Elecraft › [K3]

K3 not recieving

Classic

List

Threaded

36 messages Options

Bob Naumann W5OV

Re: K3 not recieving

None of these old wive's tales are true.

The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.

The balun was chosen originally because the 43' vertical was originally
planned to have one or two elevated radials only (making it balanced), and
it would load fine with a balun.

The problems came to be when full-blown radial systems were attached and
station grounds were connected to the radials, which again, were
originally intended to be elevated - i.e.; not grounded. What this did was
to short one side of the output of the balun to ground. So, when you
ground the radials, an UN-UN is preferable and works very well.

I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems at
the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.

I use it on all bands - 160 through 10m. Check out the ZL8X online log
with my call to see how well it works.

73,

Bob W5OV

> I've heard quite a few people use balun, when they meant impedence
> transformer or unun.
>
> I heard somewhere (and the tapes have been erased) that the 43' length
> came about
> because it was the most economical length for a manufacturer to cut stock
> with the
> least waste to meet shipping limitations.
>
> 73, Mike NF4L
>
> On 3/8/2011 5:29 PM, David Herring wrote:
>> Here's a follow-on question to the reflector...
>>
>> Vernon's set-up brings a question to mind. He says he's using a 4:1
>> balun on his vertical. At first brush that seems counterintuitive,
>> doesn't it? Isn't a vertical unbalanced? Certainly the coax is
>> unbalanced. When you're mating an unbalanced feedline with an
>> unbalanced antenna, wouldn't one be better off using an unun rather than
>> a 4:1 balun?
>>
>> In further support of my line of questioning, I've read numerous, albeit
>> anecdotal, reports of people being displeased with the performance of
>> their vertical, particularly the untuned ones like Zero-Five for
>> example. But when they add an unun they are then amazed at how the
>> antenna allegedly "sprung to life."
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave AH6TD
>>
>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. I can see the S-meter go from 3-4 down with static down to
>>> nothing with quieter static. My best guess is that I am not trying
>>> the right times at the right places.
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone for the help.
>>>
>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ross Primrose N4RP<[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Does the received noise decrease when you disconnect the antenna?
>>>>
>>>> 73, Ross N4RP
>>>>
>>>> On 3/8/2011 1:06 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>>> At the risk of exposing what a n00b I am when it comes to HF, I
>>>>> really
>>>>> need some help. I recently (last month) purchased a K3. First HF
>>>>> radio I have owned. I got my license 2 years ago and have spent most
>>>>> of the time since playing with VHF. I have been trying to teach
>>>>> myself CW and decided that it was time to step into the HF waters. I
>>>>> studied, ogled, and dreamed of my ideal HF transceiver. I finally
>>>>> found the K3 and having looked (at least a cursory glance) at all the
>>>>> others, I was sold. I saved my pennies and purchased. I also got
>>>>> myself a 43' untuned vertical antenna, balun, and radial wires.
>>>>>
>>>>> My setup: K3/100 has 100 feet of low loss 400 coax out to the 43 foot
>>>>> vertical on the hill in my back yard. It has 8 25 foot radials and a
>>>>> 4:1 balun. The K3 has the KATU3, KPA3, KTCXO3-1, KFL3A-400, and
>>>>> default 2.8KHz filters. I assembled it and did followed the
>>>>> calibration instructions as well as I could. I think I got
>>>>> everything, but obviously I missed something. Or maybe I just need
>>>>> an
>>>>> elmer to tell me what to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot seem to find any signals that make the S meter go above a 3
>>>>> or 4. I have the RF gain turned up a fair ways (mostly to the top),
>>>>> and I can hear static. As I tune up some of the bands on SSB, I can
>>>>> hear a tone that changes higher in pitch as I tune up in frequency.
>>>>> I
>>>>> have tried listening for CW, but I am hearing nothing as I scan
>>>>> through the bands. I had a 10m horizontal dipole taped to my wall
>>>>> for
>>>>> a while until I found time to run the coax out to the back yard. I
>>>>> had hoped that since it was resonant on the 10m band, maybe it would
>>>>> be able to pick up something, but it was no better (or worse) than my
>>>>> vertical.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can tell, the radio seems to transmit. I can see the
>>>>> power meter moving and the SWR meter moving. The ATU seems to be
>>>>> able
>>>>> to find acceptable settings on most of the bands with the vertical.
>>>>> But I can't hear them. You can't work them if you can't hear them,
>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a desperate plea for help. Is it the radio or me? Please
>>>>> have pity on the n00b and walk me through my first HF contact.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> FCC Section 97.313(a) At all times, an amateur station must use the
>>>> minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired
>>>> communications.
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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: K3 not recieving

In reply to this post by AC7AC

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 not recieving

In reply to this post by Bob Naumann W5OV

> The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.

No, 43' is 5/8 wave on 20 meters (984/14.3*0.625 == 43). That is
the point (well, 0.64 wave if you want to be precise) that the
first lobe has maximum radiation in a vertical. That the 43' or
or 44' vertical happens to be generally non-resonant in all of the
HF bands is fortuitous but not necessarily by design.

> I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems
> at the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.

Without base matching and a decent ground system, the 43' vertical is
terribly inefficient on 160 and 80 meters (substantially less than
1/4 wave and extremely reactive) due to very high SWR losses in any
practical feedline (using coax) length.

One would be much better served to use two radiators, one longer than
43' (perhaps 85 feet) for improved efficiency on 160/80 and one shorter
(perhaps 25 feet) to reduce the substantial amount of RF that is lost
at take-off angles above the critical angle on 15/12/10 meters, along
with an automatic tuner at the base of the antenna.

An untuned (un-un fed) 43' vertical is the 21st century equivalent
of an Isoloop or Gotham vertical ... nothing but snake oil designed
to fool the unwary, those who don't understand electromagnetics, and
those who believe in something for nothing.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 3/8/2011 6:47 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> None of these old wive's tales are true.
>
> The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.
>
> The balun was chosen originally because the 43' vertical was originally
> planned to have one or two elevated radials only (making it balanced), and
> it would load fine with a balun.
>
> The problems came to be when full-blown radial systems were attached and
> station grounds were connected to the radials, which again, were
> originally intended to be elevated - i.e.; not grounded. What this did was
> to short one side of the output of the balun to ground. So, when you
> ground the radials, an UN-UN is preferable and works very well.
>
> I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems at
> the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.
>
> I use it on all bands - 160 through 10m. Check out the ZL8X online log
> with my call to see how well it works.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>> I've heard quite a few people use balun, when they meant impedence
>> transformer or unun.
>>
>> I heard somewhere (and the tapes have been erased) that the 43' length
>> came about
>> because it was the most economical length for a manufacturer to cut stock
>> with the
>> least waste to meet shipping limitations.
>>
>> 73, Mike NF4L
>>
>> On 3/8/2011 5:29 PM, David Herring wrote:
>>> Here's a follow-on question to the reflector...
>>>
>>> Vernon's set-up brings a question to mind. He says he's using a 4:1
>>> balun on his vertical. At first brush that seems counterintuitive,
>>> doesn't it? Isn't a vertical unbalanced? Certainly the coax is
>>> unbalanced. When you're mating an unbalanced feedline with an
>>> unbalanced antenna, wouldn't one be better off using an unun rather than
>>> a 4:1 balun?
>>>
>>> In further support of my line of questioning, I've read numerous, albeit
>>> anecdotal, reports of people being displeased with the performance of
>>> their vertical, particularly the untuned ones like Zero-Five for
>>> example. But when they add an unun they are then amazed at how the
>>> antenna allegedly "sprung to life."
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Dave AH6TD
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. I can see the S-meter go from 3-4 down with static down to
>>>> nothing with quieter static. My best guess is that I am not trying
>>>> the right times at the right places.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone for the help.
>>>>
>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ross Primrose N4RP<[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Does the received noise decrease when you disconnect the antenna?
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, Ross N4RP
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/8/2011 1:06 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>>>> At the risk of exposing what a n00b I am when it comes to HF, I
>>>>>> really
>>>>>> need some help. I recently (last month) purchased a K3. First HF
>>>>>> radio I have owned. I got my license 2 years ago and have spent most
>>>>>> of the time since playing with VHF. I have been trying to teach
>>>>>> myself CW and decided that it was time to step into the HF waters. I
>>>>>> studied, ogled, and dreamed of my ideal HF transceiver. I finally
>>>>>> found the K3 and having looked (at least a cursory glance) at all the
>>>>>> others, I was sold. I saved my pennies and purchased. I also got
>>>>>> myself a 43' untuned vertical antenna, balun, and radial wires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My setup: K3/100 has 100 feet of low loss 400 coax out to the 43 foot
>>>>>> vertical on the hill in my back yard. It has 8 25 foot radials and a
>>>>>> 4:1 balun. The K3 has the KATU3, KPA3, KTCXO3-1, KFL3A-400, and
>>>>>> default 2.8KHz filters. I assembled it and did followed the
>>>>>> calibration instructions as well as I could. I think I got
>>>>>> everything, but obviously I missed something. Or maybe I just need
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> elmer to tell me what to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot seem to find any signals that make the S meter go above a 3
>>>>>> or 4. I have the RF gain turned up a fair ways (mostly to the top),
>>>>>> and I can hear static. As I tune up some of the bands on SSB, I can
>>>>>> hear a tone that changes higher in pitch as I tune up in frequency.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> have tried listening for CW, but I am hearing nothing as I scan
>>>>>> through the bands. I had a 10m horizontal dipole taped to my wall
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a while until I found time to run the coax out to the back yard. I
>>>>>> had hoped that since it was resonant on the 10m band, maybe it would
>>>>>> be able to pick up something, but it was no better (or worse) than my
>>>>>> vertical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the radio seems to transmit. I can see the
>>>>>> power meter moving and the SWR meter moving. The ATU seems to be
>>>>>> able
>>>>>> to find acceptable settings on most of the bands with the vertical.
>>>>>> But I can't hear them. You can't work them if you can't hear them,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a desperate plea for help. Is it the radio or me? Please
>>>>>> have pity on the n00b and walk me through my first HF contact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> FCC Section 97.313(a) “At all times, an amateur station must use the
>>>>> minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired
>>>>> communications.”
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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
>

