OT - G5RV antenna & baluns

[Ken Kopp]

K5KVH sums it up in his opening paragraph ...

I have G5RV's original article introducing the antenna.
He specifically states that it is a 20M antenna, and yet it's
now somehow become a do-all-bands wonder ... an almost
"cult" thing.  The same thing happened with the single-wire fed
Windom years ago.  EVERYONE had them.

Why would one want to clobber up an open-wire fed dipole?  
The G5RV version requires a tuner when used on bands other
than 20M, so why not bring the open-wire to the tuner and
dispense with the open-wire-to-coax transition kludge hanging
outside in the sky?  It's a simple application made difficult.

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brett gazdzinski-2]

In my case, a balanced antenna tuner that can handle
the big rig is very limited, like a Johnson kilowatt
match box MIGHT handle it.
While I limit the pep to 1500 watts, the audio
compressor is only so fast and peaks beyond 3kw
likely get through.
AM also demands a high duty cycle with its constant carrier.

Getting the open wire line into the basement shack is
also a problem, with all the metal pipes and ductwork around.

The 20 feet of coax seems to not cause problems at all.


Brett
N2DTS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ken Kopp
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:16 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Elecraft] OT - G5RV antenna & baluns
>
> K5KVH sums it up in his opening paragraph ...
>
> I have G5RV's original article introducing the antenna.
> He specifically states that it is a 20M antenna, and yet it's
> now somehow become a do-all-bands wonder ... an almost
> "cult" thing.  The same thing happened with the single-wire fed
> Windom years ago.  EVERYONE had them.
>
> Why would one want to clobber up an open-wire fed dipole?  
> The G5RV version requires a tuner when used on bands other
> than 20M, so why not bring the open-wire to the tuner and
> dispense with the open-wire-to-coax transition kludge hanging
> outside in the sky?  It's a simple application made difficult.
>
> 73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/16/07 10:17:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [hidden email]
writes:


> I have G5RV's original article introducing the antenna.
> He specifically states that it is a 20M antenna, and yet it's
> now somehow become a do-all-bands wonder ... an almost
> "cult" thing.

In all the G5RV articles I've read, including the original, it's a multiband
antenna. It was specifically designed that way by G5RV.

What's special about the G5RV is that if it is properly built and installed,
it will present a low (but not 1:1) SWR and good efficiency on the non-WARC
bands.
And it's simple.
 

>  The same thing happened with the single-wire fed
> Windom years ago.  EVERYONE had them.
>

That antenna goes back to the 1920s. The "Windoms" we have today are really
off-center-fed (OCF) dipoles.


> Why would one want to clobber up an open-wire fed dipole?  
> The G5RV version requires a tuner when used on bands other
> than 20M, so why not bring the open-wire to the tuner and
> dispense with the open-wire-to-coax transition kludge hanging
> outside in the sky?  It's a simple application made difficult.

No, it isn't.

The reason for the popularity of G5RVs and OCFs is this:

Properly made and installed, they are capable of low SWR (not unity) on
multiple bands, and they wind up with a coax feeder of random length coming into
the shack.

While a tuner may be needed to get 1:1 SWR at the rig, the tuner need not be
balanced, nor does it need to have a wide matching range. A simple, low cost
tuner can do the job of tuning out the relatively-small mismatch.

OTOH, if you simply put up the classic dipole-fed-with-ladder-line and don't
concern yourself too much with lengths of dipole and feeder, the result can be
a wide range of impedances at the shack end of the line. So you need a much
more expensive tuner to get the system to work efficiently.

All three systems will work well if done right. After all, they're all just
dipoles with different feed systems. The question is, what resources are
available?

73 de Jim, N2EY





**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Brett gazdzinski-2]

What many do is put up as much wire as possible, then
take the feedline down to a remote balanced tuner in a dog house,
then run coax or hardline to the shack.
That is the best setup for high power AM multi band work
I suspect.
Running AM, you have to derate everything like baluns and traps
to 1/4 power or less.
I once had a B+W folded all band dipole rated at 1.5kw that
B+W told me was only good for about 150 watts of AM!

I used to have resonant 80 and 40 meter dipoles, but the 80
meter one was directly over the house lengthwise and
got into everything. When the coax went bad, I took it and the 40
meter dipole down and put up various antenna's, and the best working
thing I can fit was the home made G5RV.
On high power, it works on 80 and 40 meters without anything getting
hot (coax, tuner), and works great on 40, on 80 I have to watch
the power as the tuner arcs on the upper frequencies.
That took some experimenting with lengths to move the high
voltage point away from the tuner some.

There are lots more choices when running ssb or cw, traps,
baluns, and auto antenna tuners can all handle those modes.
Not sure about the digital stuff, but part of the AM problem
is the very high short duration peaks that can sneak past
any limiting, 3 or 4 kw in my case, which can be very high voltage
at a high swr.

The big advantage of the G5RV is that if done right, the swr
is not real horrible on most bands, and loss is not real high
in the coax if its short.

A good trap dipole might be better if you run lower power,
but the G5RV has nothing to wear out or get water/bugs into,
is light and easy to put up, and easy to make.



Brett
N2DTS





 

>
> > I have G5RV's original article introducing the antenna.
> > He specifically states that it is a 20M antenna, and yet it's
> > now somehow become a do-all-bands wonder ... an almost
> > "cult" thing.
>
> In all the G5RV articles I've read, including the original,
> it's a multiband
> antenna. It was specifically designed that way by G5RV.
>
> What's special about the G5RV is that if it is properly built
> and installed,
> it will present a low (but not 1:1) SWR and good efficiency
> on the non-WARC
> bands.
> And it's simple.
>  
>
> >  The same thing happened with the single-wire fed
> > Windom years ago.  EVERYONE had them.
> >
>
> That antenna goes back to the 1920s. The "Windoms" we have
> today are really
> off-center-fed (OCF) dipoles.
>
>
> > Why would one want to clobber up an open-wire fed dipole?  
> > The G5RV version requires a tuner when used on bands other
> > than 20M, so why not bring the open-wire to the tuner and
> > dispense with the open-wire-to-coax transition kludge hanging
> > outside in the sky?  It's a simple application made difficult.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> The reason for the popularity of G5RVs and OCFs is this:
>
> Properly made and installed, they are capable of low SWR (not
> unity) on
> multiple bands, and they wind up with a coax feeder of random
> length coming into
> the shack.
>
> While a tuner may be needed to get 1:1 SWR at the rig, the
> tuner need not be
> balanced, nor does it need to have a wide matching range. A
> simple, low cost
> tuner can do the job of tuning out the relatively-small mismatch.
>
> OTOH, if you simply put up the classic
> dipole-fed-with-ladder-line and don't
> concern yourself too much with lengths of dipole and feeder,
> the result can be
> a wide range of impedances at the shack end of the line. So
> you need a much
> more expensive tuner to get the system to work efficiently.
>
> All three systems will work well if done right. After all,
> they're all just
> dipoles with different feed systems. The question is, what
> resources are
> available?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
>  See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[David Cutter]

A friend's coax-fed G5RV worked ok with his 990 (built-in matching unit).
No external "tuner" needed.  It worked all bands 160 to 10m: on 160 I made
him a simple switch to short the coax and tune/match against ground.  His
needs were modest - no dx, just local chit chat.  It was sensitive to coax
length and I coiled up the first 10ft or so at the junction to the ladder
line.  He replaced it with an expensive Carolina Windom which worked just as
well but not as reliable.

David
G3UNA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brett gazdzinski" <[hidden email]>
To: "'Elecraft'" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] OT - G5RV antenna & baluns

> What many do is put up as much wire as possible, then
> take the feedline down to a remote balanced tuner in a dog house,
> then run coax or hardline to the shack.
> That is the best setup for high power AM multi band work
> I suspect.
> Running AM, you have to derate everything like baluns and traps
> to 1/4 power or less.
> I once had a B+W folded all band dipole rated at 1.5kw that
> B+W told me was only good for about 150 watts of AM!
>
> I used to have resonant 80 and 40 meter dipoles, but the 80
> meter one was directly over the house lengthwise and
> got into everything. When the coax went bad, I took it and the 40
> meter dipole down and put up various antenna's, and the best working
> thing I can fit was the home made G5RV.
> On high power, it works on 80 and 40 meters without anything getting
> hot (coax, tuner), and works great on 40, on 80 I have to watch
> the power as the tuner arcs on the upper frequencies.
> That took some experimenting with lengths to move the high
> voltage point away from the tuner some.
>
> There are lots more choices when running ssb or cw, traps,
> baluns, and auto antenna tuners can all handle those modes.
> Not sure about the digital stuff, but part of the AM problem
> is the very high short duration peaks that can sneak past
> any limiting, 3 or 4 kw in my case, which can be very high voltage
> at a high swr.
>
> The big advantage of the G5RV is that if done right, the swr
> is not real horrible on most bands, and loss is not real high
> in the coax if its short.
>
> A good trap dipole might be better if you run lower power,
> but the G5RV has nothing to wear out or get water/bugs into,
> is light and easy to put up, and easy to make.
>
>
>
> Brett
> N2DTS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > I have G5RV's original article introducing the antenna.
>> > He specifically states that it is a 20M antenna, and yet it's
>> > now somehow become a do-all-bands wonder ... an almost
>> > "cult" thing.
>>
>> In all the G5RV articles I've read, including the original,
>> it's a multiband
>> antenna. It was specifically designed that way by G5RV.
>>
>> What's special about the G5RV is that if it is properly built
>> and installed,
>> it will present a low (but not 1:1) SWR and good efficiency
>> on the non-WARC
>> bands.
>> And it's simple.
>>
>>
>> >  The same thing happened with the single-wire fed
>> > Windom years ago.  EVERYONE had them.
>> >
>>
>> That antenna goes back to the 1920s. The "Windoms" we have
>> today are really
>> off-center-fed (OCF) dipoles.
>>
>>
>> > Why would one want to clobber up an open-wire fed dipole?
>> > The G5RV version requires a tuner when used on bands other
>> > than 20M, so why not bring the open-wire to the tuner and
>> > dispense with the open-wire-to-coax transition kludge hanging
>> > outside in the sky?  It's a simple application made difficult.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>>
>> The reason for the popularity of G5RVs and OCFs is this:
>>
>> Properly made and installed, they are capable of low SWR (not
>> unity) on
>> multiple bands, and they wind up with a coax feeder of random
>> length coming into
>> the shack.
>>
>> While a tuner may be needed to get 1:1 SWR at the rig, the
>> tuner need not be
>> balanced, nor does it need to have a wide matching range. A
>> simple, low cost
>> tuner can do the job of tuning out the relatively-small mismatch.
>>
>> OTOH, if you simply put up the classic
>> dipole-fed-with-ladder-line and don't
>> concern yourself too much with lengths of dipole and feeder,
>> the result can be
>> a wide range of impedances at the shack end of the line. So
>> you need a much
>> more expensive tuner to get the system to work efficiently.
>>
>> All three systems will work well if done right. After all,
>> they're all just
>> dipoles with different feed systems. The question is, what
>> resources are
>> available?
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>>  See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Post to: [hidden email]
>> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
>> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
>>  http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
>> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com 

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

Jim, the original G5RV is a 1-1/2 wave 20 meter *only* antenna that offered
a good match for the coaxial line by using an open-wire matching section. As
you know, such matching sections are frequency-dependent, like any fixed
tuned matching network. The G5RV allowed the use of the newly-available (at
affordable prices) coaxial lines that appeared at the end of WWII.

Louis Varney (G5RV) contributed to the discussion of using his 20-meter
"G5RV" on other bands. That's what causes a lot of confusion.

At the time Varney published his original design, many Hams operated on only
one band.

That changed dramatically in the years after WWII, particularly in the
1950's. The rapid availability of surplus parts and entire rigs, a rather
affluent post-war society here in the USA, and a large number of commercial
and kit rigs appearing on the market in the 50's made multi-band operation
"normal" for most Hams.

Hams, always willing to "try anything" for an antenna -- even loading up the
bedsprings (literally!), wanted to use Varney's G5RV design on more than 20
meters. Of course, the G5RV is nothing more than a doublet fed with open
wire line, an efficient multi-band design that had been popular since the
1920's. Varney's contribution was the use of a specific open wire line
section to match to coaxial line on 20 meters without the need for an
antenna tuner (ATU). Ignoring the matching section and simply using it as a
multi-band doublet worked fine, as long as one used a suitable matching
network (ATU) and avoided the coax section.

The problem was that Hams wanted to use coaxial lines. Not only were they
easier to run into the shack, virtually all post-War rigs were designed for
coaxial feedlines for simpler bandswitching and TVI-proofing. So the battle
to find a suitable compromise between efficiency and the use of coax in a
multi-band "G5RV" started in earnest.

Varney himself wrote about those attempts, emphasizing the need for a
matching network (ATU) on any but the 20 meter bands or if the dimensions of
the antenna or feeders were changed in any way.

One of those taking up this challenge was ZS6BKW who wrote a computer
program to study and optimize the best combination of length and feeder for
a G5RV-like antenna. His design provides a decent (<2:1 SWR) match on 7, 14,
18, 24 and 29 MHz but shows quite high SWRs on 3.5, 10, and 21 MHz.(see
"Practical Wire Antennas" by John D Heys, G3BDQ, published by the RSGB, page
22).

Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----
In all the G5RV articles I've read, including the original, it's a multiband

antenna. It was specifically designed that way by G5RV.

What's special about the G5RV is that if it is properly built and installed,

it will present a low (but not 1:1) SWR and good efficiency on the non-WARC
bands.
And it's simple.
 

>  The same thing happened with the single-wire fed
> Windom years ago.  EVERYONE had them.
>

That antenna goes back to the 1920s. The "Windoms" we have today are really
off-center-fed (OCF) dipoles.


> Why would one want to clobber up an open-wire fed dipole?  
> The G5RV version requires a tuner when used on bands other
> than 20M, so why not bring the open-wire to the tuner and
> dispense with the open-wire-to-coax transition kludge hanging
> outside in the sky?  It's a simple application made difficult.

No, it isn't.

The reason for the popularity of G5RVs and OCFs is this:

Properly made and installed, they are capable of low SWR (not unity) on
multiple bands, and they wind up with a coax feeder of random length coming
into
the shack.

While a tuner may be needed to get 1:1 SWR at the rig, the tuner need not be

balanced, nor does it need to have a wide matching range. A simple, low cost

tuner can do the job of tuning out the relatively-small mismatch.

OTOH, if you simply put up the classic dipole-fed-with-ladder-line and don't

concern yourself too much with lengths of dipole and feeder, the result can
be
a wide range of impedances at the shack end of the line. So you need a much
more expensive tuner to get the system to work efficiently.

All three systems will work well if done right. After all, they're all just
dipoles with different feed systems. The question is, what resources are
available?

73 de Jim, N2EY



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/17/07 11:47:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> The 5RV will only provide the correct match transformation at a specific
> height and in a straight line. If the ends droop the impedances are
> wrong and the match between the balanced line and the coax will be
> wrong.
>
>
That's true in theory.

But how "wrong" it is in practice varies all over the place. And it's true
for any dipole, not just a G5RV. Depending on how far from the ideal the system
varies, the additional mismatch due to droop and such may not be worth
worrying about.


Any tuning unit should therefore be between the coax and the
>
> balanced line. Tuning the coax is the shack is bad practice and is
> likely to be lossy.

It's not that simple.

If the SWR on the coax line is high, the coax is small, and the line is long,
the result can be a lot of loss.

But if the SWR is reasonable (say, less than 3:1) and the coax is relatively
short and low-loss (say, 50 feet of good quality RG-213), the resulting
overall system loss will probably not be worth worrying about.

The trick is to calculate just how the system will *actually* work. With
computer models like EZNEC and Reg Edwards' DIPOLE3, the effects of things like
SWR on the coax can be found with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

A much better alternative is the doublet fed with
>
> balanced line all the way back to the shack.

That's only true *IF*:

- the balanced line can be run into the shack without undue mechanical
problems
- the tuner used to match the balanced line is up to the job on all
frequencies of interest
- the overall resulting loss from all sources is kept low.

Those "ifs" are not guaranteed in all cases.

For example, consider a 130 foot dipole fed with 60 feet of open wire line.
Compute the impedance at the shack end of the line on the various bands, and
see how well the various common tuners can match it.


Forget the 5RV and get as
>
> much wire as you can in the sky.

All the G5RV amounts to is a way to feed a wire of about 31 meters so that
the matching job is made easier. The same is true for OCF dipoles. Depending on
the individual situation, a G5RV may be the best solution - or an OCF, or the
classic dipole-fed-with-ladder-line.

 Trap dipoles are also lossy.


Again, that's too general a statement.

Yes, a trap dipole made with several traps that have low Q will be less
efficient than a full size antenna.

But a trap dipole with only a few traps of lowloss construction can be within
a decibel of a full-size antenna - on multiple bands - and can often fit
where a full-size antenna will not. In practice, less than a decibel of loss
usually isn't worth worrying about.

> A good read on antenna theory can be obtained from the RSGB bookshop and
> HF Antennas for All Locations by Les Moxon G6XN
>

There's also W4RNL's excellent website.

But most of all, do not simply dismiss whole classes of antenna because some
versions can behave poorly.

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N2EY]

In a message dated 5/17/07 1:53:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> Jim, the original G5RV is a 1-1/2 wave 20 meter *only* antenna that offered
> a good match for the coaxial line by using an open-wire matching section. As
> you know, such matching sections are frequency-dependent, like any fixed
> tuned matching network. The G5RV allowed the use of the newly-available (at
> affordable prices) coaxial lines that appeared at the end of WWII.

Well, now I'm confused.

Some years back, I remember reading "the original G5RV article" on the
internet - but now I can't find it anywhere on the 'net. I have found lots of
references to "the original G5RV article", but not the article itself.

Worse, the references don't agree with each other! Some say it was in the
November 1966 issue of RSGB Bulletin, while others say it was July 1958.
Both those dates seem too "new" to me, because coax certainly wasn't new
even in 1958.

My 4th edition RSGB Handbook (copyright 1968) doesn't have a thing on the
G5RV, either. It does have the W3EDP end-fed, though - 84 foot wire and 17 foot
counterpoise.

Does anyone have a scan of the original G5RV article?
>
> Louis Varney (G5RV) contributed to the discussion of using his 20-meter
> "G5RV" on other bands. That's what causes a lot of confusion.
>

It's certainly true that the G5RV can be optimized to present a very low SWR
on 20 meters. But if it was meant to be a 20-only antenna, why the 102 foot
length? That's too long for a 20 meter extended-double-Zepp.

> At the time Varney published his original design, many Hams operated on
> only
> one band.

But when was that?

I agree, though, that there was a time when it was not unusual for hams to
operate on just a few frequencies on one band, and to use only one mode.
>
> That changed dramatically in the years after WWII, particularly in the
> 1950's. The rapid availability of surplus parts and entire rigs, a rather
> affluent post-war society here in the USA, and a large number of commercial
> and kit rigs appearing on the market in the 50's made multi-band operation
> "normal" for most Hams.
>

Yup. In fact, this happened more than once: in the 1930s, the bankruptcy of
many early radio companies put a lot of parts (mostly receiving tubes and power
transformers) originally meant for BC sets on the 'surplus' market at rather
low prices. And then the sudden end of WW2 did it on a much larger scale.

In fact, the first-generation Heathkits were largely based on surplus parts.
That's why so many odd tube types were used in them.

> Hams, always willing to "try anything" for an antenna -- even loading up
> the
> bedsprings (literally!), wanted to use Varney's G5RV design on more than 20
> meters. Of course, the G5RV is nothing more than a doublet fed with open
> wire line, an efficient multi-band design that had been popular since the
> 1920's. Varney's contribution was the use of a specific open wire line
> section to match to coaxial line on 20 meters without the need for an
> antenna tuner (ATU). Ignoring the matching section and simply using it as a
> multi-band doublet worked fine, as long as one used a suitable matching
> network (ATU) and avoided the coax section.
>
> The problem was that Hams wanted to use coaxial lines. Not only were they
> easier to run into the shack, virtually all post-War rigs were designed for
> coaxial feedlines for simpler bandswitching and TVI-proofing. So the battle
> to find a suitable compromise between efficiency and the use of coax in a
> multi-band "G5RV" started in earnest.
>
> Varney himself wrote about those attempts, emphasizing the need for a
> matching network (ATU) on any but the 20 meter bands or if the dimensions of
> the antenna or feeders were changed in any way.
>

All true  - but as I read the article, he found a combination of lengths of
antenna wire and balanced feeder that gave a reasonable match on "all HF
bands". It sounded to me as if the antenna were meant for folks who had limited
space, and could only have one antenna.

However, it must be remembered that, in those days, "all HF bands" did not
include 160, 30, 17 or 12 meters. And "reasonable match" could mean an SWR of 3
or so on the coax line on some bands - which wasn't a problem for most tube
rigs, nor for short runs of coax.

Plus, G-land, 80 meters was 3500 to 3800 kHz, and 40 meters 7000 to 7100 kHz.

IOW, what was considered "low SWR" and "doesn't need a tuner" in those days
might cause today's hams to thing something was awfully wrong.

Does anybody have a link or scan to the original G5RV article?

73 de Jim, N2EY


**************************************
 See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ken Kopp]

I do hamfest and convention antenna talks and have
a large file of assorted antenna info.  I believe I have
G5RV's article in a file, but it's at home in Montana
and I'm in Oregon.

My wife and I are hosts at a lighthouse on the coast
and will return home in a few weeks.vvIf you haven't
found a copy and still are interested, remind me next
month ... (:-))

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

>From what I can discover, Captain Varney, G5RV, published his antenna design
in England in 1946. I was referencing the comments made about it by John D
Heys, G3BDQ, in his book "Practical Wire Antennas".
 
You are quite right! It seems like everyone who find an article by Captain
Varney thought that was the "original" article! Actually Capt. Varney was a
prolific author and active Ham before the war and that continued until the
1990's.
 
His call is now held by the Mid Sussex Amateur Radio Society who writes of
him, "Louis Varney was the president of M.S.A.R.S. for 37 years until his
death in 2000. In later years he was still climbing trees trying to improve
on his famous "G5RV" antanna! (sic)"
 
Perhaps one of our friends from G-land can find the original article. It was
published in 1946 according to Heys.
 
Ron AC7AC

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]


Well, now I'm confused.

Some years back, I remember reading "the original G5RV article" on the
internet - but now I can't find it anywhere on the 'net. I have found lots
of references to "the original G5RV article", but not the article itself.

Worse, the references don't agree with each other! Some say it was in the
November 1966 issue of RSGB Bulletin, while others say it was July 1958.
Both those dates seem too "new" to me, because coax certainly wasn't new
even in 1958.

My 4th edition RSGB Handbook (copyright 1968) doesn't have a thing on the
G5RV, either. It does have the W3EDP end-fed, though - 84 foot wire and 17
foot counterpoise.

Does anyone have a scan of the original G5RV article?


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ken Kopp]

I -think- I have a copy of the original article, but I can't be
certain until I get back home to Monatna in a month.

I'm a magazine and Handbook collector ... have (almost) all
of QST, all of CQ, 73, HR, Hr Horizons, etc.  Been gathering
for 56 years. (;-)

73! Ken Kopp - K0PP
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[David Cutter]

Back in those days most of my friends did not even own an swr meter, we
"tuned up" by dipping and loading and worked out the power input to the PA
to meet the regulations.

In later life LV preferred to speak of the  ASTU Antenna System Matching
Unit.   I prefer to use MU for the box in the shack.

David
G3UNA

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Geoffrey Mackenzie-Kennedy-2]

In an issue of Radcom published between 1999 and 2006, which I shall have to
find, IIRC there is some comment on the the G5RV with references. If I
remember correctly Captain Varney G5RV first published the design in the
1940s, could well have been in 1946, and the antenna was intended to be used
on 20m only. The multiband application came later.Will report back ASAP
unless somebody else comes up with the history of the G5RV in the meantime.

73,
Geoff
GM4ESD


Ron D'Eau Claire <[hidden email]> wrote:



>From what I can discover, Captain Varney, G5RV, published his antenna
>design
in England in 1946. I was referencing the comments made about it by John D
Heys, G3BDQ, in his book "Practical Wire Antennas".

You are quite right! It seems like everyone who find an article by Captain
Varney thought that was the "original" article! Actually Capt. Varney was a
prolific author and active Ham before the war and that continued until the
1990's.

His call is now held by the Mid Sussex Amateur Radio Society who writes of
him, "Louis Varney was the president of M.S.A.R.S. for 37 years until his
death in 2000. In later years he was still climbing trees trying to improve
on his famous "G5RV" antanna! (sic)"

Perhaps one of our friends from G-land can find the original article. It was
published in 1946 according to Heys.




_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com