do we like:
"A *Balanced* Balanced Antenna Tuner
By Richard L. Measures, AG6K
The published version of this article appeared in the February 1990 issue
of QST Magazine." ?
73
Steve
G3XKR
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:47 AM, rick@dj0ip.de <Rick@dj0ip.de> wrote:
> THIS IS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE
>
> Of how I warn people not to be too worried if you are unable to install the
> textbook perfect "best practice" as Darrell and Jim are describing here.
>
> Of course they are 100% correct with their recommendation of how to do it
> right and of course the signal degrades when you for one reason or another
> don't do that, but that doesn't mean your signal goes to hell in a hand
> basket as some might assume here.
>
> Due to neighborhood restrictions, my 80m OCF dipole is just 12m (40 ft.
> high) at its feedpoint and the ends are about 30 ft. high. This is just
> over 1/8 wavelength on 80m - a far cry from the 130 ft. it should be for
> optimum performance.
>
> And although I am surrounded by high mountains on 3 sides, in the CQWW DX
> contests for several years running, I worked an awful lot of DX.
>
> Generally I was on the air for about 30 hours in the contest, worked all 6
> contest bands and lots of countries on all bands.
> On 80m with this low dipole:
>
> 2012 CW: 60 countries
> 2013 CW: 56 countries
> 2014 CW: 36 countries (in about 2 hours on 80m)
>
> Sure the countries are not far away here in Europe.
> My point is, you can work an awful lot with an antenna that is a lot less
> than perfect.
>
> Of course we should always strive to build our antennas as best we can, but
> don't let a lousy QTH discourage you from trying something a lot less than
> perfect. Remember "Everything Works."
>
> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> (Nr. Frankfurt, Germany)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Carl
> Moreschi
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 12:50 AM
> To: k9yc@arrl.net; Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] OT: Question to the group -tuner and dipoles
>
> I'm not saying it is good to have a low antenna, I'm just saying a low
> dipole is efficient in terms of how much power it radiates, but is is just
> in the wrong direction.
>
> My particular interest right now is a good antenna for the new 475 khz band
> that is coming. I have a 1000 foot dipole at 50 feet and it shows an
> excellent load at 475 khz. My belief is this antenna will be more
> efficient
> even at a 20 degree takeoff angle than a 50 foot vertical that has a very
> large and inefficient loading coil and radials.
>
> Carl Moreschi N4PY
> 58 Hogwood Rd
> Louisburg, NC 27549
> www.n4py.com
>
> On 7/18/2016 6:40 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> > On Mon,7/18/2016 3:32 PM, Carl Moreschi wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any real data to either support this or refute it?
> >
> > I've posted the link to my work several times.
> > http://k9yc.com/AntennaPlanning.pdf
> >
> > 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
|