Antenna input sought

[W8JITom at aol.com]

In a message dated 96-04-25 23:38:28 EDT, you write:

>      Two ground/counterpoise options come to mind. The beam and tower
>would act like a radial, maybe? It is 60 ft. tall, almost a 1/4 wave at 3.5
>mhz. 

Remember that a 1/4 long conductor **inverts** the impedance, so simnce  (I
assume) the base of the tower is stuck in the mud, the end 60 feet away will
be a high impedance, not a ground.

>Another option would be to run a wire or wires down the tower that are
>solidly connected to the ground lug on the vertical, maybe the ends of these
>could be connected to ground rod(s)? Possibly some combination or all of the
>above?

Again you will run into the same problem. The length of the ground lead will
modify the impedance and raise it. You would be much better off to have the
wires attach to the tower at the top, and fan out slightly at the bottom and
be insulated from the tower! The wires would be open at the bottom and
present a low impedance at the top, like very droopy radials from a ground
plane.

> Elevated radials in huge numbers would be cool, but then I would be
>back where I started, not to mention the beam would be in the way.

The beam acts like a ground for the vertical also, even though it isn't
really big enough on 80, it'll help. I'd add the skirt system.

By the way, this is why sloppers don't alwways work. Sometimes the "ground"
is a real high impedance. Remember the rules of transmission lines, the same
rules apply to single wires also.

73 Tom 

>From n2ic at drmail.dr.att.com (LondonSM)  Fri Apr 26 15:11:25 1996
From: n2ic at drmail.dr.att.com (LondonSM) (LondonSM)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 08:11:25 -0600
Subject: Big Gun
Message-ID: <9604260811.ZM16497 at dr.att.com>


Another definition of a big gun ----

Someone who beats YOUR published record in a major contest for YOUR state, call
area or country.

Doesn't really matter how good of an operator they are, or what kind of
hardware they have - they beat your record so they MUST be good !

Steve London, N2IC/0
(who no longer holds the Colorado CW SS QRP record, thanks to some N3/0 nobody)
n2ic at dr.att.com


>From John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com  Fri Apr 26 15:59:09 1996
From: John Dorr K1AR" <p00259 at psilink.com (John Dorr K1AR)
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 09:59:09 -0500
Subject: Vicar and Fi Nine
Message-ID: <3039613090.2.p00259 at psilink.com>

I just say: "You're tree-top tall and wall-to-wall, 05." Never 
experienced any nasty bleeding on my end with this strategy. FYI...

K1AR

>DATE:   Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:04:37 -0700
>FROM:   Richard Norton <ae327 at lafn.org>
>
>Recently there was a posting that discussed my use of,
>"Nine Yankee Four Vicar Tango."
> 
>Use of two non-standard phonetics or words can reduce
>wear on the tongue that might be significant when the
>standard phonetics or words might be repeated thousands
>of times.
> 
>These include use of:
>1) Vicar instead of Victor
>2) Fi instead of Five, particularly in Fi Nine
> 
>Notice that if you clearly enunciate either "Victor"
>or "Five," your tongue rubs up against the back of the
>teeth in the front of your mouth.
> 
>I happened to look at my tongue in the mirror after a
>48-hour phone contest, and saw the outer edges of my
>tongue were bleeding and looked like they had been rubbed
>with hacksaw blades and files.
> 
>This caused me to analyze what happened to my tongue as
>I spoke. I then looked for things to pronounce that both
>conveyed the information and kept my tongue in the center
>of my mouth, away from the sharp tooth edges. The above
>suggestions are the salient results of that effort. Use
>of them has eliminated tongue abrasion.
> 
>This is the reason to use "Vicar" and "Fi."
> 
>The referenced posting was connected with signing one's call
>after every contact, and may have incorrectly implied that it
>is something that I personally do, or support doing.
> 
>However, call-signing is another topic - for another time.
> 
>73,
> 
>Dick Norton  N6AA     ae327 at LAFN.ORG
>
>--
>


------- End of Forwarded Message