[UK-CONTEST] Antenna for SSB field day

[Chris G3SJJ]

  Some interesting thoughts Ian but I don't think it is the rules that are broken. Most of us understand the concept of the rules for Restricted 
section antennas and can work within that so
I just wonder if it is the concept of impedance matching that some find confusing, and therefore want to opt for something easier to understand?

Chris G3SJJ



On 13/08/2010 09:55, 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.