Wes:
Standing by for your observations on and experiences with balanced tuners.
Ed McCann
AG6CX
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 6:12 AM, Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws@triconet.org> wrote:
>
> I been reading this thread with interest and for no particular reason I'll
> jump in here.
>
> I've been modeling antennas since the ELNEC days. (I used Touchstone running
> under DOS for circuit analysis forever ago.) But I've built antennas longer
> than that, obviously without modeling. So I'm comfortable with both methods
> and I believe there is a place for both.
>
> "Trial and error" should probably be "trial and adjustment." A simple
> dipole, hung inverted-vee style in my case, installed in an available space,
> is more quickly made operational by estimating length by formula, adding a
> few inches (or feet depending on band) hanging it up, measuring the match and
> shortening it appropriately. When you're done, you're done. Was this a
> "learning experience"? Maybe a little to a beginner, but otherwise, not
> particularly. But so what, everything doesn't have to be a science project.
>
> I've used the same method to build one of those antennas that according to
> some, doesn't work; the parallel wire (fan), fed in the middle with coax+CMC,
> inverted-vee style, 80 and 40 meter dipole, apex at 45'. As some have noted,
> it takes special care to model this and in my experience, it's hard to
> account for every other variable, such as proximity to (unknown) ground,
> support structures, other antennas, etc.
>
> So, not realizing that it won't work, I did it anyway. Seemed pretty simple
> to me and while I am normally not a fan of anecdotal evidence, with years of
> experience with this antenna, I'm okay with it. My main activity is working
> DX but with no obsession toward working every country on every band. One
> hundred entities on each band suits me as success, more are just gravy. That
> said, using this, it can't possibly work antenna, in casual operation, I have
> over 1,000 80-meter and 2,000 40-meter contacts with DX stations.
>
> I'll address the balanced line feeder in another thread.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
>> On 7/11/2018 9:29 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>
>> Same here. Trial and error may eventually work, but most likely you won't
>> know why. Modeling, especially if you investigate the currents and their
>> phasing, will help you learn and understand why something might work or not
>> work. "Ham" radio doesn't mean being ignorant of the stuff behind what we
>> do.
>>
>> There are pitfalls with modeling of course, but doing things like a running
>> a sensitivity analysis (tweaking dimensions to see if the changes make
>> sense) can minimize that. I learned more about antennas from playing around
>> with EZNEC+ than I ever did from any other source.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/11/2018 5:19 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/2018 5:08 PM, Dan Bookwalter via TowerTalk wrote:
>>>> I know everyone is onto modeling everything, I am in the camp of , put it
>>>> up , give it a try , dont like it , try again ...
>>>> We have lost so much of the "ham" part of ham radio... I used to , and
>>>> still do , throw a wire out and see what you can do ... other than 160 and
>>>> probably 80 , you can work a suprising amount of stuff ..
>>>
>>> My view is completely the opposite -- to me, ham radio is studying the
>>> fundamentals and using that knowledge to build our stations, including
>>> antennas, that work better. Wandering around in the dark is not part of my
>>> view of ham radio.
>>>
>>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|