New antenna works!
Locked
 
|
I just got done bushwhacking my new antenna up. Three 1/4 wavelength
legs cut for 7100 kHz. It's working as a 1/4 wave vertical with a ground plane of the two legs. I turned on my K3 and checked 40 meters. Only W1AW currently. But the new antenna matches on 20 meters too. So I scanned around and heard N7CQR running stations at 579. I waited my turn and logged Dan as the first for the new antenna. I'm sure he is running either a KX3 or KX2. He didn't mention which. So, new antenna works Elecraft rigs just fine. Plus I knew who it was halfway through his call :) He is calling CQ SOTA on 14061.5 kHz if you need another mountain in your log. 73 & GL, Kevin. KD5ONS - ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
Nice Kevin!
I am looking forward to the Elecraft CW net that you host on Sunday to see if there is any difference. Currently I'm using a similar setup at my QTH. I really enjoy this simple but effective antenna with my Kx3 and Kxpa. Much Regards, Dwight WM5F -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of kevinr Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 5:20 PM To: Elecraft Reflector <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] New antenna works! I just got done bushwhacking my new antenna up. Three 1/4 wavelength legs cut for 7100 kHz. It's working as a 1/4 wave vertical with a ground plane of the two legs. I turned on my K3 and checked 40 meters. Only W1AW currently. But the new antenna matches on 20 meters too. So I scanned around and heard N7CQR running stations at 579. I waited my turn and logged Dan as the first for the new antenna. I'm sure he is running either a KX3 or KX2. He didn't mention which. So, new antenna works Elecraft rigs just fine. Plus I knew who it was halfway through his call :) He is calling CQ SOTA on 14061.5 kHz if you need another mountain in your log. 73 & GL, Kevin. KD5ONS - ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
With Elecraft matching units you don't need (and it can be undesirable to have) antennas made for a particular band. You make life easier for the matching unit by making your antenna non-resonant on bands you want to use. That way the unit does not have to cope with especially high voltages which are most likely to cause internal damage. Save your time, weight, money for other options.
David G3UNA > On 31 July 2020 at 04:50 [hidden email] wrote: > > > Nice Kevin! > > I am looking forward to the Elecraft CW net that you host on Sunday to see if there is any difference. > Currently I'm using a similar setup at my QTH. I really enjoy this simple but effective antenna with my Kx3 and Kxpa. > > Much Regards, > Dwight > WM5F > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of kevinr > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 5:20 PM > To: Elecraft Reflector <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] > Subject: [Elecraft] New antenna works! > > I just got done bushwhacking my new antenna up. Three 1/4 wavelength legs cut for 7100 kHz. It's working as a 1/4 wave vertical with a ground plane of the two legs. I turned on my K3 and checked 40 meters. Only W1AW currently. But the new antenna matches on 20 meters too. So I scanned around and heard N7CQR running stations at 579. I waited my turn and logged Dan as the first for the new antenna. I'm sure he is running either a KX3 or KX2. He didn't mention which. So, new antenna works Elecraft rigs just fine. Plus I knew who it was halfway through his call :) He is calling CQ SOTA on 14061.5 kHz if you need another mountain in your log. > > 73 & GL, > > Kevin. KD5ONS > > - > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 Message delivered to [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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
On 7/31/2020 2:04 AM, CUTTER DAVID via Elecraft wrote:
> With Elecraft matching units you don't need (and it can be undesirable to have) antennas made for a particular band. You make life easier for the matching unit by making your antenna non-resonant on bands you want to use. This statement makes no sense. It may be convenient, but antennas optimized per band work better than simple one-size fits all solutions. In this context, "work better" means you're louder and hear better. 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
The new, resonant antenna performs well. It is much quieter than the
doublet I have constructed as an inverted-V. I compare one to the other when I locate a signal and find the resonant antenna works very well. The real test will be to see where my signal 'lands' across the US and Canada during the Sunday nets. Kevin. KD5ONS On 7/31/20 11:20 AM, Jim Brown wrote: > On 7/31/2020 2:04 AM, CUTTER DAVID via Elecraft wrote: >> With Elecraft matching units you don't need (and it can be >> undesirable to have) antennas made for a particular band. You make >> life easier for the matching unit by making your antenna non-resonant >> on bands you want to use. > > This statement makes no sense. It may be convenient, but antennas > optimized per band work better than simple one-size fits all > solutions. In this context, "work better" means you're louder and hear > better. > > 73, Jim K9YC > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list
That's a lot of bad advice all rolled into one. 1. Low voltage at the antenna does not mean low voltage at the shack end of the feedline. That's why it's called VSWR. 2. Low voltage at the antenna does not mean low voltages internal to the tuner, which can be quite high depending upon the degree of non-resonance. You aren't necessarily "making life easier for the matching unit" at all. 3. Multi-band antennas mean highly variable pattern from band to band. The same antenna might have a peak to the U.S. (from England) on one band and a major notch on another band. If you don't care about pattern, dummy loads match pretty easy too. Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a compromise. I'd be interested in the reason why an antenna properly designed for a particular band is a bad idea. Dave AB7E On 7/31/2020 2:04 AM, CUTTER DAVID via Elecraft wrote: > With Elecraft matching units you don't need (and it can be undesirable to have) antennas made for a particular band. You make life easier for the matching unit by making your antenna non-resonant on bands you want to use. That way the unit does not have to cope with especially high voltages which are most likely to cause internal damage. Save your time, weight, money for other options. > > David G3UNA > > ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
Dave and Jim
Our friend made strong mention of SOTA and the KX series of portable rigs and those users often require a multi-band antenna for simplicity and to keep the weight down. Our friend's 40m vertical is also being used on 20m, so, it's reasonable to assume he desires multi-band performance, perhaps even more bands. In portable situations the feeder is often short and sometimes non-existent so there is little or no transformation. Elecraft promote their rigs to be used with non-resonant antennas: why strive for such a wide range matching unit if not? Eric has told us many times that he is happy with odd lengths of wire thrown up a tree and another piece thrown on the ground as a counterpoise, ie multi-band, non-resonant antenna. In these situations lobes and radiation angles are less important than just getting out. David G3UNA > On 31 July 2020 at 21:28 David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > That's a lot of bad advice all rolled into one. > > 1. Low voltage at the antenna does not mean low voltage at the shack > end of the feedline. That's why it's called VSWR. > > 2. Low voltage at the antenna does not mean low voltages internal to > the tuner, which can be quite high depending upon the degree of > non-resonance. You aren't necessarily "making life easier for the > matching unit" at all. > > 3. Multi-band antennas mean highly variable pattern from band to band. > The same antenna might have a peak to the U.S. (from England) on one > band and a major notch on another band. If you don't care about > pattern, dummy loads match pretty easy too. > > Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a > compromise. I'd be interested in the reason why an antenna properly > designed for a particular band is a bad idea. > > Dave AB7E > > > > On 7/31/2020 2:04 AM, CUTTER DAVID via Elecraft wrote: > > With Elecraft matching units you don't need (and it can be undesirable to have) antennas made for a particular band. You make life easier for the matching unit by making your antenna non-resonant on bands you want to use. That way the unit does not have to cope with especially high voltages which are most likely to cause internal damage. Save your time, weight, money for other options. > > > > David G3UNA > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2
I'm glad Dave added that to the end of his message, because each time the topic of multiband antennas comes up, we are told, "That's too lofty a goal for one antenna. Just put up a resonant antenna and all your troubles will be gone." All except for the problem of operating on all bands without having to put up 9 resonant HF antennas, that is. I think we do a disservice to the hundreds of hams reading this by discouraging them from multiband operation just because we deem it too "noisy" or "lossy" or "inconvenient" or whatever.
If a man or woman, knowing full well the consequences of his or her actions, chooses to utilize a single, horizontal antenna of no particular length, ultra-low-loss feedline long enough to reach the shack, and a low-loss homebrew or commercial manual antenna tuner to operate on all bands, then who are we to tell him or her that they shouldn't? To do so has always struck me as presumptuous. Incidentally, can we do two things? Can we all get over the gross assumption that we continue to make, that when someone mentions feeding an antenna with "balanced line" that must mean Wireman #553? There are better alternatives. If our beef is with Wireman #553, then let's be on with it without condemning *all* forms of balanced line. Secondly, antenna tuners are not necessarily lossier than the aggregate of cables, connectors, wattmeters, filters, switches, elbows, lightning arrestors, baluns, autotuners, &c., &c., that many folks use. Everything has loss, but in effect we trade that loss for some other valuable function... like being able to QSY anwhere, easily. To give you a data point, on 12 meters my station has a max loss (from transmitter to the antenna feedpoint) of 1.6 dB. I'll put that worst-case number up against anybody's long run of coax through all the other junk from their transmitter to their antenna. Folks, you should not feel inferior for having chosen to operate on many bands with an antenna tuner. I think the case could be made that the *resonant* antenna is the compromise, giving up all band operation for some other desired function. And sadly, sometimes that compromise is made just so they can say that they're not using a tuner! Al W6LX >>>Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a >>>compromise. >>>Dave AB7E ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
For what it may be worth, I'm a staunch supporter of antenna tuners myself. I previously used one for many years to get 5 band operation out of two vertical pieces of tubing on my roof back when I lived in Scottsdale, and I just built a high power monster to get full coverage of the low bands with my current antennas here in the boonies. I'm definitely not one of those who think that antennas need to be resonant to be any good. Antenna tuners can indeed be lossy, but with the right components they don't have to be, and if they are lossy enough to significantly affect your signal most of them will burn up first. TLW, the free app that comes with the ARRL Antenna Book, is quite informative on that score. My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his generalization that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant antennas are good. 73, Dave AB7E On 8/1/2020 11:21 AM, Al Lorona wrote: > I'm glad Dave added that to the end of his message, because each time the topic of multiband antennas comes up, we are told, "That's too lofty a goal for one antenna. Just put up a resonant antenna and all your troubles will be gone." All except for the problem of operating on all bands without having to put up 9 resonant HF antennas, that is. I think we do a disservice to the hundreds of hams reading this by discouraging them from multiband operation just because we deem it too "noisy" or "lossy" or "inconvenient" or whatever. > > If a man or woman, knowing full well the consequences of his or her actions, chooses to utilize a single, horizontal antenna of no particular length, ultra-low-loss feedline long enough to reach the shack, and a low-loss homebrew or commercial manual antenna tuner to operate on all bands, then who are we to tell him or her that they shouldn't? To do so has always struck me as presumptuous. > > Incidentally, can we do two things? Can we all get over the gross assumption that we continue to make, that when someone mentions feeding an antenna with "balanced line" that must mean Wireman #553? There are better alternatives. If our beef is with Wireman #553, then let's be on with it without condemning *all* forms of balanced line. > > Secondly, antenna tuners are not necessarily lossier than the aggregate of cables, connectors, wattmeters, filters, switches, elbows, lightning arrestors, baluns, autotuners, &c., &c., that many folks use. Everything has loss, but in effect we trade that loss for some other valuable function... like being able to QSY anwhere, easily. To give you a data point, on 12 meters my station has a max loss (from transmitter to the antenna feedpoint) of 1.6 dB. I'll put that worst-case number up against anybody's long run of coax through all the other junk from their transmitter to their antenna. > > Folks, you should not feel inferior for having chosen to operate on many bands with an antenna tuner. I think the case could be made that the *resonant* antenna is the compromise, giving up all band operation for some other desired function. And sadly, sometimes that compromise is made just so they can say that they're not using a tuner! > > Al W6LX > > >>>> Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a >>>> compromise. >>>> Dave AB7E > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
Dave
You read something into my post that was neither there nor intended. This highlights one of the oddities of emails: you can't write them to fit all audiences. David G3UNA > On 01 August 2020 at 20:12 David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > For what it may be worth, I'm a staunch supporter of antenna tuners > myself. I previously used one for many years to get 5 band operation > out of two vertical pieces of tubing on my roof back when I lived in > Scottsdale, and I just built a high power monster to get full coverage > of the low bands with my current antennas here in the boonies. I'm > definitely not one of those who think that antennas need to be resonant > to be any good. > > Antenna tuners can indeed be lossy, but with the right components they > don't have to be, and if they are lossy enough to significantly affect > your signal most of them will burn up first. TLW, the free app that > comes with the ARRL Antenna Book, is quite informative on that score. > > My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his generalization > that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant antennas are good. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > > On 8/1/2020 11:21 AM, Al Lorona wrote: > > I'm glad Dave added that to the end of his message, because each time the topic of multiband antennas comes up, we are told, "That's too lofty a goal for one antenna. Just put up a resonant antenna and all your troubles will be gone." All except for the problem of operating on all bands without having to put up 9 resonant HF antennas, that is. I think we do a disservice to the hundreds of hams reading this by discouraging them from multiband operation just because we deem it too "noisy" or "lossy" or "inconvenient" or whatever. > > > > If a man or woman, knowing full well the consequences of his or her actions, chooses to utilize a single, horizontal antenna of no particular length, ultra-low-loss feedline long enough to reach the shack, and a low-loss homebrew or commercial manual antenna tuner to operate on all bands, then who are we to tell him or her that they shouldn't? To do so has always struck me as presumptuous. > > > > Incidentally, can we do two things? Can we all get over the gross assumption that we continue to make, that when someone mentions feeding an antenna with "balanced line" that must mean Wireman #553? There are better alternatives. If our beef is with Wireman #553, then let's be on with it without condemning *all* forms of balanced line. > > > > Secondly, antenna tuners are not necessarily lossier than the aggregate of cables, connectors, wattmeters, filters, switches, elbows, lightning arrestors, baluns, autotuners, &c., &c., that many folks use. Everything has loss, but in effect we trade that loss for some other valuable function... like being able to QSY anwhere, easily. To give you a data point, on 12 meters my station has a max loss (from transmitter to the antenna feedpoint) of 1.6 dB. I'll put that worst-case number up against anybody's long run of coax through all the other junk from their transmitter to their antenna. > > > > Folks, you should not feel inferior for having chosen to operate on many bands with an antenna tuner. I think the case could be made that the *resonant* antenna is the compromise, giving up all band operation for some other desired function. And sadly, sometimes that compromise is made just so they can say that they're not using a tuner! > > > > Al W6LX > > > > > >>>> Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a > >>>> compromise. > >>>> Dave AB7E > > ______________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > Message delivered to [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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by alorona
Al,
A very refreshing perspective. Thank you! '73 de JIM N2ZZ -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Al Lorona Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2020 2:22 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] New antenna works! I'm glad Dave added that to the end of his message, because each time the topic of multiband antennas comes up, we are told, "That's too lofty a goal for one antenna. Just put up a resonant antenna and all your troubles will be gone." All except for the problem of operating on all bands without having to put up 9 resonant HF antennas, that is. I think we do a disservice to the hundreds of hams reading this by discouraging them from multiband operation just because we deem it too "noisy" or "lossy" or "inconvenient" or whatever. If a man or woman, knowing full well the consequences of his or her actions, chooses to utilize a single, horizontal antenna of no particular length, ultra-low-loss feedline long enough to reach the shack, and a low-loss homebrew or commercial manual antenna tuner to operate on all bands, then who are we to tell him or her that they shouldn't? To do so has always struck me as presumptuous. Incidentally, can we do two things? Can we all get over the gross assumption that we continue to make, that when someone mentions feeding an antenna with "balanced line" that must mean Wireman #553? There are better alternatives. If our beef is with Wireman #553, then let's be on with it without condemning *all* forms of balanced line. Secondly, antenna tuners are not necessarily lossier than the aggregate of cables, connectors, wattmeters, filters, switches, elbows, lightning arrestors, baluns, autotuners, &c., &c., that many folks use. Everything has loss, but in effect we trade that loss for some other valuable function... like being able to QSY anwhere, easily. To give you a data point, on 12 meters my station has a max loss (from transmitter to the antenna feedpoint) of 1.6 dB. I'll put that worst-case number up against anybody's long run of coax through all the other junk from their transmitter to their antenna. Folks, you should not feel inferior for having chosen to operate on many bands with an antenna tuner. I think the case could be made that the *resonant* antenna is the compromise, giving up all band operation for some other desired function. And sadly, sometimes that compromise is made just so they can say that they're not using a tuner! Al W6LX >>>Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a >>>compromise. >>>Dave AB7E ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2
My new antenna works well on 80, 40, 30, and 20 meters. I have not
tried the other bands. While it was cut for 7100 kHz the design is good for other bands too, using the Elecraft tuner. I am thankful my design does exactly what I wanted it to do within my design criteria. It is quieter than my doublet and reaches parts of the US which the doublet does not. Is there an ultimate antenna? NO. I never intended it to be used as a personal mobile antenna, nor as an antenna which works DC to daylight. I wanted an antenna with different propagation characteristics than my doublet for only 20 and 40 meters. I live on a ridge exposed to high winds which occur regularly each winter. I lose antennas almost every year. Designing them with 14 ga. THHN wire helped a great deal. Cheap. Easy to find in most hardware stores. Durable. And easily repaired when the flying limbs break them. I can't imagine the replacement costs for a Yagi-Uda antenna. I doubt they would last two years with the flying branches I experience. Antenna design is part of the fun of amateur radio. The other part is enjoying what you can afford, mount, and use. Your design criteria will not be the same as mine. Thus your solution will be different. 73 and GL, Kevin. KD5ONS - On 8/1/20 12:12 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > > For what it may be worth, I'm a staunch supporter of antenna tuners > myself. I previously used one for many years to get 5 band operation > out of two vertical pieces of tubing on my roof back when I lived in > Scottsdale, and I just built a high power monster to get full coverage > of the low bands with my current antennas here in the boonies. I'm > definitely not one of those who think that antennas need to be > resonant to be any good. > > Antenna tuners can indeed be lossy, but with the right components they > don't have to be, and if they are lossy enough to significantly affect > your signal most of them will burn up first. TLW, the free app that > comes with the ARRL Antenna Book, is quite informative on that score. > > My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his > generalization that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant > antennas are good. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > > On 8/1/2020 11:21 AM, Al Lorona wrote: >> I'm glad Dave added that to the end of his message, because each time >> the topic of multiband antennas comes up, we are told, "That's too >> lofty a goal for one antenna. Just put up a resonant antenna and all >> your troubles will be gone." All except for the problem of operating >> on all bands without having to put up 9 resonant HF antennas, that >> is. I think we do a disservice to the hundreds of hams reading this >> by discouraging them from multiband operation just because we deem it >> too "noisy" or "lossy" or "inconvenient" or whatever. >> >> If a man or woman, knowing full well the consequences of his or her >> actions, chooses to utilize a single, horizontal antenna of no >> particular length, ultra-low-loss feedline long enough to reach the >> shack, and a low-loss homebrew or commercial manual antenna tuner to >> operate on all bands, then who are we to tell him or her that they >> shouldn't? To do so has always struck me as presumptuous. >> >> Incidentally, can we do two things? Can we all get over the gross >> assumption that we continue to make, that when someone mentions >> feeding an antenna with "balanced line" that must mean Wireman #553? >> There are better alternatives. If our beef is with Wireman #553, then >> let's be on with it without condemning *all* forms of balanced line. >> >> Secondly, antenna tuners are not necessarily lossier than the >> aggregate of cables, connectors, wattmeters, filters, switches, >> elbows, lightning arrestors, baluns, autotuners, &c., &c., that many >> folks use. Everything has loss, but in effect we trade that loss for >> some other valuable function... like being able to QSY anwhere, >> easily. To give you a data point, on 12 meters my station has a max >> loss (from transmitter to the antenna feedpoint) of 1.6 dB. I'll put >> that worst-case number up against anybody's long run of coax through >> all the other junk from their transmitter to their antenna. >> >> Folks, you should not feel inferior for having chosen to operate on >> many bands with an antenna tuner. I think the case could be made that >> the *resonant* antenna is the compromise, giving up all band >> operation for some other desired function. And sadly, sometimes that >> compromise is made just so they can say that they're not using a tuner! >> >> Al W6LX >> >> >>>>> Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a >>>>> compromise. >>>>> Dave AB7E >> ______________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> Message delivered to [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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2
On 8/1/2020 12:12 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his generalization > that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant antennas are good. Same here. Most antennas that we can install are some form of compromise. Higher is better. One size fits all solutions generally don't perform as well as antennas optimized for a band or given application. Antenna tuners do NOT make an antenna work better, they simply allow the transmitter to put power into the feedline, and by optimizing the load that the transmitter sees, they reduce the distortion that the amplifier produces. Remember -- SWR is NOT a measure of antenna performance. Louder at the other guy's radio IS. Less RX noise IS. What we all would do if we could is often very different from what we CAN do. What we would rig to operate from a park bench or on a mountaintop is usually very different from what we would do at home. 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2
I prefer to use resonant antennas, either single or multi band and not use a tuner, however, I have encountered that even resonant antennas are not always so due to ground conditions,
Case in point, two weeks ago we hiked to the summit of Sentinel Mountain in Baxter State Park. I carried my KX3, foldable 42 watt solar panel, 6amp/hr lithium battery, coax and a 40 meter resonant slinky antenna which I had previously tested at my QTH in Mid Coast, ME. Antenna would not resonate due to the granite terrain. Luckily I brought with me a mAT-10 qrp tuner I had just purchased and was able to get on the air just fine. Tried to post pix earlier but file was too big for the reflector. I’ll gladly send it to antone that wants to see it. Stay Free everyone! 73 de Jose Douglas KB1TCD Sent from my iPad > On Aug 1, 2020, at 3:12 PM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > For what it may be worth, I'm a staunch supporter of antenna tuners myself. I previously used one for many years to get 5 band operation out of two vertical pieces of tubing on my roof back when I lived in Scottsdale, and I just built a high power monster to get full coverage of the low bands with my current antennas here in the boonies. I'm definitely not one of those who think that antennas need to be resonant to be any good. > > Antenna tuners can indeed be lossy, but with the right components they don't have to be, and if they are lossy enough to significantly affect your signal most of them will burn up first. TLW, the free app that comes with the ARRL Antenna Book, is quite informative on that score. > > My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his generalization that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant antennas are good. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > >> On 8/1/2020 11:21 AM, Al Lorona wrote: >> I'm glad Dave added that to the end of his message, because each time the topic of multiband antennas comes up, we are told, "That's too lofty a goal for one antenna. Just put up a resonant antenna and all your troubles will be gone." All except for the problem of operating on all bands without having to put up 9 resonant HF antennas, that is. I think we do a disservice to the hundreds of hams reading this by discouraging them from multiband operation just because we deem it too "noisy" or "lossy" or "inconvenient" or whatever. >> >> If a man or woman, knowing full well the consequences of his or her actions, chooses to utilize a single, horizontal antenna of no particular length, ultra-low-loss feedline long enough to reach the shack, and a low-loss homebrew or commercial manual antenna tuner to operate on all bands, then who are we to tell him or her that they shouldn't? To do so has always struck me as presumptuous. >> >> Incidentally, can we do two things? Can we all get over the gross assumption that we continue to make, that when someone mentions feeding an antenna with "balanced line" that must mean Wireman #553? There are better alternatives. If our beef is with Wireman #553, then let's be on with it without condemning *all* forms of balanced line. >> >> Secondly, antenna tuners are not necessarily lossier than the aggregate of cables, connectors, wattmeters, filters, switches, elbows, lightning arrestors, baluns, autotuners, &c., &c., that many folks use. Everything has loss, but in effect we trade that loss for some other valuable function... like being able to QSY anwhere, easily. To give you a data point, on 12 meters my station has a max loss (from transmitter to the antenna feedpoint) of 1.6 dB. I'll put that worst-case number up against anybody's long run of coax through all the other junk from their transmitter to their antenna. >> >> Folks, you should not feel inferior for having chosen to operate on many bands with an antenna tuner. I think the case could be made that the *resonant* antenna is the compromise, giving up all band operation for some other desired function. And sadly, sometimes that compromise is made just so they can say that they're not using a tuner! >> >> Al W6LX >> >> >>>>> Multi-band antennas are fine as long as you recognize that they are a >>>>> compromise. >>>>> Dave AB7E >> ______________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> Message delivered to [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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10
Jim and Dave
Let's start with Kevin KD5ONS and his 40m vertical. A great monobander and I'm sure it performs very well on that band. He tells us it works great on most other HF bands as well, using the wonderful Elecraft matching ability. Had he stayed with that one antenna on that one band there would be nothing more to say, but he desires a multi-band antenna and he now thinks he's got one, thanks to Elecraft. However, as Jim points out, the matching unit doesn't make his antenna work any better, it hides the losses to make us feel better. Kevin is no doubt blissfully unaware of the loss in the feeder and in the matching unit because it just works for him and he's a happy customer. He is also unaware of the high voltages appearing in the matching unit. I'm not sure how much power he's running but those conditions could lead to failure and I want to advise him of the risk. This is where the phrase "it can be undesirable to have" comes in and the follow-on advice to make it non-resonant on any band to avoid potentially damaging conditions. I'm not saying anything new, I'm sure I read about this when solid state RF amplifiers first came on the scene. I don't want to make assumptions about Kevin, but I guess he might not yet be aware and ready to evaluate the vswr on his feeder for the other bands and work out the transformation of voltages back at the rig. Perhaps we should take the time and ask him: Kevin, what length and type of coax are you using to feed your 40m vertical? What power are you running? If he answers, I'm sure you will be able to help him do math. The great thing about this net is there are so many good folks willing to help and I'm glad of the chance to raise this old subject. I suspect for most of us, we don't have the space for mono-banders and multi-band antennas are the only practical solution and I'm very grateful for the matching ability of my Elecraft rig, but I'm cautious, I wouldn't run a mono-band antenna on another band without checking with my antenna analyser first, but that's another amazing story. David G3UNA > On 01 August 2020 at 23:09 Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > On 8/1/2020 12:12 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > > My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his generalization > > that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant antennas are good. > > Same here. Most antennas that we can install are some form of > compromise. Higher is better. One size fits all solutions generally > don't perform as well as antennas optimized for a band or given > application. Antenna tuners do NOT make an antenna work better, they > simply allow the transmitter to put power into the feedline, and by > optimizing the load that the transmitter sees, they reduce the > distortion that the amplifier produces. Remember -- SWR is NOT a measure > of antenna performance. Louder at the other guy's radio IS. Less RX > noise IS. > > What we all would do if we could is often very different from what we > CAN do. What we would rig to operate from a park bench or on a > mountaintop is usually very different from what we would do at home. > > 73, Jim K9YC > ______________________________________________________________ > 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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
One of my favorite portable antennas is a homebrewed link dipole for 40,
30, and 20m. I tuned it very carefully for the middle of the CW portion of each band, but it's still fairly well tuned in the SSB portions of 40 and 20. I still use a tuner with it for phone, though, just to keep from stressing the radio. If I'm using my KX3, the internal tuner works just fine. If the radio doesn't have a builtin tuner, I have an Elecraft T1 that I use. If it's by some weird quirk of fate a radio that puts out too little for the T1 to register (a couple of my QRPp radios are like that), I pull out the ZM-2, and everything is cream cheese. (Cream cheese? Yes. https://youtu.be/c0m5wJRGHEQ) I still have a project hanging fire to try a fan dipole using horse farm electric fence webbing. It's poly webbing about 2" wide with 15 stainless-steel wires run lengthwise through the weave. I know they'll interact, but maybe with very careful trimming I can get it all to tune. With 3 bands, or maybe just 2, I'll have multiple wires for each band, and if I tune THOSE to a spread frequency set, maybe I can get a very wide bandwidth AND multiple bands on a single dipole strap. Or perhaps a vertical with counterpoise radials? Not sure which I want to experiment with. But I've got a lot of that strap (it was fairly cheap) and there's a nice clamp-on connector that connects all of the wires at once to a single connection for the power connections in its normal usage, but will also serve as a good feedpoint. Worth a try. If nothing else, I can rule out a multi-band fan and just go with a single band and get REALLY good bandwidth. (A company already sells monoband dipoles made of similar strap, but they charge through the NOSE.) But a link dipole is my favorite multi-band antenna, at least for portable use, where connecting and disconnecting the links isn't a big deal. It'd be a nightmare for a fixed base antenna...you'd have to use some kind of high-voltage, high-current relay, then you'd have the control wires interfering with the tuning...ack. Maybe SteppIR can try it...but then, if I was going to get a SteppIR, I'd get the new vertical that extends or retracts a tape up and down a PVC column to tune for each band, sort of like the "measuring tape" version of a screwdriver antenna. I still intend to make an automatic clothesline antenna using a stepper motor and a microcontroller at some point. I'll probably crib some of the control circuits from Jack's new book when it comes out! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73, Gwen, NG3P On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 9:24 AM CUTTER DAVID via Elecraft < [hidden email]> wrote: > Jim and Dave > > Let's start with Kevin KD5ONS and his 40m vertical. A great monobander > and I'm sure it performs very well on that band. He tells us it works > great on most other HF bands as well, using the wonderful Elecraft matching > ability. Had he stayed with that one antenna on that one band there would > be nothing more to say, but he desires a multi-band antenna and he now > thinks he's got one, thanks to Elecraft. However, as Jim points out, the > matching unit doesn't make his antenna work any better, it hides the losses > to make us feel better. Kevin is no doubt blissfully unaware of the loss > in the feeder and in the matching unit because it just works for him and > he's a happy customer. He is also unaware of the high voltages appearing > in the matching unit. I'm not sure how much power he's running but those > conditions could lead to failure and I want to advise him of the risk. > > This is where the phrase "it can be undesirable to have" comes in and the > follow-on advice to make it non-resonant on any band to avoid potentially > damaging conditions. I'm not saying anything new, I'm sure I read about > this when solid state RF amplifiers first came on the scene. > > I don't want to make assumptions about Kevin, but I guess he might not yet > be aware and ready to evaluate the vswr on his feeder for the other bands > and work out the transformation of voltages back at the rig. > > Perhaps we should take the time and ask him: > Kevin, what length and type of coax are you using to feed your 40m > vertical? What power are you running? If he answers, I'm sure you will be > able to help him do math. > > The great thing about this net is there are so many good folks willing to > help and I'm glad of the chance to raise this old subject. > > I suspect for most of us, we don't have the space for mono-banders and > multi-band antennas are the only practical solution and I'm very grateful > for the matching ability of my Elecraft rig, but I'm cautious, I wouldn't > run a mono-band antenna on another band without checking with my antenna > analyser first, but that's another amazing story. > > David G3UNA > > > > > > On 01 August 2020 at 23:09 Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/1/2020 12:12 PM, David Gilbert wrote: > > > My gripe with the original post from G3UNA was simply his > generalization > > > that resonant antennas are bad and that non-resonant antennas are good. > > > > Same here. Most antennas that we can install are some form of > > compromise. Higher is better. One size fits all solutions generally > > don't perform as well as antennas optimized for a band or given > > application. Antenna tuners do NOT make an antenna work better, they > > simply allow the transmitter to put power into the feedline, and by > > optimizing the load that the transmitter sees, they reduce the > > distortion that the amplifier produces. Remember -- SWR is NOT a measure > > of antenna performance. Louder at the other guy's radio IS. Less RX > > noise IS. > > > > What we all would do if we could is often very different from what we > > CAN do. What we would rig to operate from a park bench or on a > > mountaintop is usually very different from what we would do at home. > > > > 73, Jim K9YC > > ______________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > Message delivered to [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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by kevinr@coho.net
Kevin is on to something when he compares antennas instantly which I assume
from his description. Most antenna anecdotes state something like "It works much better than...I had up previously. But, both antennas aren't up and in use at the same time. My good friend Alan, K0BG, puts it very well. "WORKs is an acronym which means WithOut Real Knowledge." Why? Because the performance assertions are not comparative like one gets when using two WSPRLit transmitters on two antennas at the same time over time. Those data will show which antenna performs better and how consistently better one antenna is than the other. In every case when I compare antennas, they always out-perform one or two others at some point in time. But, one of the three performs better on certain bands at certain times, most, but not all of the time. This past Saturday, I frequently noted one dipole out-performed the other on a specific station at a specific time, regardless of the band (40m and 20m). I had callers answer my CQ's that I could not here on the other dipole and that was true for both dipoles most of the time. They would "change places" at different times for the same paths. Being able to instantly switch between antennas (K3 with internal ATU) helped me make more contacts than if I had just one of those dipoles, both about the same height, but at nearly right angles to each other. When I had a vertical in the air, it would sometimes out-perform both dipoles over the same paths. Every antenna "WORKS", even a dummy load with imperfect coax. Some antennas generally out-perform others. Don't tell me yours works better than mine without scientific proof, not anecdotes. W8JI has done a lot of antenna modeling and on-the-air comparisons in making assertions about antennas' performance. I recently read his statement about end-fed wires being a cult today. He goes on to explain their failings don't appear when using QRP and with no other antenna available for comparisons. As N0AX wrote, "The best antennas is the one that is up in the air." or similar words. He also wrote the half wave dipole is simple and it works well and makes the best first choice. I would add, the higher the better until it's a half wavelength high. K9YC has done modeling that points this out and debunks most of the NVIS myths that abound in which users state we need to lower our antennas for NVIS. I use end-fed wires when appropriate--SOTA, POTA, and on county lines were simplicity and rapid deployment matter more than RFI, most of which I can mitigate or ignore. I use dipoles at home and most are resonant. I also use WSPRLite to get scientific performance data before I assert they WORK or which one is better. As I wrote above, I will keep both those dipoles because they both out-perform the other at times. As my antenna farm grows, one dipole will remain as my measurement "standard" so I can truly say my new antenna (nothing short and shiny) out-performs my dipole. And yes, neither is perfect so I use a tuner when necessary on certain bands/frequencies. 73, Bill, K8TE -- Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
Some antennas work great in some places and not so in others depending on ground conditions, from personal experience in granite filled Maine.
73 de Jose Douglas KB1TCD Sent from my iPad > On Aug 4, 2020, at 5:00 AM, K8TE <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Kevin is on to something when he compares antennas instantly which I assume > from his description. Most antenna anecdotes state something like "It works > much better than...I had up previously. But, both antennas aren't up and in > use at the same time. > > My good friend Alan, K0BG, puts it very well. "WORKs is an acronym which > means WithOut Real Knowledge." Why? Because the performance assertions are > not comparative like one gets when using two WSPRLit transmitters on two > antennas at the same time over time. Those data will show which antenna > performs better and how consistently better one antenna is than the other. > In every case when I compare antennas, they always out-perform one or two > others at some point in time. But, one of the three performs better on > certain bands at certain times, most, but not all of the time. > > This past Saturday, I frequently noted one dipole out-performed the other on > a specific station at a specific time, regardless of the band (40m and 20m). > I had callers answer my CQ's that I could not here on the other dipole and > that was true for both dipoles most of the time. They would "change places" > at different times for the same paths. Being able to instantly switch > between antennas (K3 with internal ATU) helped me make more contacts than if > I had just one of those dipoles, both about the same height, but at nearly > right angles to each other. When I had a vertical in the air, it would > sometimes out-perform both dipoles over the same paths. > > Every antenna "WORKS", even a dummy load with imperfect coax. Some antennas > generally out-perform others. Don't tell me yours works better than mine > without scientific proof, not anecdotes. W8JI has done a lot of antenna > modeling and on-the-air comparisons in making assertions about antennas' > performance. I recently read his statement about end-fed wires being a cult > today. He goes on to explain their failings don't appear when using QRP and > with no other antenna available for comparisons. > > As N0AX wrote, "The best antennas is the one that is up in the air." or > similar words. He also wrote the half wave dipole is simple and it works > well and makes the best first choice. I would add, the higher the better > until it's a half wavelength high. K9YC has done modeling that points this > out and debunks most of the NVIS myths that abound in which users state we > need to lower our antennas for NVIS. > > I use end-fed wires when appropriate--SOTA, POTA, and on county lines were > simplicity and rapid deployment matter more than RFI, most of which I can > mitigate or ignore. I use dipoles at home and most are resonant. I also > use WSPRLite to get scientific performance data before I assert they WORK or > which one is better. As I wrote above, I will keep both those dipoles > because they both out-perform the other at times. As my antenna farm grows, > one dipole will remain as my measurement "standard" so I can truly say my > new antenna (nothing short and shiny) out-performs my dipole. And yes, > neither is perfect so I use a tuner when necessary on certain > bands/frequencies. > > 73, Bill, K8TE > > > > -- > Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
It would seem that using the Diversity Reception capability in several
current radios, would be an ideal way to evaluate two antennas, although, I realize having both antennas up at the same time is not always possible. 73, Charlie k3ICH Some antennas work great in some places and not so in others depending on ground conditions, from personal experience in granite filled Maine. 73 de Jose Douglas KB1TCD ______________________________________________________________ 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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by K8TE
Interesting subject. The two big X factors in success that are seldom mentioned are propagation and most importantly-operating skills. The other day I set out for a short SOTA activation wanting to set up a portable 2 element vertical beam developed by JP1QEC. I’ve used it with good results on 20M as compared to my typical end fed. Anyway-I forgot the poles which are essential to properly erect it,so what to do? I usually pack a variety of small portable wire antennas ,so not wanting to waste the outing I tossed a wire into a fairly low tree branch. My intended band 20 was packed with contesters fun the NAQP and furthermore the answer wouldn’t load below 3:1 despite extra radials Well-let’s try 30 and 40
just because. It turned out 30 was open and I managed 3 ‘S2S’ (summit to summit) contacts,and one on 40. Probably NVIS,but Antenna strength was better than I expected-I worked my 4 for a valid activation and a few more beside. Definitely less than optimal antenna but sometimes you just need to get out and operate. As I tell my CW students-get on and operate with what you’ve got. Dan Presley 503-701-3871 danpresley@me. com [hidden email] > On Aug 4, 2020, at 02:08, K8TE <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Kevin is on to something when he compares antennas instantly which I assume > from his description. Most antenna anecdotes state something like "It works > much better than...I had up previously. But, both antennas aren't up and in > use at the same time. > > My good friend Alan, K0BG, puts it very well. "WORKs is an acronym which > means WithOut Real Knowledge." Why? Because the performance assertions are > not comparative like one gets when using two WSPRLit transmitters on two > antennas at the same time over time. Those data will show which antenna > performs better and how consistently better one antenna is than the other. > In every case when I compare antennas, they always out-perform one or two > others at some point in time. But, one of the three performs better on > certain bands at certain times, most, but not all of the time. > > This past Saturday, I frequently noted one dipole out-performed the other on > a specific station at a specific time, regardless of the band (40m and 20m). > I had callers answer my CQ's that I could not here on the other dipole and > that was true for both dipoles most of the time. They would "change places" > at different times for the same paths. Being able to instantly switch > between antennas (K3 with internal ATU) helped me make more contacts than if > I had just one of those dipoles, both about the same height, but at nearly > right angles to each other. When I had a vertical in the air, it would > sometimes out-perform both dipoles over the same paths. > > Every antenna "WORKS", even a dummy load with imperfect coax. Some antennas > generally out-perform others. Don't tell me yours works better than mine > without scientific proof, not anecdotes. W8JI has done a lot of antenna > modeling and on-the-air comparisons in making assertions about antennas' > performance. I recently read his statement about end-fed wires being a cult > today. He goes on to explain their failings don't appear when using QRP and > with no other antenna available for comparisons. > > As N0AX wrote, "The best antennas is the one that is up in the air." or > similar words. He also wrote the half wave dipole is simple and it works > well and makes the best first choice. I would add, the higher the better > until it's a half wavelength high. K9YC has done modeling that points this > out and debunks most of the NVIS myths that abound in which users state we > need to lower our antennas for NVIS. > > I use end-fed wires when appropriate--SOTA, POTA, and on county lines were > simplicity and rapid deployment matter more than RFI, most of which I can > mitigate or ignore. I use dipoles at home and most are resonant. I also > use WSPRLite to get scientific performance data before I assert they WORK or > which one is better. As I wrote above, I will keep both those dipoles > because they both out-perform the other at times. As my antenna farm grows, > one dipole will remain as my measurement "standard" so I can truly say my > new antenna (nothing short and shiny) out-performs my dipole. And yes, > neither is perfect so I use a tuner when necessary on certain > bands/frequencies. > > 73, Bill, K8TE > > > > -- > Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.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 > Message delivered to [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 Message delivered to [hidden email] |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |