[UK-CONTEST] Antenna for SSB field day

[Chris G3SJJ]

  Ian, maybe very originally doublets figured strongly. One of the trophies for Low Power Contest has an old style Bell tent and two masts with a 
doublet stretched across, with sagging open wire feeder!

I think there is a greater awareness now of propagation spread, as you say, but I am not sure the basic rules need tinkering with to accommodate that. 
GM3POI won NFD Restricted section many times with well researched vertical system.

It seems to me the concept of one single element antenna is established and a good leveller but maybe groups are not so willing to understand the 
theory of take off angle, where to place the lobes and how to match varying impedances.

There are many other variations of single element antenna. The "basic " 264ft doublet has been used for many years by successful groups like 
G(W((U)(J)0AAA, the extended 132ft by G3KHZ, the 20m EDZ by G3IZD, V Beam by G6YB. The FD Special Loop I think has been used by G3GRS. Verticals, 
inverted Ls, even rhombics could be used. There's loads of variations but the main thing is using them to get the best out of propagation from a 
particular site. Seems to me that is where the skill is.

When we did SSB FD from GU a couple of years ago (and came 2nd) we spent several weeks playing with plots of the 20m EDZ and the FD Special. In the 
end we went for the EDZ but had to compromise on masts because of the high winds on the cliff top. One 40ft mast had to suffice. We lowered the ends 
at SS and twisted them to their extensions, untwisting at SR. I can't think any of use thought the rules needed changing!

Chris G3SJJ



On 13/08/2010 21:25, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
> Chris G3SJJ wrote:
>>   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?
>>
> I can only speak for myself; and my problem with the present rules is
> that they seem to be written from the viewpoint that "The answer's
> obviously a tuned doublet... now what do the rules need to say?"
>
> For a station in a field in Middle England, you may well be right that
> the tuned doublet is the best solution... but other stations in the UK
> may have different kinds of sites and definitely do have different kinds
> of propagation.
>
> Therefore the rules should not be slanted towards one particular kind of
> antenna solution (however unintentional or well-intentioned that might
> be).
>