Elecraft › [K3]

K3 & S9 43' Vertical

Classic

List

Threaded

28 messages Options

tjkelly

K3 & S9 43' Vertical

I have just gotten (but have not yet installed) an S9 43' vertical with
optional 80m coil. I am wondering if I will need an auto-tuner at the
antenna or if the K3's atu is sufficient? Also the instructions call
for a 1:4 unun. Can anyone point me a description of how to build
one? And finally, if anyone has used an S9 with a K3, what has been
your experience?

Thanks and 73,

Tom
W8TJK
______________________________________________________________
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

Tony Estep

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

I have a 4:1 unun that I made from a balun kit (Amidon I think). It's wound
just like a balun, but the connections going out are slightly different.
Here's a website:

http://www.iv3sbe.webfundis.net/html/UNUN.htm

<http://www.iv3sbe.webfundis.net/html/UNUN.htm>BTW, the unun works GREAT
with an end-fed wire and a well-chosen set of counterpoise wires. I get a
perfect match on 9 bands,160 - 10. The K3's ATU is magnificent.

Your antenna may match, but your radiation pattern will be poor unless you
put down radials. See the ARRL Antenna Book for lots of mind-numbing
details, or ON4UN's book for even more.

Tony KT0NY

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 4:11 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...if the K3's atu is sufficient? Also the instructions call
> for a 1:4 unun....
______________________________________________________________
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 G Kopp

K3 & 43' Verticals

There was a recent thread with -much- discussion of
the currently popular 43' verticals. Maybe it's available
on Nabble.

73!
Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]
______________________________________________________________
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

Vic K2VCO

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by tjkelly

Putting the tuner at the base will be much more efficient than using the autotuner (or any
tuner) at the rig end. If the tuner is at the base you will not need the unun.

As someone mentioned there was a huge discussion of this type of antenna a few weeks ago.
Lots of 'attitude' was displayed. My recommendation is that you should install a ground
system of at least 16 radials perhaps 20' long each (this is a 'minimum' ground system)
and, if possible, use a remote tuner at the antenna base.

On 3/21/2011 2:11 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> I have just gotten (but have not yet installed) an S9 43' vertical with
> optional 80m coil. I am wondering if I will need an auto-tuner at the
> antenna or if the K3's atu is sufficient? Also the instructions call
> for a 1:4 unun. Can anyone point me a description of how to build
> one? And finally, if anyone has used an S9 with a K3, what has been
> your experience?
>
> Thanks and 73,
>
> Tom
> W8TJK

--
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

NZ0T

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by tjkelly

I have an S9 43' vertical. You will need the unun to match 60 meters and up. The 80M coil works well too. I ended up building the matchbox that Phil AD5X designed. You can see his article here:

http://www.ad5x.com/images/Articles/Match160.pdf

Phil also has a nice presentation on the 43' antenna here:

http://www.ad5x.com/images/Presentations/Vertical43.pdf

It's a great antenna if matched properly. It must be matched at the base with a remote tuner, an unun, or coil to work properly. The unun (on 60M and up) keeps the SWR down to manageable levels that you can match with a tuner in the shack with acceptable coax losses. The SWR gets out of hand below 60M and must be matched at the base.

73 Bill nz0t

k0wa@swbell.net

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

There has been a lot written about the 43 foot antenna and the feeding of such
an animal. I want to re-iterate the point that radials are so important to any
vertical antenna....unless it is a vertical dipole. I am using a 33 foot
vertical for just 40 meters and I have 32 radials and they are of various
lengths, but more than half are about a quarter wave on 40 meters.

I started out with 4 radials. It worked but not anything to write about in a
letter to Grandma.

I added 12 more to 16 radials and the antenna got my attention. It seem to work
much better. I started working around the country. I then went to 32 radials.
Now, I am working worldwide with the lump of aluminum which cost me $14.00 at
the local surplus house. Direct feed to ground. Very good match according to
the MFJ thingamajig. This little antenna can really radiate and does quite well
on 40 meter DX

Reading the material from OU4UN...32 radials is about optimum and anymore
doesn't get you much. That has been confirmed by many hams who have done the
empirical study. Oh yes, and radials on the ground do not have to be "tuned"
radials. That's what the studies say. BUT....if you have the vertical raised
up off the ground...then the radials need to be tuned, but you can get away with
fewer radials.

Radials are important....even to the old Gotham antennas of yesteryear.

Lee - K0WA

In our day and age it seems that Common Sense is in short supply. If you don't
have any Common Sense - get some Common Sense and use it. If you can't find any
Common Sense, ask for help from somebody who has some Common Sense. Is Common
Sense divine?

Common Sense is the image of the Creator expressing revealed truth in my mind.
- John W. (Kansas)
______________________________________________________________
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

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by tjkelly

Hi Tom,

Check out Phil's, AD5X, site: http://www.ad5x.com/articles.htm

He has written a number of articles related to your questions. Good information with plenty of "how to" ideas with locally found materials.

Elecraft's Balun kit is also capable of 1:4 unun and will easily work with any 100 watt rig.

QST has had several items related to the ubiquitous 43' verticals that are all the rage now. I see at least one person has mentioned radials, which are a must have to effectively use this antenna on 80-30.

The K3's ATU is very effective, but keep in mind that you will be matching the feedline and antenna as a unit, versus matching just the antenna. The K3 will most likely find a match most of the time, but you still could be seriously mismatched at the antenna. It may work, it just won't work well.

GL es 73,
Julius

Julius Fazekas
N2WN

Tennessee Contest Group
http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html

Tennessee QSO Party
http://www.tnqp.org/

Elecraft K2 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366
Elecraft K3/100

Guy, K2AV

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

One important thing to note here is that Phil has avoided one of the lossy
gotcha's in his matching for using 43' with 80/160 by using a large (4 inch
OD) and expensive (30 smackers) #2 powdered iron toroid, Amidon's T400-A2.
Don't try to short cut or cheep cut this step because you are only running
100 watts or QRP. It's the LOSS AVOIDED by using this toroid that is
actually more important running 100 watts and even more important running
QRP.

If one really wants to know why, you can get down and dirty in Jerry
Sevick's book, where you will find most of the how-come's in chapter 9, and
how he uses a T400-A2 in a bifilar winding that actually performs correctly
at 160. See figure 9-6 and 9-G on pp. 60, 61 of "Understanding, Building,
and Using Baluns and Ununs -- Theory and Practical Designs for the
Experimenter", Jerry Sevick, W2FMI (SK), 2003, CQ Communications, Inc,
Hicksville, New York.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Julius Fazekas n2wn
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> Check out Phil's, AD5X, site: http://www.ad5x.com/articles.htm
>
> He has written a number of articles related to your questions. Good
> information with plenty of "how to" ideas with locally found materials.
>
> Elecraft's Balun kit is also capable of 1:4 unun and will easily work with
> any 100 watt rig.
>
> QST has had several items related to the ubiquitous 43' verticals that are
> all the rage now. I see at least one person has mentioned radials, which
> are
> a must have to effectively use this antenna on 80-30.
>
> The K3's ATU is very effective, but keep in mind that you will be matching
> the feedline and antenna as a unit, versus matching just the antenna. The
> K3
> will most likely find a match most of the time, but you still could be
> seriously mismatched at the antenna. It may work, it just won't work well.
>
> GL es 73,
> Julius
>
> -----
> Julius Fazekas
> N2WN
>
> Tennessee Contest Group
> http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html
>
> Tennessee QSO Party
> http://www.tnqp.org/
>
> Elecraft K2 #4455
> Elecraft K3/100 #366
> Elecraft K3/100 #1875
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-S9-43-Vertical-tp6193993p6197137.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
>

P.B. Christensen

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by Julius Fazekas n2wn

In addition to AD5X's excellent work, anyone considering installation of a
43' vertical should first read Owen Duffy's (VK1OD) well-researched
information, especially his information concerning feed-point alternatives:

http://vk1od.net/antenna/multibandunloadedvertical/index.htm

One reason for the 43' vertical's popularity is that typical radiation
resistance is better than 100 ohms on 40m-10m -- but falls to less than 10
ohms on 80m and much lower on 160m. On 160m/80m, system losses typically
drop nearly in half with an ATU placed at the base feed when compared to a
4:1 current balun feed with ATU at the transmitter.

Paul, W9AC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julius Fazekas n2wn" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 & S9 43' Vertical

K6LMP

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by Julius Fazekas n2wn

I am in the process of installing a 43-foot vertical at my QTH (made by DX Engineering, but should be the same for purposes of this discussion).

I have modeled this antenna on all bands assuming a 4:1 Unun at the base of the antenna, a 75 foot run of 9913 coax, and a home-brew L antenna at the transmitter. TLW (Transmission Line for Windows) calculates the tuner settings needed for all bands, and also calculates the loss in the tuner (low) and the line. With severe SWR mismatches on the lower bands, you get 75-85% of the transmitter power into the antenna. That is, worst case, if you have 100 watts output from your rig, you get 2 watt loss in the tuner and 22 watts loss in the transmission line, giving 76 watts out. this is theoretical calculation, of course, but I think it gives a good indication of the order of magnitude of the line losses. The longer the line, the greater the line loss, of course. One might be able to improve on that with the switchable tuner described by AD5X; I'm going to have to look into that!

My UNUN is home-brewed based on a design from Sevick's book on Balun and Unun construction. I can provide details offline to anyone interested. material cost is about $40 for toroids and Thermalize wire, and it's capable of handling full legal limit, although at the moment I'm running my K3 barefoot 10 watts.

The tuner is a home-brew switchable configuration L tuner. On all bands, the "best" configuration is a low pass filter with the shunt capacitor on the input (transmitter) side. Inductance and capacitance requirements are well within the limits of the tuner on every band.

I'm all done except laying the radials. I'll report back as soon as I'm on the air, after having conducted some A/B tests on the air alternating between the new vertical and my existing HF antenna, a 40 meter horizontal loop. I expect significantly better DX performance with the vertical, since it puts most of the radiated energy out toward the horizon rather than almost straight up.

73,

Lew K6LMP

On Mar 22, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Julius Fazekas n2wn wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> Check out Phil's, AD5X, site: http://www.ad5x.com/articles.htm
>
> He has written a number of articles related to your questions. Good
> information with plenty of "how to" ideas with locally found materials.
>
> Elecraft's Balun kit is also capable of 1:4 unun and will easily work with
> any 100 watt rig.
>
> QST has had several items related to the ubiquitous 43' verticals that are
> all the rage now. I see at least one person has mentioned radials, which are
> a must have to effectively use this antenna on 80-30.
>
> The K3's ATU is very effective, but keep in mind that you will be matching
> the feedline and antenna as a unit, versus matching just the antenna. The K3
> will most likely find a match most of the time, but you still could be
> seriously mismatched at the antenna. It may work, it just won't work well.
>
> GL es 73,
> Julius
>
> -----
> Julius Fazekas
> N2WN
>
> Tennessee Contest Group
> http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html
>
> Tennessee QSO Party
> http://www.tnqp.org/
>
> Elecraft K2 #4455
> Elecraft K3/100 #366
> Elecraft K3/100 #1875
> --
> View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-S9-43-Vertical-tp6193993p6197137.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

Guy, K2AV

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by P.B. Christensen

The trick is that a match to 43' on 160 must be its own setting, and the
same taps CANNOT be used for both 160 and 80. AND as you specify the
matching toroid device MUST be at the base of the antenna. Please not the
toroid is NOT wired as a balun, but is really a tuned transformer, where the
very large capacitive reactance of the antenna on 80 and 160 is tuned out by
the selection of the top taps, and the step down impedance by the selection
of the mid taps. At the tuned frequencies, the coax is MATCHED and not
subject to the worrisome (and accurate) loss graph on the VK1OD site.

With a DPDT relay to select top and mid taps, AND with "dense" on/in-ground
radials, this becomes an elegantly simple and efficient short antenna for a
somewhat narrow single band of frequencies on 80 and 160. The efficiency
WILL go down as you move away from the tuned frequencies, and if your
operating habits cover all of 3.5-4 and 1.8-2, you should invest in the auto
tuner at the base and resign yourself to not running 1500 watts, unless you
have the smackers to invest in one of those military KW CCS matchers.

Phil's solution WILL handle 1500 watts at the selected 80/160 tuned
frequencies. And the T400-A2
will not be smoked.

73, Guy.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Paul Christensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In addition to AD5X's excellent work, anyone considering installation of a
> 43' vertical should first read Owen Duffy's (VK1OD) well-researched
> information, especially his information concerning feed-point alternatives:
>
> http://vk1od.net/antenna/multibandunloadedvertical/index.htm
>
> One reason for the 43' vertical's popularity is that typical radiation
> resistance is better than 100 ohms on 40m-10m -- but falls to less than 10
> ohms on 80m and much lower on 160m. On 160m/80m, system losses typically
> drop nearly in half with an ATU placed at the base feed when compared to a
> 4:1 current balun feed with ATU at the transmitter.
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Julius Fazekas n2wn" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 & S9 43' Vertical
>
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Check out Phil's, AD5X, site: http://www.ad5x.com/articles.htm
> >
> > He has written a number of articles related to your questions. Good
> > information with plenty of "how to" ideas with locally found materials.
> >
> > Elecraft's Balun kit is also capable of 1:4 unun and will easily work
> with
> > any 100 watt rig.
> >
> > QST has had several items related to the ubiquitous 43' verticals that
> are
> > all the rage now. I see at least one person has mentioned radials, which
> > are
> > a must have to effectively use this antenna on 80-30.
> >
> > The K3's ATU is very effective, but keep in mind that you will be
> matching
> > the feedline and antenna as a unit, versus matching just the antenna. The
> > K3
> > will most likely find a match most of the time, but you still could be
> > seriously mismatched at the antenna. It may work, it just won't work
> well.
> >
> > GL es 73,
> > Julius
> >
> > -----
> > Julius Fazekas
> > N2WN
> >
> > Tennessee Contest Group
> > http://www.k4ro.net/tcg/index.html
> >
> > Tennessee QSO Party
> > http://www.tnqp.org/
> >
> > Elecraft K2 #4455
> > Elecraft K3/100 #366
> > Elecraft K3/100 #1875
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-S9-43-Vertical-tp6193993p6197137.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
>

george fritkin

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by NZ0T

When I was going to engineering school one of the toughest courses was wave theory. The course included a lot of antenna studies. Not to brag, but I got the highest grade on the final. It was 45. That was the highest mark in the class and thank goodness the course was graded on a curve. I asked the professor if anyone ever received a passing grade not using grade curving. His response was.....I have been teaching the class for 10 years and nobody ever got as high as 70.
My point is that antenna theory is a complicated study and the study of vertical antenna theory is more complex since we have the ground as an important factor in most cases.
So I caution anyone to do your research and do not listen to "old wive's tales" about specific antenna installations.
73deGeorge, W6GFProduct owner of a ZEROFIVE 43 footer

--- On Tue, 3/22/11, NZ0T <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: NZ0T <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 & S9 43' Vertical
To:
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 8:41 AM

I have an S9 43' vertical. You will need the unun to match 60 meters and up.
The 80M coil works well too. I ended up building the matchbox that Phil
AD5X designed. You can see his article here:

http://www.ad5x.com/images/Articles/Match160.pdf

Phil also has a nice presentation on the 43' antenna here:

http://www.ad5x.com/images/Presentations/Vertical43.pdf

It's a great antenna if matched properly. It must be matched at the base
with a remote tuner, an unun, or coil to work properly. The unun (on 60M
and up) keeps the SWR down to manageable levels that you can match with a
tuner in the shack with acceptable coax losses. The SWR gets out of hand
below 60M and must be matched at the base.

73 Bill nz0t

--
View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/K3-S9-43-Vertical-tp6193993p6196827.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

Tony Estep

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by k0wa@swbell.net

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Lee Buller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...went to 32 radials. Now, I am working worldwide with the lump of
> aluminum which cost me $14.00....

My clubmate NI0C who appears sometimes on this reflector is on the Honor
Roll, has 5 band DXCC, and is 2 zones away from 5BWAZ with an antenna like
yours. Verticals have a bad rep but can deliver the goods if set up right.

Tony KT0NY
______________________________________________________________
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

Guy, K2AV

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

The thimble summary of effective verticals comes with two major avoidances,

1) the greater possible major loss, don't use a sparse or miscellaneous
ground.
2) the lesser possible major loss, don't run mismatches across coax.
3) don't let the antenna use the coax shield as a radial.
4) don't couple miscellaneous metal in the vicinity.

If you do modeling, please be aware that the pro's know that all modeling
programs on the planet terribly underestimate ground losses. Dirt is
dastardly devilish to model, the data you need to drive literal computation
is about impossible to gather, and therefore ALL model's ground
specifications are SWAG methods designed to predict ground measured field
strength at the like of commercial stations using FCC specified superdense
(120 times 0.4 wavelength) radial systems. They WILL NOT predict how
desperately bad your ground system can be.

People who go FCC dense in the ground never have to fool around with these
considerations. My favorite dense radial system was the row of copper roofs
at Ashmeade Place in Washington DC. Multiband vertical was gangbusters
there.

You can lose up to 15 db in the dirt with all-too-common throwdown radials.

FIRST, design the best ground you can attempt, take the ugly muddy clothes
route to do it, and DON'T cut corners. FORGET cheep. FORGET easy. Spend the
money and time on the radials. Poor radial system is THE MAJOR source of
loss for a vertical. You can spend big money for a base auto-matcher to
give you a great SWR into a dummy load.

If you CAN'T do radials right, DON'T do grounded verticals. As simple as
that.

Match it at the base. REQUIRED when the efficient feed Z is not suitable
for coax.

A friend of mine was overjoyed when his 25' aluminum multiband vertical on
80 meters (brand does not matter here), with the coax connected to the
vertical and the shield to two bare copper wires shoved down into the sod,
came back to him with a 1.1:1 SWR at the end of 80 feet of RG58. It was of
course the only thing he could measure about his antenna. It was a dummy
load.

The plaintive question later, shouldn't it work if the SWR is good? Kind of
mean, but I brought over a Heathkit Cantenna. He got the point. He "didn't
have the time" to put down the radials that I had advised.

An end-fed 130' wire on 80m with a simple matching circuit AT THE BASE of
the wire vaulted him into the land of good signals. Same two wires as
"ground". 2000 ohm antenna in series with a 50 ohm ground is efficient. A
three ohm antenna in series with a 50 ohm ground is a dummy load.

This one ain't ever gonna be about your fine K3.

73, Guy.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Tony Estep <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Lee Buller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > ...went to 32 radials. Now, I am working worldwide with the lump of
> > aluminum which cost me $14.00....
>
>
> My clubmate NI0C who appears sometimes on this reflector is on the Honor
> Roll, has 5 band DXCC, and is 2 zones away from 5BWAZ with an antenna like
> yours. Verticals have a bad rep but can deliver the goods if set up right.
>
> Tony KT0NY
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Mel

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

Well said Guy,

I have always used two approaches to verticals. Either FCC equivalent radials
or above ground radials. Nothing else works "well". 'Nuf said.

