna.

Whatever you do, don't slope the radials down on a 5/8 w antenna!!!

The impedance will vary wildly with the l/d ratio and length of the
antenna. It is reactive as well as resistive, and needs some form of
matching at the base.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:49 1996
From: Madjid SuperUser <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HAARP info requested
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 17:23:14 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q6th0$[e-mail]> <4qgrlv$[e-mail]>

W8JI Tom wrote:
> Someone is making a lot of money getting people all worked up over this.
> It's because they are either ignorant or playing with numbers. In any
> event, they are making things look much worse than they are (for a tidy
> profit).
>
> The total power radiated is simply the transmitter power less any system
> inefficiencies. Antenna gain doesn NOT increase the real power radiated,
> so we are NOT bombing the ionosphere with the power that would run a small
> city.
>
> The antenna is NOT focusing RF on one tiny point in the ionosphere, as
> books by Dr. "Quack" suggest.

Tom,

You should go and read the USNavy HAARP info
http://server5550.itd.nrl.navy.mil/projects/haarp/haarpIndex.html

They themselves say that they will punch holes in the ionosphere
and that the final power is in the GigaWatt range.

If punching holes in the Ionosphere is not bombing, then what is?

VE2GMI
--
And God said, "Let there be light." And there was light,
but Hydro Quebec said he would have to wait until Thursday
to be connected.

And God saw the light and it was good.
Then he saw the quarterly bill and that was not good.


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:50 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary McDuffie, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: black twin-lead phone line; How many Ohms?
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:22:03 GMT
Message-ID: <31c1e5e8.31805474@164.119.101.2>
References: <6c7cc$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:20:58 -0400, Siegfried Rambaum
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Does anyone know anything about using the black 2-wire out-door
> > telephone line as a feed line? Wonder what the feedline impedance on
> > this stuff would be? At any rate, it looks like it would make good
> > dipole and longwire stock.  Anyone used this stuff before?

> I would propose, that you read the ARRL Handbook. This stuff has an
> impedance, if used for the intended use. But this impedance might be of
> no concern to you, when you use it differently. If you cut that stuff
> into dipole segments, and use all the wires inside the plastic jacket,
> then the dipole resulting from it will have the impedance any other
> dipole of the same geometrical arrangement will have too. However, I am
> not sure, if you would have to adjust the dipole elements' lengths to
> adjust for operating not with a single wire dipole but a multiwire dipole.

> A good thing to have, when building antennas, is a noise bridge anyway.
> So get yourself one, ghood used ones should be around for 40...50 bucks,
> and less if they were homebrew...


Reread the question...

He is asking about the black drop line that is a two conductor cable, used
for many years in the telephone industry.

30+ years ago, I was told this stuff was "close to" 75 ohms, and I used it
for years to feed various antennas when I was a kid.  Worked good.  How it
would compare to "real" feedline today, I don't know.  We have much better
equipment to measure such things today than we had then.

Gary


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:52 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Heavy Duty Install
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Terry Zollinger)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:11:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>

Alex Groza <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I'm looking for some input in regards to installing antennas in areas
>prone to ice, snow, wind, and all those fine things!

>I'm planning on installing a VHF and UHF repeater system at approximately
>9,000 ft. AMSL.  The hilltop is in Southern California.  During the
>winter months it is unaccessable due to snow!  Winds reach the 100 mph
>mark.  Ice forms on antennas as well as chunks of flying ice that hit
>antennas.  Last winter we lost a Stationmaster UHF antenna.

>One antenna recommended by a ham in Colorado is the AEA IsoPole.  He uses
>a thick wall aluminum 1 1/4 inch mast.

>Any other suggestions or hints?  The antennas will be mounted on a
>commercial tower.  I definately don't want to use fiberglass.  However, a
>Comet 5 foot tri-band antenna that was mounted and center supported off
>the side of a tower did last through the winter!  We gave it a 25% chance
>and the supported stationmaster a 50 / 50 chance!

>Thanks....

>73's

>Alex   WB6DTR
We have used super station masters in the past on our 10,000 ft. site
they last thru maybe one or two winters then the insides break due to
flexing from ice load. We are now useing a celwave exposed dipole and
it seems to survive quite well.

Terry N7PEG




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF multiband sloper
Date: 24 Jun 1996 13:21:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4qmipv$[e-mail]>
References: <4ql9pf$[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bryan King)
writes:

>
>I've run out of ideas on how to get this antenna to perform properly.
>Any ideas from the ham community would be greatly appreciated!
>
>
>Thanks & 73,
>
>
>Bryan

1/4 wl slopers are more appropriately called "sloppers". It's just blind
sloppy luck that let's them work in most installations.

Usually, the amateur has a large beam antenna above the slopper connection
point, and that large electrical mass acts like a ground.

In your case, you have a skinny little mast grounded (poorly)  at the
bottom. Even if it was perfectly grounded, the system would have almost no
ground at all at the top on bands like 40 and 15 meters. That's because
odd quarter waves invert impedance at each end.

On 160, you have a 30 foot ground lead to a pathetic ground. On 80, the
same. On 40, virtually no ground at all (it would work better with the
base of the mast insulated). On 20, a half wave vertical mast radiator
grounded at the bottom end, and so on..

Your best bet would be to install a second slopper and use it as the
ground or counterpoise. This type of double slopper is sometimes called an
inverted V...it works and looks like a dipole.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wes Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Towers for beginner
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:51:28 LOCAL
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> Mike Warner <[e-mail]> writes
:
>From: Mike Warner <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Towers for beginner
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:50:39 -0700

>Hello all,
> Does anyone have a sugguestion concerning a good antenna tower for a new
>ham on a 1/4 acre suburban lot. I am located in a valley and feel the
>need to elevate my antennas, but don't really want to do alot of climbing
>on my roof. I would like something that is safe, very easy to install and
>operate. ie, crank down or tilt down? I think about the tallest tower I
>can reasonably put on my lot would be about 40'.

>Thanks, Mike N3XPD :) I love having that call sign after my name!

Mike:

First of all, congratulations on your new license.

The US Tower MA-40 tubular crankup mast is probably the cleanest looking
support you can find for a modest antenna. They are not inexpensive (IMHO).
The going price seems to be $679.  This will crank down to about 20' and up to

40'.  They make a tiltover base, a rotating tiltover base and a raising
fixture but these run into (many) more $$. Unfortunately, there is no good way

to climb these, so your antenna is still 20' above ground without the tilt
over options.  If you located it near the house, you may be able to reach the
top OK.

Otherwise, 40' of Rohn 25 is probably your best bet. Properly installed and
bracketed to your house, you wouldn't need guys for a modest antenna wind
load. They aren't as pretty as the tubular thing, but it depends on your
wallet.

73, Wes -- N7WS



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:57 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Garver)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help! 6 mtr antenna problem
Date: 20 Jun 1996 17:38:41 GMT
Message-ID: <4qc2b1$[e-mail]>
References: <4piadd$[e-mail]> <4pr55u$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Marv Uphaus <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>Matt Strandberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>I recently tried to make a 6 mtr vertical antenna.  I made a normal
>>coaxial-fed dipole...

>>The SWR is 4:1, and I am sure that the lengths are correct.

>I recently tried the same thing for my IC-706 and got exactly the same
>results...  I had an old balun around and so I added that in the center and
>voila, VSWR down to 1.5:1...  Then I realized that the balun was a 4:1
>voltage balun...  Never the less, it solved the problem...  Ten turns on a
>1.5" od toroid of some nebulous material...  Tuning the rig across the band
>and watching the SWR display shows a minimum at about 51 Mhz...  The length
>of the dipole is about 110"...  The balun seems to have made the
>difference...

Alternatively, I would make a folded dipole out of the plastic 450 ohm
ladder line and use a 1/2 wave coax balun to feed it.  Broader bandwidth
and a better match should result.  Either way, I've found that the
height of an end fed or center fed vertical dipole above the ground
will significantly change the match.  Best pattern is with the bottom
end about one wavelength above the ground, or about 20 feet high for
51 Mhz.  Move up or down to change pattern and, to some extend, impedance.

Practically, I think a horizontal dipole works best in the lower part
of the 6 meter band.  Verticals for 52.525 Mhz FM maybe.

73,
Jim
WA7LDV




--
[e-mail]          WA7LDV            I don't speak for Intel


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:58 1996
From: [e-mail]     (Roger J. Buffington; AB6WR)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna suggestions wanted
Date: 21 Jun 1996 11:38:55 GMT
Message-ID: <4qe1kf$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Roger J. Buffington)

I am presently in the process of installing amateur radio on my 25 foot
motorboat.  I'd appreciate any suggestions re: the following.

The radio I'm using is the Yaesu FT900AT.  I am presently experimenting with
the Spider antenna, and the Hustler mobile antenna.

The boat has a metal railing (stainless steel) that goes halfway around the bo
at.
I have clamped (using a metal, stainless steel clamp) the antenna to this
railing, using it as a ground (imperfect,  but hopefully better than nothing).
The SWR at its most resonant point, for both antennas, is about 2.5 to 1.
The good news is that the Yaesu's antenna tuner is brawny enough to match
this SWR, and therefore I can pump 100 watts into the antenna.  I have
made numerous contacts on both 40 and 20 using both the Spider and the
Hustler.

I would be interested in any suggestions regarding how I might be able to
get the antennas resonant points to go below 2.5/1.  Is this a reasonable
objective?  The losses at 2.5/1 are not that bad, especially since I'm only
using 12 foot coax.  Of course, with the poor ground I'm using, I realize that
I'm probably only radiating a small percentage of the 100 watts (is this right
?)

Incidentally, the above has occurred while the boat is still on dry land, bein
g
prepped by the boat dealer.  Perhaps things will improve when it is actually
in the water?

All suggestions welcome.

Roger J. Buffington
AB6WR
USC Law School Class of '97

[e-mail]

"I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather.
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers."





From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:12:59 1996
From: Gene Marcus <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: ?Measuring Axial Ratio?
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 17:03:32 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pui8u$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: Kevin Shea <[e-mail]>

Kevin Shea wrote:
>
>  In an attempt to build a circular polarized antenna (a
> 1.7 GHz axial mode backfire helical antenna to feed a
> parabolic reflector ( a 1 meter dish)) it would be great
> if I could measure the cicularity i.e. the axial ratio of
> the antenna.  I haven't found any "how to" references.
> I've heard that one can do it with a network analyser.  I
> don't have access to one. but I do have access to signal
> generator, a sweeper and a spectrum analyser.
>
>  Any ideas or pointers would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
     Hi Kevin,

     The axial ratio of your antenna may be measured by rotating
     a linearly polarized antenna excited with a signal generator
     or other low level source at the frequency of interest. The
     test must be performed in the far field with steps taken to
     minimize any reflection.

     Ideally, a step attenuator is connected in series with the
     antenna under test to a receiver with some means of indicating
     signal strength (s-meter). With the linearly polarized
     excitation antenna held stationary, a signal level reference
     point is recorded. As the excitation antenna is rotated
     around it's axis, the step attenuator is adjusted to set the
     signal strength indicator to the reference point. The
     difference in step attenuator reading is the axial ratio
     expressed in dB.

     Assuming your backfire helix is constructed properly, you
     should realize an axial ratio of less than 1 dB.

     The reciprocity theorem may be applied here by swapping
     the excitation antenna and the antenna under test.

     Hope this helps,

     Gene Marcus W3PM GM4YRE
     Huntsville, AL
     [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:01 1996
From: "Michael G. Katzmann" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mosley PRO
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:53:11 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4pnfjq$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Bruce Burke wrote:
>
> Marco Magnano wrote:
> >
> > Hallo to  all the hams in this newsgroup.
> > Is there anybody who owns a Mosley PRO-95 or PRO-96 ?
> > I am looking for a multiband rugged and full performance
> > yagi and I believe that these could be what I'm looking
> > for.
> > Infos and on air impressions are wanted
> > 73, Marco
> > IT9WPO
>
> Marco,
>
> Our radio club has a PRO-96. It performs very well
> with one exception. Our minimum SWR occurs
> below the band on 15 and 20 meters. All attempts to raise it
> have not yet worked. Mosley insists it is the environment,
> but I would tend to think we would see some variation in
> SWR as the antenna was turned. It is on a 45 foot tower
> atop a building with many, many other antennas!
> (Total height is about 100 feet, or 30 meters)
>

I have exactly the same problem on my Mosely 57B.  The people at Mosely are of
f with the pixeys!
First they gave me the stuff about other the environment, then they gave me a
cock and bull story
about my Heliax coax having too much capacitance (I don't know which physics b
ook they are working
from but 50 ohms through a 50 ohm coax cable gives 50 ohms at the other end in
 my book!).
I have no confidence in that company what so ever and would not waste my time
putting up one of
their antennas, even if it came free!!

BTW, the difference in minimum return loss (VSWR) would not be a problem by it
self, but the Back to
Front ratios are much poorer than advertised.



--
   |\      _,,,---,,_          Michael Katzmann  ( NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV )
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_              -  Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
  |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'             -  Odenton, Maryland. U.S.A.
 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)          [e-mail]  (finger for PGP public key)



From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Dexter N. Muir)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Missing back-issues
Date: 20 Jun 96 10:57:01 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Greetings, again, from New Zealand!

   I sent this a few days ago, but have not had any replies:

>   I keep an archive of this Digest on my 24-hrs Packet station
>for local Hams who have no Internet.  Occasionally (though rarely),
>either UCSD or my (Massey) mail server hiccups, and I lose one or
>two issues.  I would like to keep the archive complete, so am
>seeking issue:
>
>V96 #300  (27 May)
>
>  If any kind soul has kept this, I would appreciate a copy
>(to email address below).
>
>   Meanwhile, many thanks to Brian, and to all contributors.

   Since then, I have had another couple of hiccups, and am missing

V96 #352
V96 #357

   A further note:  Yes, I have looked in the Archive, and occasionally
manage to avoid posting like this by getting back-issues there.  These
ones, however, are not present: it seems the Digestifier only archives one
Digest each day, though it can post more than one.  Much valuable information
is lost :-(
   Brian says there is a re-organisation in the wind, and hopefully this
will improve the situation :-)

   I also archive Ham-Digital and TCP-Group from UCSD, and NOS-BBS from
hydra.carleton.ca 's listproc (UCSD is a listserv), and similar problems
occur there, too, though not so seriously as they usually only Digest once
per day.

Thanks in advance, and 73 de Dexter, ZL3LH

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dexter N. Muir          Manufacturing Pilot Plant Technician             |
| [e-mail]   Department of Production Technology              |
|                         Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand |
| http://www.massey.ac.nz/~DNMuir/                                         |
| "Honesty pays --- but not enough."   "Modesty pays --- but even less!! " |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Technisource)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Antenna Engineer
Date: 20 Jun 1996 22:51:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4qckkn$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

TECHNISOURCE
JOB TITLE          : Antenna Engineer
JOB LOCATION: Melbourne

    For a continuously updated list of opportunities please visit
    our Web Page...       http://www.techni-source.com
*************************************************************************

 TECHNISOURCE has the following opportunity out of its ORLANDO office.

 TECHNISOURCE REQUIREMENT NUMBER FOR REFERENCE: OR20017

 JOB DESCRIPTION: Please reference requirement # with response.
 ------------------------------
 Antenna Engineer

 REQUIRED SKILLS:
 -----------------------------
 Antenna Engineer, RF, Design, test Feed's waveguide and forward
reflector
antenna. They must know how to setup and shoot antenna patterns.(This is
key!!!)

Technisource, one of the fastest growing and most respected suppliers of
Technical expertise to the nation has opportunities both locally and
nationwide.  TechniSource has positions open for both consultants and
members
of our Technical Staff.

Please Reply To:   Vince or Kurt


Technisource, Inc.
Dept. - OR20017
3260 University Blvd
Suite 185
Winter Park, FL 32792
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]
EMAIL :[e-mail]
WWW:  http://www.techni-source.com

* WHEN FAXING PLEASE USE THE HIGHEST RESOLUTION AVAILABLE (We Use OCR).*

*************************************************************************
    For a continuously updated list of opportunities please visit
    our Web Page...       http://www.techni-source.com
*************************************************************************
____




From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:05 1996
From: Mike Valentine <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Belden 9913 Connector Source??
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:47:54 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4q12ko$[e-mail]> <4q52gk$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Dean Heinen wrote:
>
> In article <4q52gk$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >From: [e-mail]
> >Subject: Re: Belden 9913 Connector Source??
> >Date: 18 Jun 1996 01:58:44 GMT
>
> >Terry... take a look at 9914, I've not had good luck with 9913 here on
> >the Cape. The spiral wound center conductor tends to "suck up" moisture
> >then it gets cold and the water condenses in the cable. I've had water
> >run out of the coax connectors. 9914 uses a foam core, it's a little more
> >lossey than the 9913 but it stays dry!!!
> >Jim
>
> Then you are most certainly installing it incorrectly.
>
> Dean
> N7ZRS


Hello, Dean.  You'll need to go into a lot of detail to explain
how to install connectors on 9913 "correctly".

Jim is only one among a large number of hams that have seen problems
weather-proofing 9913.  In long runs, it may well be impossible.  It
seems that the connector has to have nearly hermetic qualities to
prevent water ingestion due to osmotic pumping of humidity into
the central air-cavity of the cable.

The major problem seems to be around the jacket-to-shell mating
surfaces.  I have had some success using flooded-joint heat-shrink
(underground cable TV style) around the entire connector, cable shank,
and whatever it connects to (other cable, antenna connection, etc).

My opinion (and I can put on K-connectors @ 40 GHz that sweep well), is
that only foam-core low-loss coax should be used out-of-doors.  Belden
9914 is a good idea as well as Times LMR-400, LMR-600, etc.. I use
Andrews 1/2" Superflex for jumpers on my VHF/UHF SSB/CW system.

Belden 9913 is really an RG-8 sized version of air dielectric Heliax.
Air (with spiral centering insulator)dielectric Heliax is ALWAYS used
with a refrigerating dryer or low-pressure dry-gas purging on any
out-of-doors run, otherwise it fills up with condesation.  I have not
seen refrigerated dryers for 9913 on the market.

There are many, many stories about how somebody's 9913 run had all of
a sudden developed a high SWR.  One such person took the cable into
work and put it on a time-domain reflectometer to look for a fault.
When he located the point a the bottom of a loop, he drilled a small
hole into the cable to see what it was.  The high-SWR then "ran out
onto the floor".  The cable then tested OK. It happens all the time.

Cordially,

Mike Valentine - WA8MSF


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:08 1996
From: mdenis <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:34:35 -0500
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

charles copeland wrote:
>
> I recently got my general, and have trying my luck on HF voice
> using a TS820 running 100 watts, antenna tuner, and a 64 foot folded
> dipole at 7' in my first floor apartment (also a Carolina Bug Catcher
> sitting on mag mount on floor with two 30' folded counter poise wires).
>
> My luck has been rotten, (with exception of 10 meters). I've talked
> to three HAMS on 20 meters only to have to struggle just to get
> them to recognize my callsign.
>
> This brings up my question: Is it hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
>
> If I were to get a inverted V dipole up at 40' would I have the same
> lousy luck? What cheap portable antenna would be most efficient?
>
> I know two other HAMS who have recently gotten their general,
> and both report lousy results on 20m-160m running 100watts.
> Both live on third floor apartments using folded dipoles. Both rarely
> are able to snag a QSO.
>
> What about running mobile? A 6' whip should pale to a 60' dipole on 3d floor
?
> Seems 100 watts and a whip would be worse than hopeless.
>
> Is 100 watts sufficient when the sunspot cycle picks up?
>
> Are 20m-160m bands strictly the domain of the "big guns"
> running 1500 watts, 100 foot towers, and monster beams?
>
> If this is so, what is the minimum setup to operate effectively?
>
> 400 watts, 600 watts, 1000 watts?
>
> 30', 40', 60', 100', tower?
>
> antennas?


Hi Charles,

I empathize with trying to operate HF from an apartment location. I
would try all means to get an antenna outside, if at all possible. There
are several interesting articles posted on the web that speak to
'clandestine' wire antennas.

If that is not an option, I would suggest something like the AEA
Isoloop. While it is a compromise, it will allow you to make contacts on
HF at the 100 watt level. If you disguise it right, it will look like a
bird feeder and you can hang it outside a patio door. Of course, as in
most antennas, higher is better.

I'd stay off 20 meter ssb while in the apartment. Usually you will
generate tons of RFI that your neighbors will just not appreciate. Also,
you'll need to monitor your VCR when your on 80 meters. Try 20 meter CW
running QRP at night and you'll do well and you won't bug your neighbors

(and your apt. manager won't bug you ;) )

Good Luck es 73
Marc
KD0QO


From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Forbes Family)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Building a QUAD for 11 meter (CB band)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 04:20:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4qikdl$[e-mail]>
References: <31c6e422.3761428@news>

[e-mail] (Ton Muller) wrote:

>I want to build a 2 elemts quad for the CB band (27.500 mhz) ,but do not know
>how to calculate the driven and the reflector.

The elements of a Quad are actually just  simple 1.0 wavelength
circular loops which have been formed into a square shape to make them
easier to construct and support on a boom.  Although such a loop is a
resonant structure, it has a very low Q and provides very good
broadband performance.  This is great from a home construction point
of view as it makes the dimensions non critical.
An everyday example of this is the popular single turn circular loop
antenna used with many portable TVs for indoor reception of *all* UHF
channels.  The directivity achieved is generally better than  3.5dBi
across the entire band if designed so that loop circumference is 1.0
wavelengths at 470 MHz and 1.7 wavelengths at 806 MHz.  Input
resistance over  this range varies from about 100 Ohms at the bottom
end of the band to several hundred Ohms at the top.   VSWR into a 300
Ohm feeder is typically closest  to 1 when the loop circumference is
about  1.3 wavelengths.

 Applying the above to your proposed 11 meter Quad antenna, it would
seem you cannot go far wrong so long as you design for an element
circumference somewhere in the vicinity of 1.0 to 1.3 wavelengths.

To achieve maximum directivity (and hence gain),  I'd recommend
basing your design on the once popular *ZL Special*.  This is a simple
two element antenna which operates in the *end fire with increased
directivity mode*  where both elements are actively driven and
interconnected using a criss-crossed two wire transmission line to
achieve a 135 degrees phase lag at the rear element.  The finished
antenna is fed from the front element (visually just like a
log-periodic, although the theory of operation is actually quite
different). The two  elements are spaced 1/8th wavelength apart along
the boom.  When using dipoles in this configuration, the rear element
is generally made a *resonant* half wavelength long and the front
element is cut approximately 5% shorter.

Hence, for your Qaud, I'd suggest the following dimensions (in free
space wavelengths):

Rear element circumference:  1.2 Wavelengths
Front element circumference:   1.14 Wavelengths
Element Spacing:  0.125 Wavelength

Expected directivity should be in the vicinity of 9dBi ( 7dB gain over
a dipole), assuming an E-Plane beamwidth of 90 degrees and an H-Plane
beamwidth of 140 degrees.   Bandwidth and front to back ratio should
be exceptional and I'd guess feed point impedance will be something
like 40-50 Ohms (balanced).

Cheers, and good luck with the project.
Ged Forbes





















From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Kevin  AstirCS "1U"   KO0B)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Hopeless to run HF voice at 100 watts?
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 08:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4q93d5$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (charles copeland) wrote:
>antennas?

You have questioned your own answer!

Many apartment buildings are made of reinforced concrete...The re-bar
makes a pretty effective Faraday cage, and there is lots of really
lossy "stuff" right next to the antenna.   By "folded dipole" I assume
you mean you took a plain old 1/2 wave dipole , and bent the legs up
to fit into your apartment.  This results in lots of the signal
canceling out.

If you must use this antenna, at least get as much of the middle (high
current part) , bothe sides, as straight as you can....then fold the
ends.

You really need to get something, _anything_ at_all_ , outside.
Plenty of folks run only 100W on 80M mobile with good results.
80 is a noisy band, and typically has the most "need" for high power.

Look into the many articles on "stealth" antennas.  bare (or
varnished) AWG 24 wire is really hard to see..just keep it high enough
not to trip or closeline sombody...and of course stay clear of power
lines.

Random wires will be your cheapest/easiest option for a steallth
antenna.  For these you need either a tuner (simple L-network is fine)
or an unatural amount of luck. (only got good match on random hunk of
wire once in my life)

I had really good luck with a MFJ econo-tuner when I lived in
apartment.  I read all kinds of bad things about MFJ tuners, but this
thing has worked great for me.

Also, if running random wire, try to arrainge a rellay solid ground
connection.

Make sure you have a clean signal...resist the urge to crank up the
drive to get more  uumph.  A splattering, overmodulated signal is
really hard to copy.   Some will even avoid you on general principle.
Ask a local ham to monitor you, and  write down the settings for best
signal.

Set yourself apart from the crowd.  Unless you are a masochist, don't
bother jumping into a pileup.  You will soon get a feel for how weak a
signal you can expect to hear you. Look for that forlorn, lonely guy
been calling CQ for 5 minutes with no answer.  That guy will MAKE a
way to copy your signal!

And, as others have already told you, CW will make all the difference.

Conseder a field trip to a nearby park (with BIG trees) for some+

If you are still seriously considering an amplifier, here are some
issues you need to consider.

1) The safety of running high power to an indoor antenna has been
questioned by many.

2) In an apartment, running a linear is just begging for TVI problems.
Your neighbors will almost certainly involve the apartment management
in this.....

3) A better antenna will be cheaper than a linear, and less of a TVI
problem.  You will also hear better with it..win, win, win.

4) I don't suppose your apartment is wired for 230VAC...no, I didn't
think so.  So you are limited to about 1S unit of improvement. (~500W
is max you can run off 110V)

Take heart.  This is only a crude guess, but HF ops I know , only
maybe 20% even own an amplifier.







From [e-mail] Mon Jun 24 21:13:14 1996
From: "Thomas W. Castle" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Help! 6 mtr antenna problem
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 04:02:09 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4piadd$[e-mail]><[e-mail]> <4pr55u$[e-mail]><[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Thomas W. Castle" <[e-mail]>
To: Marv Uphaus <[e-mail]>

On 18 Jun 1996, Marv Uphaus wrote:
> >Matt Strandberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >I recently tried to make a 6 mtr vertical antenna.  I made a normal
> >coaxial-fed dipole...
> >The SWR is 4:1, and I am sure that the lengths are correct.
>
> I recently tried the same thing for my IC-706 and got exactly the same
> results...  I had an old balun around and so I added that in the center and
> voila, VSWR down to 1.5:1...  Then I realized that the balun was a 4:1
> voltage balun...  Never the less, it solved the problem...  Ten turns on a
> 1.5" od toroid of some nebulous material...  Tuning the rig across the band
> and watching the SWR display shows a minimum at about 51 Mhz...  The length
> of the dipole is about 110"...  The balun seems to have made the
> difference...
> Marv, K4BVG...

