TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
From: Jim Allen <jim.allen@longhornband.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:27:07 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Wouldn't it be ironic if that is all it took, at my age?  Where were they
40 years ago when all I had going was my charm?  Well, and some terrific
cologne.....  I am not a lawyer anymore.  I went on inactive status with
the State Bar earlier this year.  I don't do divorces, or murders either.
Actually, they never caught any of my clients!   I was a dirt lawyer, going
around fixing title company snafu's, handling foreclosures, small
syndications, and ran an investment company for ~23 years.  I stll manage
investments, but am about to give that up as well as old age and the
ravages of decrepitude take their unhappy toll.

I have looked everywhere I know for evaluations of the Petlowany coils,
without much success, certainly nothing more than the experiences of users
like myself. If any discipline evaluations have been done, I'd really like
to see it.  My sense is that the coils might be a decent alternative for
radials, likely not as effective, but an alternative.  That said, I really
wonder why I worry about radials after spending almost all day yesterday
reading about EFHWs.  For my situation, that might be a very amusing choice
indeed.

73 de W6OGC  Jim Allen




On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:

> Refference Petlowany Coils:
>
> Jim (A), I thought you said you were a "retired" lawyer.
> With that contraption in back yards, you'll have XYL's lined up for miles,
> wanting you to help them file for a divorce.
> Or was that the idea behind this suggestion?  ;-)
>
> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:11 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
>
> If you have a problem putting out radials for your vertical, why not try
> Petlowany coils?
>
> I have a home brew clone S9v31 with which I use 4 Petlowany coils.  See the
> photo at
>
> http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?444568-Petlowany-or-Petlowaney-Coils-as
> -Ground-Radial-Replacements&highlight=Petlowany+coils
>
> 73 de W6OGC  Jim Allen
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@dj0ip.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > It was nearly midnight last night when I read the entire presentation.
> > I sure wish I could have heard the audio that accompanied it.
> >
> > Yes indeed, I overlooked the "vertical rules on 160m".  Missed that
> point.
> > That's it in a nutshell!  That pretty much nails it!
> >
> > Total waste of time to even fool with horizontal antennas on 160m
> > unless you just want to rag chew with the local yuks.  It took me many
> > years to arrive at this conclusion.  What a difference it made to my
> > contest scores once I switched to verticals!
> >
> > I haven't gotten any further yet with your material.
> > My XYL had surgery today and I spent the entire day in the clinic.
> > As I wrote earlier, there is so much meat in your paper, it will take
> > a couple of days to go through all of this.
> > While hanging out in the clinic today, I wished I had had the time to
> > print your stuff out and take it with me, but it was just too late last
> night.
> > The reading material in the waiting room wasn't exactly my flavor.
> >
> > Also, as a result of reading your paper, it reminded me that I hadn't
> > uploaded my own folded radial vertical to my web yet, so I did that
> > this evening, including the EZNEC model of the antenna.  It is a
> > simple, effective 40 DX antenna requiring very little floor space.
> >
> > Mine had only one bend in the radial (copied from a Moxon design in
> > RadCom).
> > From your link to K2VA I saw it still works good with multiple bends
> > which make 80 and 160m more feasible.
> > Tnx for the tip.  Hadn't ever heard of that before.  I have lots of
> > reading to do!
> >
> > Here's a link to my vertical with the single folded radial:
> > http://www.dj0ip.de/vertical-antennas/40m-low-space/
> >
> > 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> > (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Brown
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 7:14 PM
> > To: tentec@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
> >
> > On Mon,8/18/2014 10:16 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
> > > Jim, I didn't understand the point on slides 4 and 5.
> > > I concur with everything you wrote.
> > > Perhaps you mean where you wrote 130 ft. height for a horizontal
> > > antenna is "low" on 160m.
> >
> > Well, remember that these slides accompany my talk, and also this talk
> > was to the Pacificon Antenna Forum, which draws folks a somewhat above
> > average knowledge of antennas. Ya hadda be there. :)
> >
> > The fundamental principle at work is that a horizontal antenna that is
> > low as a fraction of a wavelength is an inefficient antenna, both
> > because of ground losses and because all the energy goes more or less
> straight up.
> > I'd
> > call any horizontal antenna lower than a quarter wavelength low.  Most
> > of us are stuck with low antennas for 40M and below.
> >
> > But what is is about the line "Verticals RULE on 160M" that you don't
> > understand?  To me, that says don't even consider a horizontal antenna.
> > Further, the fact that the rest of the talk covers only vertical
> > antennas (with various forms of counterpoise) should tell you
> > SOMETHING. :)
> >
> > > Well my main point is, we have good dB numbers shown for different
> > > vertical solutions, but there are no dB numbers shown comparing a
> > > low dipole at a typical height one would have in a city - say 50 ft.
> > > max, to anything vertical.
> >
> > You're right -- I almost never see that sort of comparison, which is
> > what I did in the other link I gave. It compares vertical and
> > horizontal antennas at various heights on 80, 40, and 20. The 80M
> > plots are easily scaled for 160M. Simply double the heights shown on the
> horizontal axis.
> > So a resonant horizontal dipole at 80ft on 160 would behave like a
> > resonant 80M dipole at 40 ft on 80M.
> >
> > Also, both of those presentations are 1 hour talks, and especially
> > with the 160M talk, I had to have my roller skates on to get through
> > it in that time.
> > :)
> >
> > > There the difference is larger (in dB) than the difference between a
> > > good vertical and a great vertical.
> >
> > Yes.  And the primary difference between a mediocre vertical and a
> > great one is the counterpoise/radial system.
> >
> > Another tutorial you might find interesting is this one.
> > http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf  It doesn't address 160M, but it
> > clearly shows the effects of the quality of the soil on a vertical
> > antenna, and also the value of mounting vertical antennas higher.
> >
> > 73, Jim 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

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