Topband: Fw: GAP VERTICAL QUESTION

[Ashton Lee]

The question is not "How would you set up a contest station?"… it is "What is practical to keep on air in a Senior Living situation?" 

Now if you have a bunch of grand kids you can talk into installing radials all the better. Or if you have a fence along which you could install an elevated counterpoise all the better. 

But my central contention is that wire is going to outperform a GAP below 40 meters.


On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> With the following caveat:  The very sparse and short buried radial systems he is showing are FAR more lossy in practice than shown in his gain tables.  Four twenty foot buried radials beneath a 1/4 wave L on 160, could place you down 20 dB.  You really can't do that as your 160 meter counter poise and expect decent results.  You can end feed the same wire on 80/40/30 meters (full wave worth of wire in the L on 80m) with four buried 20 foot radials and it will be an excellent antenna.  This is due to the high Z feed at the ground with current max AWAY from the feed point.  
> 
> A quarter wave L on 160 MUST deal with the counterpoise loss issues, one way or another.  
> 
> 73, Guy
> 
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Ashton Lee <Ashton.R.Lee at hotmail.com> wrote:
> This wonderful article written by L.B.Cebic W4RNL sure can make you a believer in a simple wire inverted L. It is the last antenna discussed. http://www.users.on.net/~bcr/files/backyard%20wire%20antennaes.pdf
> 
> A $3 wire pulled up into a tree will beat just about any commercial antenna… because it is longer. So on low bands it has increased band width and efficiency, and on higher bands it has gain. Yes, I know , some of that high band gain is horizontally polarized, but that's not all bad. Just get the vertical portion 33 feet or so and you'll be happy as Larry. The article shows that an extensive radial field may not be necessary.
> 
> And a wire is a lot less visible than a big hunk of aluminum. Without trees, just top load a 43 foot (or possibly even shorter) vertical. The top loading could be a T just as easily as an L. People can argue that one all day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 11:30 AM, k6xt <k6xt at arrl.net> wrote:
> 
> > My first antenna, still in use, on moving to CO is a GAP Titan, advertised to load up 80 thru 10 including WARC bands. The Titan is a bit shorter than Voyager, 28 feet or something like it. The advertising is correct, it loads up 180 thru 10.
> >
> > But wait. Is it effective on all those bands? No.
> >
> > On 80 its a dummy load. On 40 it works extremely well after I added a one foot extension to the bottom wire that encircles the antenna. In some cases it is the equal of my shorty HyGain 40 at 70 ft - which probably says more about the HyGain than the GAP. For the rest its better on the traditional bands than the WARC bands. It worked a lot of DX for me for the couple years it was my only antenna.
> >
> > Carrying my experience to the few feet taller Voyager, and from what I've been told by Voyager users, the ant will meet its spec which is to load up on the low bands. Expectation wise I'd expect it to be like the Titan. It loads up but is otherwise a dummy load. Maybe with a batch of radials it could be made to work as well as any other extremely short vertical or GP.
> >
> > Not to say there's anything wrong with GAP. My brother had up an R7 which he rated about like the GAP on bands both cover. Those multiband halfwave short verticals work but you get what you pay for.
> >
> > 73 Art K6XT~~
> > Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiasm.
> > ARRL, GMCC, CW OPS, NAQCC
> > ARRL TA
> >
> > On 12/12/2012 10:00 AM, topband-request at contesting.com wrote:
> >> With the prospect of downsizing and moving into senior housing in the future
> >> I am starting to look at vertical antennas that will allow me to continue
> >> this wonderful hobby.? I have heard "some" good things about the GAP series
> >> of antennas but the company says they do not need radials on most of them
> >> and that worries me.? Over the years I have become very skeptical about
> >> claims and the other BS put out by most companies ( maybe it is a function
> >> of age I dunno) so I wonder if these antennas really work.? The two antennas
> >> that I am interested are the Voyager DX for 160/80/40? and the Eagle DX for
> >> the rest of the bands.
> >>
> >> So my question is.... does anyone have actual experience with these antennas
> >> (especially the voyager) as compared to other antennas for a specific
> >> frequency.? Now guys .. I know you cant really compare a 6 element beam to a
> >> vertical of this kind but I am talking about a comparison that is
> >> realistic.. like how does it hear, tune, match & get out compared to
> >> something like another vertical or a dipole up some reasonable distance.
> >>
> >> I sure hope this has not opend another can of worms.. some how I seem to do
> >> that .. private emails are ok..especially it the topic gets out of hand and
> >> we get a large volume of comments (Tree please dont shoot me before
> >> Christmas my wife will miss me.)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Topband reflector - topband at contesting.com
>