To: <topband@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:29:06 -0400
From: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Subject: Re: Topband: Bev Wire
To: "by way of Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>" <K5NZ@aol.com>
Message-id: <3C56E9F2.B3BA8BAB@vitelcom.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
References: <1.5.4.32.20020128224814.006e4c14@pop.vnet.net>
K5NZ wrote:
> I'm using 14ga electric fence wire (aluminum) for my 2 580ft bevs. My
> question is, does copper wire work better or should I see no noticable
> difference?
Mike,
At least on Uhf and Vhf frequencies, before the advent of foam heliax,
long transmission lines, some times a mile long were made with the famous
G line. This consisted of a cone type launcher one each end and a single
wire that was preferable straight without bends. There was one thing I
recall from the G line proponents, it was their recommendation for good G
line performance to use steel wire, even if it is rusty, to make the long
runs. The cone type launchers on each end had a fixed insertion lost of
about 6 db. Yet at that time high quality flexible vhf/uhf transmission
line was not available. There exists plenty of RG-8, 9, and 213 etc. but
the losses on, lets say 900 Mhz and above back then was unacceptable for
long lengths and all towers.
Well what does this have to do with your question anyway? Most Beverage
users, and I am one of them, like phonze bronze covered wire which can be
placed on the ground for effective BOG Beverages. Steel, aluminum,
electric fence wire, cable lashing wire, even barbed wire will make usable
Beverage antennas. I think however, since the idea Mr. Beverage came up
with is to have the signal moving faster in the Beverage wire, then in the
ground beneath to develop significant wave tilt and directivity away from
the terminated end toward the receiver.
This apparently being the case makes the higher conductivity wire
preferred. I don't think, however, the difference is all that much. Low
noise reception and rejection of unwanted signals
may be more important. Running low Beverages into areas where there is
significant noise generation sources is a waste of time.
Herb Schoenbohm, (ex-KV4FZ)
Box 4419
Kingshill, VI 00851
|