On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:01:52 -1000, Ken Brown wrote:
>While there may be some reasons that it is "nice" or "convenient" to
>have antennas resonant, it is absolutely not necessary. I does not even
>make them work better in some instances, or significantly better in most
>instances.
I'm not so sure about that, Ken, even though I've read that statement in a
bunch of
places from folks who considered themselves "authorities." I have an 80/40
dipole up about 45 ft fed by some old (but new in my basement) Belden 72 ohm
KW twinlead. It works beautifully on 80 and 40, and I've used it successfully
on 30
meters as well, even though it is nowhere near resonance on that band. BUT:
Example #1: A few weeks ago, I strung a resonant half wave 30 meter dipole with
one end lying in a big evergreen tree at about 30 feet, and the other end tied
to a
guy rope that runs down to a fence in my front yard. The bottom of the low leg
is
about 15 ft off the ground. This 30m "dipole" forms an included angle of
roughly 90
degrees, the the center of the vee pointing a bit north of east. In other
words, it is
far from ideal, but it is resonant. In most directions, it blows the pants off
the 80/40
dipole (which is much more in the clear and at least 18 ft higher).
Example #2: My friend KK9H told me had just added a parallel 30 m resonant
element to his 80/40 trap dipole. He reports that the antenna now radiates far
better than it did without the 30m element. And yes, he was using a damn good
tuner with it.
Jim Brown K9YC
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|