[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Balun question(s)

To: "Bill Coleman" <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Balun question(s)
From: "Tom Rauch" <>
Reply-to: Tom Rauch <>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:55:09 -0400
List-post: <>
> There's a lot of people using Cebik's 88 and 44 foot
doublet solutions
> that swear by them. Of course, they rarely mount them at
> recommended height of 100 and 50 feet, respectively.

I have an analysis up at

The problem is the antenna is too short for the lowest band.
88 feet is too short for an 80 meter dipole, 44 feet is too
short for a 40 meter dipole.

> The height is the most important factor in this antenna.
At 20 feet,
> your friend will have completely lost the bi-directional
pattern and LB
> Cebik was attempting to obtain.

I disagree. A nice pattern isn't nearly as important as
being able to apply power to the antenna. The problem is the
antenna is too short.

> > It is a design that looks OK in a model (because the
> > has no tuner or feedline), but it really stinks when you
> > to build it.
> As I remember the original paper, these doublets were
intended to be
> "backup" antennas.

I would think being able to tune the antenna with a tuner is
a basic requirement of any antenna, backup antenna or not.

73 Tom


See:  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather 
Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions 
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

TowerTalk mailing list

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