Elecraft

searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

Classic

List

Threaded

17 messages Options

KM3K

searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

Hello,

I want to re-read a post that Wayne n6kr made about a wire-antenna tossed up a tree and the location of a counterpoise; this was relative to portable operating a kx2 or kx3, if I recall correctly.

But my archive search has come up empty.

My recollection is he recommended placing the counterpoise in a direction opposite to the wire-antenna.

I need to verify that recollection.

Hopefully someone has saved that post.

TIA for any help.

73 Jerry km3k
______________________________________________________________
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]

Tom McCulloch

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

This is probably NOT what you are looking for but it's about random
length antennas...it goes back to Jan 29, 2017.

hope this helps:

I'd call an ad-hoc antenna that works on multiple bands with an ATU a "Kinda-Random Antenna" (KRA). (Apologies to linguistic purists.)

A simplified definition might be:

A. long enough to work within the maximum limits of the ATU's L-network on the lowest band used
B. presents a reasonably low impedance on all bands used (e.g., doesn't look like an end-fed half-wave)

ATUs have limited monotonicity and granularity, as well as stray impedances, so in practice there is a third criteria:

C. tunable on each band used despite specific L-network idiosyncrasies

This third criteria is the hardest one to predict for a given ATU design, as the idiosyncrasies vary with PCB layout and actual component values. They may only impact the highest bands, or for a particular antenna, the bands on which Q is the highest. For our ATU designs, we try to minimize strays and keep the network monotonic by using tightly toleranced capacitors and toroidal inductors.

While a wide range of wire lengths will meet the requirements of a "KRA" in the field, we've found from experience that something in the 25'-28' range works on all bands from 40 meters up, and roughly twice this for 80 meters up. Since it's impossible to predict the effect of ground losses, obstructions, deployed wire angles, etc., you may occasionally need to add or remove wire to obtain resonance on all bands used.

73,
Wayne
N6KR

Tom

WB2QDG

K@ 1103

On 9/6/2018 11:57 PM, JEROME SODUS wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> I want to re-read a post that Wayne n6kr made about a wire-antenna tossed up a tree and the location of a counterpoise; this was relative to portable operating a kx2 or kx3, if I recall correctly.
>
>
> But my archive search has come up empty.
>
>
> My recollection is he recommended placing the counterpoise in a direction opposite to the wire-antenna.
>
> I need to verify that recollection.
>
> Hopefully someone has saved that post.
>
> TIA for any help.
>
> 73 Jerry km3k
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

--

I'm happy to be anywhere -- Keith Richards

______________________________________________________________
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]

Don Wilhelm

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

Tom and all,

One of the KX2 Field Testers found that a 58 foot resonator and a 26
foot counterpoise worked well on 80 through 10 meters.
I use half those lengths for 40 through 10 meters.
No feedline, both the radiator and the counterpoise are connected
directly to a BNC to Binding Post adapter on the KX2.

The direction of the counterpoise does not make a lot of detectable
difference. Antenna modeling may show some difference, but working
quickly in the field may not allow you to set up the "perfect" situation
- use what you have available.

The KX2 internal tuner is a wide range tuner that might even be able to
match a metal window frame or the proverbial "bedsprings".

Let's face it, this is a compromise antenna that can be thrown into a
tree and give us the opportunity to make QSOs in the field. For home
station use, a proper antenna up in the air will be better.

73,
Don W3FPR

On 9/8/2018 9:50 AM, Tom McCulloch wrote:

> This is probably NOT what you are looking for but it's about random
> length antennas...it goes back to Jan 29, 2017.
>
> hope this helps:
>
> I'd call an ad-hoc antenna that works on multiple bands with an ATU a
> "Kinda-Random Antenna" (KRA). (Apologies to linguistic purists.)
>
> A simplified definition might be:
>
>    A. long enough to work within the maximum limits of the ATU's
> L-network on the lowest band used
>    B. presents a reasonably low impedance on all bands used (e.g.,
> doesn't look like an end-fed half-wave)
>
> ATUs have limited monotonicity and granularity, as well as stray
> impedances, so in practice there is a third criteria:
>
>    C. tunable on each band used despite specific L-network idiosyncrasies
>
> This third criteria is the hardest one to predict for a given ATU
> design, as the idiosyncrasies vary with PCB layout and actual component
> values. They may only impact the highest bands, or for a particular
> antenna, the bands on which Q is the highest. For our ATU designs, we
> try to minimize strays and keep the network monotonic by using tightly
> toleranced capacitors and toroidal inductors.
>
> While a wide range of wire lengths will meet the requirements of a "KRA"
> in the field, we've found from experience that something in the 25'-28'
> range works on all bands from 40 meters up, and roughly twice this for
> 80 meters up. Since it's impossible to predict the effect of ground
> losses, obstructions, deployed wire angles, etc., you may occasionally
> need to add or remove wire to obtain resonance on all bands used.
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR

k6dgw

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could work
anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen.
Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my
"28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to
work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window
screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My
"tuner" was the adjustable link coupling to the tank. College starting
1957, military and SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the rear view
mirror when I got home at the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 would
repeat even half of 19!

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 9/8/2018 7:13 AM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> The KX2 internal tuner is a wide range tuner that might even be able
> to match a metal window frame or the proverbial "bedsprings".

______________________________________________________________
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]

Bill Frantz

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

Some window screens are aluminum. I've used aluminum screen
successfully for the ground plane for a 10M vertical antenna.

73 Bill AE6JV

On 9/8/18 at 5:00 PM, [hidden email] (Fred Jensen) wrote:

>Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with
>my "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed
>to be able to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock
>close enough. Window screens are no longer copper so I don't
>think it would work today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | Security is like Government | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506 | services. The market doesn't | 16345
Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | want to pay for them. | Los Gatos,
CA 95032

______________________________________________________________
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]

David Gilbert

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by k6dgw

I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can
hear" hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally
meaningless reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always)
reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit
you're likely to equally suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us
probably can work anything we can hear but that doesn't mean anything
other than we haven't managed to screw up the physics of the world.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:

> During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could
> work anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen.
> Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my
> "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able
> to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window
> screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My
> "tuner" was the adjustable link coupling to the tank. College
> starting 1957, military and SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the
> rear view mirror when I got home at the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25
> would repeat even half of 19!
>
> 73,
>
> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
> Sparks NV DM09dn
> Washoe County

ke9uw

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
It’s an interesting book.

Chuck
KE9UW

Sent from my iPhone, cjack

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:16 AM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can hear" hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally meaningless reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always) reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit you're likely to equally suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us probably can work anything we can hear but that doesn't mean anything other than we haven't managed to screw up the physics of the world.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
>> On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
>> During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could work anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen. Window screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my "28-28" [6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to work everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window screens are no longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My "tuner" was the adjustable link coupling to the tank. College starting 1957, military and SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the rear view mirror when I got home at the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 would repeat even half of 19!
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
>> Sparks NV DM09dn
>> Washoe County
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Chuck, KE9UW

Wes Stewart-2

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title,
you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit.

I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for
antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a
transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers
came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL,
had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the
January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is
always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting
and receiving."

In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty,
separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand
bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages.
Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have
9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to
try one someday.

Wes N7WS

On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
> It’s an interesting book.
>
> Chuck
> KE9UW
>

______________________________________________________________
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

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna either.

73 - Mike - K9JRI

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit.
>
> I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting and receiving."
>
> In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to try one someday.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
>> It’s an interesting book.
>>
>> Chuck
>> KE9UW
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Bob McGraw - K4TAX

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

I've used a separate receive antenna..........once.   Then I noticed
when I transmitted on my dedicated transmit antenna, I fried the front
end of my receiver.    Won't do that again.   Of course I was a green
General op at the time and that was in 1960.   Since then.....well I
chalk everything and every error and every oops to educational
expense.   And yes, I've paid out a lot and I've learned a lot.    As a
Novice I learned that DPDT knife switch worked every time and reliably
too. Since then, some 58 years in the passing, I've always used the
same antenna for receiving as transmitting. Works for me.

On the other hand, some ops say a blah blah blah antenna is quieter than
a blah blah blah antenna.   Or my antenna is flat from 160M - 6M. Yeah,
well so is my dummy load on both counts. There is no free ride folks.
Yes it may be quieter because one of the nulls just happens to favor a
noise source or a host of other reasons. Or the system loss, feed line
and matching network brings the signals and noise down closer to the
noise floor of the receiver. Once the signals and noise are about 10 to
15 dB above the noise floor of the receive, the receiver begins to
behave in a very nice manner. Signals can be heard more effectively.
I recall Rob Sherwood has written a good bit on this topic. Worth the read.

73

Bob, K4TAX

On 9/9/2018 12:18 PM, Michael Blake via Elecraft wrote:

> Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna either.
>
> 73 - Mike - K9JRI
>
>
>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit.
>>
>> I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting and receiving."
>>
>> In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to try one someday.
>>
>> Wes N7WS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>>> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
>>> It’s an interesting book.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>> KE9UW
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]

ke9uw

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

I’ve used small tuned loops to null out local noise and various wire antennas. The biggest issue I’ve had with receiving antennas has been trying to keep the transmitted power out of the transceiver’s separate receive input. FYI, a pair of parallel crossed 1N914 diodes across the input worked well. Something I originally used for NMR receivers.

Chuck
KE9UW

Sent from my iPhone, cjack

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:18 PM, Michael Blake via Elecraft <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Before I could afford a DowKey I used a DPDT knife switch with my AT1 and BC348. This was in 1957. I have never used a separate receiver antenna either.
>
> 73 - Mike - K9JRI
>
>
>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:58 PM, Wes Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I suppose that if you're writing a book that has receiving antenna in its title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to stretch a bit.
>>
>> I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book, ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both transmitting and receiving."
>>
>> In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty, separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I guess I'll have to try one someday.
>>
>> Wes N7WS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>>> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
>>> It’s an interesting book.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>> KE9UW
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]

Chuck, KE9UW

Jim Brown-10

Receiving Antennas

In reply to this post by ke9uw

I strongly agree with this, and while I haven't seen that book, I just
published an applications note about chokes and transformers for
receiving antennas that includes the concepts quoted from that book.

I often work DX contests running 5W, including most 160M contests. The
stations that are able to work me are those with good RX antennas. That
matters a lot in contests like the Stew Perry, where each contact is
scored by a formula that includes multipliers for distance and for the
power used on each end. The guy on the other end of a QSO with a QRP
station gets extra points for that QSO.

A few years ago, I was attempting to work three DXpeditions that were
around the Antarctic circle on 160M. I was running legal limit, and they
could hear me, but the hardest part of the QSO was me hearing them,
thanks to my local noise. I worked all three of them, but at least one
of them would not have made it into the log without the Beverage I have
pointed in that direction.

I also do a lot of contesting running legal limit, and in some contests
where power is limited to 100W. I have very good TX antennas for 80 and
40, so a lot of east coast stations are calling me, often with not so
good antennas. I'm able to hear and work more of them because of the
Beverage I have pointed in that direction.

Not everyone benefits from RX antennas -- those who don't care to work
weak stations, and those with very low local noise levels, for example.
And not everyone CAN install RX antennas -- most of us are lucky to be
able rig a TX antenna. That was my situation when I lived on city lots
in the middle of Chicago, and even in the WV city where I grew up!

73, Jim K9YC

On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
> It’s an interesting book.

______________________________________________________________
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]

k6dgw

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by ke9uw

I think you'll find the quoted statement below to be nonsense, Chuck, I
think he made that up. Hams in the 40's and 50's [and probably before]
used one antenna because antennas are expensive and require space. None
of the ham community I knew when I was first licensed in pre-transceiver
days [1953] used separate receiving antennas. I remember being given a
Dow-Key coax relay with a movable spring-loaded pin on the receive side
that shorted the RX when in TX for the first TX I built from scratch [2
807's in PP to cancel the 2nd harmonic of 10 m in Channel 2].

Transceivers came along near the end of the 50's and were undoubtedly a
huge motivator for the shift from AM to SSB since you were guaranteed to
transmit and receive on the same frequency, removing one of the
difficulties of separate TX and RX, and zero-beating with no carrier.
Separate RX antennas were the rule in maritime CW at the time, TX and RX
sites were separated by miles.

Separate RX antennas sort of crept into the ham vernacular much later,
mainly in the context of large contest/DX superstations. It is certainly
true that while a Beverage RX antenna can produce a really desirable S/N
ratio over the TX Inv-L on 160, and you would never want to TX on it,
the reason most of us do not have Beverage RX antennas is we don't own
enough land. I believe that Don Wallace, W6AM, who definitely owned
enough land had several Beverages scattered around under the multiple TX
rhombics. [:-)
73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
> It maintains that “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.”

______________________________________________________________
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]

kstover

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by ke9uw

On the low bands 160/80 nothing beats a Beverage, built correctly. It's a
very inefficient antenna and wouldn't radiate worth a crap. On the low bands
we're looking for increased signal to noise ratio NOT maximum gain. 160m
verticals can be pretty efficient radiators. They stink on receive because
of noise caused by arrival angels and polarization. They hear equally badly
in all directions at once.

