[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Beverage Question

Subject: Re: Topband: Beverage Question
From: Rik van Riel <>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:56:00 -0400
List-post: <">>
  On 10/29/2010 07:49 AM, Edward Swynar wrote:
> (1) It's supposed to minimize the effect of precipitation static, i.e. snow
> flakes "dis-charging" on exposed wire as it comes into contact with it (the
> myth part), and,
This should not make a difference.  Your signal is RF
while the snow flakes transport charges that are
discharged into your antenna once.

Spikes of charge difference can be seen as a leading
edge followed by a static potential - that leading edge
can be treated as AC, which can pass through a
capacitor, and also through the insulation.

W8JI has actually measured this and found no difference.

> (2) The wire is "protected" from unexpected short paths to ground in the
> form of fallen branches, broken supports, etc.
This is definitely true.  Not shorting your signal into
touching foliage sounds like it "could make a difference".

I am currently using an 80m horizontal loop made from
bare wire, which gave me static crashes whenever
foliage touches it.  Trimming back the tree branches that
sometimes touched the antenna has reduced my static
crashes significantly.

I will be using insulated wire for antennas that are built
in the trees and run across/through tree branches, etc.
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

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