I agree Jim, but are you implying that you cannot use openwire to feed an
unbalanced antenna?
What about the original Zepp?
It was 100% unbalanced. One of the two lines was left open at the antenna
end.
The whole point (IMO) of using openwire these days is to reduce loss.
Otherwise we would just use coax.
Another Example: Vertical dipole, non-resonant, base about 5 ft. off the
ground, center-fed with openwire.
This is an antenna I've used for some 20 years.
OBVIOUSLY, it is not 100% balanced because one side is so much closer to the
ground.
Running this antenna on 80m from Oklahoma, I was easily working any
continent in the world.
I'm not sure I would have had those results using coax.
(the dipole was only 9m per side).
In my opinon, openwire is an excellent feedline to use, even when the
antenna is not perfectly balanced.
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:09 PM
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Re. [Ten Tec] --- and balanced fed verticals
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
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|