On the high bands nothing beats a yagi/quad/log, mainly because of their
increased gain and efficiency compared to the alternatives. With a
yagi/quad/log you can point the "gain" in your favored direction and turn
your back on "noise". The gain of a yagi/quad/log works equally on TX and
RX.

R. Kevin Stover AC0H

ARRL, FISTS, SKCC, NAQCC.
"If it doesn't work the first time you push the button it won't work the
20th.Just stop."

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On
Behalf Of hawley, charles j jr
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2018 7:59 AM
To: David Gilbert <[hidden email]>
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

The ARRL recently published a book "Receiving Antennas for the Radio
Amateur". It maintains that "The function of transmitting antennas is to
radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to
present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver". It maintains that
"using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided
with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s." And "The glaring
differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving antennas
becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept of
efficiency." And "some of the most effective receiving antennas are
abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered".
It's an interesting book.

Chuck
KE9UW

Sent from my iPhone, cjack

> On Sep 9, 2018, at 2:16 AM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]>
wrote:
>
>
>
> I truly do not understand why this idea that "I can work anything I can
hear" hangs around as a gauge of anything meaningful. It's a totally
meaningless reference. Antennas are generally (as in almost always)
reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you suck on transmit you're
likely to equally suck on receive. So yeah ... most of us probably can work
anything we can hear but that doesn't mean anything other than we haven't
managed to screw up the physics of the world.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>
>> On 9/8/2018 5:00 PM, Fred Jensen wrote:
>> During the runup to Cycle 19 [!1957 for me], it was said you could work
anything you could hear on 10 with 20 watts to the window screen. Window
screens were copper in those days. I tried it out with my "28-28"
[6J6-2E26] rockbound 10 m TX, and indeed, I seemed to be able to work
everything I heard if I had a 40 m rock close enough. Window screens are no
longer copper so I don't think it would work today. My "tuner" was the
adjustable link coupling to the tank. College starting 1957, military and
SE Asia in 62, and Cycle 19 was in the rear view mirror when I got home at
the end of 1967. Oh that Cycle 25 would repeat even half of 19!

>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
>> Sparks NV DM09dn
>> Washoe County
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Robert Cunnings

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by Wes Stewart-2

Times change.

In recent years vertically polarized man-made electrical noise has been a
growing problem. I was forced to use a dedicated receive antenna to
mitigate severe local noise problems (switching power supplies, plasma TVs
etc.) from my surrounding neighbors. Because the only practical transmit
antenna option was a vertical (little space), I had to give up on it as a
receiving antenna. After some experimentation, I settled on what is
essentially a folded dipole antenna cut for 40m, which is very close to
the ground. It's about 60 ft long and the wire spacing is about 4 ft, with
the lower wire only 2 ft from the earth, with a balun at the feedpoint in
the middle of the higher wire. 50 ohm coax runs from the balun to the
shack, lying on the ground to further minimize noise pickup. It is
strung along a fence on the lot line.

On all bands from 40m to 15m, the difference in signal to local noise
ratio between it and the vertical transmit antenna and this antenna is
considerable, up to 15dB. I suspect it would be a terrible transmit
antenna, but it works fine as a receive antenna. DX signals are often
heard by it much better than on the vertical. I don't have problems with
the transmit signal overloading the receiver input, perhaps because they
are polarized differently. The folded dipole feedpoint is about 50 ft.
from the vertical antenna.

The advantage of the separate receive antenna is that I can use an NCC-1
phasing system box in conjunction with the handy RX ANT In/Out insert
point on my K3. It's configured to use the Tx antenna signal from RX
ANT Out as the noise signal into one of the NCC-1 inputs, with the other
receive antenna connected to the other, and the NCC-1 output connected to
RX ANT In. The difference in vertically polarized local noise pickup
between the antennas lets me get a deep null on any particular noise
source in the surrounding houses. The effect is to allow me to operate
when I'd otherwise have to give up and be content with watching the
man-made noise waveforms dance around on the P3 screen. Using the NCC-1
introduces a directional effect of course, but as long as the signal isn't
arriving at exactly the same azimuth as the local noise it works well.

I think that a lot of folks afflicted with strong local noise are using
small so-called magnetic loop antennas for the same reason.

At times I feel like the Grinch in "How the Grinch Stole Christmas",
muttering "...the noise noise noise!".

73,
Bob NW8L

> title, you're going to have to make a case for them even if you have to
> stretch a bit.
>
> I remember bolting a 115 VAC coil Dowkey relay on the back of my DX100 for
> antenna change over in 1960 or so. It was several years before I had a
> transceiver. The idea that separate antennas were the norm until transceivers
> came along is nonsense, IMHO of course. Even the publisher of this book,
> ARRL, had many QST articles, such as "A Novice T.R. Switch", by Lew McCoy in
> the January 1961 issue that popularized T.R. switches. Lew even stated, "It
> is always to the amateur's advantage to use the same antenna for both
> transmitting and receiving."
>
> In the scheme of things, if my memory of the last 60 years isn't too faulty,
> separate RX antennas are a relatively new thing, popularized for the lower
> hand bands (40, 80 and 160), where of course they are supposed to have
> advantages. Personally, I'm two (SV/A and FR/G) away from top of the Honor
> Roll and have 9-band DXCC and I have never used a separate RX antenna. I
> guess I'll have to try one someday.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/9/2018 5:58 AM, hawley, charles j jr wrote:
>> The ARRL recently published a book “Receiving Antennas for the Radio
>> Amateur”. It maintains that “The function of transmitting antennas is to
>> radiate power efficiently, while the function of receiving antennas is to
>> present the best signal-to-noise ratio to the receiver”. It maintains that
>> “using the same antenna for transmitting and receiving roughly coincided
>> with the advent of the transceiver in the 1950s and 1960s.” And “The
>> glaring differences in priorities between transmitting and receiving
>> antennas becomes...well...glaring...when we start looking into the concept
>> of efficiency.” And “some of the most effective receiving antennas are
>> abysmally poor performers when efficiency alone is considered”.
>> It’s an interesting book.
>>
>> Chuck
>> KE9UW
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]
>

Petr, OK1RP/M0SIS

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by KM3K

Hi all,

everything works...
http://www.ok1rr.com/index.php/antennas/94-everything-works
;)

-----
73 - Petr, OK1RP
"Apple & Elecraft freak"
B:http://ok1rp.blogspot.com
G+:http://goo.gl/w3u2s9
G+: http://goo.gl/gP99xq
--
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]

73 - Petr, OK1RP
"Apple & Elecraft freak"
B:http://ok1rp.blogspot.com
MeWe: https://bit.ly/2HGPoDx
MeWe: https://bit.ly/2FmwvDt

Nr4c

Re: searching for post by Wayne n6kr about counterpoise

In reply to this post by Tom McCulloch

Lay it on the ground.

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill

> On Sep 8, 2018, at 9:50 AM, Tom McCulloch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This is probably NOT what you are looking for but it's about random length antennas...it goes back to Jan 29, 2017.
>
> hope this helps:
>
> I'd call an ad-hoc antenna that works on multiple bands with an ATU a "Kinda-Random Antenna" (KRA). (Apologies to linguistic purists.)
>
> A simplified definition might be:
>
> A. long enough to work within the maximum limits of the ATU's L-network on the lowest band used
> B. presents a reasonably low impedance on all bands used (e.g., doesn't look like an end-fed half-wave)
>
> ATUs have limited monotonicity and granularity, as well as stray impedances, so in practice there is a third criteria:
>
> C. tunable on each band used despite specific L-network idiosyncrasies
>
> This third criteria is the hardest one to predict for a given ATU design, as the idiosyncrasies vary with PCB layout and actual component values. They may only impact the highest bands, or for a particular antenna, the bands on which Q is the highest. For our ATU designs, we try to minimize strays and keep the network monotonic by using tightly toleranced capacitors and toroidal inductors.
>
> While a wide range of wire lengths will meet the requirements of a "KRA" in the field, we've found from experience that something in the 25'-28' range works on all bands from 40 meters up, and roughly twice this for 80 meters up. Since it's impossible to predict the effect of ground losses, obstructions, deployed wire angles, etc., you may occasionally need to add or remove wire to obtain resonance on all bands used.
>
> 73,
> Wayne
> N6KR
>
>
> Tom
>
> WB2QDG
>
> K@ 1103
>
>
>> On 9/6/2018 11:57 PM, JEROME SODUS wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> I want to re-read a post that Wayne n6kr made about a wire-antenna tossed up a tree and the location of a counterpoise; this was relative to portable operating a kx2 or kx3, if I recall correctly.
>>
>>
>> But my archive search has come up empty.
>>
>>
>> My recollection is he recommended placing the counterpoise in a direction opposite to the wire-antenna.
>>
>> I need to verify that recollection.
>>
>> Hopefully someone has saved that post.
>>
>> TIA for any help.
>>
>> 73 Jerry km3k
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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]
>>
>
> --
>
> I'm happy to be anywhere -- Keith Richards
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]