Elecraft › [K2]

43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

Classic

List

Threaded

48 messages Options

123

James Apple

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

Bob Naumann W5OV

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

I use a Zero Five 43' vertical with my K3. Not sure if the K2 tuner is
equivalent to the K3, but if it is, it should work well.

As an example, I worked K5D on 160 through 20m with my Zero Five 43'
vertical @ 100w.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Apple
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 8:27 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

Craig Smith

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by James Apple

Good Morning Jim ...

The internal K2 tuner should have the range to match the 43 ft vertical. It
is a wide-range tuner as opposed to the internal tuners on many rigs which
are only good for tweaking antennas that are near resonance.

You will, of course, have feedline losses due to high SWR with this system
which can be noticeable on some bands. You will want to use low loss
feedline and a proper current choke at the feedpoint. The resulting
performance will depend heavily on the radial system used, and I would
recommend a minimum of 32 untuned radials. Given attention to these
details, you can expect good DX performance on 20, 30, 40 and 80 meters. On
17 meters and above the radiation angle will become higher than optimal for
DX.

The feedline loss issues can be resolved by using a remote tuner at the
feedpoint. I'm doing this here using a CG-3000 tuner from Array Solutions.
Works well with my K3, and I'm pleased with the performance of the antenna
after installation of an adequate radial system.

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

Steve Ellington

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by James Apple

If you use a rather long coax feedline, the K2 tuner might match it. Reason:
The coax acts to reduce the "apparant" SWR by inducing considerable power
loss. The 43' vertical is recent fad and it makes no sense at all. Virtually
any trapped multiband vertical should easily outperform it. If you want to
find out how it works, just run 43' for wire up a pole or a tree limb and
see. Do this before investing $300 in a stick of aluminum.
Also, you may be subjecting the little components in your K2's tuner to high
currents when attempting to match that 43' stick on 80 and 160 meters.
Impedances would be insanely low! Recommend using a remote tuner at the
antenna's base, forget the so called balun/unun or a different antenna. 73
Steve Ellington
[hidden email]
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Apple" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 9:26 AM
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

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

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

P.B. Christensen

Re: 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

dave-281

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

But note that for the 43' mast they use an autotuner located at the
base of the mast, no coax losses involved. For the 33' mast they use
~50' of various pieces of coax with the associated losses. This a
very biased comparison.

If you are going to use a non-trapped, and hence non-resonant,
vertical it is best to put the tuner at the base of the mast.
Otherwise the coax losses will eat up a fair amount of the available
power, even for a 43' mast (although they don't tell you this).

73 de dave
ab9ca/4

Paul Christensen wrote:

>> 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

Steve Ellington

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by P.B. Christensen

Back to the original question about using the K2's or K3's tuner on this
antenna....Figure 4. in that link shows the impedance of the antenna to be
less than 10 ohms below 5 mHz and around 1 ohm on 160M. Factor the 1:4
balun in and that divides the Z by 4. So we end up with an impedance of less
than 2 ohms presented to the K2's tuner. Open the windows and let the smoke
out please.

Steve Ellington
[hidden email]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Christensen" <[hidden email]>
To: "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:07 AM
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
>

Vic K2VCO

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

Steve Ellington wrote:
> Back to the original question about using the K2's or K3's tuner on this
> antenna....Figure 4. in that link shows the impedance of the antenna to be
> less than 10 ohms below 5 mHz and around 1 ohm on 160M. Factor the 1:4
> balun in and that divides the Z by 4. So we end up with an impedance of less
> than 2 ohms presented to the K2's tuner. Open the windows and let the smoke
> out please.

I modeled a plain 43' vertical in EZNEC. Fed with 50-ohm line, the SWR on 40 meters is a
bit less than 10:1; on 80 it's nearly 100:1. (11.1 - j232). It would be a dummy load on
80. Some of these antennas (like the Array Solutions mentioned) include baluns or
transformers. My guess is that the large amount of reactance would increase losses in such
a device.

A tuner at the base would be the way to go. But keep in mind that you still need a good
local ground system as well as decent ground conductivity within a few wavelengths for
reasonable performance.
--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
______________________________________________________________
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

AC7AC

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by P.B. Christensen

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

w0mu

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by James Apple

We just had a heated exchange about these antennas on another reflector.

Keep in mind that it is a compromise antenna. 43 feet is really not magical
to any band that I know of. You still need a good radial system etc.

>From what I have read the tuner at the base would be much more efficient and
use a good quality coax.

I would be curious to see how a BigIR or even a Hy-tower compared to the 43
ft verticals.

I was surprised to read that W5OV was able to match it with the K3 tuner. I
think that speaks volumes for the tuner in the K3. I will have to play with
my tuner a bit more. Most of my antennas have good swr except for the 40m
beam in the extreme lower cw sections and the K3 tunes this fine but we are
talking about 2 to 2.5 to 1 max, not 100:1

"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 James Apple
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:27 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

w7aqk

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by P.B. Christensen

Paul and All,

This is very interesting! Thanks for bringing that article by VK1OD to our
attention.

I think I agree with you about trap losses. I have used a Cushcraft R7, and
now an R8, for years with surprisingly good results. What appealed to me
about both of these models is that they emulate a 1/2 wave antenna, thus
making radials more or less unnecessary. These antennas only cover 40 and
up however.

What now intrigues me about the 43 ft. antenna is connected to some comments
made to me by Jim Duffey, KK6MC ("Dr. Megacycle") when he visited here some
time ago. I think most of you are familiar with Jim, and respect (as I do)
his technical expertise. Anyway, Jim suggested that I might be even better
off with a 22 ft. vertical on my roof, with as many radials as I could
reasonably lay out. He said I should also use a remote tuner and balanced
feedline. Jim felt it would perform adequately on 40 meters, and better as
you go up. I believe he said the "magic" about 22 feet was to try and keep
the radiation angle from getting too high on the higher bands.

So, now I'm wondering if a 43 ft. antenna would bring 80 meters, and
apparently 160 meters, into play under more or less the same concept that
Jim was espousing. He didn't really mention that the 22 ft. version might
get you on 80, so maybe not, but the mathematical relationship sure has me
wondering. Probably I'm extrapolating his comments incorrectly.

I think Jim does monitor this reflector, so maybe he will jump in and make
some comments. I will probably pass that article to him though, and see if
I can prod him for some insight.

By the way, I'm guessing that if you could roof mount, or otherwise elevate
the 43 foot version, you might not have to worry quite so much about having
so many radials.

Anyway, this motivates me to do a little digging!

Dave W7AQK

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Christensen" <[hidden email]>
To: "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:07 AM
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

Ken Kopp-3

OT: 43' vertical antenna

In reply to this post by w0mu

I used a 40' self-supporting Premax shipboard whip on our
travel trailer for six years. It was fed with an Icom AH-4 with
6" of connecting wire between the tuner and the whip. I think
it worked well. It was -not- a good performer on 80M, as one
would expect. I wouldn't consider feeding this antenna with
a lengthy run of coax.

I -do- have extensive bonding of the ground system to the metal
trailer's body and frame and also uncoiled a number of radials
"into the bushes" when we were parked.

I used these same whips in the 3 mHz frequency range on
small ocean survey vessels, but hasten to point out that this
approached an ideal situation ... a vertical over salt water. (:-)
Again, this antenna was fed with a tuner immediately beside
the base of the whip.

I now use a modified High Sierra "screwdriver" antenna on the
trailer, mostly to gain acceptable performance on 80M. I more
than doubled the length of the base to coil length to improve
the efficiency.

73!
______________________________________________________________
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

w7aqk

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by w0mu

Mike and All,

I'm not all that surprised that W5OV was able to get a match using his K3,
although I'm not sure exactly how severe the mismatch is. It has to be
pretty far off though.

