[UK-CONTEST] Antenna for SSB field day

[Alex GM3ZBE]

Now here's a thought! - How about a restricted section in contests which 
says you can have as many aerials as you like and of any design you 
fancy.  BUT they must all be capable of fabrication from a total of 
300ft of wire!  I.e. the 300ft of wire being the total amount of aerial 
wire allowed on site.  Should encourage some novel ideas :-)
Alex

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>   

-- 

Alex, GM3ZBE ~~~~ Kingdom of Fife ~~~ IO86lf ~~~
Member of:
De Montfort University ARS,
Kingdom Amateur Radio Society (KARS)
GMDX Group, CDXC, Aberdeen ARS
Previous callsigns GM8BYG, G3ZBE
Holder of GM4BRN club call http://www.kars.org.uk/
 
Remember..............It's only a hobby!
When the going get's tough..........take a nap!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~