Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Balun question(s)

To: "Bill Coleman" <aa4lr@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Balun question(s)
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Tom Rauch <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:55:09 -0400
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
> 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.

I have an analysis up at

http://www.w8ji.com/short_dipoles_and_problems.htm

The problem is the antenna is too short for the lowest band.
88 feet is too short for an 80 meter dipole, 44 feet is too
short for a 40 meter dipole.

> 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.

I disagree. A nice pattern isn't nearly as important as
being able to apply power to the antenna. The problem is the
antenna is too short.

> > 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.

I would think being able to tune the antenna with a tuner is
a basic requirement of any antenna, backup antenna or not.

73 Tom


_______________________________________________

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

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