On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 Dinsterdog@aol.com writes:
>
> "MFJ 1792"
>
> Of note, out of the box, the antenna does require guying. The
> Butter HF2V does not. Therefore, I don't agree that the MFJ 1792
> takes up the same amount of room as the Butternut HF2V as
> stated in earlier postings by others.
The HF2V also requires RADIALS, as does the MFJ-1792.
A set of light weight non-conductive guys could easily be
placed within the space devoted to radial placement.
Even steep guys are better than NO guys.
I would NOT recommend using a 1/4 WL (electrical)
vertical without radials. Even short radials are better
than NO radials, just as a short antenna is better than
NO antenna. (Enough of this ! ) N4KG
>
> Neither of these antennas is so broad banded that you
> can operate in both windows without having to retune
> them and/or use a tuner to accomplish this.
Agree. I will even concede that it is easier to retune
the HF2V since the coil is accessable from the ground.
The MFJ-1792 has a nifty tilt base to facilitate raising
and lowering. It would be interesting to see how they
both work on SSB with a tuner if tuned for CW. That's
what I do with my full size coax fed antennas. N4KG
>
> I do think that the MFJ 1792 is a neat concept, on paper, has
> potential to will work fb from a small lot, and gives more bandwidth
> over a stock HF2V without modifications for those who like to
> cruise the upper end of 75 SSB for stateside stuff etc.......
> but it would be nice if the company making the antenna could
> give it a better impression by proof reading their own webpage-
Thank you for having an open mind and looking at the facts.
I have no idea why MFJ doesn't do a better job of promoting
this interesting antenna. I have suggested they advertise it
in the NCJ and DX magazines which have low advertising
rates due to smaller circulations yet target the most
likely buyers of 80 / 40 verticals. N4KG
> One other comment, I like to kid around a lot, so please don't take
> this as a flaming write-up against MFJ. I just want to get the point
> across about an antenna, the HF2V, that many have used around
> the world, from small backyards, to DXpeditions, to work DX-
> For someone to say it is "DOG" is not really accurate-
No one likes to have their antenna called a "DOG",
especially if it has done good things for them.
I didn't like the "modified G5RV" characterization as
a DOG in a separate thread and responded similarly.
> It is a compromise of an antenna for the band, but that's
> what it is designed for, thus allowing many hams to get on 80 M
> in the first place-
>
That is a good point. I do stand by my contention that
the MFJ 1792 has the potential to be a *better* compromise
on 80M than the base loaded HF2V *without* top loading wires.
A top loaded HF2V is probably a better radiator as well.
Note that the top loading wires need external supports
and possible additional guying.
I hope we can put this thread to bed now, at least until
further performance data or experience is available.
Tom N4KG
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
List Sponsored by AN Wireless: AN Wireless handles Rohn tower systems,
Trylon Titan towers, coax, hardline and more. Also check out our self
supporting towers up to 96 feet for under $1500!! http://www.anwireless.com
-----
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|