Verticals
Locked
12
12
 
|
Good Day,
I am currently using a modified Cushcraft R8 with my Elecraft K1. I had never considered a vertical before the R8 and this was a compromise with my neighbors. Originally I had a dipole but that was only for 40 meters. I bought the R8 with the idea of multiple bands without a tuner. Because of restrictions here, I was only allowed one antenna. I did a series of comparisons between the dipole and vertical. The dipole was much quieter with the vertical being quite noisy. With the noise on the vertical also came a lot of DX I couldn't hear on the dipole. This was not a very scientific comparison but it satisfied me. The dipole came down and the vertical went up on the roof. With the R8 I have worked other QRP stations with similar antennas on every continent. This only shows if conditions allow, you can work into anywhere. I do agree about the vertical being a compromise as a single element. It will do a great job laying down a signal at low angles which sometimes gives you an advantage. This all depends on your installation and ground losses. I would still prefer to have a phased array of verticals than have a beam on a tower. This is opposite of my opinion twenty years ago. Mike, AC4UR http://sunbyrdpress.blogspot.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] |
|
|
Mike, I think you will find that the vertical is a better antenna for stations more than 2,000 miles from your QTH, differing results for stations between 1,000 and 2,000 miles and poorer for stations nearer than 1,000 miles. An NVIS attic antenna or a stealth low dipole may be a beneficial addition for nearby stations if you can hide it from your neighbors. Verticals work better where the ground is conductive in the far field because it helps the take off antenna. By the far field, I mean beyond the practical distance for radials. South Texas and Florida are usually good. Desert areas such as West Texas and Arizona not so good. Wet areas are good, dry areas are bad, conductive deposits in the earth are good, but no doubt you will probably not want to move to get better vertical conditions.
Willis 'Cookie' Cooke, TDXS DX Chairman K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart On Friday, September 12, 2014 11:36 AM, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> wrote: Good Day, I am currently using a modified Cushcraft R8 with my Elecraft K1. I had never considered a vertical before the R8 and this was a compromise with my neighbors. Originally I had a dipole but that was only for 40 meters. I bought the R8 with the idea of multiple bands without a tuner. Because of restrictions here, I was only allowed one antenna. I did a series of comparisons between the dipole and vertical. The dipole was much quieter with the vertical being quite noisy. With the noise on the vertical also came a lot of DX I couldn't hear on the dipole. This was not a very scientific comparison but it satisfied me. The dipole came down and the vertical went up on the roof. With the R8 I have worked other QRP stations with similar antennas on every continent. This only shows if conditions allow, you can work into anywhere. I do agree about the vertical being a compromise as a single element. It will do a great job laying down a signal at low angles which sometimes gives you an advantage. This all depends on your installation and ground losses. I would still prefer to have a phased array of verticals than have a beam on a tower. This is opposite of my opinion twenty years ago. Mike, AC4UR http://sunbyrdpress.blogspot.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] |
|
|
Does Elecraft make antennas now?
Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ-J68HZ-8P6HK-ZF2HZ-PJ4/K9HZ-VP5/K9HZ Owner - Operator Big Signal Ranch Staunton, Illinois email: [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: Elecraft [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of WILLIS COOKE via Elecraft Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:17 PM To: [hidden email]; [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Verticals Mike, I think you will find that the vertical is a better antenna for stations more than 2,000 miles from your QTH, differing results for stations between 1,000 and 2,000 miles and poorer for stations nearer than 1,000 miles. An NVIS attic antenna or a stealth low dipole may be a beneficial addition for nearby stations if you can hide it from your neighbors. Verticals work better where the ground is conductive in the far field because it helps the take off antenna. By the far field, I mean beyond the practical distance for radials. South Texas and Florida are usually good. Desert areas such as West Texas and Arizona not so good. Wet areas are good, dry areas are bad, conductive deposits in the earth are good, but no doubt you will probably not want to move to get better vertical conditions. Willis 'Cookie' Cooke, TDXS DX Chairman K5EWJ & Trustee N5BPS, USS Cavalla, USS Stewart On Friday, September 12, 2014 11:36 AM, "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> wrote: Good Day, I am currently using a modified Cushcraft R8 with my Elecraft K1. I had never considered a vertical before the R8 and this was a compromise with my neighbors. Originally I had a dipole but that was only for 40 meters. I bought the R8 with the idea of multiple bands without a tuner. Because of restrictions here, I was only allowed one antenna. I did a series of comparisons between the dipole and vertical. The dipole was much quieter with the vertical being quite noisy. With the noise on the vertical also came a lot of DX I couldn't hear on the dipole. This was not a very scientific comparison but it satisfied me. The dipole came down and the vertical went up on the roof. With the R8 I have worked other QRP stations with similar antennas on every continent. This only shows if conditions allow, you can work into anywhere. I do agree about the vertical being a compromise as a single element. It will do a great job laying down a signal at low angles which sometimes gives you an advantage. This all depends on your installation and ground losses. I would still prefer to have a phased array of verticals than have a beam on a tower. This is opposite of my opinion twenty years ago. Mike, AC4UR http://sunbyrdpress.blogspot.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] ______________________________________________________________ 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
> Well, the toroid in my R5 was anything but "large" (I don't even > think it was 1.5 inch diameter) and there was no way that network > was efficient. I happen to have an R5 network board (need to drill a new case since the old one failed). I haven't dragged it out to measure the toroids but from memory they appeared to be 2 inch. One can see pictures of the network here: http://www.iol.ie/~bravo/r7_vertical.htm, here: http://pa0fri.home.xs4all.nl/Ant/R5/onhr5eng.htm and here: http://www.mrs.bt.co.uk/mrs/r5/ The R5/R6000/R7/R7000/R8, etc. are all off center fed vertical dipoles - one toroid is an auto-transformer (~4.5:1) and the other a common mode choke (balun). Both re quire efficient when operated within their design limits. > I might also point out that, generally speaking, it is often extreme > overheating (usually voltage overstress) that causes a toroid to > fracture into several pieces. With the OCF verticals it is typically using a tuner to load the antenna on a band for which it is not designed (e.g. 30 meters with an R5/R6000) or using to use an R7/R7000/R8 at high power on the "other end of the band" - beyond the 2:1 SWR limits - that causes failure of the ~4.5:1 transformer and common mode choke. The common mode choke does not have sufficient choking impedance where the feedline is an odd multiple of 1/4 wavelength and the stress on the core can be very significant with high power on those bands. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 2014-09-12 10:27 AM, David Gilbert wrote: > > Well, the toroid in my R5 was anything but "large" (I don't even think > it was 1.5 inch diameter) and there was no way that network was > efficient. I might also point out that, generally speaking, it is often > extreme overheating (usually voltage overstress) that causes a toroid to > fracture into several pieces. > > As I say, the reality is that simple vertical elements (I made one for > 20m and a separate one for 15m, later replaced with a 40m vertical for > 40m/15m) fed against a haywire collection of ground plane wires > stretched across the roof significantly outperformed the R5 in the exact > same location. > > 73, > Dave AB7E > > > > On 9/11/2014 9:22 PM, Dave Heil wrote: >> There was nothing really wrong with the R-5. I used one for almost >> all of my 12 and 17m operating as 9L1US in the 1990-91 time frame. >> Maybe all you needed to do would have been to mount it on a steel >> railing atop a three story building on a 400 ft. hill overlooking the >> Atlantic. :-) >> >> The large toroid in the matching network in the plastic box fractured >> into several pieces by the time I was 5H3US. Cushcraft wanted to sell >> me the entire box full of components only at a very high price and I >> got rid of the rest of the thing. >> >> I keep a Hustler 6BTV with 25 radials here in case I lose a wire >> antenna or have a rotator problem. >> >> 73, >> >> Dave K8MN >> >> On 9/11/2014 21 51, David Gilbert wrote: >>> >>> Not to heap coals on the fire, but I also owned an early R5 and it was a >>> terrible performer. I had it over a year and when I finally got rid of >>> it and put up a simple 20m vertical in the exact same spot on the roof >>> and fed it against random length wires as a "ground plane", the >>> improvement was astounding. I don't think the basic concept was so bad, >>> but the implementation was horrible. I realized what I had as soon as I >>> opened up that little box at the base and saw what some clueless person >>> thought could act like a matching network. >>> >>> In general, though, I think it is a mistake to characterize all >>> verticals a poor performers. It's all a function of efficiency >>> (avoiding losses) and location. Check out the ground conductivity >>> charts across the U.S. and you'll see huge differences, with some areas >>> essentially acting as terrestrial dummy loads. Nearby structures that >>> can absorb energy or distort patterns represent other possible culprits >>> for bad results with verticals. I used nothing but verticals for most >>> of three decades, but mine were always on a flat roof and well in the >>> clear of anything nearby. >>> >>> 73, >>> 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] |
|
|
On Fri,9/12/2014 3:45 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> The common mode choke > does not have sufficient choking impedance where the feedline is an > odd multiple of 1/4 wavelength and the stress on the core can be very > significant with high power on those bands. That part of the problem can be solved by adding a good common mode choke on the coax near the antenna. See the Cookbook in k9yc.com/RFI-Ham.pdf for guidelines. 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 Dr. William J. Schmidt, II
They sell Buddipoles on their website. Does that help?
Wes N7WS On 9/12/2014 2:42 PM, Dr. William J. Schmidt, II wrote: > Does Elecraft make antennas now? > > > Dr. William J. Schmidt - K9HZ-J68HZ-8P6HK-ZF2HZ-PJ4/K9HZ-VP5/K9HZ > ______________________________________________________________ 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 |