Hi Folks,
After reading all the comments I felt a need to comment.
The following comments are made based only on what I read in the latest
posting. If any of those aspects are incorrect, I would gladly apologize to
Greyline Ant's:
I checked out their website, very well done, but it states that most orders are
up to date and can ship within days, so perhaps the comment about months out
shipping is an old situation:
First, any company that charges your card, ships X months later, and not all at
once, is a rip-off. They are using YOUR $$ to finance THEIR co. I know all
the excuses for doing so, but these co's are not dealing on the up and up, thus
I wouldn't even trust their specs. And I'd be glad to go head to head with them
on their customer "methods".
DAVIS RF, like many reliable firms, ONLY charges once the item ships. Sometimes
on special orders that we would have no ready market should the sale be
cancelled, yes we charge up front , but we know that the item is in stock and
will ship within 5 days, or we tell the customer otherwise up front.
I can't , and won't , comment on specs of such a company. This co. smells
of the "PU " principles of business demise": Poor management &
undercapitalization
Verticals in general: I was part of Colatchco, Inc. , vertical phased array
systems and verticals and cables for feeding, phasing and controlling 4 el.
vertical phased arrays. Subsequently sold to COMTEK, who sold to Jim Miller (a
great guy), Jim sold to
DX Eng'g.
It was clear to me that our verticals, single or in phase, with up to a max.
of 120 radials on the ground, provide very low angle take off. And this was
critical to working week signal gray line. I operated from near Boston, 75 m,
DX window and had great success working VK, ZL, China (once) , etc. Grant it ,
this was a 4 el vert. phased array of the W1CF and W1FC design.
By the way , I still have one of the switch boxes, never used, with the 180
deg. phasing line. Maybe resurrect my 4 Sq.
At any rate, these are my thoughts on verticals for 80, 40, 160 long haul
DX. I ran a single vertical on 80 as an experiment, 120 / .25 wave radials,
exc. results, in my moderately dense woods (pines, oak, maple) surrounding the
vertical for about 50 yards in all directions. You don't worry much about
trees with verticals on low bands.
Cheers, Steve, K1PEK DAVIS RF, Div. of Orion Wire Co., Inc.
Colatchco, Inc, a tough name for a co., HI, derived from Collins (W1FC),
Atchley (W1CF)
________________________________
1. Greyline Performance antennas (k7lxc@aol.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:26:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: <k7lxc@aol.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID: <1450326705.248719.1602883561906@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Howdy, TowerTalkians -
?? ? Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from Greyline Performance?
The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like some feedback onto how
they actually work. It sounds like a good solution for my previous question
about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of trees vs. the xyl.??? ? Are there any other
comparable antennas to consider??? ? Also, are there preferred tuners? Tnx!
?Cheers,Steve? ?K7LXC
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:00:54 -0400
From: Artek Manuals <Manuals@ArtekManuals.com>
To: Towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID: <40f072b9-7439-9ea4-c3a0-5d328210ba42@ArtekManuals.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Steve
What follows is MY OPINION take it for what it for what you paid for it
which is nothing
Verticals on 160 are the preferred DX (transmitting) antenna greyline or
otherwise. Some well know DX'rs have even compared Inverted V's at 200+
feet to verticals and claim the vertical works better. I myself have
a"T" vertical ? on 160M with the top at 60' and 4 elevated non resonant
radials at 7'. Last season I worked 130 countries on topband. Since your
XYL limited I expect you cant do the elevated radial thing so be
prepared to bury a mile of wire just under the grass for a ground plane.
Note above I said "transmitting" antenna. The real downside of verticals
is they are prone to pickup more noise.? The old adage is you cant work
em if you cant hear them is true on 160 almost more than any other band
so now your looking at a separate receiving antenna.? In the "invisible
to XYL"? department BOGS are the way to go. The caveat is you need to
try and keep the BOG away from your vertical's radial field. Bogs like
poor grounds plus running a BOG over your buried radial field only
invites noise pick up and poor front to back for the BOG
There is some conjecture that Grey line signals come in at a higher
angle, but since I have never actually "seen" an arriving radio signal
while I had my protractor out I cant say for sure. The models all say
1/4 wave and less verticals deal with modest arrival angles up to
60degrees or so just fine, they are not much in the way of a NEVIS
antenna though...8^)
Good luck
Dave
NR1DX
On 10/16/2020 5:26 PM, k7lxc--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> Howdy, TowerTalkians -
> ?? ? Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from Greyline
> Performance? The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like
> some feedback onto how they actually work. It sounds like a good
> solution for my previous question about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of
> trees vs. the xyl.??? ? Are there any other comparable antennas to
> consider??? ? Also, are there preferred tuners? Tnx! ?Cheers,Steve? ?K7LXC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
--
Dave Manuals@ArtekManuals.com www.ArtekManuals.com<http://www.ArtekManuals.com>
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:23:18 -0500
From: Ron WV4P <wv4ptn@gmail.com>
To: Artek Manuals <Manuals@artekmanuals.com>
Cc: towertalk <Towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID:
<CAPQMqnd9xnp9bBD6rwXnAfz36zyXTis3eaiFy=z_YsFwEgc1mA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I suspect he was asking about antennas from https://greylineperformance.com/
not how the performed during Greyling Propagation.
Ron, WV4P
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 at 17:01, Artek Manuals <Manuals@artekmanuals.com>
wrote:
> Steve
>
> What follows is MY OPINION take it for what it for what you paid for it
> which is nothing
>
> Verticals on 160 are the preferred DX (transmitting) antenna greyline or
> otherwise. Some well know DX'rs have even compared Inverted V's at 200+
> feet to verticals and claim the vertical works better. I myself have
> a"T" vertical ? on 160M with the top at 60' and 4 elevated non resonant
> radials at 7'. Last season I worked 130 countries on topband. Since your
> XYL limited I expect you cant do the elevated radial thing so be
> prepared to bury a mile of wire just under the grass for a ground plane.
>
> Note above I said "transmitting" antenna. The real downside of verticals
> is they are prone to pickup more noise.? The old adage is you cant work
> em if you cant hear them is true on 160 almost more than any other band
> so now your looking at a separate receiving antenna.? In the "invisible
> to XYL"? department BOGS are the way to go. The caveat is you need to
> try and keep the BOG away from your vertical's radial field. Bogs like
> poor grounds plus running a BOG over your buried radial field only
> invites noise pick up and poor front to back for the BOG
>
> There is some conjecture that Grey line signals come in at a higher
> angle, but since I have never actually "seen" an arriving radio signal
> while I had my protractor out I cant say for sure. The models all say
> 1/4 wave and less verticals deal with modest arrival angles up to
> 60degrees or so just fine, they are not much in the way of a NEVIS
> antenna though...8^)
>
> Good luck
> Dave
> NR1DX
>
>
> On 10/16/2020 5:26 PM, k7lxc--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> > Howdy, TowerTalkians -
> > ?? ? Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from Greyline
> > Performance? The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like
> > some feedback onto how they actually work. It sounds like a good
> > solution for my previous question about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of
> > trees vs. the xyl.??? ? Are there any other comparable antennas to
> > consider??? ? Also, are there preferred tuners? Tnx! ?Cheers,Steve?
> ?K7LXC
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
> --
> Dave Manuals@ArtekManuals.com
> www.ArtekManuals.com<http://www.ArtekManuals.com>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:30:50 -0500
From: Gary K9GS <k9gs@gjschwartz.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID: <mailman.1085.1602949439.7132.towertalk@contesting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Please post to the reflector. Very interested too.73,Gary K9GS
-------- Original message --------From: k7lxc--- via TowerTalk
<towertalk@contesting.com> Date: 10/16/20 4:26 PM (GMT-06:00) To:
towertalk@contesting.com Subject: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Howdy, TowerTalkians -?? ? Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from
Greyline Performance? The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like
some feedback onto how they actually work. It sounds like a good solution for
my previous question about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of trees vs. the xyl.???
? Are there any other comparable antennas to consider??? ? Also, are there
preferred tuners? Tnx! ?Cheers,Steve?
?K7LXC______________________________________________________________________________________________TowerTalk
mailing
listTowerTalk@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:55:05 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID:
<e0f08cee-7aa8-18eb-1d5b-d9e68fa92db3@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 19:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Dulaff <pdulaff@embarqmail.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID:
<1224429675.49172729.1602890739114.JavaMail.zimbra@embarqmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
All
No direct experience on this, but the reports are the customer interface for
Greyline is spotty at best. Typical to get immediately charged on the credit
card and getting the product 4+ months later, then in multiple shipments. The
practice of charging the card when the product ships is not followed. Suggest
folks check carefully into the business handling and customer support aspects
before engaging.
Best 73's
Paul - W2NMI
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary K9GS <k9gs@gjschwartz.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Sent: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:30:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Please post to the reflector. Very interested too.73,Gary K9GS
-------- Original message --------From: k7lxc--- via TowerTalk
<towertalk@contesting.com> Date: 10/16/20 4:26 PM (GMT-06:00) To:
towertalk@contesting.com Subject: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Howdy, TowerTalkians -?? ? Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from
Greyline Performance? The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like
some feedback onto how they actually work. It sounds like a good solution for
my previous question about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of trees vs. the xyl.???
? Are there any other comparable antennas to consider??? ? Also, are there
preferred tuners? Tnx! ?Cheers,Steve?
?K7LXC______________________________________________________________________________________________TowerTalk
mailing
listTowerTalk@contesting.comhttp://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 20:04:35 -0400
From: charlie carroll <k1xx@k1xx.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: [TowerTalk] IDing in-line coax splice
Message-ID: <5fd90e1b-eaf5-9fa5-d3a1-2bee22247a10@k1xx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
I opened a mystery box from the attic a few weeks ago and found a pair
of in-line coax splices that I'd like to identify.? Though I've reached
out to a few folks, so far I've struck out.
The only identifier on the splice says *>-T-R-U-> 3199.* The splice
overall is about 4-1/2" long and 1-3/8" in diameter. However, the coax
shield diameter is 3/4", which sort of indicates 75-ohm cable; the coax
center conductor would need to be close to 0.113"? The only other thing
is these are quality connectors. They're heavy, probably brass, and also
silver plated.
I'll never use them and want to find a home with someone that has a real
need.
thanks
73 charlie, k1xx
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 19:27:58 -0500
From: Gary K9GS <k9gs@gjschwartz.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID: <mailman.1086.1602949439.7132.towertalk@contesting.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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/listi
nfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:24:35 -0700
From: David Gilbert <ab7echo@gmail.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID: <5e3357c7-3498-7aa9-bfea-614b2de08a64@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
After reading their web site, I have to say that their claims sound like
a lot of unfounded fluff.
They claim "lower noise", which is completely vague and physically
unlikely for a vertical.
They claim "lower angles than ground mounted verticals requiring 100+
radials".? Takeoff angle for a vertical is primarily a function of
ground conductivity, not the antenna and not the radials.
They claim coverage down to 160m for their 16' model with "very low
losses".? I'm pretty certain that a 16 foot vertical with no radials on
160m is going to have very high losses.
It might be just me, but their prices sound outrageous.
Their user feedback is completely anecdotal ... i.e., useless.? Some of
it is cringe worthy.
Just my two cents worth ...
73,
Dave?? AB7E
On 10/16/2020 2:26 PM, k7lxc--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> Howdy, TowerTalkians -
> ?? ? Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from Greyline
> Performance? The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like some
> feedback onto how they actually work. It sounds like a good solution for my
> previous question about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of trees vs. the xyl.??? ?
> Are there any other comparable antennas to consider??? ? Also, are there
> preferred tuners? Tnx! ?Cheers,Steve? ?K7LXC
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:40:31 -0400
From: "Larry B." <larryb.w1dyj@verizon.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID: <EAC2C99804D54A42B396DDA6E4B105A1@W1DYJ>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";
reply-type=response
These claims remind me of the Gotham V-80 Vertical I purchased in 1962.
Knowing nothing about antennas at the time, I believed their PR copy that
radials were not needed. Suffice it to say it did not help me make any 80M
CW contacts back then with my novice license.
You can't beat "mother physics..."
Caveat Emptor???
73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ
-----Original Message-----
From: David Gilbert
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 21:24
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
After reading their web site, I have to say that their claims sound like
a lot of unfounded fluff.
They claim "lower noise", which is completely vague and physically
unlikely for a vertical.
They claim "lower angles than ground mounted verticals requiring 100+
radials". Takeoff angle for a vertical is primarily a function of
ground conductivity, not the antenna and not the radials.
They claim coverage down to 160m for their 16' model with "very low
losses". I'm pretty certain that a 16 foot vertical with no radials on
160m is going to have very high losses.
It might be just me, but their prices sound outrageous.
Their user feedback is completely anecdotal ... i.e., useless. Some of
it is cringe worthy.
Just my two cents worth ...
73,
Dave AB7E
On 10/16/2020 2:26 PM, k7lxc--- via TowerTalk wrote:
> Howdy, TowerTalkians -
> Can anyone shed some light onto the verticals from Greyline
> Performance? The rationale presented sounds reasonable and I'd like some
> feedback onto how they actually work. It sounds like a good solution for
> my previous question about an 80M antenna vs. a bunch of trees vs. the
> xyl. Are there any other comparable antennas to consider? Also,
> are there preferred tuners? Tnx! Cheers,Steve K7LXC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:43:12 -0400
From: <john@kk9a.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Follow up on Coaxial Seal Removal
Message-ID: <008401d6a426$e03ac9f0$a0b05dd0$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I received the pliers today and they look well made although the plastic
jaws are pretty slippery. As expected the actual length is 8", not 83 as
listed on Amazon.
John KK9A
john kk9a wrote:
I ordered one shortly after KZ1W's post. At the time Amazon showed
only two left but now that increased. I really do not care about a few
marks on a PL-259 barrel and with an 83" wrench it's likely I would
overtighten the connector but I thought it might be a useful tool for
something around the house. The common Amazon complaint was that the
plastic did not grip well so we'll see.
John KK9A
Richard Smith n6kt wrote:
Wow! that's a huge pliers! 83 inches long!
Maybe not inches?
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:50:59 -0700
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID:
<66387c8b-2391-1ff9-f8c2-9234acf56998@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 10/16/2020 6:40 PM, Larry B. via TowerTalk wrote:
> I believed their PR copy that radials were not needed.
A point of clarification. There ARE a number of monoband and multiband
vertical dipoles with decent performance, and as a class of antenna,
vertical dipoles do NOT need radials. Most of them use some form of
loading and lots of matching tricks. Hy-Gain AV-series and Cushcraft
R-series are vertical dipoles. First rate antenna designer N6BT has
designed a lot of vertical dipoles, first for his Force 12 company, and
for his current company, Next Generation Antennas.
There are several tutorials on vertical antennas on my website.
http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf
http://k9yc.com/AntennaPlanning.pdf
N0AX, since 2010 the editor of the ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book, and
K7LXC, master tower climber, performed setup and on-air measurement of a
dozen or so verticals and about that number of multiband Yagis, and
produced excellent reports. Their test methods were excellent, and so
were their written reports. They can be purchased online from K7LXC's
website, Champion Radio. I strongly recommend both.
I also strongly recommend N6BT's "Array of Light," which is a sort of
compendium of several years worth of his technical writing about
antennas, and includes details for several dozen of his Force 12
designs. It's particularly good on antenna theory, design concepts, and
at debunking deceptive advertising claims. Tom's book is now sold by ARRL.
73, Jim K9YC
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:19:52 -0400
From: "Jeff DePolo" <jd0@broadsci.com>
To: "'charlie carroll'" <k1xx@k1xx.com>, <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] IDing in-line coax splice
Message-ID: <03dd01d6a498$f6655a70$e3300f50$@broadsci.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> The only identifier on the splice says *>-T-R-U-> 3199.* The splice overall is
> about 4-1/2" long and 1-3/8" in diameter. However, the coax shield diameter
> is 3/4", which sort of indicates 75-ohm cable; the coax center conductor
> would need to be close to 0.113" The only other thing is these are quality
> connectors. They're heavy, probably brass, and also silver plated.
TRU is a connector manufacturer. They are owned by Winchester which owns Kings
and a few others. Sounds like a splice connector for "750" (0.750" OD) 75 ohm
trunk cable. Nowadays, those splice connectors are almost always aluminum to
avoid dissimilar metal issues with respect to the aluminum shield on the cable,
with Gilbert (Corning) being a popular manufacturer. Google something like
"GRS-750-SP" to see if that looks vaguely the same as what you have.
--- Jeff WN3A
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 15:43:56 +0000
From: Gary <gary_mayfield@hotmail.com>
To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
Message-ID:
<CH2PR13MB38644CE1225E5E921A83CC0C8A000@CH2PR13MB3864.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have the N0AX/K7LXC books. As Jim states they are excellent. All of their
vertical tests were done with an extensive radial field. Even the antennas that
claim to not need radials.
I understand the reasoning for why they did what they did as explained in the
book.
Has anyone done a similar test looking at a verticals without radials?
Thanks and 73,
Gary "Joe" kk0sd
-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk <towertalk-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 11:51 PM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Greyline Performance antennas
On 10/16/2020 6:40 PM, Larry B. via TowerTalk wrote:
> I believed their PR copy that radials were not needed.
A point of clarification. There ARE a number of monoband and multiband vertical
dipoles with decent performance, and as a class of antenna, vertical dipoles do
NOT need radials. Most of them use some form of loading and lots of matching
tricks. Hy-Gain AV-series and Cushcraft R-series are vertical dipoles. First
rate antenna designer N6BT has designed a lot of vertical dipoles, first for
his Force 12 company, and for his current company, Next Generation Antennas.
There are several tutorials on vertical antennas on my website.
http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf
http://k9yc.com/AntennaPlanning.pdf
N0AX, since 2010 the editor of the ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book, and K7LXC,
master tower climber, performed setup and on-air measurement of a dozen or so
verticals and about that number of multiband Yagis, and produced excellent
reports. Their test methods were excellent, and so were their written reports.
They can be purchased online from K7LXC's website, Champion Radio. I strongly
recommend both.
I also strongly recommend N6BT's "Array of Light," which is a sort of
compendium of several years worth of his technical writing about antennas, and
includes details for several dozen of his Force 12 designs. It's particularly
good on antenna theory, design concepts, and at debunking deceptive advertising
claims. Tom's book is now sold by ARRL.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
------------------------------
End of TowerTalk Digest, Vol 214, Issue 18
******************************************
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|