Bob Naumann W5OV

Re: K3 not recieving

Joe,

My 43' antenna works very well on 160 and 80 as I have reported. In fact,
it works so well that those DX stations that I work with it are amazed -
quite frankly so am I.

Sorry, but your opinion is just that.

73,

Bob W5OV

>
> > The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.
>
> No, 43' is 5/8 wave on 20 meters (984/14.3*0.625 == 43). That is
> the point (well, 0.64 wave if you want to be precise) that the
> first lobe has maximum radiation in a vertical. That the 43' or
> or 44' vertical happens to be generally non-resonant in all of the
> HF bands is fortuitous but not necessarily by design.
>
>> I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems
>> at the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.
>
> Without base matching and a decent ground system, the 43' vertical is
> terribly inefficient on 160 and 80 meters (substantially less than
> 1/4 wave and extremely reactive) due to very high SWR losses in any
> practical feedline (using coax) length.
>
> One would be much better served to use two radiators, one longer than
> 43' (perhaps 85 feet) for improved efficiency on 160/80 and one shorter
> (perhaps 25 feet) to reduce the substantial amount of RF that is lost
> at take-off angles above the critical angle on 15/12/10 meters, along
> with an automatic tuner at the base of the antenna.
>
> An untuned (un-un fed) 43' vertical is the 21st century equivalent
> of an Isoloop or Gotham vertical ... nothing but snake oil designed
> to fool the unwary, those who don't understand electromagnetics, and
> those who believe in something for nothing.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
> On 3/8/2011 6:47 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> None of these old wive's tales are true.
>>
>> The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.
>>
>> The balun was chosen originally because the 43' vertical was originally
>> planned to have one or two elevated radials only (making it balanced),
>> and
>> it would load fine with a balun.
>>
>> The problems came to be when full-blown radial systems were attached and
>> station grounds were connected to the radials, which again, were
>> originally intended to be elevated - i.e.; not grounded. What this did
>> was
>> to short one side of the output of the balun to ground. So, when you
>> ground the radials, an UN-UN is preferable and works very well.
>>
>> I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems at
>> the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.
>>
>> I use it on all bands - 160 through 10m. Check out the ZL8X online log
>> with my call to see how well it works.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Bob W5OV
>>
>>
>>
>>> I've heard quite a few people use balun, when they meant impedence
>>> transformer or unun.
>>>
>>> I heard somewhere (and the tapes have been erased) that the 43' length
>>> came about
>>> because it was the most economical length for a manufacturer to cut
>>> stock
>>> with the
>>> least waste to meet shipping limitations.
>>>
>>> 73, Mike NF4L
>>>
>>> On 3/8/2011 5:29 PM, David Herring wrote:
>>>> Here's a follow-on question to the reflector...
>>>>
>>>> Vernon's set-up brings a question to mind. He says he's using a 4:1
>>>> balun on his vertical. At first brush that seems counterintuitive,
>>>> doesn't it? Isn't a vertical unbalanced? Certainly the coax is
>>>> unbalanced. When you're mating an unbalanced feedline with an
>>>> unbalanced antenna, wouldn't one be better off using an unun rather
>>>> than
>>>> a 4:1 balun?
>>>>
>>>> In further support of my line of questioning, I've read numerous,
>>>> albeit
>>>> anecdotal, reports of people being displeased with the performance of
>>>> their vertical, particularly the untuned ones like Zero-Five for
>>>> example. But when they add an unun they are then amazed at how the
>>>> antenna allegedly "sprung to life."
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> Dave AH6TD
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I can see the S-meter go from 3-4 down with static down to
>>>>> nothing with quieter static. My best guess is that I am not trying
>>>>> the right times at the right places.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to everyone for the help.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ross Primrose N4RP<[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Does the received noise decrease when you disconnect the antenna?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73, Ross N4RP
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/8/2011 1:06 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>>>>> At the risk of exposing what a n00b I am when it comes to HF, I
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> need some help. I recently (last month) purchased a K3. First HF
>>>>>>> radio I have owned. I got my license 2 years ago and have spent
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> of the time since playing with VHF. I have been trying to teach
>>>>>>> myself CW and decided that it was time to step into the HF waters.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> studied, ogled, and dreamed of my ideal HF transceiver. I finally
>>>>>>> found the K3 and having looked (at least a cursory glance) at all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> others, I was sold. I saved my pennies and purchased. I also got
>>>>>>> myself a 43' untuned vertical antenna, balun, and radial wires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My setup: K3/100 has 100 feet of low loss 400 coax out to the 43
>>>>>>> foot
>>>>>>> vertical on the hill in my back yard. It has 8 25 foot radials and
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> 4:1 balun. The K3 has the KATU3, KPA3, KTCXO3-1, KFL3A-400, and
>>>>>>> default 2.8KHz filters. I assembled it and did followed the
>>>>>>> calibration instructions as well as I could. I think I got
>>>>>>> everything, but obviously I missed something. Or maybe I just need
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> elmer to tell me what to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I cannot seem to find any signals that make the S meter go above a
>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>> or 4. I have the RF gain turned up a fair ways (mostly to the
>>>>>>> top),
>>>>>>> and I can hear static. As I tune up some of the bands on SSB, I
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> hear a tone that changes higher in pitch as I tune up in frequency.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> have tried listening for CW, but I am hearing nothing as I scan
>>>>>>> through the bands. I had a 10m horizontal dipole taped to my wall
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a while until I found time to run the coax out to the back yard. I
>>>>>>> had hoped that since it was resonant on the 10m band, maybe it
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be able to pick up something, but it was no better (or worse) than
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> vertical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the radio seems to transmit. I can see the
>>>>>>> power meter moving and the SWR meter moving. The ATU seems to be
>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>> to find acceptable settings on most of the bands with the vertical.
>>>>>>> But I can't hear them. You can't work them if you can't hear them,
>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a desperate plea for help. Is it the radio or me? Please
>>>>>>> have pity on the n00b and walk me through my first HF contact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> FCC Section 97.313(a) At all times, an amateur station must use the
>>>>>> minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired
>>>>>> communications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 not recieving

> Sorry, but your opinion is just that.

I said "without base matching" - that's what the AD5X "modifications"
are - base matching. Base matching eliminates the easy "use anywhere"
without and external tuner capability that is one of the "selling
points" of the 43 foot vertical.

My comments are not my opinion ... they are supported by several well
researched and documented studies of the 43 foot vertical - all of
which can be found on-line. Studies show more than 15 dB feedline
loss on 160 meters and more than 6 dB on 80 meters when the antenna
is unmatched. Similarly, basic modeling (also documented in the
on-line studies) shows take off angles of 40 degrees on 15 meters
and 55 degrees on 10 meters - both of which are far too high to
generally be useful.

Of course, facts and science have never been able to stand in the way
of marketing hype.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 3/9/2011 5:07 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Joe,
>
> My 43' antenna works very well on 160 and 80 as I have reported. In fact,
> it works so well that those DX stations that I work with it are amazed -
> quite frankly so am I.
>
> Sorry, but your opinion is just that.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>>
>> > The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.
>>
>> No, 43' is 5/8 wave on 20 meters (984/14.3*0.625 == 43). That is
>> the point (well, 0.64 wave if you want to be precise) that the
>> first lobe has maximum radiation in a vertical. That the 43' or
>> or 44' vertical happens to be generally non-resonant in all of the
>> HF bands is fortuitous but not necessarily by design.
>>
>>> I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems
>>> at the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.
>>
>> Without base matching and a decent ground system, the 43' vertical is
>> terribly inefficient on 160 and 80 meters (substantially less than
>> 1/4 wave and extremely reactive) due to very high SWR losses in any
>> practical feedline (using coax) length.
>>
>> One would be much better served to use two radiators, one longer than
>> 43' (perhaps 85 feet) for improved efficiency on 160/80 and one shorter
>> (perhaps 25 feet) to reduce the substantial amount of RF that is lost
>> at take-off angles above the critical angle on 15/12/10 meters, along
>> with an automatic tuner at the base of the antenna.
>>
>> An untuned (un-un fed) 43' vertical is the 21st century equivalent
>> of an Isoloop or Gotham vertical ... nothing but snake oil designed
>> to fool the unwary, those who don't understand electromagnetics, and
>> those who believe in something for nothing.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> ... Joe, W4TV
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/2011 6:47 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> None of these old wive's tales are true.
>>>
>>> The 43' length is a convenient non-resonant length - nothing else.
>>>
>>> The balun was chosen originally because the 43' vertical was originally
>>> planned to have one or two elevated radials only (making it balanced),
>>> and
>>> it would load fine with a balun.
>>>
>>> The problems came to be when full-blown radial systems were attached and
>>> station grounds were connected to the radials, which again, were
>>> originally intended to be elevated - i.e.; not grounded. What this did
>>> was
>>> to short one side of the output of the balun to ground. So, when you
>>> ground the radials, an UN-UN is preferable and works very well.
>>>
>>> I have a 43' vertical with one of AD5X's 160 and 80 matching systems at
>>> the base fed with an UN-UN and it works great.
>>>
>>> I use it on all bands - 160 through 10m. Check out the ZL8X online log
>>> with my call to see how well it works.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Bob W5OV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've heard quite a few people use balun, when they meant impedence
>>>> transformer or unun.
>>>>
>>>> I heard somewhere (and the tapes have been erased) that the 43' length
>>>> came about
>>>> because it was the most economical length for a manufacturer to cut
>>>> stock
>>>> with the
>>>> least waste to meet shipping limitations.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Mike NF4L
>>>>
>>>> On 3/8/2011 5:29 PM, David Herring wrote:
>>>>> Here's a follow-on question to the reflector...
>>>>>
>>>>> Vernon's set-up brings a question to mind. He says he's using a 4:1
>>>>> balun on his vertical. At first brush that seems counterintuitive,
>>>>> doesn't it? Isn't a vertical unbalanced? Certainly the coax is
>>>>> unbalanced. When you're mating an unbalanced feedline with an
>>>>> unbalanced antenna, wouldn't one be better off using an unun rather
>>>>> than
>>>>> a 4:1 balun?
>>>>>
>>>>> In further support of my line of questioning, I've read numerous,
>>>>> albeit
>>>>> anecdotal, reports of people being displeased with the performance of
>>>>> their vertical, particularly the untuned ones like Zero-Five for
>>>>> example. But when they add an unun they are then amazed at how the
>>>>> antenna allegedly "sprung to life."
>>>>>
>>>>> 73,
>>>>> Dave AH6TD
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I can see the S-meter go from 3-4 down with static down to
>>>>>> nothing with quieter static. My best guess is that I am not trying
>>>>>> the right times at the right places.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to everyone for the help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ross Primrose N4RP<[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Does the received noise decrease when you disconnect the antenna?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 73, Ross N4RP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2011 1:06 AM, Vernon Mauery wrote:
>>>>>>>> At the risk of exposing what a n00b I am when it comes to HF, I
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> need some help. I recently (last month) purchased a K3. First HF
>>>>>>>> radio I have owned. I got my license 2 years ago and have spent
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> of the time since playing with VHF. I have been trying to teach
>>>>>>>> myself CW and decided that it was time to step into the HF waters.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> studied, ogled, and dreamed of my ideal HF transceiver. I finally
>>>>>>>> found the K3 and having looked (at least a cursory glance) at all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> others, I was sold. I saved my pennies and purchased. I also got
>>>>>>>> myself a 43' untuned vertical antenna, balun, and radial wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My setup: K3/100 has 100 feet of low loss 400 coax out to the 43
>>>>>>>> foot
>>>>>>>> vertical on the hill in my back yard. It has 8 25 foot radials and
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> 4:1 balun. The K3 has the KATU3, KPA3, KTCXO3-1, KFL3A-400, and
>>>>>>>> default 2.8KHz filters. I assembled it and did followed the
>>>>>>>> calibration instructions as well as I could. I think I got
>>>>>>>> everything, but obviously I missed something. Or maybe I just need
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> elmer to tell me what to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I cannot seem to find any signals that make the S meter go above a
>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>> or 4. I have the RF gain turned up a fair ways (mostly to the
>>>>>>>> top),
>>>>>>>> and I can hear static. As I tune up some of the bands on SSB, I
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> hear a tone that changes higher in pitch as I tune up in frequency.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> have tried listening for CW, but I am hearing nothing as I scan
>>>>>>>> through the bands. I had a 10m horizontal dipole taped to my wall
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> a while until I found time to run the coax out to the back yard. I
>>>>>>>> had hoped that since it was resonant on the 10m band, maybe it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be able to pick up something, but it was no better (or worse) than
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> vertical.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, the radio seems to transmit. I can see the
>>>>>>>> power meter moving and the SWR meter moving. The ATU seems to be
>>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>> to find acceptable settings on most of the bands with the vertical.
>>>>>>>> But I can't hear them. You can't work them if you can't hear them,
>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a desperate plea for help. Is it the radio or me? Please
>>>>>>>> have pity on the n00b and walk me through my first HF contact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Vernon N7OH
>>>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> FCC Section 97.313(a) “At all times, an amateur station must use the
>>>>>>> minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired
>>>>>>> communications.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
>
>

N5GE

Re: K3 not recieving

First a comment regarding the thread:

It's interesting how a request for help with a receiver not receiving
can turn into a discussion of 43 foot verticals and antennas.

After 35 years in the hobby it amazes me how many amateurs believe
that a non-resonant antenna can be as efficient as a resonant one.

If you want to use a vertical antenna on 80m due to space
restrictions, go to the nearest Metal Supermarket and buy the tubing
required to make a resonant 80m vertical (about 65 feet) mount it on a
8 or ten foot wooden post from Home Depot with 4 radials to guy the
post and antenna and play radio with it. It won't be as good as
ON4UN's vertical, but you will be amazed at what it will do.

If you want to work 160m, there aren't many ways to make "GOOD"
antennas for that band without enough property.

I liked Joe's previous post mentioning "snake oil", and certainly
agree with his last paragraph in his latest post.

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:53:29 -0500, you wrote:

>I said "without base matching" - that's what the AD5X "modifications"
>are - base matching. Base matching eliminates the easy "use anywhere"
>without and external tuner capability that is one of the "selling
>points" of the 43 foot vertical.
>
>My comments are not my opinion ... they are supported by several well
>researched and documented studies of the 43 foot vertical - all of
>which can be found on-line. Studies show more than 15 dB feedline
>loss on 160 meters and more than 6 dB on 80 meters when the antenna
>is unmatched. Similarly, basic modeling (also documented in the
>on-line studies) shows take off angles of 40 degrees on 15 meters
>and 55 degrees on 10 meters - both of which are far too high to
>generally be useful.
>
>Of course, facts and science have never been able to stand in the way
>of marketing hype.
>
>73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV

Amateur Radio Operator N5GE

David Gilbert

Re: K3 not recieving

After 45 years in the hobby it amazes me how many amateurs still make
scientifically incorrect generalizations like that.

Dave AB7E

On 3/10/2011 1:03 PM, Amateur Radio Operator N5GE wrote:
>
> After 35 years in the hobby it amazes me how many amateurs believe
> that a non-resonant antenna can be as efficient as a resonant one.
______________________________________________________________
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 not recieving

In reply to this post by N5GE

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
>
> ...how many amateurs believe that a non-resonant antenna can be as
> efficient as a resonant one....
>
> Resonance does mean that there will be no reactive component at the source,
which makes feeding it easier, but does not change the ability of the
antenna to radiate.

15 minutes spent with any antenna modeling software will show that whether
or not an antenna is resonant won't change its radiation pattern or
"efficiency," whatever that may mean.

Old-time hams well remember the legendary DX feats of W6AM with his huge
farm of non-resonant rhombics, sprawling out across what is now probably the
most expensive residential land in the country.

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

Samuel Strongin

Re: K3 not recieving

Thank you for trying to educate hams who stick to old wives tales
Sam kf4yox

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Tony Estep <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
>>
>> ...how many amateurs believe that a non-resonant antenna can be as
>> efficient as a resonant one....
>>
>> Resonance does mean that there will be no reactive component at the source,
> which makes feeding it easier, but does not change the ability of the
> antenna to radiate.
>
> 15 minutes spent with any antenna modeling software will show that whether
> or not an antenna is resonant won't change its radiation pattern or
> "efficiency," whatever that may mean.
>
> Old-time hams well remember the legendary DX feats of W6AM with his huge
> farm of non-resonant rhombics, sprawling out across what is now probably the
> most expensive residential land in the country.
>
> 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

w0mu

Re: K3 not recieving

I'm unclear what this has to do with Elecraft anymore.

On 3/10/2011 2:40 PM, Samuel Strongin wrote:

> Thank you for trying to educate hams who stick to old wives tales
> Sam kf4yox
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:59 PM, Tony Estep<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
>>> ...how many amateurs believe that a non-resonant antenna can be as
>>> efficient as a resonant one....
>>>
>>> Resonance does mean that there will be no reactive component at the source,
>> which makes feeding it easier, but does not change the ability of the
>> antenna to radiate.
>>
>> 15 minutes spent with any antenna modeling software will show that whether
>> or not an antenna is resonant won't change its radiation pattern or
>> "efficiency," whatever that may mean.
>>
>> Old-time hams well remember the legendary DX feats of W6AM with his huge
>> farm of non-resonant rhombics, sprawling out across what is now probably the
>> most expensive residential land in the country.
>>
>> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 not recieving

In reply to this post by Tony Estep

Let's make it simple. How do you think a ham stick or ISTRON both "resonant"
antennas compare to a 43 foot vertical on 40 meters. It is not resonance but
efficiency

George, W6GF

________________________________
From: Tony Estep <[hidden email]>
To:Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 12:59:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 not recieving

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
>
> ...how many amateurs believe that a non-resonant antenna can be as
> efficient as a resonant one....
>
> Resonance does mean that there will be no reactive component at the source,
which makes feeding it easier, but does not change the ability of the
antenna to radiate.

15 minutes spent with any antenna modeling software will show that whether
or not an antenna is resonant won't change its radiation pattern or
"efficiency," whatever that may mean.

Old-time hams well remember the legendary DX feats of W6AM with his huge
farm of non-resonant rhombics, sprawling out across what is now probably the
most expensive residential land in the country.

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

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

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

Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy

Re: K3 not recieving

In reply to this post by w0mu

Look at it this way Mike, antenna(s) their feeders and their matching
networks are among the most important parts of any station IMHO, and their
performance will reflect on the "on-air" performance of any rig including
those produced by Elecraft.

Any discussion about antennas, feeders and matching networks on this
Reflector could well help many owners of Elecraft rigs, and in a round about
way result in an enhancement of the reputation of Elecraft itself, again
IMHO.

FWIW.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD

On March 10, 2011, at 21:43Z, Mike Fatchett W0MU wrote:

> I'm unclear what this has to do with Elecraft anymore.
>
> On 3/10/2011 2:40 PM, Samuel Strongin wrote:
>> Thank you for trying to educate hams who stick to old wives tales
>> Sam kf4yox

______________________________________________________________
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 not recieving

In reply to this post by george fritkin

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:05 PM, george fritkin <[hidden email]>wrote:

> ...How do you think a ham stick or ISTRON both "resonant"
> antennas compare to a 43 foot vertical on 40 meters....

Especially if the vertical is properly fed and has radials. One might also
mention the double-extended Zepps, log-periodics, V-beams, W8JK, and many
other popular non-resonant antennas.

As to the relevance to Elecraft, let's recall that the early of history of
our beloved manufacturer was heavily involved in catering to the needs of
QRP operators with non-resonant antennas. The Elecraft auto-tuners have
awesome range and in fact are all capable of tuning a piece of wire
connected directly to the antenna socket at the back.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

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

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: K3 not recieving

In reply to this post by george fritkin

>> How do you think a ham stick or ISTRON both "resonant" antennas
>> compare to a 43 foot vertical on 40 meters. It is not resonance
>> but efficiency

The question is how an Isotron or Hamstick over the same ground system
would compare to an unmatched/untuned 43 foot vertical on 80 and 160
meters.

It is not the efficiency of the radiator, but the efficiency of the
entire system that matters. Even the most efficient radiator will
be a dud if the system has 20 dB of loss due to high SWR on the feed
line.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

On 3/10/2011 5:05 PM, george fritkin wrote:

> Let's make it simple. How do you think a ham stick or ISTRON both "resonant"
> antennas compare to a 43 foot vertical on 40 meters. It is not resonance but
> efficiency
>
> George, W6GF
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tony Estep<[hidden email]>
> To:Sent: Thu, March 10, 2011 12:59:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 not recieving
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Amateur Radio Operator N5GE
>>
>> ...how many amateurs believe that a non-resonant antenna can be as
>> efficient as a resonant one....
>>
>> Resonance does mean that there will be no reactive component at the source,
> which makes feeding it easier, but does not change the ability of the
> antenna to radiate.
>
> 15 minutes spent with any antenna modeling software will show that whether
> or not an antenna is resonant won't change its radiation pattern or
> "efficiency," whatever that may mean.
>
> Old-time hams well remember the legendary DX feats of W6AM with his huge
> farm of non-resonant rhombics, sprawling out across what is now probably the
> most expensive residential land in the country.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

John Lemay

Re: K3 not recieving

In reply to this post by w0mu

Mike, you're right, the posting has been hijacked !

I'd be interested to know from the originator of the query whether an answer
has been found to the K3 reception issue.

John G4ZTR

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mike Fatchett W0MU
Sent: 10 March 2011 21:43
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 not recieving

I'm unclear what this has to do with Elecraft anymore.

On 3/10/2011 2:40 PM, Samuel Strongin wrote:

source,
>> which makes feeding it easier, but does not change the ability of the
>> antenna to radiate.
>>
>> 15 minutes spent with any antenna modeling software will show that
whether
>> or not an antenna is resonant won't change its radiation pattern or
>> "efficiency," whatever that may mean.
>>
>> Old-time hams well remember the legendary DX feats of W6AM with his huge
>> farm of non-resonant rhombics, sprawling out across what is now probably
the

>> most expensive residential land in the country.
>>
>> 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
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5943 (20110310) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5943 (20110310) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.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

Terry Schieler

Re: K3 not recieving

Just thinking the same thing!..................

HEY VERNON! Did you ever get your receive problem solved?

Terry, W0FM

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lemay [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 2:42 AM
To: 'Mike Fatchett W0MU'; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] K3 not recieving

Mike, you're right, the posting has been hijacked !

I'd be interested to know from the originator of the query whether an answer
has been found to the K3 reception issue.

John G4ZTR

______________________________________________________________
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