Buddipoles and KX1
Locked
 
|
Does anyone have experience with the Buddipole system? I just ordered
a KX1 with all the bells and whistles and I'm thinking about adding the Buddipole to the order. Any suggestions for alternative, portable antenna systems? Thanks, Tom (no call sign yet, taking the tests in May) _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
I have a KX-1 and a BuddiStick, although I haven't used them together
yet. If you have the bulit-in antenna tuner, then there's no need to spend all that money on a BuddiStick. I have had success with the 28- ft. wire with four radials as described in the tuner manual. Last time I went portable with it, I built a 66-ft. doublet fed with twisted pair and strung it up between two tree limbs about 15 feet high. This antenna tuned up easily and worked really great. My simplistic theory is that the more wire you can get into the air, the better an antenna will work. The BuddiPole is a well-designed and built antenna, but I would think that my 66-foot doublet has got to be more efficient....and much cheaper, too! 73! Dan KB6NU ---------------------------------------------------------- CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator Read my ham radio blog at http://www.kb6nu.com LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO! On Apr 13, 2008, at Apr 13, 12:08 PM, Tom Pallen wrote: > Does anyone have experience with the Buddipole system? I just > ordered a KX1 with all the bells and whistles and I'm thinking > about adding the Buddipole to the order. Any suggestions for > alternative, portable antenna systems? > > Thanks, > > Tom (no call sign yet, taking the tests in May) _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
I agree: The best lengths for a doublet are 44ft and 88ft and multiples
thereof. Have a look at Cebick's site. These lengths avoid nasty tuning conditions which can create large voltages and inefficiencies in your matching unit. 73 David G3UNA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romanchik Dan" <[hidden email]> To: "Mailing List Elecraft" <[hidden email]> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Buddipoles and KX1 >I have a KX-1 and a BuddiStick, although I haven't used them together yet. >If you have the bulit-in antenna tuner, then there's no need to spend all >that money on a BuddiStick. I have had success with the 28- ft. wire with >four radials as described in the tuner manual. > > Last time I went portable with it, I built a 66-ft. doublet fed with > twisted pair and strung it up between two tree limbs about 15 feet high. > This antenna tuned up easily and worked really great. > > My simplistic theory is that the more wire you can get into the air, the > better an antenna will work. The BuddiPole is a well-designed and built > antenna, but I would think that my 66-foot doublet has got to be more > efficient....and much cheaper, too! > > 73! > > Dan KB6NU > ---------------------------------------------------------- > CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator > Read my ham radio blog at http://www.kb6nu.com > LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO! > > > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Pallen
Hi Tom,
The Buddipole is a great product with Elecraft-like support. I have both the Buddipole and the KX-1 and as a portable system, it works fine. Since you are going to be a newly minted ham, I would not recommend a Buddipole right now. I would take the suggestion of the others and build a 44 or 66 foot doublet and feed it with twin lead or build a resonant dipole. Any of these simple antennas will out perform a Buddipole and will give you some basic antenna knowledge. Using QRP can be very frustrating for a new ham and with the poor band conditions you will need all the help you can get. So much for the practical! If you are hell-bent on a Buddipole or portable use is all you intend to do then order it with a four or five section shock-corded whip. I find those telescoping whips too easy to bend or break and the dipole arrangement almost useless unless you have loads of time to put up a taller guyed mast. I use it only as a vertical. In the park I usually just bungi the mast section to a fence post for support and use one elevated radial. Above the mast section go an extension arm, the coil, another extension arm and then the shock–corded whip. I then connect the antenna to the KX-1 and run the shorting wire up and down the loading coil for the best signal. That’s it. It takes just a few minutes to set up. In the car I drive down by the Atlantic Ocean (oceans are your DX friend), attach the same arrangement to a ball mount, leave out the radial and I’m on the air. To me, the time taken for setup and teardown is very important since it promotes spontaneity and on many occasions, like a lunch break, time is important. Tom, AK2B |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Pallen
Tom wrote:
>Since you are going to be a newly minted ham, I would not recommend >a Buddipole right now. I would take the suggestion of the others and >build a 44 or 66 foot doublet and feed it with twin lead or build a >resonant dipole. Any of these simple antennas will out perform a >Buddipole... Excellent advice. I would go so far as to state without fear of informed contradiction that a dipole will grossly grossly outperform any portable HF vertical, which almost never has an adequate grounding system. The difference on receive or transmit is more often than not about five S-units, equivalent to 30 dB. What this means is that a one watt signal to a dipole would require 1000 watts (!!) to the portable vertical to match. Plus, you can build about 100 dipoles for the typical price of one commercial portable HF vertical, and you need no grounding system. If you want the plans for a simple 7-band portable dipole, drop me a line. Portable verticals...just say "No!" Mike / KK5F _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
<> I would go so far as to state without fear of
<> informed contradiction that a dipole will grossly grossly outperform <> any portable HF vertical, which almost never has an adequate grounding <> system. The difference on receive or transmit is more often than not <> about five S-units, equivalent to 30 dB. I will respectfully disagree. You have made one major assumption that is almost never true - namely that the BuddiPole vertical is used without an adequate ground system. Most everyone I know (including me) who uses the BuddiPole as a vertical uses a single quarter wave elevated radial or counterpoise wire. This costs less than $2 and weighs a couple of ounces. It offers VERY efficient performance. Indeed, for DX work, its lower radiation angle will vastly outperform the horizontal doublets unless they are very high. Using the 16 ft mast it can be essentially a full size vertical dipole on 20 meters and above. I'm not knocking the 44 and 88 ft doublets with open wire feed. I use them myself and encourage beginners to use them as an all-round antenna. But at normal installation heights they will perform best over more moderate distances than the vertical. 73 ... Craig AC0DS _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
ive never used a buddipole but i have used ground monted virticals
ex army tank whips 9ft,16ft and 33ft dk9sq f/glass mast portable qrp on ssb and ive worked the world a bit of wire hung in a tree will work well cheep and easy to do part of the fun is makeing your antennas verticals get my vote ( best on 40/80/160m any day) chris g0wfh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Morrow" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Buddipoles and KX1 > Tom wrote: > >>Since you are going to be a newly minted ham, I would not recommend >>a Buddipole right now. I would take the suggestion of the others and >>build a 44 or 66 foot doublet and feed it with twin lead or build a >>resonant dipole. Any of these simple antennas will out perform a >>Buddipole... > > Excellent advice. I would go so far as to state without fear of > informed contradiction that a dipole will grossly grossly outperform > any portable HF vertical, which almost never has an adequate grounding > system. The difference on receive or transmit is more often than not > about five S-units, equivalent to 30 dB. What this means is that a > one watt signal to a dipole would require 1000 watts (!!) to the > portable vertical to match. > > Plus, you can build about 100 dipoles for the typical price of one > commercial portable HF vertical, and you need no grounding system. > If you want the plans for a simple 7-band portable dipole, drop me > a line. > > Portable verticals...just say "No!" > > Mike / KK5F > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.0/1383 - Release Date: > 17/04/2008 09:00 > > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Tom Pallen
Craig wrote:
>I will respectfully disagree. You have made one major assumption >that is almost never true - namely that the BuddiPole vertical is >used without an adequate ground system. > >Most everyone I know (including me) who uses the BuddiPole as a >vertical uses a single quarter wave elevated radial or counterpoise wire. I would not consider the grounding system that you describe as "adequate" for an HF vertical. >This costs less than $2 and weighs a couple of ounces. It offers VERY >efficient performance. The wire is cheap, just like a dipole, but how much was that vertical? I don't know your definition of "efficient performance." And if a length of wire (which must be altered for band changes) is going to be spun out at a site, why not just go with a much better performing, much cheaper half-wave dipole. A vertical with a radial wire incorporates almost all of the disadvantages of both a vertical and a dipole, at a much greater cost! >Indeed, for DX work, its lower radiation angle will vastly outperform >the horizontal doublets unless they are very high. Theoretically, yes, though not "vastly." But real world tests do not support that in the case of the poorly grounded vertical. I consider one radial to be a poor ground for an HF vertical. I base my outlook on more than 35 years of portable HF antenna trials at campsites in various parts of the USA. This is my *primary* interest in ham radio. I often erect at least two antenna types at a site for side-by-side comparisons. That is the *only* way one can determine how one antenna performs against another under otherwise identical site and band conditions. I have never used any vertical that performed, over *any* signal path, within three S-units of the dipole, except when my vertical was installed on the salt-water beach at Edisto Is. State Park in South Carolina. More typically, the vertical's performance deficit was closer to five S-units. On the other hand, I've worked 40 countries as far as Russia, South Africa, Australia, and Japan on 20 meters on a single weekend with a dipole that was on average less than six feet above ground. One can make contacts with even the poorest of antennas, and not realize how poor the performance is. Side-by-side tests out in the boonies is the real test of relative performance. Nothing beats that! 73 Mike / KK5F _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Without wanting to get into a religious war on the subject of dipoles vs
vertical antennas, I just want to state that I have very successfully used a quarter wave vertical on 20 metres while camping. The radiating element was made from about 1.5 inch O.D. aluminium telescoping tube adjusted to the right length for resonance, with four quarter wavelength radial wires that had polyethylene ropes fastened to their ends also served as guys. The radials/guys drooped down at about 45 degrees. A painted wooden round pole was inserted into the bottom end of the aluminium tube radiator and fastened by a stainless bolt and wingnut. This bolt also served as the attachment point for the centre conductor of the 50 Ohm coax transmission line. The SWR was low and required no antenna coupling unit. The whole thing disassembles in minutes and is stored inside a PVC tube which takes little room in the back of the station wagon, estate wagon or pickup. Although I have not yet done this, a tube cutter could be used to score lines in the telescopic tubing to mark the 15 metre and 10 metre resonance points. Appropriate length radials would have to be used for each band. The point of all this is that a very inexpensive antenna can be both portable and be used to work the world on quite low powers, and is a good option when travelling where masts or trees are not readily available. The footprint is low, and a flag can always be flown at the top. 73 Kevin VK3DAP / ZL2DAP _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Buddipoles and KX1
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3
Mike Morrow <[hidden email]> wrote on Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:12 PM
> One can make contacts with even the poorest of antennas, and not realize > how > poor the performance is. Side-by-side tests out in the boonies is the > real > test of relative performance. Nothing beats that! ---------------------------------------------------------- Absolutely! For a number of years at this rural location I used full sized vertical dipoles for 40m in phased arrays and as omnidirectional antennas, with their top ends at approximately 70ft. It became painfully obvious after a while that in their favoured directions these vertical antennas performed better on DX paths when firing across open farm fields than when firing through nearby large trees, such as oak, when their sap was running i.e Spring through Fall. As an example the long path to Japan is roughly 16600 miles from here across open fields, the short path roughly 4900 miles through nearby trees, and the long path across the fields into JA was always 'easier' to work than the short path when using the verticals. So I put up a horizontal 40m dipole at 70ft which also fires towards Japan. Not only did the tree problem appear to disappear, but also the dipole's better performance at low angles compared with that of the vertical antennas found from side-by-side tests, made on 40m over a long period, was very apparent on both the short and long paths into Japan. The penalty is that the low angle nulls off the ends of a horizontal dipole at this height are very noticeable on long distance paths when the angle of arrival is low. 73, Geoff GM4ESD _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Smith
Craig D. Smith wrote:
> Most everyone I know (including me) who uses the BuddiPole as a vertical > uses a single quarter wave elevated radial or counterpoise wire. This costs That could equally be viewed as being a quarter wave, horizontal antenna with a vertical counterpoise. In free space, the longer of the two would dominate. Over a good ground, things get more complicated, and I'm not sure I can give a good intuitive analysis. -- 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 Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
Re: Buddipoles and KX1
|
|
David Woolley wrote:
> Craig D. Smith wrote: > >> Most everyone I know (including me) who uses the BuddiPole as a vertical >> uses a single quarter wave elevated radial or counterpoise wire. This >> costs > > That could equally be viewed as being a quarter wave, horizontal antenna > with a vertical counterpoise. In free space, the longer of the two would > dominate. Over a good ground, things get more complicated, and I'm not > sure I can give a good intuitive analysis Seemingly a quarter wave vertical with a quarter wave elevated horizontal radial was a popular antenna amongst hams in the 1930s, and continued to appear in the ARRL Antenna Handbook during the 1940s as the "Up and Out" antenna. In those days the antenna was viewed as a halfwave centre fed dipole with a 90 degree bend at the centre, although it was also used as a multiband antenna I believe. But as you point out things are a bit more complicated when the antenna is over ground. Without running a model, which might not give accurate results, my instinct suggests that both the length and angle of the 'horizontal radial' of a real single band antenna over ground might have to be adjusted to obtain a non-reactive feedpoint impedance for coax feeder - assuming that the vertical part is an electrical quarter wave. During the 1930s and 1940s open wire feeders and antenna matching units were of course the norm, which would probably make these adjustments to the 'radial' unnecessary. 73, Geoff GM4ESD _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |