[UK-CONTEST] Antenna for SSB field day

[Ian White GM3SEK]

Obviously the rules for this year's SSB NFD are fixed (and mean... er, 
whatever they do mean :-)  but now is a good time to start thinking 
about future rules, so here goes...


Chris G3SJJ wrote:
>
>Still not sure why anyone would want to use a complicated antenna 
>system as opposed to a simple doublet or even a trap dipole!
>
>I would be careful about trying to define what is and isn't acceptable 
>as it could stifle positive creativity. To my thinking the current rule 
>is adequate and allows some ingenuity. I recall some years ago (again!) 
>a group using a longish doublet, maybe around 250ft per leg and 
>bringing the legs round to from a Vee Beam during daylight hours on the 
>higher bands. The rules need to be flexible enough to encourage and 
>allow that choice.
>

Sorry, Chris, I think the exact opposite: the present rules for 
Restricted Field Day antennas do stifle creativity.  The doublet or 
dipole may well be the best solution for some of the stations, on some 
on some of the bands... but the existing rules force everyone too much 
towards that one solution.

The objective of Restricted antenna rules should be to enforce 
small-scale antennas using limited resources - and go no further than 
that. Antenna size is a very severe restriction in and of itself, so the 
rules should be very careful NOT to impose additional restrictions on 
creative engineering to get the best out of small antennas.

Given a free choice, there would certainly be no good engineering reason 
to restrict oneself to the same piece of wire for all bands. A much 
better rule would be "only one element on any given band", backed up by 
examples in an FAQ.

There would be many good reasons to use different active elements on 
different bands, the simple fan dipole being an obvious example. There 
are also many reasons to consider antennas other than the doublet or 
dipole, at least for some of the bands. For example, what about those 
support poles?

But "a maximum of two supports" is also overly restrictive, specially 
when combined with a very limited maximum height. When applied strictly 
and literally to a doublet or similar, "two supports" lead to an antenna 
that either sags in the middle, or has at least one of the hot ends 
drooping down towards a peg in the ground. Again, these features are not 
good engineering.

If the overall goal is to enforce small-scale antennas using limited 
resources, this would be better done by retaining a rule about the 
maximum height but also restricting the *total* cumulative height of all 
the supports used. Within those limits, entrants would be free to make 
their own engineering decisions, and to use the allowed resources 
however they see fit.

By the way,  why is the maximum support height in the Restricted section 
15m in SSB NFD, while in CW NFD it's only 11m? With Top Band to cover as 
well, this is once again enforcing poor engineering.



-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek