I have used Force 12 vertical dipoles on two DXpeditions, with excellent
results.
In 2004 I went to Falkland Islands and carried a Force 12 40XK. It was one of
three antennas we used. It actually provided more contacts than did the Mosley
mini33 tri-bander. Plus, one day with high winds broke one of the traps on the
Mosley, that we discovered upon return. See photos here:
http://dutson.net/Ham/gtdx/dxpeditions/2004/Photos/index.html
In 2006 I went to Malta and took a Force 12 Sigma 80. We made a bunch of
contacts on that vertical dipole, and I ended up giving it to the local club
for their use after we departed. I just did not want to lug it back to the USA.
73, Keith NM5G
VP8DXL, 9H3KD
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Kim Elmore
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 11:39 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
I have a F12 Sigma 80 antenna, which is an OCF vertical dipole with inductive
loading at the feed point and a hairpin match. While it
*requires* a common-mode choke at the feed point, it works very well for DX. On
stateside contacts, I think its radiation angle is too low and performance for
anything within about 400 mi is much worse than for my inverted V with (apex at
40 ft). On DX, though, it does MUCH better than the inverted V. I have no
radials beneath this antenna.
I know a friend is buying a Greyline antenna for his QTH. They initially look a
bit pricey, but I've not actually seen one, so I don't what the build quality
is truly like. Assuming it's build quality is pretty good, and assuming it has
a good CM choke, there's no reason why it shouldn't perform relatively well
given the constraints. Certainly better than no antenna at all!
Kim N5OP
On 10/16/2020 7:27 PM, Gary K9GS wrote:
> A better way to describe these is that they are an off center fed
> vertical dipole. No helical loading. They are working on a 40 ft
> version. I'm seriously considering a 28 ft one over salt water.
> Tuner at the base.73,Gary K9GS
> -------- Original message --------From: Jim Brown
> <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com> Date: 10/16/20 5:55 PM (GMT-06:00) To:
> towertalk@contesting.com Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance
> antennas On 10/16/2020 2:26 PM, k7lxc--- via TowerTalk wrote:> Can
> anyone shed some light onto the verticals from Greyline Performance?Hi
> Steve,The website describes these as vertical dipoles. That suggests
> that they are helically loaded. Vertical dipoles don't need radials.
> They can center fed or off-center fed. The tallest of these flagpoles,
> at 28 ft, could work fairly well on 80M. An important caveat though --
> field strength from vertically polarized antennas is strongly
> dependent on soil conductivity. That is, the better the soil in the
> far field in direction you're trying to work, the better they work.73,
> Jim
> K9YC__________________________________________________________________
> ____________________________TowerTalk mailing
> listTowerTalk@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listin
> fo/towertalk _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
Kim Elmore, Ph.D. (Adj. Assoc. Prof., OU School of Meteorology, CCM, PP
SEL/MEL/Glider, N5OP, 2nd Class Radiotelegraph, GROL)
/"A great second violinist plays second fiddle to no one." //– Robert C.
Marsh, Chicago Sun-Times./
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|