Using my K3, with its built-in ATU, I am able to get a 1:1 match on 80
meters using my R8 vertical, which isn't supposed to go lower than 40
meters. I can also get a match that is better than 2:1 on 160. Obviously
though, the efficiency of this antenna on those bands is pretty lousy. I
really don't operate on 160, except I did work VP6DX on both SSB and CW with
this arrangement. Their beverages did all the work though I'm sure.

Nevertheless, the K3's ATU is very good! I haven't tried the same test with
my K2 and it's built-in ATU, but that tuner is very good also. I just don't
know if it's quite as good as the K3's.

The ATU in my Orion II will also match the R8 on 80 meters, but just about
every other rig I own, or have owned, with a built in ATU, would not come
close to doing this. I have a Kenwood TS-480 and a Yaesu FT-1000 Mark V,
neither of which could do that. The Mark V won't even allow me to cover all
of 40 meters, but the K3 does it with ease.

Having said all of this, I'd be very cautious about big excursions with the
K3 or K2 built-in ATU's. I'd sure turn the power down a lot before even
trying. Clearly though, not all built-in ATU's are equal!

Dave W7AQK

----- Original Message -----
From: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <[hidden email]>
To: "'James Apple'" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

> We just had a heated exchange about these antennas on another reflector.
>
> Keep in mind that it is a compromise antenna. 43 feet is really not
> magical
> to any band that I know of. You still need a good radial system etc.
>
>>From what I have read the tuner at the base would be much more efficient
>>and
> use a good quality coax.
>
> I would be curious to see how a BigIR or even a Hy-tower compared to the
> 43
> ft verticals.
>
> I was surprised to read that W5OV was able to match it with the K3 tuner.
> I
> think that speaks volumes for the tuner in the K3. I will have to play
> with
> my tuner a bit more. Most of my antennas have good swr except for the 40m
> beam in the extreme lower cw sections and the K3 tunes this fine but we
> are
> talking about 2 to 2.5 to 1 max, not 100:1
>
>
>
>
> "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 James Apple
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:27 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

Don Wilhelm-4

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by w7aqk

Dave,

If you look at the LB Cebik information, he has long recommended 44 foot
dipoles as a back-up antenna for 40 through 10 meters and 88 foot
dipoles for 80 through 20. The main reason for his recommendation is
that the radiation pattern does not break up into lobes over that range
of frequencies, and all the radiation is broadside to the antenna wire.

Now, take that dipole and stand it on end - the radiation pattern will
be low to the earth.
As a second step, remove the lower portion of the antenna and install
radials (22 or 44 ft long) to balance out the vertical section. If the
radials are run in opposing directions, any radiation from them will
cancel leaving all the radiated power from the vertical element, and it
will be at a low angle when operated within the frequency range that
keeps the radiation pattern in single lobe (below 10m for the 22 ft
vertical and below 20m for the 44 ft vertical).

If the vertical element is mounted well above the ground, 4 radials (2
pair oriented in opposing directions) should be sufficient, but if
ground mounted, a lot of radials are needed to form a ground screen.

An antenna of this nature will not have an impedance suitable for
feeding with coax. A remote auto-tuner or an L section designed for
each band will be needed at the base to provide a suitable match or the
coax. If the feedpoint is transformed to something coax can easily
match, most all the power will be delivered to the radiator and the
feedline loss will be small, but if directly fed with coax, the losses
can be rather high - just how high depends on the feedline length.

73,
Don W3FPR

dyarnes wrote:

> Paul and All,
>
> This is very interesting! Thanks for bringing that article by VK1OD to our
> attention.
>
> I think I agree with you about trap losses. I have used a Cushcraft R7, and
> now an R8, for years with surprisingly good results. What appealed to me
> about both of these models is that they emulate a 1/2 wave antenna, thus
> making radials more or less unnecessary. These antennas only cover 40 and
> up however.
>
> What now intrigues me about the 43 ft. antenna is connected to some comments
> made to me by Jim Duffey, KK6MC ("Dr. Megacycle") when he visited here some
> time ago. I think most of you are familiar with Jim, and respect (as I do)
> his technical expertise. Anyway, Jim suggested that I might be even better
> off with a 22 ft. vertical on my roof, with as many radials as I could
> reasonably lay out. He said I should also use a remote tuner and balanced
> feedline. Jim felt it would perform adequately on 40 meters, and better as
> you go up. I believe he said the "magic" about 22 feet was to try and keep
> the radiation angle from getting too high on the higher bands.
>
> So, now I'm wondering if a 43 ft. antenna would bring 80 meters, and
> apparently 160 meters, into play under more or less the same concept that
> Jim was espousing. He didn't really mention that the 22 ft. version might
> get you on 80, so maybe not, but the mathematical relationship sure has me
> wondering. Probably I'm extrapolating his comments incorrectly.
>
> I think Jim does monitor this reflector, so maybe he will jump in and make
> some comments. I will probably pass that article to him though, and see if
> I can prod him for some insight.
>
> By the way, I'm guessing that if you could roof mount, or otherwise elevate
> the 43 foot version, you might not have to worry quite so much about having
> so many radials.
>
> Anyway, this motivates me to do a little digging!
>
> Dave W7AQK
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Christensen" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 7:07 AM
> 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
>>
>

Don Ehrlich

80 meters with an R8 vertical ( K2)

In reply to this post by w7aqk

Pushing 80 meter RF into an R8 could be very bad for the R8. The tuner has
been able to find a match that allows the radio to pump RF into the coax to
the antenna but that RF *might* be (mostly) going into the tuning network of
the antenna instead of being radiated. Overstress is a definite possibility
when doing that so please be careful.

Don K7FJ

> Using my K3, with its built-in ATU, I am able to get a 1:1 match on 80
> meters using my R8 vertical, which isn't supposed to go lower than 40
> meters. I can also get a match that is better than 2:1 on 160. Obviously
> though, the efficiency of this antenna on those bands is pretty lousy. I
> really don't operate on 160, except I did work VP6DX on both SSB and CW
> with
> this arrangement. Their beverages did all the work though I'm sure.
>

______________________________________________________________
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

AC7AC

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by w7aqk

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

Kok Chen

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4

I don't have the L and C values for the K2 tuner, but if you want to
see what impedances can be transformed from 50 ohms using the KAT100,
you can take a look at these images:

http://homepage.mac.com/chen/Technical/Tuner/T3580.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/chen/Technical/Tuner/T14080.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/chen/Technical/Tuner/T28080.jpg

The green dots are for transceiver : ( series L : shunt C ) : antenna.

The blue dots are for transceiver : ( shunt C : series R ) : antenna.

The dots shown are the impedances that the antenna sees if the
transceiver's output impedance is 50 ohms. So, antenna impedances
that the tuner will tune is just the conjugate of the points that you
see on the charts (i.e., just flip the charts upside down). As the
file name indicates, they are charts for 3.58 MHz, 14.080 MHz and
28.080 MHz (RTTY frequencies, naturally :-).

The application that generates the charts above was originally written
to test a Smith Chart library that I wrote for Cocoa. (The library
was subsequently used in cocoaNEC and by K1GQ in his cocoaVNA program,
an application for the TAPR/Ten-Tec VNA).

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 frequencies. The Xcode sources are also available in case you
have a different set of L and C values (than used in the KAT100) that
you want to try out.

73
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

Kok Chen

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

On Mar 15, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Kok Chen wrote:

> The blue dots are for transceiver : ( shunt C : series R ) : antenna.

Oops, I meant transceiver : ( shunt C : series L ) : antenna.

73
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

Steve Ellington

Re: 43' Vertical and the K2 tuner

In reply to this post by AC7AC

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

Gregg W6IZT

K3 TX SSB peak power higher than CW

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

123