TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution

To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] OCF antennas evolution
From: Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: k9yc@arrl.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:21:39 -0700
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
On 7/12/2013 2:40 PM, Richards wrote:
On 7/12/2013 4:29 PM, Stuart Rohre wrote:
To further amplify Rick's comments, an antenna that has gained
popularity in USA in recent years, is a 40 odd foot high vertical for 80
and 160m work. One of our North TX hams published his versions in two QST articles.
The "magic" (good engineering) behind the 43 ft vertical antenna is that 
it is not too close to a half wave, or multiple of half-waves, on the 
major ham bands, so the feedpoint impedance never gets TOO high, and 
it's long enough (roughly 3/16 wave) on 80M to load and radiate fairly 
well.
In contrast, Rick sold me on the notion that an 80m inverted-L with appropriate additional capacitance is better than a very short vertical with inductive loading. (Hopefully not losing too much in such a short translation...)
He is exactly right.  To understand the design concepts, study my 160M 
antenna presentation, on my website, dividing the physical dimensions by 
2.. The ON4UN book also has lots of good stuff on verticals and radial 
systems.
  http://k9yc.com/publish.htm

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>