The question is not "How would you set up a contest station?"… it is "What is
practical to keep on air in a Senior Living situation?"
Now if you have a bunch of grand kids you can talk into installing radials all
the better. Or if you have a fence along which you could install an elevated
counterpoise all the better.
But my central contention is that wire is going to outperform a GAP below 40
meters.
On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> With the following caveat: The very sparse and short buried radial systems
> he is showing are FAR more lossy in practice than shown in his gain tables.
> Four twenty foot buried radials beneath a 1/4 wave L on 160, could place you
> down 20 dB. You really can't do that as your 160 meter counter poise and
> expect decent results. You can end feed the same wire on 80/40/30 meters
> (full wave worth of wire in the L on 80m) with four buried 20 foot radials
> and it will be an excellent antenna. This is due to the high Z feed at the
> ground with current max AWAY from the feed point.
>
> A quarter wave L on 160 MUST deal with the counterpoise loss issues, one way
> or another.
>
> 73, Guy
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Ashton Lee <Ashton.R.Lee@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This wonderful article written by L.B.Cebic W4RNL sure can make you a
> believer in a simple wire inverted L. It is the last antenna discussed.
> http://www.users.on.net/~bcr/files/backyard%20wire%20antennaes.pdf
>
> A $3 wire pulled up into a tree will beat just about any commercial antenna…
> because it is longer. So on low bands it has increased band width and
> efficiency, and on higher bands it has gain. Yes, I know , some of that high
> band gain is horizontally polarized, but that's not all bad. Just get the
> vertical portion 33 feet or so and you'll be happy as Larry. The article
> shows that an extensive radial field may not be necessary.
>
> And a wire is a lot less visible than a big hunk of aluminum. Without trees,
> just top load a 43 foot (or possibly even shorter) vertical. The top loading
> could be a T just as easily as an L. People can argue that one all day.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, k6xt <k6xt@arrl.net> wrote:
>
> > My first antenna, still in use, on moving to CO is a GAP Titan, advertised
> > to load up 80 thru 10 including WARC bands. The Titan is a bit shorter than
> > Voyager, 28 feet or something like it. The advertising is correct, it loads
> > up 180 thru 10.
> >
> > But wait. Is it effective on all those bands? No.
> >
> > On 80 its a dummy load. On 40 it works extremely well after I added a one
> > foot extension to the bottom wire that encircles the antenna. In some cases
> > it is the equal of my shorty HyGain 40 at 70 ft - which probably says more
> > about the HyGain than the GAP. For the rest its better on the traditional
> > bands than the WARC bands. It worked a lot of DX for me for the couple
> > years it was my only antenna.
> >
> > Carrying my experience to the few feet taller Voyager, and from what I've
> > been told by Voyager users, the ant will meet its spec which is to load up
> > on the low bands. Expectation wise I'd expect it to be like the Titan. It
> > loads up but is otherwise a dummy load. Maybe with a batch of radials it
> > could be made to work as well as any other extremely short vertical or GP.
> >
> > Not to say there's anything wrong with GAP. My brother had up an R7 which
> > he rated about like the GAP on bands both cover. Those multiband halfwave
> > short verticals work but you get what you pay for.
> >
> > 73 Art K6XT~~
> > Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.
> > ARRL, GMCC, CW OPS, NAQCC
> > ARRL TA
> >
> > On 12/12/2012 10:00 AM, topband-request@contesting.com wrote:
> >> With the prospect of downsizing and moving into senior housing in the
> >> future
> >> I am starting to look at vertical antennas that will allow me to continue
> >> this wonderful hobby.? I have heard "some" good things about the GAP series
> >> of antennas but the company says they do not need radials on most of them
> >> and that worries me.? Over the years I have become very skeptical about
> >> claims and the other BS put out by most companies ( maybe it is a function
> >> of age I dunno) so I wonder if these antennas really work.? The two
> >> antennas
> >> that I am interested are the Voyager DX for 160/80/40? and the Eagle DX for
> >> the rest of the bands.
> >>
> >> So my question is.... does anyone have actual experience with these
> >> antennas
> >> (especially the voyager) as compared to other antennas for a specific
> >> frequency.? Now guys .. I know you cant really compare a 6 element beam to
> >> a
> >> vertical of this kind but I am talking about a comparison that is
> >> realistic.. like how does it hear, tune, match & get out compared to
> >> something like another vertical or a dipole up some reasonable distance.
> >>
> >> I sure hope this has not opend another can of worms.. some how I seem to do
> >> that .. private emails are ok..especially it the topic gets out of hand and
> >> we get a large volume of comments (Tree please dont shoot me before
> >> Christmas my wife will miss me.)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
>
_______________________________________________
Topband reflector - topband@contesting.com
|