Topband: Small antenna book

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

I've not had much of a chance to work on what you are talking about.  But
I've looked at it and tried to balance it out in models.  Not much luck.
 Very tedious model construction, and issues with breaking segment rules.

Directly underneath the vertical radiator is a huge spike in field
strength.  If you graph out field strength half a meter deep in a 100 by
100 meter square with the vertical in the center, it looks like a spike.
 Anything that mitigates that makes a difference.

Question here would be what part of full size dense and uniform all around
does it satisfy.  Maybe a lot, Carl, maybe a lot.

But you certainly are not digging into anything simple.

For best effects, maybe WITH an FCP for the counterpoise and with a pad
directly underneath with its charge phased and metered to kill the spike.
 FCP does not kill the spike.

Running the current max up the vertical wire with a 70 degree top load
reduces the size of the spike, but even then it's still there.

Getting arranged here for early morning rendezvous with N4YDU and jog over
to Shelby Hamfest, other side of Charlotte.

Do enjoy the day and the weekend.   73, Guy.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:37 PM, ZR <zr at jeremy.mv.com> wrote:

> **
> It would be interesting to compare the FCP against a wire mesh on the
> ground at the base to 30-50' out in 4-5 spokes as Ive described several
> times. That made all the difference in the world when 60 or so on ground
> radials had been several tiers down with 600 and then 1200W into a 100'
> shunt fed tower with a 4el 20-10M Christmas tree for top loading, it was
> resonant somewhere in the 1400-1500KHz region, forget exactly where.
>
> The mesh was standard garden store 2X4" welded, then hot dip galvanized
> and plastic coated "rabbit fence" as they call it up here.
>
> I connected the spokes together in many places after laying them on top of
> the insulated wire radials, ran a perimeter wire and attached the existing
> radials to that.I suspect the radials didnt add much to the signal since
> the ground was pure sand right down to the fresh water table.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Guy Olinger K2AV <olinger at bellsouth.net>
> *To:* ZR <zr at jeremy.mv.com>
> *Cc:* Topband at contesting.com
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 6:51 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Topband: Small antenna book
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Short version:   The problem was never the wire in the air.  Problem was
> the counterpoise.   We'll see what Grant has to offer.
>
> Long version:
>
> I've ordered the book.
>
> I'm sure that the OT's got on the band with quite a variety of setups.  I
> was there when young and reckless, and saw some doozies.  We did some
> really dangerous things back then.  Question is how efficient those were.
>  We burned up stuff.
>
> I don't think anyone ever solved counterpoise in small places for 160,
> other than for high impedance feeds where the effective series resistance
> of a minimalist "ground system" simply didn't matter.  ON4UN's 4 x 1/8 wave
> elevated is the closest anyone came to "small"  that really works until
> now.  My 80 meter end-fed half wave  against a couple of buried 40 foot
> bare copper wires took advantage of a very high Z feed, and worked
> extremely well.
>
> Small lotters were always compromised on the shield side of the coax, even
> if they got clever with the radiator.  There is a reason for the seven to
> ten dB jump that some folks have experienced moving to an FCP.  Most of the
> power was being dumped into the dirt, one way or another, by a seriously
> compromised radial scheme.  Some of these changes involved no change to the
> vertical radiator other than adding a few percent to something already
> about 1/4 wave already to re-prune for resonance.  Yanked all the radials,
> put up the FCP, kept the same wire upstairs, and bingo.  It wasn't the wire
> in the air that was the problem, it was the "radials".
>
>  I'm one of those who got on 160 with a real signal because of an FCP.  I
> don't have anywhere on my property I could place anything that would even
> remotely meet the description of full size dense and uniform all around.
>  My lot is long and skinny, with the driveway dividing the property going
> out to the US 64 service road.
>
> When I decided to get on 160 here, I asked around for some advice.  Advice
> I got was to try two opposed 1/4 wave radials on the ground, with whatever
> shorter radials I could add.  This was in the same time frame W3LPL was
> installing two raised 1/4 w radials for each of the verticals in his new
> four square.  Two opposed was the hot advice then.
>
> I could get two pretty much opposed 1/4 wave radials on the ground near
> the eastern N/S property line plus miscellaneous shorter ones and get a 1/4
> wave L over it.  That clearly did not get out well.  With the amp in line,
> when I asked a friend in New Mexico about my signal, he politely replied
> "You're really not very loud."  Then later he called W4MYA "a beacon".  The
> distinction was not lost on me.  He didn't tell it to me in dB, but I know
> from his long acquaintance that the difference between his "not very loud"
> and "beacon" is a collection of S units.
>
> And it confirmed my general experience.  With those radials down, it took
> an amp to compete with others running 100 watts, and I wasn't doing all
> that well with the amp.  I could work some countries on 160, but only after
> the pileup had died down.  I was obviously down in the fourth and fifth
> tier in contests.  I WAS  having fun on 160, but wished to high heaven I
> could have A SIGNAL.
>
> I have earned the right to call two opposed 1/4 wave radials a sh*t
> solution to counterpoise, nowhere near the performance of a commercial
> radial field some of the fellows around here were using.
>
> The issue now is to get solutions out there so that small lotters can play
> in the same game with the big guys and make them sweat the results,
> solutions good enough to hold a run frequency in a 160m contest running 100
> watts.
>
> 73, Guy.
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM, ZR <zr at jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
>
>> Id like to think that many of the OT's that worked the band under the old
>> power restrictions found many suitable small lot antennas.
>> A look thru the old QST's, CQ, Radio, HRM, etc likely will show a few.
>>
>> In the 50's I used a 80M dipole fed with 72 Ohm twinlead tied together at
>> the rig on 160; the Johnson Viking I loaded it and I made many contacts
>> including AM mobiles.
>>
>> In the 60's I used what would later be called a half sloper and in the
>> 80's I worked coast to coast with 100W to a 750' Beverage just for grins
>> and giggles to see if it was possible after reading a QST artcle about the
>> Canadian government using an array for a ZL link on a higher frequency. It
>> was reported as more reliable than conventional antennas.
>>
>> Carl
>> KM1H
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" <
>> olinger at bellsouth.net>
>> To: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac at arrl.net>
>> Cc: <Topband at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: Topband: Small antenna book
>>
>>
>>  I'll wait to comment until I've had a chance to read the book and see
>>> what's really in it, what kind of built and tried in contest experience,
>>> etc, and how it applies.  20 bux from ARRL plus shipping.
>>>
>>> ANY contribution to the pitiful state of 160 know-how for the
>>> small-lotter
>>> is welcomed.  I'll support the guy with a book purchase  just because he
>>> was THINKING about the little guy on 160.
>>>
>>> 2012  :>)   75 years since Brown, Lewis and Epstein.   Jeeze.
>>>
>>> Like the FCP, all this should have been out there when they turned off
>>> the
>>> LORAN.  What were they thinking.
>>>
>>> 73, Guy.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Paul Christensen <w9ac at arrl.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>   On the surface this seems to agree with what I find. There are dozens
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>> ways to have about the same results. I wonder what Grant has in the
>>>>> book?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I recently purchased a copy from the ARRL and it's well worth the $20
>>>> price. Table of Contents:
>>>>
>>>> - Short Antenna Behavior
>>>> - A Better Way to Define Antenna Bandwidth
>>>> - Why Top-loading Can Improve Short Antenna Performance
>>>> - Top Hat Arrangements
>>>> - Inverted Cone Antennas
>>>> - Closed Antennas
>>>> - Antennas with Two Driven Elements
>>>> - T-shaped Antennas
>>>> - Inverted L-shaped Antennas
>>>> - Antennas with Four Driven Elements
>>>> - Spiral Antennas
>>>> - Small Horizontal Antennas
>>>> - Quadrature Feed Arrangements
>>>>
>>>> Paul, W9AC
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji at w8ji.com>
>>>> To: <Topband at contesting.com>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:02 PM
>>>> Subject: Topband: Small antenna book
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  While looking for something entirely different, I came across this. I
>>>>
>>>>>  wonder if anyone has this book?
>>>>>
>>>>> Grant, KM5KG, is one of the most experienced broadcast engineers
>>>>> around.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.km5kg.com/160meter.****htm<http://www.km5kg.com/160meter.**htm><
>>>>> http://www.km5kg.com/**160meter.htm<http://www.km5kg.com/160meter.htm>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Grant claims:
>>>>> "A New Book from Grant Bingeman, KM5KG
>>>>>
>>>>> 112 pages 8.5 by 11 inches
>>>>>
>>>>> This book presents 30 practical wire antenna designs that fit inside a
>>>>> 40
>>>>> by 40 by 30 foot tall space, including the ground system.  This report
>>>>> is
>>>>> specially written for the ham radio operator who lives on a typical
>>>>> quarter
>>>>> acre lot and has to maintain a practical budget.
>>>>>
>>>>> E field radiation efficiencies of 75 percent are possible over a very
>>>>> limited ground system of 18 buried radial wires only 20 feet long."
>>>>>
>>>>> On the surface this seems to agree with what I find. There are dozens
>>>>> of
>>>>> ways to have about the same results. I wonder what Grant has in the
>>>>> book?
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>>>
>>>>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>>
>>>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5237 - Release Date: 08/31/12
>>>
>>>
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5237 - Release Date: 08/31/12
>
>