Having made "lots" of dipoles for 10, 6, 2, 220, 440 & ATV freqs, I'm
just wondering about your installations, not so much your dimensions.

When one hangs a dipole horizontaly, they usually do so in the clear.
They use nylon or dacron to pull up the antenna an if nothing else,
let the feedline hang from it; if hung from the ends only... So the
end result usually works out ok..?

When one hangs one dipole vertically, the method used often dictates its
worthyness... It needs to be in the clear from metal <towers, push-up
poles, metal roof trim & similar stuff> It works for me: to hang them
about 2' to 3' off the side of my tower. I use a piece of PVC pipe 1"
with a 1" dowel rod in it, this stiffens up the top mounting point.
With a eye bolt near the end to run my pull cord thru to raise an
lower the antenna. Why climb up an down more than you need to...?
Also I use 2 PVC caps on the ends of the mounting "bar" an a U bolt
or 2 to mount it to my tower or push up pole. At the feed point I
will usually put a current balun <6-8 turns >> 8 to 9 inches in dia>
That is fed in at a 90 degree angle to the antenna an ties off to the
support structure, so the feed line is seperated from the antenna...
The bottom end of the antenna has a stand-off or support bar just
like the top, but near ground level. This allows me to: tie the lower
part of the dipole off straight an snug... I have 3 dipoles on each
of my towers at present, mounted in this manner.

My favorite dipole for quick down an dirty use is: the coaxial
dipole... The dipole an feed line are one in the same... They
are quick, easy an work great vertically....

Take a piece of coax more than long enough to go from your hanging
point to your place of connection to rig. Skin the outter plastic
off the coax about 1-2" longer than 468/freq in Mhz/2 dimension.
Then with a pencil or other device <phillips screwdriver #2> open a
slot in the shield without destroying it. Force the center
insultation an center conductor backwards thru this slot or hole
per say. With a little patients, you'll end up with the empty
sheild still attached an the center conductor with insulation.
Now you can strip off the insulation from the center conductor or
leave it on if you figure the antenna abt 3% longer to compensate
for the insulation... Anyhow measure out from the point where the
2 <center conductor & sheild> seperate the appropriate distance
while pulling the antenna out straight an trim... Leave enough
to mount your pull cord or insulator, before setting the final
cut. I have made up hundreds of these for field day, newbies
or for trying out a rig I didn't have a ready made antenna for...
I tape or silicone the coax jacket & center conductor to keep
water out for as long as possible..?
BTW> be sure to tape the sheid back to the feed line at multiple
points in a straight manner. With this antenna, you want the
lower part <sheild> to parallel the feed line back down to the ground.
This idea works for horizontal dipoles as well, just make it like
a "T" with the feed line dropping away from the elements...

Heres a little antenna that can cover from 11, 10, 6, 2, 220 &
440... For those who would rather assemble one than build one...
Its the AV-160 by Avanti.... It is a Alum. ant with stand off
multiple piece elements that telescope together overall lenght
18' 6" so you can trim it or assemble it to any length within
its range. An its cost is less than $20.00. It is available
at a lot of suppliers whether "CB" or Ham... It comes with a
really nice center assembly <Plastic but durable as hell> that
mounts the antenna to the "standoff off assembly" an gives you
easy coax termination that can be sealed for really long time
usage without hassels... The company that originally made them
was bought out by Antenna Specialists an to my knowledge are
available to most areas. I've got 6 still left in the box for
future projects, that justify their use...

Good Luck - Hope this helps or at least gives you an idea or 2.
To "ME" nothing seems to beat a resonant antenna...
I'm no expert, but do enjoy building them an getting them to
really work as good as they can...

73 De Tom
KD4QHH








From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:01 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mika Antero JΣppinen)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Multiband-dipole HELP needed!
Date: 23 Jun 1996 12:23:23 GMT
Message-ID: <4qjcvr$[e-mail]>

Hi,

        I am looking for multiband dipole antenna for HF which would
        cover 80-40-20-15-10 meter bands.
        Biggest promblem is that I had to hang it over metal-roof approx
        6-7 feet high from it and this is same as put it inna ground level..

        So is there any antennas (dipole-horixzontal no yagis) which might
        perform atleast well on these kind of circumtanses?

        I guess I had to go and buy vertical 8(

        Antero Jappinen  Email  [e-mail]
                         Packet [e-mail]




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (Ken McCoy)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: NEWBIE: impedance of 2m 5/8 wave ground plane
Date: 24 Jun 1996 09:31:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4qm5bl$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken McCoy)

Forgive me if this question has an obvious answer; I haven't been able to
find it anywhere. Is the angle of the ground plane segments for a 5/8 wave
vertical the same as that for a 1/4 wave for 50 ohms (i.e., 45 degrees).

Or, what is the impedance for a 90 degree angle?

Thanks and 73,
Ken KF4BQF
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR antenna -reply to comments
Date: 24 Jun 1996 13:34:47 GMT
Message-ID: <4qm5hn$[e-mail]>
References: <4qbio5$[e-mail]> <4qh2a6$[e-mail]>

The neon baulb peaks brightness at the capacitor end.
Jim

In article <4qh2a6$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>Hi Jim,
>
>In article <4qbio5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Flanders)
>writes:
>
>>Yes - The baulb lit on only the horizontal sections - The vertical
>>section is like this:
>>
>>     /-----
>>    |      ^
>>    |      feed (5.5" from vert. section)
>> ground
>
>So are you saying the bulb lights anywhere along the top ring, but no
>where on the vertical section?
>
>Does it light evenly along the whole ring?
>
>73 Tom



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Big Kid)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need  help with portalbe antenna
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:52:52 -0600
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I would like to operate portable hf from hotel rooms as I travel.  I was
thinking of the MFJ wire/counterpoise tuner with a random length wire thrown
into a tree.  I was also thinking about a helically wound
mobile antenna mounted at ground level with a few quarter wave radials
attached to the base and fed with coax and tuner.  Does anyone have an opinion

on how well either of these configurations would work?


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:05 1996
From: Bruce Williams <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Dual Band vhf/uhf Mobile Antenna
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 21:56:55 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Does any one know if it is possible to purchase an on-glass dual band
vhf/uhf mobile antenna?

73's Bruce VK6CX


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:06 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Field Day Antenna
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 96 09:30:48 PDT
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.17787.835720962.Postmaster@hfs08>


While the subject is fresh in everyone's mind....

Can you recommend an "ideal" Field Day antenna?  Here's my definition of ideal
:

   -Easy to put up and take down
   -Omnidirectional

We used two different antennae this past weekend.  A horizontal loop/longwire
for CW.  Four lines up in the trees, unroll the wire from the spool, and we
could work everything we could hear, usually on the first or second call.

For SSB we used two lazy H's erected at right angles to each other, one
oriented east-west and one north-south.  Each required four lines into the
trees (a total of 8).  Very labor consuming to put up and take down, to keep
everything from getting tangled.  There were often lots of stations we could
hear that could not hear us.

The first antenna was ideal, the second was not.

Anybody use a commercial vertical with success?

Tim
KF9WX





From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:07 1996
From: Chris Boone <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Dual Band vhf/uhf Mobile Antenna
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:28:01 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Bruce Williams wrote:
>
> Does any one know if it is possible to purchase an on-glass dual band
> vhf/uhf mobile antenna?
>
> 73's Bruce VK6CX

Larsen KG-2/70 is the best you can get.......



73
Chris
WB5ITT


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:07 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Buried radials: Insulated or bare?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:52:22 -0400
Message-ID: <4qp5g6$[e-mail]>
References: <4qlqep$[e-mail]>

In article <4qlqep$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:

>My guess is that the performance level of both should be about the same,
>except that insulated radials will last longer.
>
>73 de Serge

Hi Serge,

The performance will be exactly the same. The only diffference will be in
the life of the radial.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: V/UHF connector losses?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 12:59:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4qp5sm$[e-mail]>
References: <4qmo0a$[e-mail]>

In article <4qmo0a$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Clifford
Wilke) writes:

>
>Question:  Will upgrading to N connectors help raise those elusive grid
>squares out of the mud? (and bring MY signal out of the mud?)
>
>

Not unless you have a whole bunch of connectors in series...

The loss in the UHF type connector is very low, the only real problem is
it adds a slight bump in the line. Fortunately the bump is so short it
won't have much effect.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HF multiband sloper
Date: 25 Jun 1996 13:09:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4qooem$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Doug Demaw did a lot of research on the sloper.  If I remember right,
he found that the half-sloper (1/4 wave antenna) requires much
tinkering to get the swr down.  Also - the angle of the antenna should
be 50 degrees, and the bottom should be about ten feet above the
ground.  I suspect that with using only a 30 ft mast, your not able
to meet these criteria.  Let us know some more about the installation.
Jim W0oog/5

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>I recently bought an  Alpha-Delta DX-B 1/4 wave sloper that covers 160
-
>30 meters.  I've been having alot of trouble getting it to perform
>satisfactorily on all of the bands, except for 30 meters.  I currently
>have this antenna fed by a 120' run of RG8-X. The feedpoint is at the
top
>of a 30' aluminum mast and I've attached an aluminum ground wire to it
>that acts as counterpoise.  This is grounded from the feedpoint to a
4'
>ground rod at the base of the mast.   I have very high swr with this
>particular antenna and thus use an antenna tuner to match the xcvr to
the
>antenna system.  On 160, I cannot tune up properly, unless I attach a
>capcitance hat at the end of the antenna closest to the ground.  That
is
>approximately 10' off the ground.  The guy wires for the mast are
dacron
>rope.  There is a 6 meter vertical on top of the mast.  To date this
is
>perhaps the best configuration of the antenna.
>
>I've run out of ideas on how to get this antenna to perform properly.

>Any ideas from the ham community would be greatly appreciated!
>
>
>Thanks & 73,
>
>
>Bryan



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:13 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (James D. Cronin)
Subject: Re: Dual Band Base Antenna...?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 16:48:38 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>,
Connie Hulst  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>I am going to be putting up a dual-band antenna at my home.  I have
>narrowed the field down to a Comet GP-3 or a Diamond X-50A.  In the
>AES catalog, the Diamond is $15 more, although the specs seem to be the
>same.  Is the Diamond really that much better quality?
>
>If anyone has any remarkably wise advice, please E-Mail me as well as
>posting the reply--my news server is VERY unreliable.
>
>73 de Nick Hulst, AA0VY

I picked up a Taiwanese knock-off at the Rochester, NY hamfest for under $50.
It's construction is close to the original; a 5/8 wave over 5/8 wave inside
a 2-piece fiberglass tube.  The price was right and it works OK, too.

73..Jim  N2VNO


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:14 1996
From: Mark Schoonover - KA6WKE <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Full Wave Loops
Date: 25 Jun 1996 16:53:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4qp5hc$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4qb0pj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Rod Adkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Pricemw wrote:
>>
<<<< MUCH SNIPPED>>>

>quarter-wave 75-ohm matching section at the antenna to match the
>approx 100 ohm of the loop to 50 ohm coax.  I haven't used a balun.
>
>I have found that it is *MUCH* easier to tune loops if the geometry is
>as near a square as possible.
>
>Rod,  VE3INE

Rod:

     When you calculated for the quarter wave 75 ohm matching
section, does one have to take into account velocity factor??
I'm planning on a 2m loop -- which puts the matching section at
around a foot using velocity factor. Is my thinking correct???

73's

Mark

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mark Schoonover -- KA6WKE                   E-Mail: [e-mail]
San Diego, CA
   Kenwood R-1000, BC2500XLT, PK232MBX/JVFAX, 66' Indoor Dipole
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:15 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: BALUN needed on Stacked J-pole
Date: 25 Jun 1996 16:55:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4qp5m3$[e-mail]>

I am planning to build a 2 meter, stacked J-pole for a base
station antenna.  I will use 1/2 or 3/4 inch copper pipe for
construction.  What is the feedpoint impedance of a J-pole?  Do
I need to use a 4:1 balun to feed the antenna or is direct coax
OK?  Coax will be RG-8.  The maximum forseeable power is 60-100
Watts.

Ken
KC5UNN



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:16 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Windload, how to calculate?
Date: 25 Jun 1996 17:00:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4qp5uq$[e-mail]>

I would like to learn how to calculate the windload (effective
square feet?) for an antenna.  I could use commercial antenna
specs to estimate windload but would like to learn the theory.
Does the windload estimate take into account the tourqe induced
by short vs. long booms?

Ken
KC5UNN




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary Hosler - KN0Z)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Stacking Yagis
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:42:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4qpc5l$[e-mail]>
References: <4qng6d$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (KK5EP) wrote:

>I am looking for a good resource concerning stacking yagis.  I have a
>Force 12 C3 and I would like to add a C4XL or an "Elite force" 20/40  yagi
>.  Can these two antennas be stacked in order to take advantage of more
>elements on 20 mtrs?  If so, how many feet of separation is optimal?  I am
>primarily a dx-er who also contests. Total weight of these antennas is
>approx 100 lbs. Tnx, pse e-mail direct. 73, Mike. KK5EP.

I wouod suggest you get a hold of Lawson's book on Yagi Design.  It
has quite a bit of detail on stacking distances, pattern effect,
impact on F/B & gain, impedance matching, switching networks, etc..  I
would think that you C3/C4XL could be stacked very nicely as they are
basically the same antenna except for the 40M capability on the C4XL.
As for spacing, it will be a compromise.  Depends on which band you
want to favor.  If it were mine, I would opt for the lower antenna
(C3) at a height of about 50-60 ft with the upper antenna (C4XL) at
100-120 ft.  In any event you would want to shoot for about 1
wavelength spacing (or a bit more).  Spacing greater than 1.2-1.3
wavelengths will result in gradual decrease in gain.  Less spacing
that about .9 wavelengths will result in a degraded pattern and
reduced F/B.  Of course the ususal cavet applies in that yagis of the
long boom variety and additional elements will be affected in a
slightly different manner.  You may also want to talk with Tom
Schiller at Force 12 as I'm sure he has played with this combination.
Remember,...your DX mileage may vary....

Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employe
r.


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:20 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Tom  Zoch)
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qoq6n$[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 20:28:29 GMT

Don't forget Bill Gates (Microsoft) is one of the Major players behind the
Leo Satellite people who want to take over our Ham bands. It is no surprise
that they want to call it dead! Apparently Kenwood will be making the
electronics for them and are also willing to turn there backs on us. I will
never consider buying a Kenwood product.

Tom
KC7PMQ



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:21 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: "Infinite Baluns" question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 01:22:30 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
uk writes:
>Hello Folks
>
>I have trawling my books to find anything on "infinite baluns", or
>perhaps something called an "infinite balun technique". Sadly, we
>find nothing. The only use of the word "infinite" refers to the
>stub sleeve on a [coaxial balun] that tries to be an infinite
>impedance to current that might otherwise flow on the outer
>conductor of the coax.
>
Some baluns are built using lengths of transmission lines, wound thru
a toridal core to create an inductance as seen from the outside of the
outer shield of the coax (assume you used coax as your transmission
line).  The signal on the inner conductor and the inside of the
outer shield doesn't "see" the inductance.  Use enough turns on the
torid, and the impedence of the outside would be a few thousand ohms,
neglidgable compared to 75 ohms.  If you had some 150 ohm coax (I never
seen 150 ohm coax myself), you could put 150 ohm dummy loads (seperately)
at the far end of these coaxes, and wire them parallel to the 75 ohm
source coax, and things would match.  and at the far end you could remove
the resistors, wire the coaxex in series (shield of 2nd coax to inner
conductor of 1st coax, and load with 300 ohms dummy load across the shield
of the first coax to the inner conductor of the 2nd) and you're almost have
a balum.  OK, but I shorted the center conductor of the 1st coax to the
grounded shield of the 2nd coax.  Now, if I coiled the coaxes before
wiring them up, the old short path now looks like an inductance of several
thousand ohms (useing enough turns).  Above some frequency band, and up
to microvave freqs (when coax attenuation kills it), you have a 1:4 balun.

That's what's inside those TV baluns from the cable company and radio shark.


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:22 1996
From: [e-mail] (WB3U)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Feeding Vertical with Balanced Line
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 05:47:45 GMT
Message-ID: <4qqj2m$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4qmicv$[e-mail]>

   [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom) wrote:

>If the line is less than perfectly balanced, this type of balun
>(or even a link coupled tuner with an output section employing
>grounded components) will usually aggravate the problem.

Tom,

What's your best guess as to why Johnson chose to ground the
"center" of the output caps in the Matchbox?  Do you think
they just happened to design it like that and it worked, so
they left it as-is?  The more I read on this topic, the more
convinced I am there's no real rhyme or reason for the ground.

73,
Jack  WB3U


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Andy Nourse)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: How do I attach an HF antenna to a Honda?
Date: 26 Jun 1996 08:50:49 GMT
Message-ID: <4qqtl9$[e-mail]>

I have a Honda Civic hatchback and have found a notable lack of places to
attach antennas.  Most other relatively new cars seem to be this way too.

A bumper mount won't work, there is no way (that I've found) to attach it to
the plastic-over-foam-over-metal bumper.  A trunk mount won't attach to the
hatch, there's glass there.  I'm using mag-mounts for 10, 6, and 2, but
those won't be adequate for the lower bands  (I have actually seen a
really short 20m antenna that could be held by a really sturdy magmount,
but it seems to short to be any good).
I don't want to drill holes in the roof.


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:26 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Ladder line variability questions
Date: 26 Jun 1996 09:12:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4qrcv2$[e-mail]>
References: <4qqiq5$[e-mail]>

Hi Pete,
In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pete Soper) writes:

>
>My conclusion then is that there is likely to be a lot of variability
>among same-sized ladder lines based on their conductors going from
>18 to 14 gauge and a smaller variability with differences in
>insulation thickness and proportion of the line open via its windows.
>I should go for both the smallest conductor and thinest insulation and/or
>largest amount of window cutouts to get the highest possible Zo and
>lowest weight (my original goals). Making my own open wire line is of
>course the guaranteed way to get what I want but I'm not convinced
>I can make something that will last well with the periodic hula dancing
>my trees do.

I am "tickled pink" to get lower than 450 ohm line. A lower impedance is
better in my applications.

The low Z line will have lower losse, be less susceptable to weather
effects, last longer, and handle more power.

With the antennas I usually use, it gives me less impedance excursions
with frequency...and keeps the feedpoint impedance more constant. I'm glad
the manufacturer had no idea what he was doing. I just hope he makes "300
ohm" line soon, it'll make a good 75 ohm feedline, hi..

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:26 1996
From: Madjid <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HAARP info requested
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:14:04 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qojpd$[e-mail]>

Edward J. Kennedy wrote:
> Nowhere in our server does it say that HAARP can "punch holes" in the
> ionosphere. HAARP has no such capability.snip
> Ed K3NS

Thanks Ed, I just wanted to know if HAARP people monitored
this newsgroup.

----
Madjid, VE2GMI     Internet: [e-mail]
Antenna simulation program NEC4WIN found at:
http://www.coast.net/SimTel/SimTel/win3/hamradio/nec4w15.zip


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:28 1996
From: Madjid <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Growth Rate is UP not down!
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:37:26 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Patrick Tatro wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong BUT .....
>
>    Who said continued growth is a good thing?
> Sixty years ago the joy of the hobby was for two
> operators to make contact with rigs they built and
> antenna's they designed.
>
>    These days the bands are crowded with Ham
> want-to-be's, DJ want-to-be's and people who
> wouldn't know good manners if they jumped up
> and bit them.
>
>    I for one say its time for this hobby to
> down-size. Maybe those people who get their
> license and then spend all their time bad
> mouthing the hobby will find new things to bad
> mouth (like net surfing). The true joy of amateur
> radio will always be there no matter how much it's
> bad mouthed.
>
> Nuf Said
> Pat N0WCG

This whole growth think is plain BALOONEY. As an example in the
Canadian RAC magazine, the editors continuously complain about
the hobby going to die because no new hams, CW being a problem
etc etc...

In the March 96 issue of RAC there was a chart titled
HAM LICENCES PASS 46,000 mark (in Canada).

In 69/70 it was <12500
in 75/76 it was  15346
in 86/87         23063
now              46055

As you can see the number DOUBLED in 10 years. The growth rate is even
higher in the 90/96 range and if continues like that will TRIPLE or
QUADRUPLE by year 2006.

Who are these people trying to fool?

--
Madjid, VE2GMI


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:28 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: rotatable dipoles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:28:35 -0400
References: <4qkq6r$[e-mail]>
To: Dave Harrison <[e-mail]>

Dave Harrison wrote:
>
> has anyone tried the cushcraft rotatable dipoles (trapped for 10-20m or
> 10-40m)?  Could I get away with mounting one on the side of my house just
> below roof height (it's a 2 story)?  I need to hide the antenna from the
> neighbors (ccr's). Thanks,
> please answer here or email me at 150.westside.com.

I've used them on the side of a tower, work great.  Try to keep it away
from house as much as possible and especially away from metal gutters,
etc.  I have also made a rotable dipole from two HAMSTICK antennas
(single band).  Works pretty well also.



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:29 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Idea for antenna array at new QTH
Date: 26 Jun 1996 14:40:10 GMT
Message-ID: <4qri4a$[e-mail]>

I moved the QTH to a house sitting on a small hill on the Texas Plains
(Plano, TX).  I am considering an antenna array, and am submitting it
here for comments.

Consider the overall design as four multiband (80-40-20-15-10) half
slopers on a 65 foot mast. The length of each sloper is 48 ft.
Each sloper slopes in a N-E-S-W direction respectively at a 50 degree
angle.

Not only the center conductor is switched individually for directivity,
but also the outerconductor can be switched to any of the remaining
slopers (thus effectively making a half wave inverted vee). Unused
slopers are grounded to the mast, hopefully making them directors.

Jim W0oog/5 14.243 @ 11:30 CST (subvets net) 147.180 (Plano repeater)



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Date: 26 Jun 1996 14:59:21 GMT
Message-ID: <4qrj89$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qk11t$[e-mail]>

I Never thought of it that way.  Maybe you've hit it - when all the CB
types leave for the internet, the seriouse Die-hards will get what is
left.  Now - if we can only work together.

Jim W0oog/5

In article <4qk11t$[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>
>This could actually be good news for the community. Infusion of the
>Internet into our society may eliminate those who viewed amatuer
radio
>as another form of CB. Once that crowd leaves the airways amatuer
>radio may return to the civil, and critical, service it was intended
>to be.
>



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:31 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jack Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: BALUN needed on stacked J-pole
Date: 26 Jun 96 15:25:03 GMT
Message-ID: <6584@NJ7P>

I built a gain j-pole awhile back out of #12 solid copper wire.  Using
the parallel conductor impedance formula gave me an approximation of
the spacing between the two conductors needed to give a 1:1 match at
the resonant frequency.  In my case it was something like 1/2 inch or so
for 50 ohms.

I found adding a 4:1 balun (made from RG-58) helped with both reducing
the 'hand effect' (watching the SWR vary as you move your hand up and
down the outside of the coaxial feedline), as well as providing an
easier feedline match.

73 de Jack




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:32 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jack Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: BALUN needed on stacked J-pole
Date: 26 Jun 96 16:01:16 GMT
Message-ID: <6586@NJ7P>

Recently I put together a gain J-pole made from #12 wire.  In noting
some articles discussing being able to only get a close match, I used
the formula for parallel conductors to get an approximation of the
spacing between the 'J' and the antenna element for 50 ohms.  In my
case it was around 1/2 inch.  The thinking here was that the spacing
would then allow a flat 1:1 match at the desired frequency.

Indeed, this was found to be true.  When attempting to match the "J"
directly to the 50 ohm feedline there was a point near the shorted end
where it was 1:1.  However 'hand effect' was noticed.  When watching
the SWR meter there was a variation as the hand was moved along the
outside of the coaxial feedline.  This was not deemed desirable.

A 1:1 BALUN was constructed which did eliminate the hand effect.  But
in my case it was difficult to mechanically get a precise 1:1 match
due to the very limited range that this occured.

A 4:1 BALUN made from RG-58 was found to give a less sensitive matching
adjustment range as well as taking care of the hand effect.

73 de Jack




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:33 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mike Capone)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:09:46 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996 06:39:07 -0400, Burt Fisher <[e-mail]> wrote:

:Kenwood and Microsoft agree ham radio is dying.
:(but I told you that a long time ago)
:
:KENWOOD DEFENDS DISTRIBUTION PLANS
:
:Kenwood Communications Corp says its recently announced plans to make its
:products available in more retail outlets will help to rejuvenate ham radio.
:Citing concerns about the future of Amateur Radio and a changing business
:climate, Kenwood announced it was taking "some bold steps" to revamp its
:wholesale distribution scheme.
:
So what else is new?  Kenwood rigs have been showing up at truck stops (CB
shops, no?)

:In a June 10 open letter to the Amateur Radio community, Kenwood's
:Amateur Radio Products Group National Sales Manager Paul Middleton,
:KD6NUH, painted a dismal picture. "When we looked at where Amateur Radio
:is today, and where it is going to be in ten years at the present rate
:of decline, the future looks bleak," he wrote, citing competition from
:unlicensed communications modes. (internet).
:
Whoever here would compare ham radio to the internet needs their head checked.
Like trying to compare an geo metro with a pickup truck.


: "It is also obvious that the rate of no-code licensees is slowing down
:with fewer and fewer people upgrading," Middleton wrote. "Amateur Radio
:dealers should be more interested in attracting new people to our hobby.
:Every current amateur operator who wants this hobby to continue should
:be promoting ham radio to non-hams."
:

There's NO use whatsoever to promote ham radio to people who don't have any
remote interest in it, it never sticks.  Even if they do pass the TNC test, th
ey
rarely use their equipment.  (A 30 day fad for some people)



:* Microsoft Network (MSN) has dropped its Amateur Radio Forum, reports the
:unofficial forum manager Rick McMillion, WB7UGZ. He said MSN gave him the
:word recently in a terse e-mail message. McMillion says he had no warning
:that MSN was going to dump the forum.

MSN probably dumped it due to lack of activity in the forum.





From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:34 1996
From: Ron Notarius WN3VAW <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V Vertical: Opinions?
Date: 26 Jun 1996 16:37:27 GMT
Message-ID: <4qrp07$oln$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

I've owned both an HF6V & an HF2V for over 10 years.  Outside of
weather effects over that long a period of time, I've never had an
operational problem with either antenna (and I've had them both
roof & ground mounted).  Any problems I've had ended up being
either user error(s) or coax problems (for example, I used some
leftover 9913 when I installed the HF6 last year, and the effects
of the winter & spring rains have ruined the coax -- but not the
antenna).

Highly reccomend these verticals for those looking for a good,
solid performer.

And they're a light lighter & easier to construct than the GAPs,
which are otherwise decent verticals too.

--
ron notarius wn3vaw
my designated driver is a 12BY7A


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:35 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Mobile antennas in thunderstorms?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:57:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4qrfjh$[e-mail]>
References: <4q6pkj$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qecm5$[e-mail]> <4qi6dn$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Tim Smith) wrote:

>Also known in some circles as the "skin effect".  Safest way to avoid
>lightning strikes is to stay at home and watch weather channel....

Good advice Tim.  I was stationed at Patrick Air Force Base in Cocoa
Beach, Florida doing just that when lightning hit the cable.  Took out
my TV set along with many of my neighbors' sets too.  Go figure.

In 1993 I was living in Alamogordo, New Mexico.  Coming back to
Alamogordo from Las Cruces one day we had to go right into a T-Storm.
It was doing this cloud to ground stuff all around us.  I suggested to
my wife and kids that they not to touch any metal parts of the
vehicle.  With the AM broadcast radio on you could hear the lightning
charging up followed by a loud CRACK! it would discharge.  Was a neat
experience...and did no damage to my receiver or my two meter
radio...then again a couple of weeks later a tiny static discharge on
a cool dry day took out three stages of my IC-25H's receiver.  We were
listening to the space shuttle as they passed just over the horizon.
I should have sold the radio then, after purchasing the last pieces of
one of the parts that Icom had for it.  Ahhhh....I still have it and
it's working fine.

I've even been online during many thunderstorms when@#$$!@#$%@(@$@(
CARRIER LOST---- NOT!

===========================================
cheers! jim martin, wk1v
lowell, mass
http://www.shore.net/~jjmartin/jjm.htm



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:36 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Sliced bread!
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:00:42 GMT
Message-ID: <4qrfq7$[e-mail]>
References: <4qnifs$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Tim Smith) wrote:

>Hi fellow antenna tweakers.  I just brought home my nifty new MFJ-259 SWR
>analyzer last week and man...it's the best thing since sliced bread!  No
>more dragging out the rig, feedline and tools to the picnic table...just take

>the analyzer right to the antenna and do all you tweaking right there!  No
>only does it give you an indication of minimum reflected power but also give
>you a relative measurement of load impeadance (with respect to a 50 phm sourc
e
>impedance).

>I've always liked building and playing with antennas but with a box like this

>it's actually fun!  I'd recommend it to anyone.

My thoughts too Tim when I purchased mine about six months ago.  I
tuned every antenna I had around the house the first night I had it.
What do you do with it after that??  hehehe

It comes in very handy for tuning the transmatch off the air.  And
comes in handy for making it difficult for my neighbor to hear
incoming signals when he is operating on 27.575.....I don't have to
listen to him coming through my scanner or telephone....it's like
remote shutdown.  He's that close.



===========================================
cheers! jim martin, wk1v
lowell, mass
http://www.shore.net/~jjmartin/jjm.htm



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:38 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mark and Beth Mowery)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Backstay as ham antenna
Date: 26 Jun 96 19:02:33 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Here's one for all the sailing hams out there.

I've been using an Outbacker on my sailboat with good results, but would like
to
isolate and feed my backstay, using an automatic tuner. My idea was to run the
 coax up
through the mast and exit at the top, connecting the center conductor to the i
solated
portion, and the ground braid to the mast at the top for use as a counterpoise
. The
mast is grounded through a short length of tinned copper braid from the compre
ssion
post to a keelbolt in the bilge, and then to the water through two 12" square
bronze
plates bolted to either side of the fin. My questions are this:

1) Will there be enough of an advantage to feeding the stay at the top to outw
eigh the
extra effort required? It would be much easier to feed at the bottom (shorter
coax
run, no fishing wires through the mast, easier access to feed point).

2) What's a good way to actually attach the coax and make it somewhat weatherp
roof?
Are there commercial parts available for just this purpose? I'm in the Great L
akes so
saltwater obviously isn't a problem, but as long as I'm doing it I want to do
it
right.

3) Any recommendations on specific parts, such as backstay insulators, or any
other comments on the project are welcomed. I am open to any and all suggestio
ns and
comments. Please reply directly to me: [e-mail], if interest is high
 I will
post the results to the list for everyone to see.

Thanks in advance, and to the hams: 73
Mark AA8TC
S/V Gazelle
Lake Huron



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:39 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: "David E. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Horizontal Loop in Triangle configuration.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:44:23 GMT

I am getting ready to setup a 40M horizontal loop in the backyard. I have
a small place and since the wife is not going to allow a tower at this
QTH I am going to put up this loop until I figure out something else. I
can only put it up in a Triangle configuration and the performance is
what I needed input on.

How well will a triangle configured loop work and what if the angles of
the triangle are not all equal?

Any input greatly appreciated!

73,

de KE4FPS, David
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:40 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Bob Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is a Balun Necessary?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 21:09:09 -0400
References: <4qcvro$[e-mail]> <4qf89f$[e-mail]>

Cecil Moore wrote:
>
> Gareth Crispell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >I am going to put up a yagi monobander and am wondering if a 1:1 is at
> >all necessary? Any and all opinions will be appreciated.
>
> Without a balun, you will get some feedline radiation and a skewed
> radiation pattern. Either effect may or may not be neglible.
>
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA, OOTC  (not speaking for my employer)

You can wind a coaxial choke with about 10 turns, 8" dia. with your coax
in order to minimize feedline radiation.  Be careful with baluns.  If
you overdrive them or run a high SWR they can cause more problems than
they correct - especially ferrite core baluns.



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:41 1996
From: [e-mail] (Bradley Shaw)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: COMET GP15
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 21:20:29 GMT
Message-ID: <4qsd19$[e-mail]>

Say does anyone know anything about the Comet GP15?



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:42 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Buried radials: Insulated or bare?
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:10:00 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qlqep$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] wrote:

> Can anybody tell me what is best: insulated or buried radials?
>
> My guess is that the performance level of both should be about the same,
> except that insulated radials will last longer.

My intuition says you're on the right track.  Just make sure the
insulation is appropriate for direct burial (ie. water-proof).

73,

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:43 1996
From: gary <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Date: 26 Jun 1996 22:26:13 GMT
Message-ID: <4qsde5$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qk11t$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Burt Fisher <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Bob Fox wrote:
>>
>> This could actually be good news for the community. Infusion of the
>> Internet into our society may eliminate those who viewed amatuer radio
>> as another form of CB. Once that crowd leaves the airways amatuer
>> radio may return to the civil, and critical, service it was intended
>> to be.
>
>Once that crowd leaves hardly anyone will be left except the
>dead and dying.
>
>#================#=====================================================#
>|  Burt Fisher   |  Teacher of video, broadcasting and electronics     |
>| Amateur call   |         South Dennis, Ma. (Cape Cod)                |
>|    K1OIK       |  The less you say, the more people will remember    |
>#================#=====================================================#
>|                            [e-mail]                          |
>#======================================================================#
>
>http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/qrz_gifs?k1oik.gif


HO HO HO.... God, I *HATE* it when you're RIGHT!

--
Gary....KJ6Q    *** I AM THE NRA! ***

"The NRA doesn't vote, it's *MEMBERS* do - *ABUNDANTLY!*"




























From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:44 1996
From: [e-mail] (PDRUNEN)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Date: 26 Jun 1996 23:16:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4qsuer$[e-mail]>

>There's NO use whatsoever to promote ham radio to people who don't have
any
>remote interest in it, it never sticks.  Even if they do pass the TNC
test, they
>rarely use their equipment.  (A 30 day fad for some people)


I know an engineering friend that when all the way to Extra in less than 4
months!  I recommended a ham HF rig to him which he ordered,  and I helped
him order it.  after he got it, he spent his whole weekend finding every
fault.  Things like the scan feature did not tune in the SSB when it found
an SSB signal and there were a few birdies outside the ham band etc. etc.
I will leave the antenna tuner to another story.

After he got his extra ticket he went off into computer land and I don't
suggest rigs to engineering types
anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Let's enjoy the
hobby not find faults in it - Want a super rig then get a super wallet!




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:45 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Growth Rate is UP not down!
Date: 26 Jun 1996 23:47:15 -0400
Message-ID: <4qt083$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Madjid <[e-mail]> writes:

>As you can see the number DOUBLED in 10 years. The growth rate is even
>higher in the 90/96 range and if continues like that will TRIPLE or
>QUADRUPLE by year 2006.
>
>Who are these people trying to fool?
>
>--
>Madjid, VE2GMI
>
>

Hi Madjid,

That's interesting. My memory may be flawed, but as I recall when I looked
at amateurs as a percentage of the US population when the ARRL and others
were whining about there not being enough Hams, the percentage was higher
than ever.

Sounds like someone tried to create a political justification for no code.

The reason I slacked off on operating is the lack of intelligent QSO's.
The bulk of my contacts are ragchews on CW now, especially when mobile. I
get bored with exchanging reports and talking about the weather. I get
offended by people using terms like having "beams on the flat side" and
being "on the side". It sounds like CB banter.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:46 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Growth Rate is UP not down!
Date: 26 Jun 1996 23:49:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4qt0c0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, Madjid <[e-mail]> writes:

>As you can see the number DOUBLED in 10 years. The growth rate is even
>higher in the 90/96 range and if continues like that will TRIPLE or
>QUADRUPLE by year 2006.
>
>Who are these people trying to fool?
>
>--
>Madjid, VE2GMI
>
>

Hi Madjid,

That's interesting. My memory may be flawed, but as I recall when I looked
at amateurs as a percentage of the US population when the ARRL and others
were whining about there not being enough Hams, the percentage was higher
than ever.

Sounds like someone tried to create a political justification for no code.

The reason I slacked off on operating is the lack of intelligent QSO's.
The bulk of my contacts are ragchews on CW now, especially when mobile. I
get bored with exchanging reports and talking about the weather. I get
offended by people using terms like having "beams on the flat side" and
being "on the side". It sounds like CB banter.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:47 1996
From: Jake Brodsky <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:22:35 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qgrdm$[e-mail]> <4qpdr3$[e-mail]>

Ok, we've beat up these guys enough now.  The real question:

For the size they have made the silly thing, is it any more efficient
or widebanded than, say, a shortened loop of the same size?

Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:47 1996
From: [e-mail] (Christopher Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Looking for plans on 222MHZ antenna
Date: 27 Jun 1996 00:31:25 GMT
Message-ID: <4qskot$[e-mail]>

I've got a length of RG213 and lots of PVC Pipe. Anyone tell me how
to turn it into a halfway decent 222MHz antenna? Please EMAIL me

Chris


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:48 1996
From: "Thomas W. Castle" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Diamond vs Comet Ant.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 03:07:32 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hi Tom here...

Somewhere in the past 6 months, I followed a thread of a message
about the Diamond an Comet Antennas. It was based on the Diamond
500HNX <?> antenna an its Comet counterpart... Both basically
dual band 2mtr/70ctmr high gain antennas' for base/repeater use.
In this thread was a person reportedly works for Comet <???>, said
theirs was "better" because they  "Didn't" us phasing caps but
used tunned stubs for phasing the various sections an were DC
grounded... <Better lightenning protection?> Yet I can't find
this or similar info from Comet about their antenna....

The reason I am interested in a high gain but more of a safer
antenna, is because I have just replaced my 2 Diamond 500HNX after
being hit by lightenning...
They turn into Tiny whisk brooms an 10,000 little pieces, I am
getting tired of this...

Any Ideas gang??? They where up at 50' to 90' when they where hit.
Tower is well grounded. An they are the only antenna being hit...?

Tnx De Tom




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:49 1996
From: [e-mail] (Perry W. Ogletree)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Fwd: LHJ
Date: 27 Jun 96 04:47:43 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

This is old news.  The ARRL has met with the publishers and is helping them
draft a retraction for future publication.
73 de Perry N0NMC


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:50 1996
From: [e-mail] (Alisdair Gurney)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Meteosat Yagi
Date: 27 Jun 1996 10:52:28 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4qtp5c$[e-mail]>

Does anyone have any suggestions/plans for a yagi suitable for receiving
Meteosat transmissions?

Maplin Electronics used to sell a yagi with their downconverter and
WSAT decoder, but it has long since been discontinued.

Information please, to      [e-mail]

Alisdair Gurney



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:51 1996
From: [e-mail] (N1DDZ RJC)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Facts needed: 9913 vs Times
Date: 27 Jun 1996 11:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4qu7ss$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (N1DDZ RJC)

There appears to be lots of hype about the relative loss and flexibility
characteristics of the so-called 9913 class of cable offered by various
manufacturers.

I'm replacing my 11 feedlines this summer. That means I am about to spend
somewhere between $600 and $900 for coax.   There are ads for a Times wire
and cable "equivalant" to 9913 that claims:

Non-hosing
about -3.2dB/100' @450 MHz
Flexible center conductor
about $0.75/foot
Takes an N connector or a PL-259 "well".
Non-conatminating jacket.

Anyone with verifiable test info on these cables?  Particularly interested
in service life experience and tests of these types of cables AFTER
installation and use for 1+ year.

Bob


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:52 1996
From: [e-mail] (Robert Patrick MacKinnon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Help: need S-Band antenna (2.5-2.7 GHz)
Date: 27 Jun 1996 11:45:30 GMT
Message-ID: <4qts8q$[e-mail]>

I have an S band downconverter that wants to be fed via an N connector.
Could anyone please offer suggestions on the best antenna to connect to it?
My interestes are both TVRO and well as terrestrial.
tnx de VE3PMK
Pat MacKinnon, London Ontario.
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:54 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Kenwood and Microsoft say ham radio dead
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Coffman)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qm254$[e-mail]> <4qpdm2$[e-mail]> <4qr7fs$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:24:30 GMT

In article <4qr7fs$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writ
es:
>John Hughes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>[e-mail] (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>> Make it ICOM or TEN-TEC. Vote with your wallet and your brain.
>>> 73, Jim KH2D
>>Well, fill me in.  What's your objection to Yaesu...nationalistic?
>
>Nope, nobody here makes radios, and the big three are all made
>in the same nation.  Icom's HF receivers are far superior to Kenwoods,
>that's why all the big contesters use Kenwood.  The deader your
>receiver, the less you hear the guy's transmitter who is sitting
>next to you.  Yaesu has had problems ever since the invention of
>the transistor - they made fairly good stuff when we all used tubes,
>but since then they have gone down hill dramatically.  And Yaesu's
>target market has always been 11 meters.  After the 101's they
>took 11 off the bandswitch, but they replaced it with a dipswitch
>inside the radio, I guess so nobody would cut the wrong wire.....

