[TowerTalk] Re: Tower Talk Digest V3 #498
Paul Bittner
w0aih@ecol.net
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:28:42 -0500
What is the cost of those Cinch Jones plugs?
I do like quick disconnects.
Merry Christmas.
Paul W0AIH
----- Original Message -----
From: Tower Talk Digest <owner-towertalk-digest@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk-digest@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 12:01 AM
Subject: Tower Talk Digest V3 #498
>
> Tower Talk Digest Friday, December 22 2000 Volume 03 : Number
498
>
>
>
> In this issue:
>
> [TowerTalk] re: mast stiffness
> Re: [TowerTalk] Flagpoles/ Thanks
> Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn HDBX48 ... Help.
> Re: [TowerTalk] Flagpoles as a Stealth Antenna
> Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V on 160M
> Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V with Elevated Mount - Experience?
> Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V on 160M
> [TowerTalk] Cinch-Jones Unavailable
> [TowerTalk] HF Antenna Height.
> Re: [TowerTalk] Cinch-Jones Unavailable
>
> See the end of the digest for information about towertalk-digest
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:04:01 -0800
> From: "Rick Karlquist" <rick@area.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] re: mast stiffness
>
> Stiffness is proportional to:
>
> O.D.^4 - I.D.^4
>
> ie, the difference of the fourth powers of the diameters
>
> Strength is proportional to:
>
> O.D.^3 - I.D.^3
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Rick Karlquist N6RK
>
>
> >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:17:56 -0700
> >From: "Dave D'Epagnier" <DAVED@ctilidar.com>
> >Subject: [TowerTalk] Mast Analysis>>
>
> >A while back someone posted a web site where there is an article
describing
> >how to calculate mast yield. I've lost my bookmark for this site. I'm
> trying
> >to figure out which would be stiffer: an aluminum mast with 2" diameter
and
> >0.375" wall or a 2.5"diameter 0.25" wall mast. Can anyone point me in the
> >right direction?
> >thanks,
> >Dave
> >K0QE
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:01:29 +0000
> From: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Flagpoles/ Thanks
>
> N5ZC contemplated:
>
> >I think I may be changing directions. My roof, which is currently cedar
> >shake, is going to be replaced within the next few weeks with a metal
> >roof. I have a chimney in the back that I can mount a full size quarter
> >wave vertical on. I think I can get away with 23' of aluminum which
> >will be good for 30m and up. I'll use the aluminum to support quarter
> >wave wires for the other bands 10 thru 20, and maybe an inverted L type
> >antenna for 40m. Then a couple of radials and a strap from the ground
> >side of the vertical to my metal roof. That should provide for a nice
> >ground plane.
>
> My station in 9M6 has an HF2 mounted above a metallic roof on top of
> a small block of flats (perhaps 25m square).
>
> As with any elevated vertical I have ever used, I have found that the
> counterpoise for the vertical needs to be resonant to work & decoupled
> from anything near it (like the rebar in a reinforced concrete building
> such as how even detached houses are constructed in VR). The radials
> in 9M6 took a significant amount of pruning from "standard" lengths due
> to the detuning effect of that metal roof.
>
> And if those radials were close to the roof (like a few mm), despite
> being made of insulated wire, the slightest amount of rain would cause
> everything to detune even more due to increased coupling, not to
> mention how towards the ends of the radials it would arc straight through
> the insulation with our relatively low power limit (400 watts).
>
> None of the metal sheets that comprise the roof are bonded together. I
> would not like to try feeding the antenna against nothing but such a roof.
> I would strongly suggest, after many hours of mucking about up there that
> you get the base of your vertical up a good meter or two & an isolated
> radial system under it which comes no closer than several dozens of cm
> to that metal roof.
>
> 73, VR2BrettGraham
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 08:00:50 -0000
> From: "Bill Harris" <w7kxb@cableaz.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Rohn HDBX48 ... Help.
>
> Once upon a time, many years ago, we had a bad storm hit Seattle. Columbus
> Day, 1964??. Anyway, the ham community lost several/quite a few??
Spalding
> towers. (The name before Rohn bought them out). They failed because of
the
> twisting moment from the antenna placed upon the tower at the rotor which
> was mounted in the top section. If your area experiences high winds
> (>70mph), suggest you mount the rotor as low as practical. In the bottom
> section would be great for servicing and max. strength.
> Good luck on your project and seasons greetings.
> Later
> KXBill
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "utahfolk" <utahfolk@xmission.com>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 2:33 PM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Rohn HDBX48 ... Help.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:57:57 -0500
> From: "bill wall" <billwall@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Flagpoles as a Stealth Antenna
>
> Hi Team;
> There are three or four fiberglass rod/tube manufacturers who make large
> diameter tubing. It cost about four to six times what T-6 aluminum does.
> Avanti made two Quads with aluminum/plastic spreaders. They were sold to
CB
> operators. They convert to 10 meters with no problem. Avanti, I think is
not
> around any more. There is a CB magazine in California that list these
> antennas for sell from time to time.
> Another subject: Welding : Rohn uses mig on their towers for high speed
> production. I would use Tig or Oxy/Acceltyne on light gage tubing. The
> reason: Flexible welds. In my small business I have Miller square wave
Tig,
> Lincoln Mig and other equipment. I am certified for air frame and
> structural. If you want to test your welds and do not have X-Ray or Zyglo
> machines, take a large sledge hammer to the test weld and nail it. If it
> does not break you are about 50% safe.
> Rohn, Universal and others have from time to time produced good products.
> The smart thing to do with used tower or new is inspect each weld. You
never
> know the person on the assembly line. He or she might be new, untrained or
> just don't give a D---.
> Keep it safe,
> Bill KC4UZ
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Tower2sell@aol.com>
> To: <jnipper@southeast.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Flagpoles as a Stealth Antenna
>
>
> > It seams you have missed the basic point - Flag poles are being widely
> used
> > and the next time you spot one you will understand what is behind the
> radomes
> > and how they work. The adaptation to the HAM market is not there yet,
> mainly
> > due to price. Maybe, just maybe, someone will be inspired enough to
> develop
> > this product into a cost effective product. Maybe some antenna
> manufacturer
> > can make a fiberglass flagpole that is also an antenna. WOW maybe it
could
> be
> > patented. Maybe there will be another retired millionaire. All just
> because
> > someone posted a message. Isn't America a great country!
> >
> > Tower2sell@aol.com
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated Wed, 20 Dec 2000 8:34:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Jim
> > Nipper <jnipper@southeast.net> writes:
> >
> > << Surely this unsigned reply is not a serious (or helpful?) response to
> > this gentleman's questions about a possible HAM antenna. I doubt he
> > needed the engineering details of a 12-30 INCH flagpole, or the base
> > requirements to keep the mammouth structure in the air. The gentleman
> > was asking about a SIMPLE VERTICAL ANTENNA !!!!!! I would this that if
> > this gentleman could erect a THIRTY INCH DIAMMETER flagpole in his yard,
> > he could easily put up a 15inch width TOWER, and likely would not be
> > asking questions about a VERTICAL !!!!!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > 73 de Jim K4PYT
> >
> >
> > Tower2sell@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Flagpoles are a hot item in the commercial world and are quite pricey
> for
> > the
> > > HAM radio. The commercial operators use a fiberglass radome on top of
a
> > steel
> > > pole (tapered or pipe). Normally there are three or more flat panel
> > antennas.
> > > Some arrangements have them at 0, 120, 240 and another arrangement is
to
> > > stack them vertically. They normally do not use a standard flagpole
> because
> > > the diameter is too small. The flagpoles they use range in diameter
from
> > > about 12" to 30".
> > >
> > > On top of a flag pole is the flagpole truck and ball. A flagpole truck
> is a
> > > set of bearings that swings around with the flag and keeps it from
> wraping
> > > around the pole. The largest "normal" truck fits a 7.5" pole with
maybe
> a
> > 12"
> > > truck being available. The larger diameters require a custom made
truck
> > > assembly.
> > >
> > > Now if all you need to do is mount a whip type antenna, you could use
a
> > > standard fiberglass flagpole and "hang" it from the top inside the
pole.
> The
> > > flagpole foundations are about 10% of the flagpole and one could come
in
> > > underground and up the pole. Leave some extra cable in the pole so
that
> you
> > > can pull the antenna all the way out the top. Now for the ball and
truck
> > > assembly - find one that attaches with set screws instead on the
> convential
> > > 1-1/4" pipe thread.
> > >
> > > No one will know where your antenna is and the exercise pogram to
> service
> > the
> > > antenna will keep you in top physical shape climbing the slick
flagpole
> (the
> > > rope should help some).
> > >
> > > Tower2sell@aol.com
> > >
> > > In a message dated Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:25:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > > Richard Thorne <rthorne@tcac.net> writes:
> > >
> > > << Hello Group:
> > >
> > > A friend mentioned and idea for a stealth antenna that got me to
> > > thinking.
> > >
> > > Anyone out there using a flagpole as a vertical? If so is it
> > > metal/fiberglass? How do you feed it.
> > >
> > > Looking for multi band ideas, say 10 through 40.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 73,
> > >
> > > Richard Thorne
> > > ARS N5ZC (ex KA2DSY, N2BHP, WB5M)
> > > Remote Control Airplanes: AMA# 657062
> > > http://www.tcac.net/~rthorne/
> > >
> > > --
> > > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> > >
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 07:12:13 -0600
> From: n4kg@juno.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V on 160M
>
> I have 120 countries on 80M using QRP (5W)
> but I have NO delusions that my 5W signal
> is "competitive". (I have 322 countries on 80M
> using various Dipoles from 100 to 130 ft and
> the N4KG Reverse Fed Top Loaded Elevated GP
> described in JUNE 1994 QST and ARRL Handbooks.)
>
> As mentioned previously, KZ4V struggled with her HF2V.
> After putting up a 90 ft tower and adding an inverted vee
> broadside to EU / ZL and a vertically polarized Delta Loop,
> she became a force to contend with. Those simple
> antennas were MUCH more competitive than her base
> loaded HF2V with 120 radials.
>
> de Tom N4KG
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 tacoll@ix.netcom.com writes:
> > On 21 Dec 2000, at 8:23, George T. Daughters wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Regarding the HF2V... I have one, roof mounted with the base
> > > at about 16 feet off the ground. I have six radials stretched
> > > across my roof; four are approximately 1/4 wave at 40m and
> > > two are 1/4 wave at 80m.
> >
> > > My experience is similar. Mine works quite well on 40, not very
> > well on 80.
> > > BUT!... a "NOT competitive" antenna is way better than NO antenna.
> >
> > My 170 counties on 80 is "NOT competitive" ?? I guess when you
> > use a 3 ele 80M beam at 150 ft, it isn't.
> >
> > BTW, for those thinking of using the HF2V on 160M, be
> > forewarned, it says in the manual of the add on kit that it is ONLY
> > rated for 500W !!
> >
> > Tom, N2SR
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:03:46 -0600
> From: n4kg@juno.com
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V with Elevated Mount - Experience?
>
> HF2V clarification - de N4KG
>
> The basic antenna is a 32 ft vertical with loading / matching
> coils roughly 2 to 3 ft above the base. This is the configuration
> used by KZ4V which proved to be competitive on 40M but
> noticably less competitive on 80M.
>
> The HF2V manual suggests that top loading will improve
> efficiency on 80M. (Agree). They note that loading wires
> longer than 12 ft will result in an impedance on 40M that
> is out of their matching range. I agree that this is an
> improvement, but suggest that a top loaded antenna such
> as the MFJ-1792 is still likely to be more efficient.
> (Notice the weasel words...hope no lawyers are reading).
>
> Butternut suggests that sloping the top loading wires at
> 45 degrees is a reasonable compromise between loading
> improvement and space requirements. Their drawing
> shows the wires being attached several feet below the
> small diameter top piece which reduces the effective
> vertical height.
>
> I don't have a clue how anyone can say the HF2V is
> "center loaded" on 80M. The added wires are top
> loading and the coils are so close to the bottom that
> they are essentially base loading.
>
> These are my OPINIONS on this subject.
>
> de Tom N4KG
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 "Ken Kinyon - W7TS" <w7ts@Qwest.net> writes:
> > Tom,
> > Everything you say about the MFJ antenna may well me true. However
> > the HF2V
> > is not bottom loaded on 80, only on 160, and it is essentially a
> > full
> > quarter wave on 40. the loading on 80 if installed a recommended is
> > both
> > center and top.
> > 73, Ken
> > -------------------
> > Kenneth E. Kinyon
> > 34 Princeton Circle
> > Longmont, CO 80503-2106
> > Voice/fax (303) 684-0037
> > E-mail W7TS@Qwest.net
> > ALPCA #8339
> > ARRL-LM
> > -----------------------
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> > [mailto:owner-towertalk@contesting.com]On Behalf Of n4kg@juno.com
> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 06:40
> > To: TOWERTALK@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V with Elevated Mount - Experience?
> >
> >
> > The HF2V is BASE loaded on 80M.
> > Base loading is the LEAST efficient
> > and provides the least bandwidth.
> >
> > KZ4V found her HF2V to be quite
> > effective on 40M with 120 radials
> > but was NOT competitive on 80M.
> >
> > The relatively new and unknown
> > MFJ 1792 80 / 40 vertical is full
> > size on 40M and has an isolating
> > coil and top hat for TOP loading
> > on 80M. TOP loading is the
> > MOST efficient method of loading
> > provides the greatest bandwidth.
> > It is rated at 1500 W on 40M
> > and 1000 W on 80M.
> >
> > I am impressed with both the
> > electrical and mechanical design
> > of the MFJ-1792. To top it off,
> > it is reasonably priced at $160.
> > MFJ will send a free manual
> > on request.
> > I have no affiliation with MFJ.
> >
> > de Tom N4KG
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:06:15 -0800
> From: Jerry Heron <jerry@rchco.com>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] HF2V on 160M
>
> Have two HF2V 70 feet apart switchable in, and 180 degrees out of phase.
> Antennas are located close to the salt water, but have a minimal ground
> system. On 40, the antennas are very competitive with the average 2 el
> beam. On 80 the bandwith is about 40 kc... I use a relay to short 3 coil
> turns, to make phone useable. Very good ant on 80 for DX, subject of
> course to a good location and/ or ground . Easyly handles the Alpha 87.
> Can't say that for the HV6... I blew two of those up!
> k7xx
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:40:25 -0600
> From: "Tom Hellem" <redpines@cybrzn.com>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] Cinch-Jones Unavailable
>
> I just learned that the Jones 8 pin plugs and sockets which work so well
for
> rotor cable connections, etc. have been discontinued by the manufacturer.
> Does anybody know of a good substitute or possibly a vendor who has a
supply
> of them still in inventory? I checked Mouser and Digi-Key.
> Mouser said they can still get them in quantities of 100 or more. I would
> order 100 if I had committments from others for about 90 of them, which I
> would sell at cost plus shipping.
> If anyone is interested, please send E-mail to me direct.
> 73
> Tom K0SN
> Porterfield, WI
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:15:47 +1300
> From: "Barry Kirkwood" <bjk@ihug.co.nz>
> Subject: [TowerTalk] HF Antenna Height.
>
> An interesting thread.
>
> Many years ago the British publication "Short Wave Magazine" reprinted an
> article from a DL source which looked at antenna height using a typical
trap
> tribander in terms of "bang for a buck". I cannot remember the precise
> methodology, but believe it was based on pooled data of signal strengths
> from a number of Eu stations. Remember that computer modelling of antenna
> patterns was in its infancy at the time, and ionospheric prediction
> simplistic by modern standards.
>
> However, I do recall the result which indicated that around 45 ft height
> gave a good result in that performance on 14, 21 and 28mHz fell off quite
> rapidly below this level while incremental improvement with height above
> this level was slower. ie. there was a gentle inflection in the curves
> around 45ft.
>
> FWIW, the conclusion was that where resources were limited the best return
> for effort would be to go for a mast or tower height between 40-50ft.
>
> 73
> Baz ZL1DD
>
>
>
>
> end
> Barry Kirkwood PhD ZL1DD
> Signal Hill
> 66 Cory Road
> Palm Beach
> Waiheke Island 1240
> NEW ZEALAND
> www.waiheke.co.nz/signal.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:36:10 -0700
> From: Ken Hirschberg <calav@flash.net>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Cinch-Jones Unavailable
>
> Hi Tom and all- As some may know, Beau (Allied Electronics, and others)
mirrors
> many TRW-Cinch Jones connectors, including the 8-contact. They can be
purchased
> in small quantities.
> Ken, K6HPX
>
> Tom Hellem wrote:
>
> > I just learned that the Jones 8 pin plugs and sockets which work so well
for
> > rotor cable connections, etc. have been discontinued by the
manufacturer.
> > Does anybody know of a good substitute or possibly a vendor who has a
supply
> > of them still in inventory? I checked Mouser and Digi-Key.
> > Mouser said they can still get them in quantities of 100 or more. I
would
> > order 100 if I had committments from others for about 90 of them, which
I
> > would sell at cost plus shipping.
> > If anyone is interested, please send E-mail to me direct.
> > 73
> > Tom K0SN
> > Porterfield, WI
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> > Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Tower Talk Digest V3 #498
> ********************************
>
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
> Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: towertalk-digest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-towertalk-digest@contesting.com
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com