| To: | tentec@contesting.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [TenTec] Re. [Ten Tec] --- and balanced fed verticals |
| From: | Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com> |
| Reply-to: | k9yc@arrl.net, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com> |
| Date: | Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:08:30 -0800 |
| List-post: | <mailto:tentec@contesting.com> |
On 1/26/2012 12:36 PM, Stuart Rohre wrote: I agree with you, but the original post defined a possibly balanced or near balanced vertical system, a quarter wave antenna with at least two radials. (This was the classic RCA design by Brown et al, when the ground plane antenna as it came to be called was invented.) (Later the marketing department wanted and added more radials "to look more symmetrical".) But this antenna is NOT balanced -- the radials have a MUCH MUCH LOWER impedance to earth than the vertical element. It is a GOOD antenna, but it is NOT a BALANCED antenna. 73, Jim Brown K9YC |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [TenTec] Re. [Ten Tec] Grounds and balanced fed verticals, Steve Hunt |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [TenTec] Re; tantalums failing, Stuart Rohre |
| Previous by Thread: | [TenTec] Re. [Ten Tec] --- and balanced fed verticals, Stuart Rohre |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [TenTec] Re. [Ten Tec] --- and balanced fed verticals, Richards |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |