43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

[Grant Youngman]

See CONFIG:TXG VCE in the D2 manual page 59.  TECH MODE must be turned  
on.

Grant/NQ5T


On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:14 PM, W6IZT wrote:

>
> All:
>
> My K3 TX peak power output is slightly higher on SSB than it is on  
> CW. Is
> there a way to minimize this difference?
>
> Gregg
> W6IZT
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Gregg W6IZT]

Thanks Grant, I saw that but I didn't understand the reference to TUNE mode

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Grant Youngman
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:23 PM
To: Elecraft_List List
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 TX SSB peak power higher than CW

See CONFIG:TXG VCE in the D2 manual page 59.  TECH MODE must be turned
on.

Grant/NQ5T


On Mar 15, 2009, at 2:14 PM, W6IZT wrote:

>
> All:
>
> My K3 TX peak power output is slightly higher on SSB than it is on
> CW. Is
> there a way to minimize this difference?
>
> Gregg
> W6IZT
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Ken Kopp-3]

Steve, I thought of the Gotham, but doubted if anyone would
remember .... (:-))

You must be OLD, like me!

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Joe Subich, W4TV-4]

Paul,

> According to the author, the so-called "magic" of the 43-foot
> length is that radiation resistance remains quite high across
> the HF spectrum and thus, system losses are minimized.

Unfortunately, that information is demonstrably wrong.  The
radiation resistance varies from very low on 160 to modest values
on 10 meters.  The feedpoint IMPEDANCE (complex) remains high
across all of the amateur bands because except for 10 meters
where the antenna is approximately 5 quarter wave long the
antenna is not resonant (+/- j0) on any band.  

The mistake of equating feed impedance with radiation resistance
is one of the issues that erroneously result in claims of
greater efficiency for folded monopoles on 80 and 160 meters.  

The 43' vertical is simply a convenient length to feed in
that it does not present a high feed impedance on any amateur
band (although it is highly reactive with a low real part
on 80 and 160).  One would be far better with a 58' (80 - 30
meters) or 88' (160 - 40 meters) vertical with matching in
the form of switched networks or an auto tuner at the base
than with the "magic" 43' vertical fed with 50 Ohm coax
and tuner in the shack.

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul
> Christensen
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: Steve Ellington; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>
>
> > The 43' vertical is recent fad and it makes no sense at
> all. Virtually
> > any trapped multiband vertical should easily outperform it.
>
> Steve,
>
> I thought the same until I read this:
>
> http://vk1od.net/antenna/multibandunloadedvertical/
>
> According to the author, the so-called "magic" of the 43-foot
> length is that
> radiation resistance remains quite high across the HF
> spectrum and thus,
> system losses are minimized.  Compared to a 33-foot vertical,
> system losses
> are much lower across the spectrum.
>
> But to your point, a trapped multi-band vertical can offer similar
> performance.  Personally, I think the negativity associated
> with trap loss
> in multi-band antennas is grossly overblown.  Other
> systematic losses mask
> what little loss exists in most trapped antenna designs.
>
> Anyway, not sure how valid all this data really is, but the
> data presented
> is interesting
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[w0mu]

déjà vu  all over again.....

I have worked Japan on my oil filled dummy load on 10m during the peak.
That does not equate to a great antenna.  You can tune just about anything
does that mean it is a great or efficient radiator, no.  If it is the best
you got great.  If you were using an ISOLOOP sure the 43ft antenna will
probably sound pretty dog gone great.

If you want to be humbled, visit a local contest superstation with big ole
stacks or 4 squares.

Most of us can't build a superstation so we have to make compromises.  All
that really matters is that you are happy with what you have.


"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may
never get over." Ben Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Ellington
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:04 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

So we've rediscovered the Gotham V80 Vertical!
Steve Ellington
[hidden email]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

> Dr. Megacycle has it on the head with the length: 22 feet is 5/8 wave on
> 10
> meters.
>
> Good "commercial" automatic tuners will feed such an antenna all the way
> down below 80 meters. The SGC-230 is commonly used on ships feeding a 23
> foot whip all the way down to the emergency SSB frequency at 2182 kHz.
>
> Many published tests have shown that getting the radials away from the
> ground is *very* beneficial and may well outweigh the loss of efficiency
> in
> reducing the height of the vertical. Back in '87, A. M. Christman, KB8I,
> published the results of studies he conducted in the Proceedings of the
> Third Annual Review of Progress in Applied Computational Electromagnetics
> for the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, which he later summarized for hams
> in an article in the Aug 1988 issue of QST. That article is available to
> ARRL members on their web site. It gives numerous examples of the
> improvements to be expected as various counterpoise systems are used above
> ground.
>
> Let me point out to anyone interested enough to read my previous post that

> I
> misspoke. It was kindly brought to my attention by Arnie, PA3A, who
> observed
> I said a half wave radiator has a high radiation resistance when I meant
> to
> say it had a high feed point impedance. My conclusion was correct as to
> the
> benefit of a high feed point impedance, but there's a huge difference
> between the resistive value of the feed point impedance and radiation
> resistance!
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2001 - Release Date: 03/14/09
06:54:00

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Darwin, Keith]

A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical bandwagon.  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem was that real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any better than a 1/4 wave vert.

I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground mounted over 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the small impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal to the rig.  Hot stuff - or so I thought.

I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on the roof of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.  I spent a lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both antennas.  You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo low-angle radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave but it DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening or closing were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on the 1/4.  There was no clear winner.

It was years before I found the answer.

Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation that we want out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the ground conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the antenna.  Far out of the reach of any ground radial system, poor soil conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation down to near zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but for the vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that way.

So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best height is something less than 1/2 wave.

I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M resonator on top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty well on those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30 meters due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher it isn't really all that impressive.

- Keith N1AS -
- K3 711 -


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] on behalf of James Apple
Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
 
After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for an new antenna.  I've
been considering the 43' verticals by DXE,HyGain and MFJ.  But I'm not
sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.  The DXE site has a
warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2 and a 43' vertical ?
how's it play ?

Thanks in Advance

- Jim (WB1DOG)
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[WILLIS COOKE]

Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3 db stronger than the 1/4 vertical installed in the same position.  A ground plane on top of a house could easily be as good or better than a 5/8 wave ground mounted and radiating into the side of the house and some trees.  3 db is about 1/2 S unit anyway, so it will not be a large difference.  You are correct about the far field conductivity being very important in how a vertical antenna will play, whether it is mounted on top of a tower or house or ground mounted.  The radials are most important to bring up the radiation efficiency, the far field is most important for the take off angle.

The 43 foot vertical will have a higher radiation resistance than a shorter vertical for all bands, making it easier to get the efficiency up.  It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160, 80 and 60 meters, about 50 ohms for 40 and higher for the upper frequencies.  I don't have one because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the 30/40 dipole trombone at 21 meters.  I don't think the 43 foot vertical will play as well, but they do play well.  I have worked several of the Zero-Five offering and they all play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and MFJ to play well also, but they are newer and I don't know anyone who has one.  All still need a good ground plane and will play much better with conductive soil.  

Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ


--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Darwin, Keith <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
> To: "James Apple" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical bandwagon.
>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem was that
> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any better than
> a 1/4 wave vert.
>
> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground mounted over
> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the small
> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal to the rig.
>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
>
> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on the roof
> of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.  I spent a
> lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both antennas.
> You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo low-angle
> radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave but it
> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening or closing
> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on the 1/4.
> There was no clear winner.
>
> It was years before I found the answer.
>
> Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation that we want
> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the ground
> conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the antenna.
> Far out of the reach of any ground radial system, poor soil
> conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation down to near
> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but for the
> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that way.
>
> So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best height
> is something less than 1/2 wave.
>
> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M resonator on
> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty well on
> those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30 meters
> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher it
> isn't really all that impressive.
>
> - Keith N1AS -
> - K3 711 -
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] on behalf of James
> Apple
> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>  
> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for an new
> antenna.  I've
> been considering the 43' verticals by DXE,HyGain and
> MFJ.  But I'm not
> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.  The DXE
> site has a
> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2 and a
> 43' vertical ?
> how's it play ?
>
> Thanks in Advance
>
> - Jim (WB1DOG)
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Roy Davis]

I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4 wave vertical.  My hopes for
this antenna is that when the conditions favor vertical antennas as opposed
to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to the far East as my dipole
does not.  I understand that a dense radial field is necessary for good
results and that the far field which I have no control is a factor.  My plan
is to use 64 insulated radials as close to resonant as possible, buried a
few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder line as the radiator,
cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30 meters supported by a catenary
line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum tubing which to make a
1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or con for my project?  So
far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the radials cut ready to attach to
the DX Engineering radial plate.

I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot to offer in such a small
package.

73.

Roy Davis - WK4Y
Richmond VA


----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIS COOKE" <[hidden email]>
To: "James Apple" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>; "Darwin,
Keith" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

>
> Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3 db stronger than the 1/4
> vertical installed in the same position.  A ground plane on top of a house
> could easily be as good or better than a 5/8 wave ground mounted and
> radiating into the side of the house and some trees.  3 db is about 1/2 S
> unit anyway, so it will not be a large difference.  You are correct about
> the far field conductivity being very important in how a vertical antenna
> will play, whether it is mounted on top of a tower or house or ground
> mounted.  The radials are most important to bring up the radiation
> efficiency, the far field is most important for the take off angle.
>
> The 43 foot vertical will have a higher radiation resistance than a
> shorter vertical for all bands, making it easier to get the efficiency up.
> It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160, 80 and 60 meters, about 50
> ohms for 40 and higher for the upper frequencies.  I don't have one
> because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the 30/40 dipole trombone at 21
> meters.  I don't think the 43 foot vertical will play as well, but they do
> play well.  I have worked several of the Zero-Five offering and they all
> play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and MFJ to play well also, but
> they are newer and I don't know anyone who has one.  All still need a good
> ground plane and will play much better with conductive soil.
>
> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> K5EWJ
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Darwin, Keith <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>> To: "James Apple" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
>> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
>> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical bandwagon.
>>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem was that
>> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any better than
>> a 1/4 wave vert.
>>
>> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground mounted over
>> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the small
>> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal to the rig.
>>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
>>
>> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on the roof
>> of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.  I spent a
>> lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both antennas.
>> You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo low-angle
>> radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave but it
>> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening or closing
>> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on the 1/4.
>> There was no clear winner.
>>
>> It was years before I found the answer.
>>
>> Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation that we want
>> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the ground
>> conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the antenna.
>> Far out of the reach of any ground radial system, poor soil
>> conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation down to near
>> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but for the
>> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that way.
>>
>> So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best height
>> is something less than 1/2 wave.
>>
>> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M resonator on
>> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty well on
>> those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30 meters
>> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher it
>> isn't really all that impressive.
>>
>> - Keith N1AS -
>> - K3 711 -
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] on behalf of James
>> Apple
>> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>>
>> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for an new
>> antenna.  I've
>> been considering the 43' verticals by DXE,HyGain and
>> MFJ.  But I'm not
>> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.  The DXE
>> site has a
>> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2 and a
>> 43' vertical ?
>> how's it play ?
>>
>> Thanks in Advance
>>
>> - Jim (WB1DOG)
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release Date: 03/15/09
14:07:00

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[WILLIS COOKE]

Roy, I would use #12 stranded house wire for the radiators like you buy at home depot and just use two of them.  Or if you have some other wire on hand, use that.  It does not make much difference, but standard is #14 or bigger for physical strength.  Don't spend too much time making the radials resonant because if you bury them they will be detuned.  It does not matter how far under ground they are.  I just hold mine down with some of the hooked wires used to tie chain link fence to keep the lawn mower from picking them up until the grass grows over them.  If you cut a slit, make it only about and inch or so deep, cut it with a lawn edger and push the wire in with a stick.  64 radials surely should be enough.  I have 5 on my 160/80 inverted L that are 50 feet long.  I could probably use more, but I have worked DXCC on 40 with a vertical with only one radial 30 feet long.  

Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ


--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Roy Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Roy Davis <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 5:23 PM
> I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4 wave
> vertical.  My hopes for
> this antenna is that when the conditions favor vertical
> antennas as opposed
> to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to the far
> East as my dipole
> does not.  I understand that a dense radial field is
> necessary for good
> results and that the far field which I have no control is a
> factor.  My plan
> is to use 64 insulated radials as close to resonant as
> possible, buried a
> few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder line as
> the radiator,
> cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30 meters
> supported by a catenary
> line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum tubing
> which to make a
> 1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or con for
> my project?  So
> far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the radials cut
> ready to attach to
> the DX Engineering radial plate.
>
> I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot to offer
> in such a small
> package.
>
> 73.
>
> Roy Davis - WK4Y
> Richmond VA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WILLIS COOKE" <[hidden email]>
> To: "James Apple" <[hidden email]>;
> <[hidden email]>; "Darwin,
> Keith" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>
>
> >
> > Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3 db
> stronger than the 1/4
> > vertical installed in the same position.  A ground
> plane on top of a house
> > could easily be as good or better than a 5/8 wave
> ground mounted and
> > radiating into the side of the house and some trees.
> 3 db is about 1/2 S
> > unit anyway, so it will not be a large difference.
> You are correct about
> > the far field conductivity being very important in how
> a vertical antenna
> > will play, whether it is mounted on top of a tower or
> house or ground
> > mounted.  The radials are most important to bring up
> the radiation
> > efficiency, the far field is most important for the
> take off angle.
> >
> > The 43 foot vertical will have a higher radiation
> resistance than a
> > shorter vertical for all bands, making it easier to
> get the efficiency up.
> > It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160, 80 and 60
> meters, about 50
> > ohms for 40 and higher for the upper frequencies.  I
> don't have one
> > because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the 30/40
> dipole trombone at 21
> > meters.  I don't think the 43 foot vertical will
> play as well, but they do
> > play well.  I have worked several of the Zero-Five
> offering and they all
> > play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and MFJ to
> play well also, but
> > they are newer and I don't know anyone who has
> one.  All still need a good
> > ground plane and will play much better with conductive
> soil.
> >
> > Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> > K5EWJ
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Darwin, Keith
> <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the
> K2 tuner
> >> To: "James Apple"
> <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> >> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
> >> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical
> bandwagon.
> >>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem
> was that
> >> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any
> better than
> >> a 1/4 wave vert.
> >>
> >> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground
> mounted over
> >> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the
> small
> >> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal
> to the rig.
> >>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
> >>
> >> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on
> the roof
> >> of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.
> I spent a
> >> lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both
> antennas.
> >> You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo
> low-angle
> >> radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave
> but it
> >> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening
> or closing
> >> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on
> the 1/4.
> >> There was no clear winner.
> >>
> >> It was years before I found the answer.
> >>
> >> Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation
> that we want
> >> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the
> ground
> >> conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the
> antenna.
> >> Far out of the reach of any ground radial system,
> poor soil
> >> conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation
> down to near
> >> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but
> for the
> >> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that
> way.
> >>
> >> So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best
> height
> >> is something less than 1/2 wave.
> >>
> >> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M
> resonator on
> >> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty
> well on
> >> those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30
> meters
> >> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher
> it
> >> isn't really all that impressive.
> >>
> >> - Keith N1AS -
> >> - K3 711 -
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [hidden email] on behalf
> of James
> >> Apple
> >> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2
> tuner
> >>
> >> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for
> an new
> >> antenna.  I've
> >> been considering the 43' verticals by
> DXE,HyGain and
> >> MFJ.  But I'm not
> >> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.
> The DXE
> >> site has a
> >> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2
> and a
> >> 43' vertical ?
> >> how's it play ?
> >>
> >> Thanks in Advance
> >>
> >> - Jim (WB1DOG)
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list:
> >> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list:
> >> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release
> Date: 03/15/09
> 14:07:00
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Craig Smith]

Hi Roy ...

Congratulations on your new 40 meter vertical project.   It should provide
you with some improved DX capability as compared with a dipole at modest
heights.

I can offer a couple of pieces of advice, based on my own experience that
may streamline your quest.

If you are using radials that are in the ground or on the ground forget
about "tuning".  The coupling to ground will detune them substantially.
Please see the recent work by Rudy Severns N6LF both on his website and in
the recent issues of QEX.

Both in/on ground radials and elevated radials can work well.  I have used
both here and have been quite happy with the results.  

If you are using radials on/in the ground for 40 meters, you can expect
reasonably good results with 32 radials between 20 and 30 feet each.  Don't
worry about the exact length.  The DX Engineering radial plate is a joy to
work with and will make your task much less onerous.

I have also had good success with elevated radials on 40.  Since I can't put
up any permanent antennas, I use a 40 ft fiberglas Spiderbeam pole as a mast
that puts the feedpoint at about 6 feet.  I used the following tuning
technique.  I wish I could remember where I saw it first, but can't.  So I
can't give the original author his/her proper credit, but can verify that it
works well.

Make a low 40 meter dipole at the feedpoint level (about 6 or 7 feet in my
case).  Tune it to resonance at your desired frequency as you would any
dipole.  I use the AIM4170 analyzer set up to cancel out the coax feedline
effects.  Then put this dipole on the ground and put up and tune a second
dipole oriented 90 degrees from the first one.  These two "dipoles" will
become your four element ground plane for the vertical.  

Now start with about a 33 ft vertical element with the four element ground
plane tied to the coax shield.  Tune the vertical element to best
resonance/SWR using the previously tuned ground plane elements.  If you have
enough height, you can tweak the SWR by raising/lowering the feedpoint
height.   The result will be a very efficient 40 meter ground plane
vertical.  

If your interest is in only one band and you have the height and ability to
erect a permanent antenna, the elevated radial approach is probably better.

If you want to do multiple bands and/or need to have an antenna that can be
put up and taken down frequently, the better approach is probably to use
ground radials.  One radial field can cover ALL the HF bands.  And by
putting a remote tuner at the base, you can use one vertical element (such
as the presently in-vogue 43 ft) vertical element to cover several bands.

              73
                        .... Craig AC0DS


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[David Woolley (E.L)]

Kok Chen wrote:

>
> http://homepage.mac.com/chen/Technical/Tuner/T3580.jpg

>
> I'll be glad to make the program available to anyone running Mac OS X
> 10.4 or newer.  You can run the application to generate plots for other

Before doing that, please consider not using JPEG for the images.  This
sort of image is blurred by JPEG encoding and normally compresses
poorly.  Once compressed with JPEG, it is not possible to get good
compression by recompressing with appropriate algorithms.

PNG is probably the best commonly available algorithm for this sort of data.

JPEG is for continuous tone images with predominantly low spatial
frequencies (people and many natural scenes).  This image is discrete
tone with most information in high spatial frequencies.
--
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

--
David Woolley
"The Elecraft list is a forum for the discussion of topics related to
Elecraft products and more general topics related ham radio"
List Guidelines <http://www.elecraft.com/elecraft_list_guidelines.htm>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Roy Davis]

Thank you to all who responded to my post.  The one thing in common that all
of you taught me is that the radials need not be exact when on or in the
ground.
I am using insulated wire for the radials because it is what I have on hand.
I do have a lawn edger and will bury them as suggested just under the
surface.  As soon as the rains go away I will finish up the job.

Several suggestions presented by all will be tried.  I appreciate your
input, and will post again after completion and tests.

Thanks

Roy - WK4Y
K3 #1366


----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIS COOKE" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>; "Roy Davis" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical

>
> Roy, I would use #12 stranded house wire for the radiators like you buy at
> home depot and just use two of them.  Or if you have some other wire on
> hand, use that.  It does not make much difference, but standard is #14 or
> bigger for physical strength.  Don't spend too much time making the
> radials resonant because if you bury them they will be detuned.  It does
> not matter how far under ground they are.  I just hold mine down with some
> of the hooked wires used to tie chain link fence to keep the lawn mower
> from picking them up until the grass grows over them.  If you cut a slit,
> make it only about and inch or so deep, cut it with a lawn edger and push
> the wire in with a stick.  64 radials surely should be enough.  I have 5
> on my 160/80 inverted L that are 50 feet long.  I could probably use more,
> but I have worked DXCC on 40 with a vertical with only one radial 30 feet
> long.
>
> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> K5EWJ
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Roy Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Roy Davis <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 5:23 PM
>> I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4 wave
>> vertical.  My hopes for
>> this antenna is that when the conditions favor vertical
>> antennas as opposed
>> to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to the far
>> East as my dipole
>> does not.  I understand that a dense radial field is
>> necessary for good
>> results and that the far field which I have no control is a
>> factor.  My plan
>> is to use 64 insulated radials as close to resonant as
>> possible, buried a
>> few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder line as
>> the radiator,
>> cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30 meters
>> supported by a catenary
>> line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum tubing
>> which to make a
>> 1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or con for
>> my project?  So
>> far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the radials cut
>> ready to attach to
>> the DX Engineering radial plate.
>>
>> I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot to offer
>> in such a small
>> package.
>>
>> 73.
>>
>> Roy Davis - WK4Y
>> Richmond VA
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "WILLIS COOKE" <[hidden email]>
>> To: "James Apple" <[hidden email]>;
>> <[hidden email]>; "Darwin,
>> Keith" <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3 db
>> stronger than the 1/4
>> > vertical installed in the same position.  A ground
>> plane on top of a house
>> > could easily be as good or better than a 5/8 wave
>> ground mounted and
>> > radiating into the side of the house and some trees.
>> 3 db is about 1/2 S
>> > unit anyway, so it will not be a large difference.
>> You are correct about
>> > the far field conductivity being very important in how
>> a vertical antenna
>> > will play, whether it is mounted on top of a tower or
>> house or ground
>> > mounted.  The radials are most important to bring up
>> the radiation
>> > efficiency, the far field is most important for the
>> take off angle.
>> >
>> > The 43 foot vertical will have a higher radiation
>> resistance than a
>> > shorter vertical for all bands, making it easier to
>> get the efficiency up.
>> > It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160, 80 and 60
>> meters, about 50
>> > ohms for 40 and higher for the upper frequencies.  I
>> don't have one
>> > because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the 30/40
>> dipole trombone at 21
>> > meters.  I don't think the 43 foot vertical will
>> play as well, but they do
>> > play well.  I have worked several of the Zero-Five
>> offering and they all
>> > play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and MFJ to
>> play well also, but
>> > they are newer and I don't know anyone who has
>> one.  All still need a good
>> > ground plane and will play much better with conductive
>> soil.
>> >
>> > Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
>> > K5EWJ
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Darwin, Keith
>> <[hidden email]>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the
>> K2 tuner
>> >> To: "James Apple"
>> <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
>> >> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
>> >> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical
>> bandwagon.
>> >>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem
>> was that
>> >> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any
>> better than
>> >> a 1/4 wave vert.
>> >>
>> >> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground
>> mounted over
>> >> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the
>> small
>> >> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal
>> to the rig.
>> >>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
>> >>
>> >> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on
>> the roof
>> >> of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.
>> I spent a
>> >> lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both
>> antennas.
>> >> You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo
>> low-angle
>> >> radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave
>> but it
>> >> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening
>> or closing
>> >> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on
>> the 1/4.
>> >> There was no clear winner.
>> >>
>> >> It was years before I found the answer.
>> >>
>> >> Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation
>> that we want
>> >> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the
>> ground
>> >> conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the
>> antenna.
>> >> Far out of the reach of any ground radial system,
>> poor soil
>> >> conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation
>> down to near
>> >> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but
>> for the
>> >> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that
>> way.
>> >>
>> >> So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best
>> height
>> >> is something less than 1/2 wave.
>> >>
>> >> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M
>> resonator on
>> >> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty
>> well on
>> >> those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30
>> meters
>> >> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher
>> it
>> >> isn't really all that impressive.
>> >>
>> >> - Keith N1AS -
>> >> - K3 711 -
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [hidden email] on behalf
>> of James
>> >> Apple
>> >> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
>> >> To: [hidden email]
>> >> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2
>> tuner
>> >>
>> >> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for
>> an new
>> >> antenna.  I've
>> >> been considering the 43' verticals by
>> DXE,HyGain and
>> >> MFJ.  But I'm not
>> >> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.
>> The DXE
>> >> site has a
>> >> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2
>> and a
>> >> 43' vertical ?
>> >> how's it play ?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks in Advance
>> >>
>> >> - Jim (WB1DOG)
>> >>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> >> Elecraft mailing list
>> >> Home:
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>> >>
>> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> >> Please help support this email list:
>> >> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> >> Elecraft mailing list
>> >> Home:
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>> >>
>> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> >> Please help support this email list:
>> >> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> >
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> > Elecraft mailing list
>> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>> >
>> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> > Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release
>> Date: 03/15/09
>> 14:07:00
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release Date: 03/15/09
14:07:00

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy]

Roy,

It is likely that a 40m 1/4 wave vertical and a 30m 1/4 wave vertical fed in
parallel, will exhibit about 3 - 4db less gain on 30m than if you used only
a 40m 1/4 wave on both bands. One reason for this is that when 40m and 30m
1/4 wave verticals are fed in parallel, the feedpoint impedance of the 40m
element is still low enough on 30m for the 40m element to absorb power and
affect the pattern of the 30m element.

This problem does not exist when feeding a 40m 1/4 wave in parallel with a
20m 1/4 wave, because on 20m virtually all of the RF power ends up in the
20m element.

Since you would have to use some form of matching network at the antenna in
any case, a 40m network and a 30m network would be required to match a 40m
1/4 wave vertical to a 50 ohm feeder on the two bands, unless you are
prepared to accept additional loss in the 50 ohm feeder by not using a
matching network at all. One option of course is to use relays to switch
networks when changing bands, another is to use "electronic switches" using
passive coils and capacitors instead of relays.

I have not looked at the actual feedpoint impedances to see if the matching
job could be done by using lengths of different types of coax in the main
feeder.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD


Roy Davis <[hidden email]> wrote on Monday, March 16, 2009 12:23 AM

>I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4 wave vertical.  My hopes
>for
> this antenna is that when the conditions favor vertical antennas as
> opposed
> to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to the far East as my dipole
> does not.  I understand that a dense radial field is necessary for good
> results and that the far field which I have no control is a factor.  My
> plan
> is to use 64 insulated radials as close to resonant as possible, buried a
> few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder line as the radiator,
> cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30 meters supported by a
> catenary
> line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum tubing which to make a
> 1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or con for my project?  So
> far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the radials cut ready to attach to
> the DX Engineering radial plate.
>
> I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot to offer in such a
> small
> package.
>
> 73.
>
> Roy Davis - WK4Y
> Richmond VA

 

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Kok Chen]

On Mar 16, 2009, at 3/16    1:13 AM, David Woolley (E.L) wrote:

> Before doing that, please consider not using JPEG for the images.  
> This
> sort of image is blurred by JPEG encoding and normally compresses
> poorly.

Before making a statement like that, you might want to run the actual  
program, which uses a scalable Mac OS X Core Graphics context using  
scalable fonts.  You can blow the NSView up so a single fulls stop is  
a full resolution disk an inch in diameter, if you want.

The original capture using Grab.app was in TIFF and I had converted to  
a lower resolution JPEG so people would not have to download large  
files just to have a look, and JPEG is more universal than PNG so even  
old systems can view the output.

Chen, W7AY

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Julius Fazekas n2wn]

Hi Roy,

There's no reason to cut resonant radials if they will be on the ground or buried. You gain nothing and waste time and money. If they were raised then you should do what you suggest.

The radials should be dense near the base of the antenna, that is where the current is highest and the ground lose is most profound.

You're in an area that typically has better soil conditions than some of us have. I suspect you could have a great signal with 30 to 36 radials, versus 64 where you might only pick up a half dB.

There have been a number of great studies published in QEX and NCJ in the past couple of years. Well worth reading before hand.

Rudy, N6LF, has posted his studies online at http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/design_of_radial_ground_systems/

Well worth reading to save time and effort.

You should be able to do what you suggest with the ladder line. You may have to trim the 30M element a few times, or better yet, tune it with a cap at the base to bring it to resonance.
If you're an ARRL member search for: "An Efficient Multiband Vertical for 160 through 20 Meters" which uses a similar approach.

I use stranded 18 AWG for my radials and they work well. I know folks using smaller gauge with higher power too. It just depends on how many and how much traffic you have near them (from a mechanical perspective).

Any vertical that is base loaded is the least efficient, stay away from those if possible. I've been through this and the difference is like night and day.

Good luck with the build!

73,
Julius

Roy Davis wrote

I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4 wave vertical.  My hopes for
this antenna is that when the conditions favor vertical antennas as opposed
to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to the far East as my dipole
does not.  I understand that a dense radial field is necessary for good
results and that the far field which I have no control is a factor.  My plan
is to use 64 insulated radials as close to resonant as possible, buried a
few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder line as the radiator,
cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30 meters supported by a catenary
line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum tubing which to make a
1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or con for my project?  So
far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the radials cut ready to attach to
the DX Engineering radial plate.

I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot to offer in such a small
package.

73.

Roy Davis - WK4Y
Richmond VA


----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIS COOKE" <[e-mail]>
To: "James Apple" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "Darwin,
Keith" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner


>
> Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3 db stronger than the 1/4
> vertical installed in the same position.  A ground plane on top of a house
> could easily be as good or better than a 5/8 wave ground mounted and
> radiating into the side of the house and some trees.  3 db is about 1/2 S
> unit anyway, so it will not be a large difference.  You are correct about
> the far field conductivity being very important in how a vertical antenna
> will play, whether it is mounted on top of a tower or house or ground
> mounted.  The radials are most important to bring up the radiation
> efficiency, the far field is most important for the take off angle.
>
> The 43 foot vertical will have a higher radiation resistance than a
> shorter vertical for all bands, making it easier to get the efficiency up.
> It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160, 80 and 60 meters, about 50
> ohms for 40 and higher for the upper frequencies.  I don't have one
> because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the 30/40 dipole trombone at 21
> meters.  I don't think the 43 foot vertical will play as well, but they do
> play well.  I have worked several of the Zero-Five offering and they all
> play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and MFJ to play well also, but
> they are newer and I don't know anyone who has one.  All still need a good
> ground plane and will play much better with conductive soil.
>
> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> K5EWJ
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> From: Darwin, Keith <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>> To: "James Apple" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
>> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical bandwagon.
>>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem was that
>> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any better than
>> a 1/4 wave vert.
>>
>> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground mounted over
>> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the small
>> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal to the rig.
>>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
>>
>> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on the roof
>> of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.  I spent a
>> lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both antennas.
>> You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo low-angle
>> radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave but it
>> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening or closing
>> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on the 1/4.
>> There was no clear winner.
>>
>> It was years before I found the answer.
>>
>> Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation that we want
>> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the ground
>> conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the antenna.
>> Far out of the reach of any ground radial system, poor soil
>> conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation down to near
>> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but for the
>> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that way.
>>
>> So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best height
>> is something less than 1/2 wave.
>>
>> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M resonator on
>> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty well on
>> those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30 meters
>> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher it
>> isn't really all that impressive.
>>
>> - Keith N1AS -
>> - K3 711 -
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] on behalf of James
>> Apple
>> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>>
>> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for an new
>> antenna.  I've
>> been considering the 43' verticals by DXE,HyGain and
>> MFJ.  But I'm not
>> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.  The DXE
>> site has a
>> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2 and a
>> 43' vertical ?
>> how's it play ?
>>
>> Thanks in Advance
>>
>> - Jim (WB1DOG)
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[e-mail]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[e-mail]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[e-mail]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release Date: 03/15/09
14:07:00

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[e-mail]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Ignacy]

I used circa 45ft wire vertical with a few radials and k2 or k3. When connected directly or via a short run of TV line, the built-in tuner tunes down to 80 but 160m needs extra inductance. With BL1 balun any frequencies can be tuned but the balun gets hot. A better choice is to use an external tuner (without any balun) and connect the radio and the tuner by a balun. The balun made by wrapping 10 turns of RG174 on a  toroid is excellent and does not heat at all.

The performance with a  few radials is excellent at beachside locations (160m DX!) and poor inland especially if ground mounted and with lots of obstructions.

Ignacy, NO9E  

[Julius Fazekas n2wn]

I'll back off on my comment based on Geoff's EZNEC study, you may have issues with 30/40 dual elements.

I have used a single 40M element and remote switched in/out tuned network for matching. This did work well, but it's not as simple as a parallel feed.

73,
Julius
 

Julius Fazekas n2wn wrote

Hi Roy,

There's no reason to cut resonant radials if they will be on the ground or buried. You gain nothing and waste time and money. If they were raised then you should do what you suggest.

The radials should be dense near the base of the antenna, that is where the current is highest and the ground lose is most profound.

You're in an area that typically has better soil conditions than some of us have. I suspect you could have a great signal with 30 to 36 radials, versus 64 where you might only pick up a half dB.

There have been a number of great studies published in QEX and NCJ in the past couple of years. Well worth reading before hand.

Rudy, N6LF, has posted his studies online at http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/design_of_radial_ground_systems/

Well worth reading to save time and effort.

You should be able to do what you suggest with the ladder line. You may have to trim the 30M element a few times, or better yet, tune it with a cap at the base to bring it to resonance.
If you're an ARRL member search for: "An Efficient Multiband Vertical for 160 through 20 Meters" which uses a similar approach.

I use stranded 18 AWG for my radials and they work well. I know folks using smaller gauge with higher power too. It just depends on how many and how much traffic you have near them (from a mechanical perspective).

Any vertical that is base loaded is the least efficient, stay away from those if possible. I've been through this and the difference is like night and day.

Good luck with the build!

73,
Julius

Roy Davis wrote

I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4 wave vertical.  My hopes for
this antenna is that when the conditions favor vertical antennas as opposed
to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to the far East as my dipole
does not.  I understand that a dense radial field is necessary for good
results and that the far field which I have no control is a factor.  My plan
is to use 64 insulated radials as close to resonant as possible, buried a
few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder line as the radiator,
cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30 meters supported by a catenary
line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum tubing which to make a
1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or con for my project?  So
far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the radials cut ready to attach to
the DX Engineering radial plate.

I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot to offer in such a small
package.

73.

Roy Davis - WK4Y
Richmond VA


----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIS COOKE" <[e-mail]>
To: "James Apple" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "Darwin,
Keith" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner


>
> Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3 db stronger than the 1/4
> vertical installed in the same position.  A ground plane on top of a house
> could easily be as good or better than a 5/8 wave ground mounted and
> radiating into the side of the house and some trees.  3 db is about 1/2 S
> unit anyway, so it will not be a large difference.  You are correct about
> the far field conductivity being very important in how a vertical antenna
> will play, whether it is mounted on top of a tower or house or ground
> mounted.  The radials are most important to bring up the radiation
> efficiency, the far field is most important for the take off angle.
>
> The 43 foot vertical will have a higher radiation resistance than a
> shorter vertical for all bands, making it easier to get the efficiency up.
> It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160, 80 and 60 meters, about 50
> ohms for 40 and higher for the upper frequencies.  I don't have one
> because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the 30/40 dipole trombone at 21
> meters.  I don't think the 43 foot vertical will play as well, but they do
> play well.  I have worked several of the Zero-Five offering and they all
> play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and MFJ to play well also, but
> they are newer and I don't know anyone who has one.  All still need a good
> ground plane and will play much better with conductive soil.
>
> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> K5EWJ
>
>
> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> From: Darwin, Keith <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>> To: "James Apple" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
>> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8 vertical bandwagon.
>>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The problem was that
>> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to be any better than
>> a 1/4 wave vert.
>>
>> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.  Ground mounted over
>> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care of the small
>> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the signal to the rig.
>>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
>>
>> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4 radials) on the roof
>> of my single story house.  It was fed with RG-58.  I spent a
>> lot of time with an A/B switch listening to both antennas.
>> You'd think the 5/8 with it's mondo low-angle
>> radiation pattern would walk all over the 1/4 wave but it
>> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just opening or closing
>> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other times on the 1/4.
>> There was no clear winner.
>>
>> It was years before I found the answer.
>>
>> Apparently, that wonderful low angle radiation that we want
>> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends HEAVILY on the ground
>> conductivity many, many wavelengths away from the antenna.
>> Far out of the reach of any ground radial system, poor soil
>> conductivity is sucking the low angle radiation down to near
>> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is fabulous, but for the
>> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out that way.
>>
>> So, for "normal" soil, it seems the best height
>> is something less than 1/2 wave.
>>
>> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler 80M resonator on
>> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does pretty well on
>> those two bands.  It also delivers the goods on 30 meters
>> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and higher it
>> isn't really all that impressive.
>>
>> - Keith N1AS -
>> - K3 711 -
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] on behalf of James
>> Apple
>> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
>>
>> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm looking for an new
>> antenna.  I've
>> been considering the 43' verticals by DXE,HyGain and
>> MFJ.  But I'm not
>> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range needed.  The DXE
>> site has a
>> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone using a K2 and a
>> 43' vertical ?
>> how's it play ?
>>
>> Thanks in Advance
>>
>> - Jim (WB1DOG)
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[e-mail]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[e-mail]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list:
>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[e-mail]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003 - Release Date: 03/15/09
14:07:00

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[e-mail]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[n7ws]

I remember one in particular, circa 1959.  I had been licensed about a year and needed a tower. My then neighbor and Elmer the late Lee, W7UVR, had a 30' aluminum one laying in his yard and I asked him to "donate" it to me.

