[TenTec] Field day antennas

[lciotti at lrlc.us]

All this field day antenna talk has me wondering...   In multi setups, I know distance helps, but is it true that keeping the antenna parallel also helps?    We are considering going from three stations this year to 4 so that is going to complicate our antenna setup.   We typically have run two band fan dipoles.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick at DJ0IP.de> wrote:
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> I really liked your post.
> I don't quite follow your bit about being against 450 Ohm feedline but the
> rest of your post was indeed impressive.  Maybe you know something I don't
> know..
> 
> Long low band antennas, used on the high bands, regardless of how good the
> SWR looks, are a waste.  Less is better.  A short dipole with maximum 6m (19
> ft.) per side is the longest the dipole should be.  Otherwise the two major
> lobes will break up into several smaller lobes with multiple peaks and
> nulls.  Not good.
> 
> 20 ft. per side is borderline.  I'm not sure.  I would make it just 19 ft.
> per side to be on the safe side.
> 
> I don't have a lot of experience with FD in USA.  I have won outright, FD in
> Europe several times.
> 
> Here in Europe, one of the best FD antennas one can have is a lazy loop (for
> 80m).
> This is basically a horizontal loop, 84 meters (21 meters per side), mounted
> about 30 to 40 ft. high.  It is fed with 300 or 450 Ohm openwire and matched
> with a Johnson Viking matchbox (or Annecke).  It may also be matched with
> other solutions.
> 
> Ralph's statement about using an "L" or "T" matchbox is correct, though
> using a "Symmetrical L" such as Palstars BT-1500 or a "Symmetrical T" such
> as MFJ's MFJ-976 do work very good.  The Link-Coupling of the JV Matchbox
> (or the Annecke, it's German successor) gives you about 20dB more of common
> mode impedance which is a great benefit.  It is often quieter than the other
> technologies.
> 
> There are some ways of using lesser matchboxes but for now I support what
> Ralph said.  
> 
> Categorically rejecting an OCFD is like shooting yourself in the foot.
> I would suggest you aren't up to date on the latest OCFD technology.
> Your information you have is probably sound, based on what we knew 15 years
> ago, but simply no longer true. (Not you Ralph, that bit was for the
> original OM that started the thread).
> 
> Ralph's post was super.
> 
> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
> Matheny K8RYU
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:08 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Field day antennas
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience the 80M antenna on the higher bands will be  a dud.  If you
> must, use a loop rather than an dipole, and feed the loop with 300 (NOT 450)
> line via a true balanced link-coupled tuner, like the Johnson Matchbox of
> 60's fame.  Both 80M antennas have just too many nulls on the higher bands.
> T or L network tuners with "baluns"
> at the input or output have not impressed me in this service, but that may
> be a personal prejudice. 
> 
> I think a short dipole for the higher bands is worth the trouble, say about
> 20 feet on a side, again with 300 ohm feed line.
> 
> I stay away from the 450 stuff because one can end up with some VERY low or
> high Z at the tuner, and since the bands are harmonic related if it's good
> on one it will be bad on another to a much greater extent. If I could get
> 150 ohm open wire, I'd use it!
> 
> One man's opinion.
> 
>  de K8RYU
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec