Re: [TowerTalk] Balun question(s)

[Bill Coleman <aa4lr@arrl.net>]

On Jul 14, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Tom Rauch wrote:

> I think I recall the article, and what I remember is the
> main idea was to produce a clean pattern. If so, I have been
> in this same discussion with several others who reported the
> same problem as your friend has. I really cannot understand
> why anyone would want to use that antenna. It is a poor
> solution. Feed problems were ignored in the effort to find a
> good pattern. The antenna is too short.

There's a lot of people using Cebik's 88 and 44 foot doublet solutions 
that swear by them. Of course, they rarely mount them at the 
recommended height of 100 and 50 feet, respectively.

The height is the most important factor in this antenna. At 20 feet, 
your friend will have completely lost the bi-directional pattern and LB 
Cebik was attempting to obtain.

> It is a design that looks OK in a model (because the model
> has no tuner or feedline), but it really stinks when you try
> to build it.

As I remember the original paper, these doublets were intended to be 
"backup" antennas.

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr@arrl.net
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901

_______________________________________________

See: http://www.mscomputer.com  for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather Stations", and lot's more.  Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.

_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk