Elecraft › [HAM]

Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

Classic

List

Threaded

19 messages Options

K6LMP

Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

I'm currently running my K3-10 into a 40 meter horizontal loop antenna, mounted on my roof about 35 feet above ground. It's impractical to use on 80, and has a very high angle of radiation on 40 and 20 meters.

So, I'm thinking of replacing it with a 43' wire vertical. Yes, I know it needs a wide-range tuner, because it's non-resonant on any ham bands. I already have that. And I know that it needs a 4:1 balun. I can make that.

I have three questions for the group.

1. Is there any reason to expect that a wire vertical will perform significantly differently than one made from aluminum tube (e.g. 2" OD at base)? EZNEC modeling shows a slightly lower gain for a wire antenna, but not significant. Is this borne out in real life?

2. The available grassy yard space where the antenna would be installed would permit a maximum straight-line radial run of approximately 30 feet, well under the desired length of 58 feet for operation on 80 meters. Would it affect antenna performance if the radials were laid out in a series of Z jogs rather than in straight lines?

3. The antenna would be suspended from a large sycamore tree. Will it make any difference in performance if I run the vertical right up the side of the trunk, as contrasted with suspending it from a limb at some distance (e.g. 5 - 10 feet) from the trunk?

Thanks,

Lew K6LMP

______________________________________________________________
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

Craig Smith

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

Lew, I've had considerable experience here with a 43 ft wire vertical. The
bottom line is that your proposed layout will work, and will be
SIGNIFICANTLY better on 20, 30, 40 and 80 than your loop if your interest is
in working DX. I use a remote tuner at the base of mine (CG-3000), but the
internal K3 tuner will tune it on all bands 10-80 even without any balun.
Of course there would be feedline losses involved with the tuner in the
shack and the radiation angle from the vertical above 20 meters won't be
ideal for DX. To answer your specific questions:

1) The wire will be fine and in practical terms indistinguishable from
using tubing.

2) Don't do the zig-zags with the radials. Just use as many 30 ft
straight ones as you have the time/patience for. I recommend 32 minimum.
60 to 100 would be ideal. The DX Engineering radial plate is a great help
with this. I used black AWG 14 THNN from Home Depot, etc. If retained on
the top of the ground, they will be imbedded in the grass within a few
months. This setup will be near ideal on 20, 30 and 40 and will work
surprisingly well on 80 in spite of the shorter than ideal radials. To
understand the radial situation in greater detail, refer to Rudy Severn's
articles from last year in QEX.

3) If at all possible avoid running the wire on the trunk of the tree. You
will have losses, especially in the summer when the sap is in there. 5 to
10 ft. spacing should be MUCH better!

Have fun with your project!

73 Craig AC0DS

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

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

AC7AC

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

Tony Estep

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

Lew, no doubt you'll get a lot of good advice from other hams here and
elsewhere. However, there is no source for vertical antenna info that can
compare with John DeVoldere's book "Low Band DXing." Highest possible
recommendation. That, plus a copy of EZNEC, and you too can be an antenna
guru.

BTW I heard John (ON4UN) on today with his K3, answering questions from his
U.S. fans. Anyone who has questions about the radio's transmit audio would
have no further doubts after hearing how a properly set-up K3 sounds.

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Lew Phelps K6LMP <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ....I'm thinking of replacing it with a 43' wire vertical.....
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

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

Guy, K2AV

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

See interspersed.

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Lew Phelps K6LMP <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm currently running my K3-10 into a 40 meter horizontal loop antenna, mounted on my roof about 35 feet above ground. It's impractical to use on 80, and has a very high angle of radiation on 40 and 20 meters.
>
> So, I'm thinking of replacing it with a 43' wire vertical. Yes, I know it needs a wide-range tuner, because it's non-resonant on any ham bands. I already have that. And I know that it needs a 4:1 balun. I can make that.
>
> I have three questions for the group.
>
> 1. Is there any reason to expect that a wire vertical will perform significantly differently than one made from aluminum tube (e.g. 2" OD at base)? EZNEC modeling shows a slightly lower gain for a wire antenna, but not significant. Is this borne out in real life?

The DX will never know the difference. The succinct reason for
aluminum is when the wire has to support itself. With aluminum it is
possible to make a self-supporting 43' vertical. This is really
important in situations where there are no other suitable means for
support. It's a choice based on common sense mechanical issues that
relate to your particular back yard. The only performance issue in
your design is radials. That will be entirely responsible for wow, or
why did I bother.

> 2. The available grassy yard space where the antenna would be installed would permit a maximum straight-line radial run of approximately 30 feet, well under the desired length of 58 feet for operation on 80 meters. Would it affect antenna performance if the radials were laid out in a series of Z jogs rather than in straight lines?

Radials are self-terminating. The higher the frequency, the less
length actually carries any significant current. Ground radials are
NOT resonant devices. Do them straight.

Individual radials on/in the ground are severely attenuated by the
ground around them, and will exhibit a per wire ground-absorbed
resistance of upwards of a hundred ohms each for some kinds of dirt.
The secret is to divide that resistance by a large number in parallel
so that the COLLECTION of radials APPEARS to be a SMALL resistance to
the antenna system. This concept is the huge gorilla in the room.
Just about nothing else counts until you deal with this.

Use bare wire and notch each one well down into the sod. Keep the angles even.

BECAUSE you intend to use this on the higher bands, notch a minimum of
60 bare radials into the sod. The resistance is divided by sixty, and
the density NEAR the center is MANDATORY for the higher bands. DO NOT
SCRIMP on ground radials. What you do with the radials is about
ninety-five percent of the multiband performance. Without this the
power loss in the ground around the vertical on the high bands can be
astonishing, so much so that lossy ground induction completely
controls the impedance and turns a 100 watt transceiver into a QRP rig
AND WORSE. This situation is responsible for the old saw that "A
vertical radiates equally poorly in all directions."

If you don't have the patience or time for this, don't do radials
on/in the ground. Ground radials are a special case with brutal
penalties for partial implementations.

What those buried bare radials have going for them though, is once
sufficient numbers are notched into the ground under the sod, and the
grass has recovered and been mowed a couple of times, you have the
best you can do, and they are completely invisible.

> 3. The antenna would be suspended from a large sycamore tree. Will it make any difference in performance if I run the vertical right up the side of the trunk, as contrasted with suspending it from a limb at some distance (e.g. 5 - 10 feet) from the trunk?

How much loss tacking a wire to a tree trunk will give you is
controversial. But there is no point in tempting all the physics in
that unresolved question. It may vary by species of tree and time of
year. Just don't go there unless you have to.

Pulling a vertical wire up through a tree, ten feet or more from the
trunk, has been a wonderful stealth vertical in developments. What
that has going for it is that a radial center out ten or 15 feet from
a trunk will allow the radials to be kept even and still pass around
the tree. It is important on the high bands to have a dense uniform
center coverage of the radials without any gaps.

73, Guy.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Lew K6LMP
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Hardy Landskov

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

The only caveat I would add is DO NOT end your vertical in the tree. The
tree will catch on fire even at the 100 watt level. The voltage potential at
the end of a vertical can reach 10,000 volts or more. I have the
experience... Instead, attach a U-Bolt with an insulator to extend the
vertical another 20 feet or so above the tree. This worked for me.
73 N7RT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" <[hidden email]>
To: "Lew Phelps K6LMP" <[hidden email]>; "Elecraft Reflector"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

See interspersed.

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Lew Phelps K6LMP <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm currently running my K3-10 into a 40 meter horizontal loop antenna,
> mounted on my roof about 35 feet above ground. It's impractical to use on
> 80, and has a very high angle of radiation on 40 and 20 meters.
>
> So, I'm thinking of replacing it with a 43' wire vertical. Yes, I know it
> needs a wide-range tuner, because it's non-resonant on any ham bands. I
> already have that. And I know that it needs a 4:1 balun. I can make that.
>
> I have three questions for the group.
>
> 1. Is there any reason to expect that a wire vertical will perform
> significantly differently than one made from aluminum tube (e.g. 2" OD at
> base)? EZNEC modeling shows a slightly lower gain for a wire antenna, but
> not significant. Is this borne out in real life?

The DX will never know the difference. The succinct reason for
aluminum is when the wire has to support itself. With aluminum it is
possible to make a self-supporting 43' vertical. This is really
important in situations where there are no other suitable means for
support. It's a choice based on common sense mechanical issues that
relate to your particular back yard. The only performance issue in
your design is radials. That will be entirely responsible for wow, or
why did I bother.

> 2. The available grassy yard space where the antenna would be installed
> would permit a maximum straight-line radial run of approximately 30 feet,
> well under the desired length of 58 feet for operation on 80 meters. Would
> it affect antenna performance if the radials were laid out in a series of
> Z jogs rather than in straight lines?

Radials are self-terminating. The higher the frequency, the less
length actually carries any significant current. Ground radials are
NOT resonant devices. Do them straight.

Individual radials on/in the ground are severely attenuated by the
ground around them, and will exhibit a per wire ground-absorbed
resistance of upwards of a hundred ohms each for some kinds of dirt.
The secret is to divide that resistance by a large number in parallel
so that the COLLECTION of radials APPEARS to be a SMALL resistance to
the antenna system. This concept is the huge gorilla in the room.
Just about nothing else counts until you deal with this.

Use bare wire and notch each one well down into the sod. Keep the angles
even.

BECAUSE you intend to use this on the higher bands, notch a minimum of
60 bare radials into the sod. The resistance is divided by sixty, and
the density NEAR the center is MANDATORY for the higher bands. DO NOT
SCRIMP on ground radials. What you do with the radials is about
ninety-five percent of the multiband performance. Without this the
power loss in the ground around the vertical on the high bands can be
astonishing, so much so that lossy ground induction completely
controls the impedance and turns a 100 watt transceiver into a QRP rig
AND WORSE. This situation is responsible for the old saw that "A
vertical radiates equally poorly in all directions."

If you don't have the patience or time for this, don't do radials
on/in the ground. Ground radials are a special case with brutal
penalties for partial implementations.

What those buried bare radials have going for them though, is once
sufficient numbers are notched into the ground under the sod, and the
grass has recovered and been mowed a couple of times, you have the
best you can do, and they are completely invisible.

> 3. The antenna would be suspended from a large sycamore tree. Will it make
> any difference in performance if I run the vertical right up the side of
> the trunk, as contrasted with suspending it from a limb at some distance
> (e.g. 5 - 10 feet) from the trunk?

How much loss tacking a wire to a tree trunk will give you is
controversial. But there is no point in tempting all the physics in
that unresolved question. It may vary by species of tree and time of
year. Just don't go there unless you have to.

Pulling a vertical wire up through a tree, ten feet or more from the
trunk, has been a wonderful stealth vertical in developments. What
that has going for it is that a radial center out ten or 15 feet from
a trunk will allow the radials to be kept even and still pass around
the tree. It is important on the high bands to have a dense uniform
center coverage of the radials without any gaps.

73, Guy.

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

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

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

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

Vic K2VCO

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

1. A wire should be as good as tubing.

2. Use at least 16 radials 30' long. You won't get much if any improvement by making them
longer and zig-zaging. Probably 32 would be a little better, but it's not worth it to use
more.

3. Do NOT put it against the trunk! The farther away from the tree the better. Trees do
absorb vertically-polarized RF to some extent.

4. You would most likely get improved efficiency from a remote tuner at the base of the
antenna than from a tuner in the shack. On some bands the SWR will be quite high on the
run from the tuner to the antenna.

On 12/19/2010 4:21 PM, Lew Phelps K6LMP wrote:

> I'm currently running my K3-10 into a 40 meter horizontal loop antenna, mounted on my
> roof about 35 feet above ground. It's impractical to use on 80, and has a very high
> angle of radiation on 40 and 20 meters.
>
> So, I'm thinking of replacing it with a 43' wire vertical. Yes, I know it needs a
> wide-range tuner, because it's non-resonant on any ham bands. I already have that. And
> I know that it needs a 4:1 balun. I can make that.
>
> I have three questions for the group.
>
> 1. Is there any reason to expect that a wire vertical will perform significantly
> differently than one made from aluminum tube (e.g. 2" OD at base)? EZNEC modeling
> shows a slightly lower gain for a wire antenna, but not significant. Is this borne out
> in real life?
>
> 2. The available grassy yard space where the antenna would be installed would permit a
> maximum straight-line radial run of approximately 30 feet, well under the desired
> length of 58 feet for operation on 80 meters. Would it affect antenna performance if
> the radials were laid out in a series of Z jogs rather than in straight lines?
>
> 3. The antenna would be suspended from a large sycamore tree. Will it make any
> difference in performance if I run the vertical right up the side of the trunk, as
> contrasted with suspending it from a limb at some distance (e.g. 5 - 10 feet) from the
> trunk?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lew K6LMP

--
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

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

K6LMP

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

Thanks to the many Elecrafters who have given thoughtful, knowledgeable and thorough replies to my questions. Collectively, you have answered all three of my questions, and also proposed an alternative that I hadn't considered: the inverted L.

I failed to mention that the distance from my operating position to the base of the anticipated antenna is only 17 feet, so using a tuner in the shack rather than at the base of the antenna won't result in large line losses; I plan to use LMR-400 cable that I have on hand.

Again, thanks all the sound advise. This is a great group.

Lew K6LMP

On Dec 19, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Lew Phelps K6LMP wrote:

> I'm currently running my K3-10 into a 40 meter horizontal loop antenna, mounted on my roof about 35 feet above ground. It's impractical to use on 80, and has a very high angle of radiation on 40 and 20 meters.
[snip]
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

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

AC7AC

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

Rick Dettinger-3

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

When I moved the feed for my inverted "L" antenna from my shack to a
post set 100 feet from the shack, the noise level on receive improved
by about 3 S units. I use an SGC tuner on the post and run the coax
and power cable in an underground conduit to the shack. The radials
are hard to install as the ground cover is heavy brush and I try to
snake the #14 wire more or less through it. I only have 5 so far,
about 30 feet long. The ground is very wet in the winter. I seem to
get good results, probably because the antenna wire is 176 feet long
and 55 feet high. A shorter wire would be more intolerant of my poor
ground. I also have a 43 foot vertical mounted on the post, made of
aluminum tubing. The inverted "L" usually, but not always, works
better on 160 through 30 meters. On 20 meters, the vertical is almost
always an S unit better than the "L". On that band the height is
about 5/8 wave long and the higher feed resistance helps with the
ground situation. The two antennas are relay selected by a switch in
the shack so I don't need to walk out with a flashlight and change
jumpers anymore!

73,

Rick Dettinger K7MW

> I can't speak to the losses in the LMR-400 cable under very high
> SWR, but
> for the record my Inverted L brings the single wire into the tuner
> in the
> shack. I use a 1/4" acrylic tubing as an insulator to bring it
> through the
> outer wall into the shack.
>
> Good luck and have fun Lew!
>
> 73,
>
> Ron AC7AC

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

I will give you one more perspective Lew. I run an inverted L for 80/160 which
is suspended at the top about 60 feet high from my tower.  The wire is about 10
feet from the tower at the ground and maybe 3 feet at the top. I use 12 gauge
insulated wire and at 60 feet from the ground I have a 80 meter coax trap and
use a descending wire to tune it for 160. I use 5 radials each 50 feet long.
My ground is old sea bed and later rice farm so it is very
conductive.  Sometimes there is a lot of standing water. The antenna is fed
withabout 200 feet of RG8X with a 6 turn decoupling coil. The antenna will
resonate without a tuner on 160, 80 and 10, but I used it as my only antenna for
a few months after my other antennas were destroyed by hurricane Ike in 2008.
It is a couple S units or more less effective than my SteppIR, but gave me a lot
of nice contacts till I could get the beam back in operation.

