[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Shortened Dipole on 160M L Antenna

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Shortened Dipole on 160M L Antenna
From: (
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 06:42:27 EDT
   In a message dated 9/19/01 12:48:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
   << K7GCO. 
    Wrong philosophy.  Try the products first in the model and if it
    doesn't provide any improvment throw it in the trash.  Your design
    first by prototype philosophy is not what any engineering firm would
    do today.  I suppose there are some who would try but they wouldn't be
    around long.
    ********Brian, before Eznec everyone built prototypes.  I used model air 
plane brass tubing for elements.  I specifically stated "since Eznec I model 
everything first."  It saves a lot of time if you know how to read the 
patterns. Didn't you read it?  Now if you read it why did you make such a 
statement above?  Your arrogant statement served no useful purpose whatsoever.

    Second.  You have now completely changed the design you talked about
    to try and make it work.  What if you were doing this in the real
    world? What a waste of time and $$.
   ************Hold on, I added a BC variable after WWII selsyn driven for 
simplicity out at the base.  The variable vacuum is too slow to adjust out of 
the shack. So I changed the design and did make it work quicker--so what?  
Who cares besides you in the real world?  Your statement is "totally 
irrelevant." Simplicity is the name of the game. Try it.  What's the big sin? 
 Any technique that works better is not a waste of time or $$.  I'm sure the 
original suggester doesn't care either so why should you?  Before selsyns the 
wire of an L was frequently run into the shack right to the series Xc and the 
linked coupled or a pi network final.  By having taps on the Pi tank coil one 
can change the matching range of it real fast for the L wire to the tube 
plate.  They were clever chaps in those days.  Finals were open years ago and 
easy to get into to change a coil tap for example or some had a rotary coil 
insulated shaft coming out front--after first shutting off the HV.  Appliance 
operators can't get into the rigs now to do these things.
    Third, per W8JI's notes, the coax won't handle the power.
   *********He has no knowledge of the size of coax I used--as usual.  Why 
don't you ask before going off in another tangent?  It's true that coax used 
as a 1/4 wave matching stub has SWR on it and that increases the losses some 
but not for the full length. The SWR is about 1.8:1 (for 90 ohm coax 
connected to a 160 ohm load).  I feel coax all the time after a long 
transmission and if it doesn't get warm that's acceptable to me.  I ran the 
actual test--he didn't as usual.  I emphasized the necessity of this to keep 
from putting your foot in your mouth--repeatedly.
    You have to go to RG133 (unavailable anywhere I could find on using
    the GOOGLE search engine. It is 0.4" diameter stuff with a big solid
    copper center conductor.  Any guess on the $$/foot if you could find it). 
   ********You fail to realize we in Seattle have access to Boeing Surplus 
and coax, wire and aluminum that makes your mouth water.
   Making your favorite (open wire line) is impossible for 90
    ohms.  The closest one can come is 110 ohms with 1/4" copper tubing
    close spaced.  Thus another design iteration.....
   ********I never said I made 90 ohm open wire line for that application.  
But if I wanted something for that range or higher there is a trick you don't 
known of just paralleling 2-300 ohm 1/4 waves for a 150 ohm stub.  That will 
invert 450 ohms down to 50 ohms balanced.  Or paralleling 3-300 ohm stubs for 
a"100 ohm 1/4 wave stub".  That will invert ____ohms down to 50 ohms. I'll 
let you do the math. Or parallel a 300 with a 150 ohm line there was at one 
time--for another "100 ohm 1/4 stub."  How do you like them design apples?  
There is no dielectric like around 300 ohm amphenol around 2 copper tubing's 
attempting to make low Zo 1/4 wave stubs.  Therefore if you know your coax 
cable formula for Zo and related math you talk about all the time, I'll ask 
you how that dielectric changes the Zo of the line?  This is a "Pop Quiz!"  
You Show me YOUR math.  

I mentioned one lead of an open wire line plugging into a coax switch and the 
other lead through a series Xc to the case ground.  That particular feedline 
came from a 80m dipole and also a 40M horizontally oriented quad loop.  A 
single L wire can also connect to the coax switch center through the Xc 
also--I did it here.  The other coaxes to the coax switch acted like radials. 
 It's a useful concept. Perhaps you could suggest a few?
   Anybody in the US can work JA with great signals when the band is open
    on 10M using a wet noodle antenna.  I have worked a JA here who was
    running 500 microwatts.  It wasn't his antenna, my antenna.  It was
    propogation.  It is more a matter of knowing when the propogation is
   **********Get off it Brain.  I'll be happy to compare with your "wet 
noodle" any time.  Your example is a "wet noodle."  I gave an important point 
you totally missed again.  I said "I was still 20/9 when the strongest JA's 
had dropped to S6 or less (band going dead) and I was in contact with the 
last signal heard around S1-2 before total collapse which was often the HL in 
Korea."  No one else ever called them when I finished.  Seattle has plenty of 
witnesses for this.  Some burnt rubber over here to check it out or called me 
on the phone.  I could hardly explain it myself but it happened and will use 
this beam again this winter for further comparisons.  It's Kicks Butt.  If 
you are going to claim great knowledge of band conditions, learn how to spell 
   Tests all done in the 30's?? Hmmmmm.  I guess you didn't use any coax
    then. Seems to contradict all you have said.  My recollection of
    history is that coax as we know it was not put into service until a
    few years pre-WWII.   If you did, I can understand why you hate the
    stuff. No comparison to today's products.
   ********You can't get anything right can you?  I didn't say ALL the tests 
were run in the 30's--my 1st ones were and 4 or 5 since.  Many used the L 
longer than a 1/4 wave in the 30's with the series Xc as it is a clever way 
to raise the Rr to any higher value which is generally lower than 50 ohms.  I 
didn't say I used coax then either.  I have never said I hated coax either.  
I've just pointed out how well open wire line works, lasts and how cheap it 
is and suggested tuners that work great.  I use all kinds of coax.  About 40 
years ago I purchased 4000' of Times Wire&Cable Teflon coax RG-8 size that 
cost Boeing $1.75/ft--double shield silver plated and all that--11 cents a 
foot.  It has the same loss as Pollyfoam.  Eat your heart out.  It's awesome 
stuff.  I just got 250' of a recent Teflon coax for 50 cents foot that I 
think had a $1.60/ft price.  I use coax and open wire line where it works 
   Brian it's very clear to me everyone who E-mailed me, you have 
"intentionally butchered and misstated" the information I took a lot of the 
time to send you.  Your statements indicated you lacked the basic insights to 
grasp how it worked and I have forgotten your call.  With all your "40 years 
of extensive experience of ham radio reading you bragged about" you said 
"last year you had never seen or heard of any of my articles--even though 
they had been discussed and referenced repeatedly on TT."  Your current post 
shows your reading hasn't improved.  I asked you to contact me privately if 
you had any questions a week ago and you didn't.  Your and Tom's nonsense has 
been in full display again for reasons known only to you.  It's very obvious 
Tom put you up to this. I will state here that both your personal conducts 
are highly unethical and libelous. This conduct has no limits on TT.  I am 
telling you and Tom "never to comment on my Posts or Articles anywhere in Ham 
Radio or use your practices on others again".  Tom was told this in E-mail 
last year when he kept rewording my posts and would make up theory (from some 
book he couldn't produce?) to support a different version of a subject at the 
time on TT.  Tom was also told to "stop his making up his total bold faced 
lies about what I do and say."  Yet he has continued to do so. 
   The information given Freely by many on TT is prepared in usually a short 
period of time and is not a Doctor Thesis.  Errors in numbers can occur.  
Some data is well documented and some used to give their opinion but would 
"get Flamed" as the term is frequently used.  It discourages many 
contributions.  Even documented data that is easily proven by those with 
proven RF skills and insights is literally attacked by you and Tom in clever 
ways even after repeated requests I've made to try it.  Unfortunately 
Reflector Administration has alowed your practices to continue when told 
repeatedly of this and not allowed proper defense of legitimate material 
without any justification. If you and Tom can't understand the most 
elementary of antenna concepts, unload your technical deficiencies elsewhere. 
 Getting new concepts to the ham public is difficult enough with your total 
nonsense.  Actually try sometime before you jump on it.  Don't you ever get 
tired of being wrong?  If you violate my request again you will have a very 
"Uncomfortable Legal QSO."  Do I make myself perfectly clear?  K7GCO   
         73 de Brian/K3KO >>

List Sponsored by AN Wireless:  AN Wireless handles Rohn tower systems,
Trylon Titan towers, coax, hardline and more. Also check out our self
supporting towers up to 100 feet for under $1500!!

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

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