He said that if I helped him install the ground radials under his V80 he would give me the tower.  I naively said yes.

It's necessary to set this up.  Although the neighborhood was nice, one-acre lots then on the outskirts of Tucson, my family was working class and Lee was the recent beneficiary of a large trust fund.  Why he remained in the neighborhood was a mystery to me, but nevertheless, he did.  This is especially baffling considering that he had a noisy power line cutting across the cornet of his lot, so until Collins came out with their noise blanker for the 75A-4 sometime later, he couldn't hear anything.  So he decide to go mobile. You can see THE mobile here:

http://www.k0bg.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1079

Clearly, Lee didn't do anything half-way.  The same was true for the home station:  A bank of built-in 6' relay racks populated with a common power supply and modulator and individual amplifiers for each band using push-pull 304TLs.  Still, since he couldn't hear much, he got himself an appointment as an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station", retransmitting W1AW announcements. Thus the need for a multi-band omni-directional antenna to augment the Christmas tree Telrex stack.

When I entered this picture the vertical was standing and the transmission line was in place.  I swear I'm not making this up, he was using rigid, air-insulated hardline filled with nitrogen.

Not content to have a sloppy installation he wanted four-foot ground rods at the end of each radial so that the wire could be pulled tight and anchored to them.  This is where I came in, he needed some to pound ground rods.  I don't remember exactly how many I drove but I did it for days.  As I remember, before he became wealthy he had designed BC stations, I suspect it was the classic 120.  When I got done, we stretched and soldered the wire and he called in a landscaper to cover it all up with topsoil.

I picked up my 30' tower and walked the two blocks home with it.



--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Ken Kopp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Ken Kopp <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Elecraft] Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner
> To: "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 1:48 PM
> Steve, I thought of the Gotham, but doubted if anyone would
> remember .... (:-))
>
> You must be OLD, like me!
>
> 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

     
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[WILLIS COOKE]

Roy, try the 40 meter wire fed with an antenna tuner on 30 meters before you get too fancy.  I have had very good results on 30 with a 32 foot aluminum vertical.

Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ


--- On Mon, 3/16/09, Julius Fazekas n2wn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Julius Fazekas n2wn <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 8:13 AM
> I'll back off on my comment based on Geoff's EZNEC
> study, you may have issues
> with 30/40 dual elements.
>
> I have used a single 40M element and remote switched in/out
> tuned network
> for matching. This did work well, but it's not as
> simple as a parallel feed.
>
> 73,
> Julius
>  
>
> Julius Fazekas n2wn wrote:
> >
> > Hi Roy,
> >
> > There's no reason to cut resonant radials if they
> will be on the ground or
> > buried. You gain nothing and waste time and money. If
> they were raised
> > then you should do what you suggest.
> >
> > The radials should be dense near the base of the
> antenna, that is where
> > the current is highest and the ground lose is most
> profound.
> >
> > You're in an area that typically has better soil
> conditions than some of
> > us have. I suspect you could have a great signal with
> 30 to 36 radials,
> > versus 64 where you might only pick up a half dB.
> >
> > There have been a number of great studies published in
> QEX and NCJ in the
> > past couple of years. Well worth reading before hand.
> >
> > Rudy, N6LF, has posted his studies online at
> >
> http://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/design_of_radial_ground_systems/
> >
> > Well worth reading to save time and effort.
> >
> > You should be able to do what you suggest with the
> ladder line. You may
> > have to trim the 30M element a few times, or better
> yet, tune it with a
> > cap at the base to bring it to resonance.
> > If you're an ARRL member search for: "An
> Efficient Multiband Vertical for
> > 160 through 20 Meters" which uses a similar
> approach.
> >
> > I use stranded 18 AWG for my radials and they work
> well. I know folks
> > using smaller gauge with higher power too. It just
> depends on how many and
> > how much traffic you have near them (from a mechanical
> perspective).
> >
> > Any vertical that is base loaded is the least
> efficient, stay away from
> > those if possible. I've been through this and the
> difference is like night
> > and day.
> >
> > Good luck with the build!
> >
> > 73,
> > Julius
> >
> >
> > Roy Davis wrote:
> >>
> >> I am in the process of building a 40 meter  1/4
> wave vertical.  My hopes
> >> for
> >> this antenna is that when the conditions favor
> vertical antennas as
> >> opposed
> >> to a dipole, that it will help me to work in to
> the far East as my dipole
> >> does not.  I understand that a dense radial field
> is necessary for good
> >> results and that the far field which I have no
> control is a factor.  My
> >> plan
> >> is to use 64 insulated radials as close to
> resonant as possible, buried a
> >> few inches below soil.  I thought of using ladder
> line as the radiator,
> >> cutting one side for 40 and the other for 30
> meters supported by a
> >> catenary
> >> line.  If that does not prove out, I have aluminum
> tubing which to make a
> >> 1/4 wave for 40.  Anyone have any comments pro or
> con for my project?  So
> >> far, I have the pipe in the ground, and the
> radials cut ready to attach
> >> to
> >> the DX Engineering radial plate.
> >>
> >> I have K3 #1366 and really like this radio.  A lot
> to offer in such a
> >> small
> >> package.
> >>
> >> 73.
> >>
> >> Roy Davis - WK4Y
> >> Richmond VA
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "WILLIS COOKE"
> <[hidden email]>
> >> To: "James Apple"
> <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>;
> >> "Darwin,
> >> Keith" <[hidden email]>
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 6:12 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the
> K2 tuner
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Keith, in theory the 5/8 vertical should be 3
> db stronger than the 1/4
> >>> vertical installed in the same position.  A
> ground plane on top of a
> >>> house
> >>> could easily be as good or better than a 5/8
> wave ground mounted and
> >>> radiating into the side of the house and some
> trees.  3 db is about 1/2
> >>> S
> >>> unit anyway, so it will not be a large
> difference.  You are correct
> >>> about
> >>> the far field conductivity being very
> important in how a vertical
> >>> antenna
> >>> will play, whether it is mounted on top of a
> tower or house or ground
> >>> mounted.  The radials are most important to
> bring up the radiation
> >>> efficiency, the far field is most important
> for the take off angle.
> >>>
> >>> The 43 foot vertical will have a higher
> radiation resistance than a
> >>> shorter vertical for all bands, making it
> easier to get the efficiency
> >>> up.
> >>> It will still be lower than 50 ohms for 160,
> 80 and 60 meters, about 50
> >>> ohms for 40 and higher for the upper
> frequencies.  I don't have one
> >>> because I have a 3 element SteppIR with the
> 30/40 dipole trombone at 21
> >>> meters.  I don't think the 43 foot
> vertical will play as well, but they
> >>> do
> >>> play well.  I have worked several of the
> Zero-Five offering and they all
> >>> play well.  I would expect the DXE, Hygain and
> MFJ to play well also,
> >>> but
> >>> they are newer and I don't know anyone who
> has one.  All still need a
> >>> good
> >>> ground plane and will play much better with
> conductive soil.
> >>>
> >>> Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
> >>> K5EWJ
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- On Sun, 3/15/09, Darwin, Keith
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Darwin, Keith
> <[hidden email]>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical
> and the K2 tuner
> >>>> To: "James Apple"
> <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
> >>>> Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 2:39 PM
> >>>> A few years ago, I was really on the 5/8
> vertical bandwagon.
> >>>>  I thought it was the cat's meow.  The
> problem was that
> >>>> real world A/B testing did NOT show it to
> be any better than
> >>>> a 1/4 wave vert.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had a 5/8 wave vert for 15 meters.
> Ground mounted over
> >>>> 16 radials.  An ATU at the base took care
> of the small
> >>>> impedance mismatch and RG-213 carried the
> signal to the rig.
> >>>>  Hot stuff - or so I thought.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also had a 1/4 wave ground plane (4
> radials) on the roof
> >>>> of my single story house.  It was fed with
> RG-58.  I spent a
> >>>> lot of time with an A/B switch listening
> to both antennas.
> >>>> You'd think the 5/8 with it's
> mondo low-angle
> >>>> radiation pattern would walk all over the
> 1/4 wave but it
> >>>> DID NOT.  DX signals as the band was just
> opening or closing
> >>>> were sometimes stronger on the 5/8, other
> times on the 1/4.
> >>>> There was no clear winner.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was years before I found the answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apparently, that wonderful low angle
> radiation that we want
> >>>> out of the 5/8 wave antenna depends
> HEAVILY on the ground
> >>>> conductivity many, many wavelengths away
> from the antenna.
> >>>> Far out of the reach of any ground radial
> system, poor soil
> >>>> conductivity is sucking the low angle
> radiation down to near
> >>>> zero.  Sure, over salt water it is
> fabulous, but for the
> >>>> vast majority, it just doesn't pan out
> that way.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, for "normal" soil, it seems
> the best height
> >>>> is something less than 1/2 wave.
> >>>>
> >>>> I run a 33' vertical with a Hustler
> 80M resonator on
> >>>> top.  It resonates on 80 and 40 and does
> pretty well on
> >>>> those two bands.  It also delivers the
> goods on 30 meters
> >>>> due to the remote tuner.  On 20 meters and
> higher it
> >>>> isn't really all that impressive.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Keith N1AS -
> >>>> - K3 711 -
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: [hidden email] on
> behalf of James
> >>>> Apple
> >>>> Sent: Sun 3/15/2009 9:26 AM
> >>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>> Subject: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and
> the K2 tuner
> >>>>
> >>>> After the ice storm of 2009, I'm
> looking for an new
> >>>> antenna.  I've
> >>>> been considering the 43' verticals by
> DXE,HyGain and
> >>>> MFJ.  But I'm not
> >>>> sure if my K2 tuner will have the range
> needed.  The DXE
> >>>> site has a
> >>>> warning about internal tuners.  Anyone
> using a K2 and a
> >>>> 43' vertical ?
> >>>> how's it play ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in Advance
> >>>>
> >>>> - Jim (WB1DOG)
> >>>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> Elecraft mailing list
> >>>> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >>>> Please help support this email list:
> >>>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>> Elecraft mailing list
> >>>> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>>
> >>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >>>> Please help support this email list:
> >>>> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >>> Elecraft mailing list
> >>> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>
> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >>> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2003
> - Release Date:
> >> 03/15/09
> >> 14:07:00
> >>
> >>
> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> -----
> Julius Fazekas
> N2WN
>
> Tennessee Contest Group
> http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html
>
> Tennessee QSO Party
> http://www.tnqp.org/
>
> Elecraft K2/100 #4455
> Elecraft K3/100 #366
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/43%27-Vertical-and-the-K2-tuner-tp2481408p2486607.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:
> http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy]

Hello Roy,

Yes, an 80m / 40m arrangement would be plausible. Although I appreciate that
you will be using buried radials, if the radials were elevated, a set for
each band would be required.

An alternative would be to use a form of close coupled half wave resonator
on 40m. This would consist of an approximately half wave length of wire (at
40m) running parallel to and spaced from the fed 80m 1/4 wave vertical, but
not connected in any way to the 80m 1/4 wave wire. I have used this concept
in multiband antennas. One advantage that this coupled halfwave radiator has
over the paralleled 1/4 wave vertical elements, is that its 40m vertical
pattern is generally speaking more useful than the 1/4 wave's vertical
pattern for DX in my experience, except on "dipole nights", with less
response at the higher angles. The disadvantage is that it is not a "plug in
and play" antenna.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD


Roy Davis <[hidden email]> wrote on Monday, March 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM


> Hi Geoff,
>
> Thank you for your reply, and the tip on just using a 40 element on 30 and
> the reasons why.  Would the idea of parallel radiators for 80 and 40
> meters be plausible?  I have enough height with the catenary line for 80.
>
> Roy - WK4Y



______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html