I suspect you'll get a lot of argument about your comments above.
Though I own Icom HF equipment, an IC-735 and an IC-706, I must say
that Icom is in second place for HF transceivers compared to the
newer Yaesus. At the top of the line, the FT-1000 simply blows
Icom and Kenwoood away, and the FT-990 and FT-900 aren't bad in
their price classes either. Kenwood HF gear is also pretty good,
if you can keep it working. The big problem with all the recent
Kenwood gear is reliability. (And their VHF/UHF gear has always
sucked.)

>I did see a Icom 706 (?) at field day last weekend, and I wasn't real
>impressed with the receiver (HF) on it, it has the image problem on
>CW that the 745 had. But it's a whole lot of bands for not a whole lot
>of money, so it still looks like a good deal to me.

It is a good deal, for what it is. It is not a top of the line rig,
though I must take issue with comparing it to the IC-745. Now that
was a truly awful radio. It suffered even more from front end overload
(all the time) than the IC-706 does when the IC-706 preamp is on (you
should leave the preamp off on HF, you never need it). The IC-706 does
let you reverse sidebands in CW mode, which does get rid of most problems.
There is a bit of filter blowby (I assume the rig you saw was fitted with
the optional CW filter, without it the IC-706 is totally unsuitable for
CW or digital), but it isn't nearly as bad as the old IC-745. That thing
was a real turkey. The IC-706 isn't as good as the IC-735, but then few
radios are (and all of those are lots bigger and cost lots more), and
the IC-706 is smaller still, and does offer 6m and 2m.

>My observations are not based on labratory testing (Gary can fill you
>in on that), just real world use.  After having owned radios from all
>of the big three, and having watched all the guys I started out with
>do the same, seems like most if not all of us wound up with boxes
>that say Icom on the front.  In the last ten years I've also met a
>lot of Japanese hams, and most I've met prefer Icom also.

Like I mentioned, I've got two Icom radios now, but I've owned
Kenwood, Yaesu, Ten-Tec, Drake, National, Hallicrafters, Heath,
SBE, Galaxy, Johnson, B&W, Collins, etc over the years. The Icom
radios aren't the absolute best in raw performance. Of all those
I mentioned, the FT-1000 is the best in raw performance. But there
are more issues than that for me. I want a small radio today, and
I want one that is well built mechanically and thermally. In the
small radio class, that's Icom.

But if I were fielding a big contest station, all the radios would
likely say Yaesu on the front. Though if I could keep them running,
they might say Ten-Tec (you *need* that great factory support). They
would not say Kenwood unless I had at least four sets of spare radios.
That way maybe I'd have one radio that worked when I needed it.

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 Jul 01 12:22:54 1996
From: [e-mail] (David Covert)
Subject: RE: 10 meter antenna questions.....
Date: 27 Jun 96 13:46:51 -0700
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna


Just so you know... this past Saturday (Field Day) I ran the Novice
station at the club field day site (near Dallas). In 24 hours, I made
212 contacts on 10m with a FT-840 running 100w into a ~50ft dipole
strung between trees at a 1:1.1 match.

I was getting reports from Calf and Florida stating that I was
'booming' in there. We made contacts on 10m all the way up to
midnight. I am thinking that 10m is dead because everyone says it is
and no one is trying. Try calling CQ on 10m a little more often... I
think we would all be suprised...

73,
Dave Covert, KB5GOG


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:55 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cliff Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: How do I attach an HF antenna to a Honda?
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:20:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4r0fts$[e-mail]>
References: <4qqtl9$[e-mail]>

In message <4qqtl9$[e-mail]>
        [e-mail] (Andy Nourse) writes:

> I have a Honda Civic hatchback and have found a notable lack of places to
> attach antennas.  Most other relatively new cars seem to be this way too.

I found the following worked OK for me, Try using a piece of flat
plate about 1 and a half inches wide (and in my case 16" long) and a
90deg 'twist', bolt this to the 'Towing eye' underneath at the back,
this can be angled to appear just under the bumper and then cut 'n
drill to suit,




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:56 1996
From: [e-mail] (Mark Walker)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Horizontal Loop in Triangle configuration.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:20:25 GMT
Message-ID: <4quq2g$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

"David E. Shelton" <[e-mail]> wrote:

{snip}

IMHO, no dipole at ANY height will perform as well as even a
sloppily-built loop.  I used a square 75M loop for years, and am now
forced into the very triangle configuration you are pondering.  Fed
directly with coax, it is an equilateral triangle with 2 corners at
the back of the yard at about 18 feet, and the apex attached to a
6-foot roof tower on my ranch house.  The new loop is quite a bit
smaller than the old one, and the bandwidth on 160 and 75 is somewhat
narrow.  However, it is still a very quiet antenna, and seems to
perform quite well on 20 in particular.  I usually run between 100-200
watts, haven't had much operating time lately due to back surgery, but
I'd be more than happy to show you my log during this time of "dead"
bands.  May 1990 QST has an excellent article showing E and H plane
diagrams for loops used at exceptionally LOW heights.  A loop at low
heights shows VERY strong low-angle lobes on 20/15/10.  I would have
no other antenna short of monobanders at 100 feet.  Let me know if you
want details.



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:22:57 1996
From: "Bill Wilson" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Facts needed: 9913 vs Times
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:01:32 -0700
Message-ID: <01bb64af.739ddac0$[e-mail]>
References: <4qu7ss$[e-mail]>

This reply is just hearsay....

The Times and the new Andrew braided coax equivalent to the Times are
supposed to be equal to each other and both are supposed to be better than
the Belden for outdoor use.

Good Luck

Bill

> [e-mail] (N1DDZ RJC) wrote in article
<4qu7ss$[e-mail]>...
> There appears to be lots of hype about the relative loss and flexibility
> characteristics of the so-called 9913 class of cable offered by various
> manufacturers.
>
> I'm replacing my 11 feedlines this summer. That means I am about to
spend
> somewhere between $600 and $900 for coax.   There are ads for a Times
wire
> and cable "equivalant" to 9913 that claims:
>
> Non-hosing
> about -3.2dB/100' @450 MHz
> Flexible center conductor
> about $0.75/foot
> Takes an N connector or a PL-259 "well".
> Non-conatminating jacket.
>
> Anyone with verifiable test info on these cables?  Particularly
interested
> in service life experience and tests of these types of cables AFTER
> installation and use for 1+ year.
>
> Bob
>



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:00 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
From: [e-mail] (charles copeland)
Subject: Re: Antenna Driving me nuts
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4qsk9b$[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:16:22 GMT

In article <4qsk9b$[e-mail]>,
Chris Valliant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>       I have been trying for the last two weeks to build a half wave
>diapole antenna.  I have read the book twice, done my calculations down to
>the half inch, used several different gauges of wire, several makes of
>coax cable but I cannot get the SWR reading below 6:1.  Even with an
>antenna tuner I cannot get an acceptable SWR reading. It's driving me to
>the funny farm. I have about a mile of wire in my apartment and have run
>out of ideas.  Here is what I am trying to do:  to build a 1/2 wave
>diapole for the 28-29 mhz.  I splice the coax, solder one end to a length
>of wire 8.2 feet and the other braided end to a length of wire the same
>size. I suspend both ends using insulated clamps between two tree's,
>making sure that the whole antenna is parallel to the ground and it's 8
>feet above the ground. Now when I check the SWR, it's unbelieveable.  Like
>I have said before, I have used different wire, different coax (the
>standard coax, just different brands). What am I doing wrong ?  Can anyone
> spot my mistake ? I will gladly make it up to whomever spots my error.
>Anyway, thanks for listening.

Swtich from coax to twin lead. You can buy ladder line from ham shop
or just use TV antenna twin lead wire. Feed it into your balance line
input to the tuner.

I had the same type of problems with SWR till I did this on my dipole.



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:00 1996
From: [e-mail] (CBreaux367)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 2m Yagi/Diagram Needed
Date: 28 Jun 1996 02:54:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4qvvj9$[e-mail]>

i'm in need of a diagram depicting a multielement (@least 10 element) beam
with appropriate dimensions and delta or gamma matching array.  i've
looked in the arrl antenna book and have found numbers but no diagram.  if
you're out there with the perfect information please respond.  THANKS!

73

HamRadio


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:02 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: 28 Jun 1996 03:48:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4r02om$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, "C.D.Sage" <[e-mail]>
writes:

>Mr.Brodsky,
>
>You boys in the antenna fraternity really have a way with words. :-) If
you
>could on
>occasion include a translation in your posts for those of us less well
>endowed it would
>be mighty neighborly of you.By the way, I certainly appreciate you all
taking
>the time
>to look at the THA.- Thanks.-
>
>- Clem Sage -

>( P.S.)

> You all wouldn't be interested in a membership in the Flat Earth Society
>would ya. ;-)

Hi Clem,

From your ending comment, it seems you must be a believer in the THA.
Unfortunately, it must conform to every rule that applies to any antenna
ever built...or the rules are all wrong. From you comment, you must
believe the THA offers a revelation in electromagnetics, one as earth
shaking as the discovery the earth is (almost) round. Since EVERY antenna
ever built to this day (that includes spirals and helices..and even
verticals and multielement driven arrays used in deep space listening)
conforms to the rules we use, I find it pretty hard to believe the rules
are wrong.

We aren't talking about the cutting edge of exploration, we're talking
about a simple antenna (the shape and construction of which has been used
hundreds and thousands of times) in the middle of established rules that
dozens of more complex antennas follow to the letter.

The "world is flat" equivalent would, more appropriately, be discovery the
world really is flat, the helical toroidal antenna really works, and Elvis
is still alive.

In the most basic term, electromagnetic radiation occurs because electrons
accelerate. If you visualize the outside world's view of the electron
movement in the antenna, you can form a mental picture of how easily and
effectively an antenna radiates. The more "wasted" movement of electrons,
the less efficient the antenna will be. The harder it is to "see"
electrons accelerating over a large distance, the more electrons we'd have
to move to generate a given field strength.

Visualize the current in a dipole. Standing broadside, we see all the
electrons moving in unison for a long distance. From the end view, we
hardly see anything move. Just like looking at the blades of a fan, from
the edge view we only see something happening up close. Looking into the
flat side, we plainly see and feel the effects of the movement.

All the toroidal helical antenna does is waste a lot of electron movement.
The net radiating apature is the same as a convenional single turn loop
the same size, with addition of many useless and lossy loop de loops.
Loops come towards us, and a equal number go away. The net radiating
effect of the small loops is zero. Radiation comes mainly from the
movement around the larger circle, but we accomplished that electron
movement through all the wasted small loops. Every useless small loop adds
loss resistance, and makes the system work harder to produce the same
electromagnetic field.

There is no doubt the THA won't work near as well a properly constructed
single turn loop the same size.

Revolutionary antenna's pop up all the time. The cross field antenna, the
Uni-hat, the Maltese quad, a two turn magnetic loop in the Antenna
Compendium, insulated and elevated radials. They have two things in
common, they promise something for nothing and they never quite get proven
in independent real world tests.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:03 1996
From: [e-mail] (Wolfgang Gellerich)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Indoor HF antenna
Date: 28 Jun 1996 08:41:57 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4r05sl$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, "Aaron J. Welch" <[e-mail]
> writes:
|> Got a small problem...
|>
|>      I recently moved into a 2 bedroom apartment, and I'm prohibited from putti
ng any type of external
|> antenna outside (tv, amateur, etc). I've got a Kenwood TS-130S rig, and I r
eally hate to give up my HF
|> work just because of my living conditions. I'm looking for some kind of ind
oor antenna that will generally
|> cover 80-10m (at least 80-20), and won't cost an arm and a leg. I know ther
e are some indoor antennas on
|> the commercial market, but most of those that I've seen are either way out
of my price range, or they're just
|> "too good to be true". I can handle just about any type of antenna (wire, c
oax, etc). If you have any
|> suggestions as to what I could do, please e-mail me. Any and all assistance
 is greatly appreciated.
|>
|> -73- de KE4ENO
|> [e-mail]
|>

Try a magnetic loop ! They are rather small and they use only the magnetic
component of the electromagnatic field -- in contrast to "normal" antennas
that only receive/transmit the electric component. Since the attenuation of
most materials including reinforced concrete to magnetic fields is much
lower than to electric fields, magnetic loops also work quite well as
indoor antenna. However, mags also have some problems. The bandwidth is
very small, so you must tune them quite often. And, they suffer from a
very low radiation resistance. The RR decreases with the fourth power of
the wavelength and increases with the fourth power of the loop's diameter.
So, an appartment-size antenna will probably cover 10..20m only. See the
ARRL antenna book for details!

vy 73,

  Wolfgang DJ3TZ



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:04 1996
From: [e-mail] (Graham Seale)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Toroidal Helical Antenna --- Revolutionary New Antenna
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 10:29:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4r02om$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Hi there Tom (and Clem too)

In message <4r02om$[e-mail]> W8JI  Tom wrote:

> From your ending comment, it seems you must be a believer in the THA.
> Unfortunately, it must conform to every rule that applies to any antenna
> ever built...or the rules are all wrong. From your comment, you must
> believe the THA offers a revelation in electromagnetics, one as earth
> shaking as the discovery the earth is (almost) round. Since EVERY antenna
> ever built to this day (that includes spirals and helices..and even
> verticals and multielement driven arrays used in deep space listening)
> conforms to the rules we use, I find it pretty hard to believe the rules
> are wrong.

The quote above confirms the spirit of what I separately tried to express
for Clem. If ever there was a place where any new idea, however improbable,
can be expressed, it is here!  The price is  ..  it will be tested by the
toughest most plain speaking peer group I know -  this same community
being renown for their fairness and good humour.

The rules are simple. One may assert anything that has not seen a single
exception in all accumulated experience, while a single verified exception
is enough to trash the most revered rationale, without regard to the effect
on reputations or product prospects. If an antenna can cut it among this
company, then it likely has merit.

Many in this group have access to the most advanced design tools anywhere,
and there are few academic institutions where rec.amateur.radio.antenna does
not have some readership.

Keeping in mind that Clem is not a antenna expert, but more probably a
potential investor researching a prospective venture, it was perhaps
inevitable he should be startled by our norms. With hindsight, perhaps
our first response to Clem's original posting was a bit terse. We should
have been a bit more welcoming. He thought he was being treated like a hoaxer!

Sorry for that Clem. I assure you there is no ill will here.

73's All
G4WNT

--
Graham Seale


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:05 1996
From: [e-mail] (Rick Kissell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Answer to: What's a big wheel
Date: 28 Jun 1996 12:27:59 -0500
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <4r14mv$[e-mail]>

There is also information on Big Wheel antennas in "The Radio Amateur's VHF
Manual" published some years ago by the ARRL.  They are available commercially
from the Olde Antenna Lab, 4725 W. Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO  80236.  Phone
[phone].  The chief eng. is Dave Clingerman, W6OAL.  A year ago, he
quoted me a price of $400 plus shipping for a 6m big wheel.  Here are the
prices in his catalog for big wheels for the other bands:

2m      $150 shipped
222     $130 shipped
440     $50  shipped
900     $50  shipped
1250    $50  shipped

73,

Rick WB9GYT
Milwaukee


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:06 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Dual Band Base Antenna...?
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:33:48 GMT
Message-ID: <4r0mu0$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4qtihq$[e-mail]> <01bb6490.bad4d840$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

"Harv Shore" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I am curious if Diamond and Comet are one in the same with a different
>label

Nope. Two different companies. In  Japan, anyway.




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:07 1996
From: Kevin Muenzler <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Buried radials: Insulated or bare?
Date: 28 Jun 1996 12:40:07 -0400
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Mitchell Ravitz) wrote:

-I remember reading somewhere that ground radials were more efficient
-if they were above the ground.  I may be wrong here, it was quite a
-while ago.  Anyone know?
-
-Mitch
-WA1DTX

The difference between above ground and below ground radials is
really insignificant unless you have an extremely high mineral
content and you put them more than several inches deep.  Usually
if you have a "lawn" you can place it just below the roots of the
grass and not have any problem at all.  I just took a flat shovel
and cut through the grass runners and then pushed the wire into
the cut.  I guess the total depth is about 2 inches.  I used
insulated wire for longevity.  The insulation doesn't effect
the performance enough at HF to measure.  I live in the sand so
I could probably put them 2 feet down without any problems but
just north of where I live there is clay soil that only a few
inches deep would make a difference.

Kevin, WB5RUE
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:08 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Monty Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do I attach an HF antenna to a Honda?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 12:58:41 GMT
References: <4qqtl9$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

Duct tape?

--
.........Monty.
[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:09 1996
From: [e-mail] (Charles Teclaw)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Horizontal Loop in Triangle configuration.
Date: 28 Jun 1996 13:18:08 GMT
Message-ID: <4r0m2g$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <4qssm9$[e-mail]>

david l. thompson ([e-mail]) wrote:
: "David E. Shelton" <[e-mail]> wrote:
:
: >I am getting ready to setup a 40M horizontal loop in the backyard. I have
: >a small place and since the wife is not going to allow a tower at this
: >QTH I am going to put up this loop until I figure out something else. I
: >can only put it up in a Triangle configuration and the performance is
: >what I needed input on.
:
: >How well will a triangle configured loop work and what if the angles of
: >the triangle are not all equal?
:
: >Any input greatly appreciated!
:
: >73,
:
: >de KE4FPS, David
: >[e-mail]
:
: I put up 160 and 80 meter loops and they are seldom equal lengths on a
: side.  Put as much wire as you can, feed it with either coax or ladder
: line and use a tuner..it will work out fine.  BTW get it as high as
: possible at each point.
:
: I have a 310 foot full wave loop up on St Simons Island and have
: worked thousands of DX stations on 80 to 10 including WARC bands.
:
: Too bad you can't put up a tower but the loop is the next best thing!
:
: Dave K4JRB
:
:

Hi David, I can vouch for the loop. I just put up a 142 ft triangular
loop, probably at an average height of 30 ft. Fed at a corner with coax
(70 ft.). Tunes extremely well using the built-in tuner in my Yaesu
FT-900/AT on all bands above 40 m. At 40, I find that a transmatch is
necessary. I can confirm that the antenna is very quiet and gets reports
(especially on 20m) that I would not have thought possible given my 75-100
watts. I recommend it strongly based on my recent experience. Good Luck!

73 de NT3G




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:10 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Flanders)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: DDRR antenna -reply to comments
Date: 28 Jun 1996 14:24:26 GMT
Message-ID: <4r0puq$[e-mail]>
References: <4qm5hn$[e-mail]> <4qoktg$[e-mail]>

Tom
  It may be a useless test, but a two-meter model of the antenna gave
the same results with the receive antenna revolving around the vhf ant.
 Perhaps the reason for the same results is on 40 meters, the test
range allowed me to drive the van up a 15 foot birm.
The antenna was on top of the van, so add another seven feet.
In between the birm and the 70 foot high receive antenna was very dry
& deep Texas sand. (We had .6" rain at that spot in 6 months)  I
believe their was little enough action by the ground environment to
give me some indication of the vertical pattern of the horizontally
polarized wave.

BTW - another alteration was made (actually because of some of your
comments).  I put the feed point (this is no longer a true DDRR) down
at the bumper of the van. I ran the 2 1/2" pipe up the back of the van
(7'), and then coiled the rest of the (27') pipe on the top like the
DDRR was.  I haven't done the A vs. B testing yet. Remember this - my
overall purpose is to develop the most efficient 40 meter mobile
antenna that will tune the whole band.
Jim W0oog/5 in Plano, TX (Plain Ole Texas)

Tom's prev. comment:
>
>By the way, tilting the antenna over real ground does not allow you to
>plot the elevation pattern.
>
>It is a useless test.
>
>73 Tom



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:11 1996
From: Dave Potter <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,alt.ham-radio.am,alt.ham-radio.fm,alt.ham-radio.ssb,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Re: Antenna Driving me nuts
Date: 28 Jun 1996 15:36:40 GMT
Message-ID: <4r0u68$[e-mail]>
References: <4qsk9b$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Chris Valliant) wrote:
>
 Here is what I am trying to do:  to build a 1/2 wave
>diapole for the 28-29 mhz.  I splice the coax, solder one end to a length
>of wire 8.2 feet and the other braided end to a length of wire the same
>size. I suspend both ends using insulated clamps between two tree's,
>making sure that the whole antenna is parallel to the ground and it's 8
>feet above the ground.

Chris -

I'm not an antenna expert, but I'd look at the following:

1) It's my understanding that if you just attach the center conductor
and shield to the two halves of the antenna directly, your feed line
will become part of the antenna, and it will radiate.  Your transmitter
may be looking at an antenna a whole lot longer than just the two
8 foot sections.  That would explain the high SWR.  Better to get
a balun which has screw connectors for the two antenna pieces, and a
SO-239 connector for your feedline.  I think a 1:1 balun would work,
but I could be wrong on that.

2) Height may be part of the problem.  8 feet high isn't much.

3) What do you mean "insulated clamps"?  I'd get some insulators and
suspend the antenna by some rope or wire, tying the suspension wire to
one side of the insulator, and the antenna section to the other end of
the insulator.  That's the way I've seen dipoles hung before.

4) Parallel to the ground isn't as critical as some of these other
things, I think.

5)  Why 28-29 MHZ? The band's dead.





From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:12 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Decoupling Feedlines
Date: 28 Jun 1996 16:37:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4r1fpm$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Dennis / Vivian Ashworth) writes:

>
>My plan is to decouple the feed line and control cable with several
Amidon
>FB-77-1024 ferrite beads. I suspect I'll need 8-10 beads per "choke" to
>provide sufficient reactance for 80M, and probably will need to repeat
the
>"choke" at intervals of about 25 feet (inside of 1/4 wavelength on
highest
>freq ... 40M).
>
>Does this sound like a reasonable approach?
>
>Dennis, K7FL
>
>

Hi Dennis,

I don't know what sufficent reactance is in your application, but 77-1024
sleeves I have tested measured an average of 36.1 ohms -13.37j per sleeve
at 3.7 MHz.

They are the equivilent of a pure resistance of around 36 ohms in series
with a little capacitive reactance at that 3.7 MHz, so they will dissipate
all the power applied.

I'd forget the ferrites and use two air wound chokes. I suspect by the
time enough ferrite sleeves are used the feedline will be too heavy to
support. An air choke would cost less and function much bettter in a
single band application.

73 Tom


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:13 1996
From: [e-mail] (W8JI  Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Buried radials: Insulated or bare?
Date: 28 Jun 1996 16:41:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4r1g2e$[e-mail]>
References: <4qvlfe$[e-mail]>

In article <4qvlfe$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mitchell Ravitz) writes:

>I remember reading somewhere that ground radials were more efficient
>if they were above the ground.  I may be wrong here, it was quite a
>while ago.  Anyone know?
>
>Mitch
>WA1DTX

There have been computer models indicating such Mitch, but no independent
confirming measurements.

There is some question as to the accuracy of the elevated radial models,
since they don't always seem to work the way predicted. For exaple, at a
radio station in New Jersey, when six elevated radials were replaced with
100 plus radials on the ground, FS increased just over 5 dB.

Here at my location 4 elevated radials were almost 5 dB down from 60
radials on the ground. And with 60 radials it made no difference whether
they were elevated or on the ground.

The jury is still out, and probably will be for a long while until MORE
real world tests are made.

73 Tom







From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:15 1996
From: Jean-Pierre B╔LISLE <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: 80 meter vertical advice wanted
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 22:46:51 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>

Gene Shablygin wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I am considering installation of a 80 meter vertical in my
> back yard. I do not have space for guys, so the antenna should
> be free standing. Until now, I see a few options: Butternut
> HF2V (although too short to be good on 80), Force 12, HyGain
> 18HTS, and new Mosley (if this thing really exists). If anybody
> had a chance to compare those things, and can share his opinion,
> it will be highly appreciated.
>
> Maybe, I will be brave enough to install couple of those to set
> up a phased array. Any comments will be also welcome.
>
> 73 Gene AB5GY / RA3AA

Have you considered KLM SSV 80-40-15?
- Freestanding vertical;
- Lower half standing on three electrically active tripod legs;
- Two legs serve as hinge points, raised and lowered by two persons;
- Only modest base preparations needed;
- The upper half of the SSV  is a single telescoping whip section;
- The tip reaches more than 60 feet above ground;(tripod = 30')
  (despite it's height, the design technically satisfies the city bylaw)
- Single tunable element to top
- Wind survival 100 MPH
- Weight: 88 lbs
- Power Handling: MAx legal +

Cost a bit more ... but impessive quality of the components!


Jean-Pierre Belisle
Montreal, Quebec


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:15 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Coax connectors at UHF
Date: 29 Jun 1996 06:03:02 -0700
Message-ID: <4r39i6$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

        More important than slight impeadance bumps is the overall quality of the con
nector.
I took my box of assorted jumpers and connectors to work and sweep them with a
 network
analyzer. Some connectors had .2-.3 dB loss at 2m. The worst were some cheap n
ickel-plated with
a nickel-plated center-pin. Some old silver-plated connectors had the same los
s.
        Look for name-brand, silver-plated connectors. If the cheaper stuff must be u
sed, (several still
in my system) keep it in the lowest band. The network analyzer I have access t
o only goes to 300 MHz,
so .2 dB at 300 means much more at 432 MHz.
        My new standard is gold center pins for N and BNC. For 239/259, well I avoid
them because they
have no weather sealing and such a pain to install.

Jim N7TCF


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:17 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (Jonathan Helis)
Subject: Re: Indoor HF antenna
Message-ID: <61d7cc$01737.1ff@NEWS>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 07:20:18 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>

"Aaron J. Welch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Got a small problem...

>       I recently moved into a 2 bedroom apartment, and I'm prohibited from putting
 any type of external
>antenna outside (tv, amateur, etc). I've got a Kenwood TS-130S rig, and I rea
lly hate to give up my HF
>work just because of my living conditions. I'm looking for some kind of indoo
r antenna that will generally
>cover 80-10m (at least 80-20), and won't cost an arm and a leg. I know there
are some indoor antennas on
>the commercial market, but most of those that I've seen are either way out of
 my price range, or they're just
>"too good to be true". I can handle just about any type of antenna (wire, coa
x, etc). If you have any
>suggestions as to what I could do, please e-mail me. Any and all assistance i
s greatly appreciated.

>-73- de KE4ENO
>[e-mail]

>btw- I've already tried stringing up a wire around the tops of my walls, but
I've had no success. :)

Have you tried an MFJ-1621?  That's a 54 inch whip that tunes 40-10
meters.  I've had some success with it, working several hundred miles
on 40 meter CW at 100 watts or less.  They run around $80.00 or so,
less if you shop carefully.

The AEA Isoloop works 30-10 meters effectively, but is expensive(mine
was $320.00 a couple of years ago.)

Do you have a balcony?  I've had success stringing up a
random(whatever size I can put up) square loop on a balcony fed with
twinlead and an antenna tuner.

A little imagination is all it takes.  Good luck!


73,

Jon Helis, KB5IAV
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA

[e-mail]




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:19 1996
From: [e-mail] (Jim Kehler)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Proper guy wiring for 2 meter vertical
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 10:54:34 GMT
Message-ID: <4r35gn$[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Bill Faust <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I'm a new Tech (November) and need some help or advice on where to look for i
nformation on the proper way(s)
>to guy a mast.  I want to put up a 2 meter Vertical on a 25' mast but I don't
 know where to look to find the
>information needed about how to guy the mast.  The mast must be free standing
 (i.e. away from the house) as
>I'm renting and well...  I studied ARRL's "Now Your Talking" to get the Tech
lic. but it did not say a word
>about guying the mast.  Is there a magic formula or better yet a good book I
can read that will teach me what I
>need to know?  I've been told the guy lines should be measured in 1/4 meter l
enghts from the base of the mast,
>as well as they should be in 1/4 meter lenghts from the mount point on the ma
st down to the ground.  I've also
>been told they should be insulated...  What is the real "skinny"?

>Thanks much!
>Bill Faust KE6ZQH
>Working on the code

Bill, since your mast will only be 25' high with a vertical antenna,
it won't have a lot of wind load.  Rather than worrying about using
metal guys and cuting them up with insulators, I think your best
bet would be to use some heavy nylon line or rope, which is easier
to handle and won't interfere with the antenna pattern.  I've used
parachute cord for guys for lots of different masts, even on with
a rotor/beam on it.   How you attach the base of the pole to the
ground with have a lot to do with how many guys you need, but
if the base is in another pipe, or a couple feet into the ground,
probably one set of either 3 or 4 guy lines at about 19 or 20
feet should do the job.

73, Jim KH2D




From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:19 1996
From: efeustel@fricka (Edward Feustel)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Answer to: What's a big wheel
Date: 29 Jun 1996 11:28:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Message-ID: <4r3411$[e-mail]>
References: <4r14mv$[e-mail]>

I have a set of stacked big wheels that I got from Cushcraft back in the 60's
with instructions.  Worked well for me when put on a metal mast about 35
feet tall.  Down now for replacement of cables.

Anyone know why Cushcraft discontinued them?
 (use e-mail to reply please)
Ed, N5EI

--
Edward A. Feustel, Research Staff Member
Institute for Defense Analyses           Phone: [phone]
1801 N. Beauregard Street                Fax:   [phone]
Alexandria, Va. 22311-1772               Email: [e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:20 1996
From: "Bram Bottema ( SM0FLY)" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Need F53 Fritzel info
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 11:53:09 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Hi and thanks for reading this.

Since many years I'm using a FB53 yagi. A few years ago I decided
to change the traps due to damage by some haevy weather.
It took a long time to get the new parts (  more than 1 1/2 years !!)
just to recover that Fritzel changed their design and that the new
parts were not compatible with my 'old' FB53 from 1982.
A few months ago I finally got the additional parts but there were no
dimension drawings in the package.
Fritzel never responded to my faxes ( about 8 times I tried ), so:

Can anyone help me with the (new) drawing of the FB53 ?

If you have this info, please dropp me a line. Of course I'll pay
any expenses.

Thanks es 73 !

/Bram

--
==========================================================
e-mail         : bram.bottema @ medonic.se
PGP public-key : http://www.pi.se/sm0fly/pgp.asc
URL            : http://www.pi.se/sm0fly/sm0fly.htm
==========================================================



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:21 1996
From: [e-mail] (Cragjock)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: patch antenna polarization ??
Date: 29 Jun 1996 12:17:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4r3kv8$[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Cragjock)

hey all

how do i feed a patch antenna to get circular polarization ??
any ideas ??
thanks
sc


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:22 1996
From: PSS
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: WTB: 2M 6M Vertical antenna
Date: 29 Jun 1996 12:51:29 -0700
Message-ID: <4r41g1$[e-mail]>

Looking for 2M/6M vertical at a reasonable price.
Send into to [e-mail]
TNKS


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:23 1996
From: [e-mail] (Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: Want Any 6 MTR Vertical Designs, Plans...
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 14:20:09 GMT
Message-ID: <4r3eg4$[e-mail]>
References: <4qpi9f$[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (mfp) wrote:

>Anyone have any 6 meter OMNI GAIN plan's or Antenna design's..
>we need a new 6 mtr Repeater antenna and our 3 db ringo just aint cuttin' it.
.

>ANYTHING would help out!

>Marc Peterson, Pres
>RMRA Rocky Mtn. Radio Association
>[e-mail]

Try a pair of 6-meter mirror image J's, they'll outperform a ringo any
day.  Cost about 7 bucks each.

see http://www.inlink.com/~raiar

TTUL
Gary






From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:24 1996
From: [e-mail] (Peter Markham)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: Re: HAARP info requested
Date: 29 Jun 96 14:46:06 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>


  I  follow this HAARP thread, and others, with interest.

  Valid points have been made concerning psuedo science, sophistry
and writing.  May the debunkers prevail.

  I am appalled that quotes and references from the words of legislation?
and  politicians are used  as sources of  "objective" information concerning
justification and explaination of issues of physics.

  I tend to view politicians, and their products, as information sources of la
st
resort for explaining anything with a rational basis. Politicians' ends justif
y
their reasoning.  The objective, nature of physics does not mesh well with
the subjective nature of politics.

                                                   Pete/wa4hei


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:25 1996
From: Bill Crocker <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: 2m/70cm Mobile Antenna?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 18:17:32 -0700
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I want to put a dual-band (2-m, 70-cm) antenna on a Jeep Wrangler.  I
have to keep low profile to get in and out of my garage.  Any
suggestions?  Do the through'the'glass units work very well?  I'll be
running up to 50-watts on VHF.

Thanks, Bill Crocker


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:26 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: Erich Muschinske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer to: What's a big wheel
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4r134a$[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 20:58:32 GMT

Jim Flanders wrote:
>
> I received some e-mail asking what is a big wheel.
>
> First some history.  Back about 1947 when I was in grammer school I
> converted my DAD's 2 1/2 meter gear to 2 meters.  There was lots of
> activity on the Connecticut shoreline (and the ARRL) on two.  All the
> polarization was horizontal.  I needed an all-direction antenna for
> the evening rag chews.  I found in the Navy ETC training manual a
> design using 3 dipoles in a ring and built it.  When I showed it to
> my VHF mentor (Dr. Bob Mellon W1IJD) he modified it to what is now
> the Big Wheel.  It sorta looks like a three leaf clover, and uses 3
> one wavelength loops. (80" on two).  W1IJD took the idea to Les
> Cushman who marketed it.  The best how-to-build I now of is in the
> RSGB (3rd edition) VHF-UHF Manual.
> Jim  W0OOG/5

Jim,

Could you provide any details of how the feed works?  Unfortunately my
version of the RSGB VHF-UHF (4th ed.) Manual doesn't have the Big
Wheel in it.

73, Erich  KA6AMD  DM15bp
[e-mail]


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:27 1996
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: DDRR comments
Date: 30 Jun 96 02:45:59 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]

DDRR Antenna - Personal experience

I've read about the DDRR antenna since the 70's in 73 magazine and
others.  It's always had my interest, since it's small, and I've
lived in mostly small locations.  I have not owned or made a DDRR,
but in a sense I did make one.  I had one of the MFJ-1786 loop
antennas on loan when I made a business trip to Dallas.  I had a
new TS-450SAT and wanted to take it with me mobile.  Rather than
buy a mobile antenna, I made do with the loop antenna.  This was in
1993 when the bands were very bad.  The MFJ loop covers 10-30 great
either horizontal or vertical oriented.  In deciding to use the
loop, I remembered reading the article on the DDRR, and figured
that the loop would be a fairly close approximation to the DDRR.
The article had a 'downspout' from the main loop to the
counterpoise, which was the only visible difference, besides the
tuning capacitor, that I could see.  The article said that it was
mounted about a foot off the counterpoise.  I used this figure for
my initial mounting height.  I didn't know what I had around for a
mount for the roof of the car(Taurus wagon).  I was in the dollar
store and spotted dishracks for a dollar.  I got two and turned the
second one upside down over the first one, making an insulated box
about 1 foot high.  I glued them together with rtv rubberseal, and
taped the edges for extra security.  Being plastic, the racks
weren't strong enough for the loop, since pressure distribution was
not even.  A piece of plywood on top and bottom of the cage fixed
that.  The wagon has tie downs on the back of the roof and over the
front seats.  I secured the loop between them with bungy cords in a
horizontal orientation.  It looked strange, but no worse than any
other hf mobile antenna, and a lot smaller at that.  Several people
asked me what I had on the roof when I stopped for gas.  One guy
thought I was in a band, with my guitar up there. He didn't see the
loop, only the motor cover.  I had just a little shifting the first
hundred miles, but ok every couple of hundred after that.

Performance was expected to be minimal, but I did expect some,
since the antenna worked so well at home.  I made a few contacts in
the driveway; all gave me ok signal reports.  I don't use S-meter
readings anymore.  You can give false readings, wrong readings,
etc, depending on the radio brand and operator temperament(octane).
What I got really surprised me.  I stayed busy almost the whole
trip, making contacts on 17 and 20 meters.  I don't use cw much
that year, so didn't try 30, but heard it fine.  I worked probably
30 states on that trip. 10 and 15 never were heard at all, which
was normal that year.  Outside of Dallas about 30 miles, I checked
into the Florida morning net on 20 meters, about 8 am or so.  I
talked with some of the guys who gave me weak but readable signal
reports.  We talked for about 20 minutes or so.  After I signed
off, I went to check the antenna tuning.  My radio was still in the
minimum power setting!  I turned the power up to 100 watts and
checked back in.  Now they said I sounded like a big dog!  Just
goes to show that a small antenna running qrp, mobile can be made
to operate.  Don't know if you'd call this a DDRR, but if it looks
like a duck, and you can make duck soup out of it, maybe it's the
real McCoy.  Then again, maybe it just tastes like chicken.

73B4U81
Tom Stone
[e-mail]



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:28 1996
From: [e-mail] (Chris Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Subject: FM Suggestions
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:54:18 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

I know the basics about FM reception as in hight makes a lot of
difference.

I was looking around in my attic and I found a huge antenna just lying
around, it's about 3 meters long and 2 meters wide.  I put it up in
the rafters and bought a wire to hook it to my stereo downstairs.  The
antenna looks like this:

---------------|---------------
                      |
                      |
---------------|---------------
                      |
                      |
---------------|---------------
                      |
___________|___________
---------------|---------------
                      |
---------------|---------------
---------------|---------------

I find I am now able to pick up much more stations, I plan to start
recording them soon.

I know this antenna was bought about 20-25 years ago to pick up
television signal because then there was no cable.  I'm just wondering
if this design is outdated or there is anything else I might want to
buy in it's place for the best reception.  Should I get a signal
amplifier?  Thanks for the help


From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:29 1996
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna
From: [e-mail] (ANaRcHyU)
Subject: Help on building 2 meter mobil antenna
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 05:07:31 GMT

Howdy..

I want to build my own 2 meter antenna for my handheld radio which i
will be using in my truck..  I am on a extremly tight budget ( i mean
i have like 20 bucks i can spend) i have a bunch of connectors and
such that i have from a antenna i made that plugs right onto my radio
and that works great, but doesnt work great when i am driving.  I have
a large rectangular magnet (which i can cut to size) for making it
magnet mountible.  If anyone has an IDEA or drawing or something they
can send me that may help, PLEASE e-mail me at [e-mail] and
tell me!!

I also have a supply (60 feet or so) of 12 gauge copper house wire
(new never used) if that would work for part of the antenna.

Thanx for any help you can give!!

Brad

                                 _\\|//_
                                (` o-o ')
-------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------------------
                                 KC7QZR     {this page under construction}
  [e-mail]          .oooO     Oooo.   http://www.geocities.com
  www.olywa.net/anarchyu     (   )     (   ) /SiliconValley/Park/1594
------------------------------\ (-------) /-------------------------------
                               \_)     (_/
        Proud to say I am a Member of the Capitol Peek Repeater Group!
                           145.470 - Tumwater Wa.



From [e-mail] Mon Jul 01 12:23:30 1996
From: [e-mail] (Sir Barry Duxbury)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.equipment
Subject: Re: Antenna Driving me nuts
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 07:07:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4r56d6$[e-mail]>
References: <4qsk9b$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In message <[e-mail]>
        [e-mail] (charles copeland) writes:

> In article <4qsk9b$[e-mail]>,
> Chris Valliant <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have been trying for the last two weeks to build a half wave
> >diapole antenna.

 Just a general observation. This thread appears to tell us a lot
about the US licensing standards. In 40+ years I have never seen
anyone having a problem with a simple dipole or the underlying basic
principles. What has really made me comment is the pattern of very
elementary questions which appear on the net frm licencesed hams. I
accept thar Chris may not be a ham and certainly this comment is not
critical of him.

 73    Barry

--
 Barry Duxbury
[e-mail]
100031.2223@compuserve
G4GAH Oxford UK