Mel, K6KBE

________________________________
From: Guy Olinger K2AV <[hidden email]>
To: Tony Estep <[hidden email]>
Cc: Elecraft Reflector <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 9:01:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 & S9 43' Vertical

The thimble summary of effective verticals comes with two major avoidances,

1) the greater possible major loss, don't use a sparse or miscellaneous
ground.
2) the lesser possible major loss, don't run mismatches across coax.
3) don't let the antenna use the coax shield as a radial.
4) don't couple miscellaneous metal in the vicinity.

If you do modeling, please be aware that the pro's know that all modeling
programs on the planet terribly underestimate ground losses. Dirt is
dastardly devilish to model, the data you need to drive literal computation
is about impossible to gather, and therefore ALL model's ground
specifications are SWAG methods designed to predict ground measured field
strength at the like of commercial stations using FCC specified superdense
(120 times 0.4 wavelength) radial systems. They WILL NOT predict how
desperately bad your ground system can be.

People who go FCC dense in the ground never have to fool around with these
considerations. My favorite dense radial system was the row of copper roofs
at Ashmeade Place in Washington DC. Multiband vertical was gangbusters
there.

You can lose up to 15 db in the dirt with all-too-common throwdown radials.

FIRST, design the best ground you can attempt, take the ugly muddy clothes
route to do it, and DON'T cut corners. FORGET cheep. FORGET easy. Spend the
money and time on the radials. Poor radial system is THE MAJOR source of
loss for a vertical. You can spend big money for a base auto-matcher to
give you a great SWR into a dummy load.

If you CAN'T do radials right, DON'T do grounded verticals. As simple as
that.

Match it at the base. REQUIRED when the efficient feed Z is not suitable
for coax.

A friend of mine was overjoyed when his 25' aluminum multiband vertical on
80 meters (brand does not matter here), with the coax connected to the
vertical and the shield to two bare copper wires shoved down into the sod,
came back to him with a 1.1:1 SWR at the end of 80 feet of RG58. It was of
course the only thing he could measure about his antenna. It was a dummy
load.

The plaintive question later, shouldn't it work if the SWR is good? Kind of
mean, but I brought over a HeathkitCantenna. He got the point. He "didn't
have the time" to put down the radials that I had advised.

An end-fed 130' wire on 80m with a simple matching circuit AT THE BASE of
the wire vaulted him into the land of good signals. Same two wires as
"ground". 2000 ohm antenna in series with a 50 ohm ground is efficient. A
three ohm antenna in series with a 50 ohm ground is a dummy load.

This one ain't ever gonna be about your fine K3.

73, Guy.

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Tony Estep <[hidden email]> wrote:

______________________________________________________________
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

Phil Salas

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

"If you CAN'T do radials right, DON'T do grounded verticals. As simple as
that."

I disagree. Licensed in 1964 at 15, I operated with a 4BTV through high school and college with just a ground rod. I didn't know any better, but had lots of fun - even with a Knightkit T60 transmitter. Was it efficient? Nope. But I sure enjoyed the hobby during that time. Of course, I later learned that I could have had even MORE fun if I'd had radials.

Phil - AD5X

______________________________________________________________
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

k6rb

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

My first vertical was a 12 foot length of army tank whip (4, 3-foot
sections) u-bolted to a 12 foot length of 2x2 pine, attached to the side
of an enclosed patio in my backyard. The radials were four, 1/4-wave for
15 m wires at what was supposed to be 90 degrees to apart. It was fed with
50 feet of RG-59U and driven by a Viking Adventurer. So, with about 25
watts out, and the benefit of Cycle 19, K2UMU worked all over EU on 15m
CW. I agree with Phil - we can't always be "purists," especially when one
is 11 years old and in 7th grade.

Rob K6RB

> "If you CAN'T do radials right, DON'T do grounded verticals. As simple as
> that."
>
> I disagree. Licensed in 1964 at 15, I operated with a 4BTV through high
> school and college with just a ground rod. I didn't know any better, but
> had lots of fun - even with a Knightkit T60 transmitter. Was it
> efficient? Nope. But I sure enjoyed the hobby during that time. Of
> course, I later learned that I could have had even MORE fun if I'd had
> radials.
>
> Phil - AD5X
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

george fritkin

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by Phil Salas

I have a 43 footer, My ground system is as follows : a coper ring around base with 4 8 foot ground rods and then 16 50 foot radials. Comparing to 80 meter dipole same power, propagation causes more reading differences than the antennas. It is very important to use the correct system for your particular location
George, W6GF

--- On Wed, 3/23/11, Phil & Debbie Salas <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Phil & Debbie Salas <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 & S9 43' Vertical
To: [hidden email]
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 9:25 AM

"If you CAN'T do radials right, DON'T do grounded verticals. As simple as
that."

I disagree. Licensed in 1964 at 15, I operated with a 4BTV through high school and college with just a ground rod. I didn't know any better, but had lots of fun - even with a Knightkit T60 transmitter. Was it efficient? Nope. But I sure enjoyed the hobby during that time. Of course, I later learned that I could have had even MORE fun if I'd had radials.

Phil - AD5X

______________________________________________________________
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

P.B. Christensen

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by Guy, K2AV

> If you do modeling, please be aware that the pro's know that all modeling
> programs on the planet terribly underestimate ground losses.

Another trap to avoid is thinking that (all other things being equal), more
radials on a vertical will somehow result in better low-angle radiation.
Well, it does, but only to the extent that the radials are also improving
the entire vertical field strength profile through a minimization of ground
loss. The radials are not improving low angle radiation independently
without improving overall radiation efficiency.

Medium and far-field ground conductivity rules when wanting efficient
low-angle radiation from a vertical (or vertical dipole) at angles lower
than about ten degrees above the horizon. The mid to far field conductivity
and geography also applies to horizontal antennas atop a tower, for example.
The best real-world example I've ever seen of this is W4ZV's study of the
W3CRA site. A few pictures and graphs are worth ten thousand words.

Same general rules apply to 160m/80m four-square arrays. It's just that to
get directivity and low-angles from a horizontal antenna up in the air on
those bands requires some pretty darn tall mounting structures (especially
160m) that are beyond the capabilities of most station owners. So,
four-squares on the lower bands offer a good compromise.

I've lived with verticals for the last fifteen years and it's only been the
last two years that I've had a horizontal wire antenna up for operation on
80m-10m. Unless there's no way of getting wire up in the air -- or unless I
were immediately adjacent to salt water, an all-band vertical would be an
antenna of last choice for me (perhaps small loops would be dead last!).
I've also come to this conclusion for my own operating if I've got just one
all-band (80m-10m) antenna: (1) Flat top dipole at 0.15 - 0.20 wavelength
high on 80m; (2) Open feeders; (3) and Remote ATU. Justification: On 80M,
I'm mostly interested in regional 75m contacts and DX to a much lesser
extent. On 40m-10m, my interest in lower angles increases as frequency
increases. On 40m and above this is pretty much satisfied. Open feeder
length chosen so that the ATU sees a reasonable (under 1K Z, but more than
25 ohms on all bands, all operating frequencies), high-quality open feeder
spacers to minimize ATU changes and line loss with precipitation.

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

Vic K2VCO

Re: K3 & S9 43' Vertical

In reply to this post by Phil Salas

Phil, QRZ tells me that you live in Richardson TX, north of Dallas.

You have some of the best ground conductivity in the nation! Don't try this in most other
places.

On 3/23/2011 9:25 AM, Phil & Debbie Salas wrote:
> "If you CAN'T do radials right, DON'T do grounded verticals. As simple as that."
>
> I disagree. Licensed in 1964 at 15, I operated with a 4BTV through high school and
> college with just a ground rod. I didn't know any better, but had lots of fun - even
> with a Knightkit T60 transmitter. Was it efficient? Nope. But I sure enjoyed the
> hobby during that time. Of course, I later learned that I could have had even MORE fun
> if I'd had radials.
>
> Phil - AD5X

--
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