I have added a description of "T" to the file.
You can download it again and you'll see it.
TNX for the Feedback, Tony.
73 - Rick, DJ0IP
(Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Lelieveld
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:01 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
Rick,
I looked at your 40 mtr Low-Space vertical. In the box with all the
dimensions you have a "T" designator which does not appear on the drawing (I
couldn't find it) . Is this the top of the vertical above ground level?
73, Tony VE3DWI.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP" <Rick@DJ0IP.de>
To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
> Refference Petlowany Coils:
>
> Jim (A), I thought you said you were a "retired" lawyer.
> With that contraption in back yards, you'll have XYL's lined up for miles,
> wanting you to help them file for a divorce.
> Or was that the idea behind this suggestion? ;-)
>
> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Allen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:11 PM
> To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
>
> If you have a problem putting out radials for your vertical, why not try
> Petlowany coils?
>
> I have a home brew clone S9v31 with which I use 4 Petlowany coils. See
> the
> photo at
>
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?444568-Petlowany-or-Petlowaney-Coils-as
> -Ground-Radial-Replacements&highlight=Petlowany+coils
>
> 73 de W6OGC Jim Allen
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@dj0ip.de>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> It was nearly midnight last night when I read the entire presentation.
>> I sure wish I could have heard the audio that accompanied it.
>>
>> Yes indeed, I overlooked the "vertical rules on 160m". Missed that
>> point.
>> That's it in a nutshell! That pretty much nails it!
>>
>> Total waste of time to even fool with horizontal antennas on 160m
>> unless you just want to rag chew with the local yuks. It took me many
>> years to arrive at this conclusion. What a difference it made to my
>> contest scores once I switched to verticals!
>>
>> I haven't gotten any further yet with your material.
>> My XYL had surgery today and I spent the entire day in the clinic.
>> As I wrote earlier, there is so much meat in your paper, it will take
>> a couple of days to go through all of this.
>> While hanging out in the clinic today, I wished I had had the time to
>> print your stuff out and take it with me, but it was just too late last
> night.
>> The reading material in the waiting room wasn't exactly my flavor.
>>
>> Also, as a result of reading your paper, it reminded me that I hadn't
>> uploaded my own folded radial vertical to my web yet, so I did that
>> this evening, including the EZNEC model of the antenna. It is a
>> simple, effective 40 DX antenna requiring very little floor space.
>>
>> Mine had only one bend in the radial (copied from a Moxon design in
>> RadCom).
>> From your link to K2VA I saw it still works good with multiple bends
>> which make 80 and 160m more feasible.
>> Tnx for the tip. Hadn't ever heard of that before. I have lots of
>> reading to do!
>>
>> Here's a link to my vertical with the single folded radial:
>> http://www.dj0ip.de/vertical-antennas/40m-low-space/
>>
>> 73 - Rick, DJ0IP
>> (Nr. Frankfurt am Main)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim
>> Brown
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 7:14 PM
>> To: tentec@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 Meter Problem
>>
>> On Mon,8/18/2014 10:16 PM, Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP wrote:
>> > Jim, I didn't understand the point on slides 4 and 5.
>> > I concur with everything you wrote.
>> > Perhaps you mean where you wrote 130 ft. height for a horizontal
>> > antenna is "low" on 160m.
>>
>> Well, remember that these slides accompany my talk, and also this talk
>> was to the Pacificon Antenna Forum, which draws folks a somewhat above
>> average knowledge of antennas. Ya hadda be there. :)
>>
>> The fundamental principle at work is that a horizontal antenna that is
>> low as a fraction of a wavelength is an inefficient antenna, both
>> because of ground losses and because all the energy goes more or less
> straight up.
>> I'd
>> call any horizontal antenna lower than a quarter wavelength low. Most
>> of us are stuck with low antennas for 40M and below.
>>
>> But what is is about the line "Verticals RULE on 160M" that you don't
>> understand? To me, that says don't even consider a horizontal antenna.
>> Further, the fact that the rest of the talk covers only vertical
>> antennas (with various forms of counterpoise) should tell you
>> SOMETHING. :)
>>
>> > Well my main point is, we have good dB numbers shown for different
>> > vertical solutions, but there are no dB numbers shown comparing a
>> > low dipole at a typical height one would have in a city - say 50 ft.
>> > max, to anything vertical.
>>
>> You're right -- I almost never see that sort of comparison, which is
>> what I did in the other link I gave. It compares vertical and
>> horizontal antennas at various heights on 80, 40, and 20. The 80M
>> plots are easily scaled for 160M. Simply double the heights shown on the
> horizontal axis.
>> So a resonant horizontal dipole at 80ft on 160 would behave like a
>> resonant 80M dipole at 40 ft on 80M.
>>
>> Also, both of those presentations are 1 hour talks, and especially
>> with the 160M talk, I had to have my roller skates on to get through
>> it in that time.
>> :)
>>
>> > There the difference is larger (in dB) than the difference between a
>> > good vertical and a great vertical.
>>
>> Yes. And the primary difference between a mediocre vertical and a
>> great one is the counterpoise/radial system.
>>
>> Another tutorial you might find interesting is this one.
>> http://k9yc.com/VerticalHeight.pdf It doesn't address 160M, but it
>> clearly shows the effects of the quality of the soil on a vertical
>> antenna, and also the value of mounting vertical antennas higher.
>>
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|