I would recommend the inverted L. The only band where 43 feet is significant is
20 meters where it is 5/8 wavelength and will give you the biggest lobe at a
very low angle. The low radiation angle on all bands depends a lot on the
ground conductivity for the first several wavelengths from the antenna. Much
farther away than it is practical to run radials, even for commercial
installations.  The radials in the near field are very useful for lowering the
ground resistance to improve the radiation efficiency, but are not so effective
on the take off angle. The 43 foot vertical will have a very low radiation
resistance on 80 meters, about10 ohms, so it is difficult to tune and requires a
very good counterpoise for good efficiency. The L with a 40 foot or so vertical
leg will give a similar low take off angle, but the horizontal part will
resonate the antenna and bring the radiation resistance up to 35 or 40 ohms and
greatly increase the band width.   Having the horizontal part horizontal is not
at all important and sloping it downward will not hurt much at all. If you can
get a pully and halyard high in the tree and pull the wire up with a rope it
makes the antenna easy to work on for tuning, etc. Having the dead end
suspended and with a high voltage insulator in open air will take care of the
problem of arcing mentioned earlier.

I have seen no evidence that bare wire is more effective than insulated wire. I
think it depends mostly on what is available to you at low cost. I like to lay
the radials on the surface of the ground and hold them down with the aluminum
tie wires sold for tying chain link. When the grass grows over the wire it will
protect the radials from the lawnmower. There is no advantage in trying to tune
the radials and if your field is limited run them to the property line of the
house or other limiting boundry or structure. If you get tired of running
radials, go make some contacts and see how it works. Wait until you can't work
some station that you really want to contact then get inspired to run a few more
radials.

Expect your tuning to change from day to day with the amount of rain and the
amount of folage on the tree. A tree may not be the ideal antenna support
unless it is the only support available. If it is all you have, then it is
ideal.

Good luck and have fun.!
Willis 'Cookie' Cooke
K5EWJ

______________________________________________________________
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

David Cutter

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

Lew

Have a look at this simple project. I'm about to build one and support it
with a fishing rod, but your tree will do a good job. Lots of advice in the
article. I've also modelled it at twice the size to cover 160 and it looks
very interesting. It's close to resonant on several bands and a matching
unit at the t/rx will sort that.

http://www.g7fek.co.uk/software/G7FEK%20antenna.pdf

73

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

Phil Salas

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

In reply to this post by K6LMP

Lots of good advice has been given here. The SWR-related coax losses on
60-10 meters will be negligable with decent coax (I use 1/2" Heliax, but
LMR-400 is almost as good), especially with your short run. I use my K3
internal tuner for these bands. For 160- and 80-meters, I have a
remote-switched base matching system that works great. Info on this is in
the "Articles" section of my website at www.ad5x.com.

Phil - AD5X

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

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

Bob Naumann W5OV

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

I can heartily recommend the AD5X 43' remote-switched matching system. I use
one with my Zero Five 43' vertical and it works remarkably well on 160
through 10m. Look for my callsign in the ZL8X online lookup - I worked them
on CW on all bands 160 through 10m and a few on SSB and RTTY too with only
this antenna.

This weekend in the Stew Perry Distance Challenge (160CW) I also logged the
following (just a few examples out of over 100 qsos made in about three
hours of operation):

QSO: 1818 CW 2010-12-19 0355 W5OV 599 EM12 4B2S 599
DL49
QSO: 1813 CW 2010-12-19 0359 W5OV 599 EM12 W1BB 599
FN42
QSO: 1826 CW 2010-12-19 0412 W5OV 599 EM12 KV4FZ 599
FK77
QSO: 1826 CW 2010-12-19 1151 W5OV 599 EM12 KL7RA 599
BP40
QSO: 1825 CW 2010-12-19 1324 W5OV 599 EM12 JA3YBK 599
PM84

It may not be the best antenna, but it works and pretty well. I think that
was my first ever JA on 160.

73,

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil & Debbie Salas
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:41 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

Lots of good advice has been given here. The SWR-related coax losses on
60-10 meters will be negligable with decent coax (I use 1/2" Heliax, but
LMR-400 is almost as good), especially with your short run. I use my K3
internal tuner for these bands. For 160- and 80-meters, I have a
remote-switched base matching system that works great. Info on this is in
the "Articles" section of my website at www.ad5x.com.

Phil - AD5X

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

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

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

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

n7ws

Re: Semi OT: vertical wire antennas

If you have the kind of dirt I have here in the Sonoran Desert, I contend that the worst horizontal wire you can put up will be better than the best 43' vertical you can use.

As long as we're using anecdotal evidence, check my call in the ZL8X log. I missed them on 10-meter RTTY. Except for 20-meters where I have a homebrew 3-el Yagi at 45 feet, all of the other QSOs were using an inverted-vee doublet with 40-meter and 80-meter wires in parallel fed with 175 feet of RG-8. The ends are about 25 feet off the ground.

I worked them on 160 CW using my barefoot TS-870S because it has a tuner (my K3 does not) and my L-4B doesn't cover 160. For the SSB QSO I added some wire to the ends to resonate it. One end was four feet off the ground. I worked them with the barefoot K3.

If you're not into anecdotal evidence, (I'm not), modeling will show this to you. Yes, verticals have a lower "angle of radiation," but much less of it, even at the favored angle, than a "high-angle" horizontal.

Wes N7WS

--- On Mon, 12/20/10, Bob Naumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I can heartily recommend the AD5X 43'
> remote-switched matching system. I use
> one with my Zero Five 43' vertical and it works remarkably
> well on 160
> through 10m. Look for my callsign in the ZL8X online lookup
> - I worked them
> on CW on all bands 160 through 10m and a few on SSB and
> RTTY too with only
> this antenna.

______________________________________________________________
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

Randy Moore

[OT] WTB: Low Band DXing

In reply to this post by Bob Naumann W5OV

Any body have a serviceable copy of said book they'd like to sell? Please contact off list.

73,
Randy, KS4L
______________________________________________________________
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

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing

Administrator

http://www.elecraft.com/books/books.htm
:-)

73, Eric
www.elecraft.com
----

On 12/20/2010 3:01 PM, Randy Moore wrote:
> Anybody have a serviceable copy of said book they'd like to sell? Please contact off list.
>
> 73,
> Randy, KS4L
______________________________________________________________
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

Kok Chen

Re: [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing

On Dec 20, 2010, at 12/20 3:36 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft
wrote:

> http://www.elecraft.com/books/books.htm

Is Elecraft still shipping the Second Edition of the ARRL HF Digital
Handbook whose cover is on that page? The 4th Edition has been out
since 2007!

73
Chen, W7AY

______________________________________________________________
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

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: [OT] WTB: Low Band DXing

Administrator

We always ship the latest version. I'll update the picture :-)

e

On 12/20/2010 3:50 PM, Kok Chen wrote:

> On Dec 20, 2010, at 12/20 3:36 PM, Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ, Elecraft
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.elecraft.com/books/books.htm
> Is Elecraft still shipping the Second Edition of the ARRL HF Digital
> Handbook whose cover is on that page? The 4th Edition has been out
> since 2007!
>
> 73
> Chen, W7AY
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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