Hi Carl,
Short version: The problem was never the wire in the air. Problem was
the counterpoise. We'll see what Grant has to offer.
Long version:
I've ordered the book.
I'm sure that the OT's got on the band with quite a variety of setups. I
was there when young and reckless, and saw some doozies. We did some
really dangerous things back then. Question is how efficient those were.
We burned up stuff.
I don't think anyone ever solved counterpoise in small places for 160,
other than for high impedance feeds where the effective series resistance
of a minimalist "ground system" simply didn't matter. ON4UN's 4 x 1/8 wave
elevated is the closest anyone came to "small" that really works until
now. My 80 meter end-fed half wave against a couple of buried 40 foot
bare copper wires took advantage of a very high Z feed, and worked
extremely well.
Small lotters were always compromised on the shield side of the coax, even
if they got clever with the radiator. There is a reason for the seven to
ten dB jump that some folks have experienced moving to an FCP. Most of the
power was being dumped into the dirt, one way or another, by a seriously
compromised radial scheme. Some of these changes involved no change to the
vertical radiator other than adding a few percent to something already
about 1/4 wave already to re-prune for resonance. Yanked all the radials,
put up the FCP, kept the same wire upstairs, and bingo. It wasn't the wire
in the air that was the problem, it was the "radials".
I'm one of those who got on 160 with a real signal because of an FCP. I
don't have anywhere on my property I could place anything that would even
remotely meet the description of full size dense and uniform all around.
My lot is long and skinny, with the driveway dividing the property going
out to the US 64 service road.
When I decided to get on 160 here, I asked around for some advice. Advice
I got was to try two opposed 1/4 wave radials on the ground, with whatever
shorter radials I could add. This was in the same time frame W3LPL was
installing two raised 1/4 w radials for each of the verticals in his new
four square. Two opposed was the hot advice then.
I could get two pretty much opposed 1/4 wave radials on the ground near the
eastern N/S property line plus miscellaneous shorter ones and get a 1/4
wave L over it. That clearly did not get out well. With the amp in line,
when I asked a friend in New Mexico about my signal, he politely replied
"You're really not very loud." Then later he called W4MYA "a beacon". The
distinction was not lost on me. He didn't tell it to me in dB, but I know
from his long acquaintance that the difference between his "not very loud"
and "beacon" is a collection of S units.
And it confirmed my general experience. With those radials down, it took
an amp to compete with others running 100 watts, and I wasn't doing all
that well with the amp. I could work some countries on 160, but only after
the pileup had died down. I was obviously down in the fourth and fifth
tier in contests. I WAS having fun on 160, but wished to high heaven I
could have A SIGNAL.
I have earned the right to call two opposed 1/4 wave radials a sh*t
solution to counterpoise, nowhere near the performance of a commercial
radial field some of the fellows around here were using.
The issue now is to get solutions out there so that small lotters can play
in the same game with the big guys and make them sweat the results,
solutions good enough to hold a run frequency in a 160m contest running 100
watts.
73, Guy.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM, ZR <zr@jeremy.mv.com> wrote:
> Id like to think that many of the OT's that worked the band under the old
> power restrictions found many suitable small lot antennas.
> A look thru the old QST's, CQ, Radio, HRM, etc likely will show a few.
>
> In the 50's I used a 80M dipole fed with 72 Ohm twinlead tied together at
> the rig on 160; the Johnson Viking I loaded it and I made many contacts
> including AM mobiles.
>
> In the 60's I used what would later be called a half sloper and in the
> 80's I worked coast to coast with 100W to a 750' Beverage just for grins
> and giggles to see if it was possible after reading a QST artcle about the
> Canadian government using an array for a ZL link on a higher frequency. It
> was reported as more reliable than conventional antennas.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" <
> olinger@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Paul Christensen" <w9ac@arrl.net>
> Cc: <Topband@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Topband: Small antenna book
>
>
> I'll wait to comment until I've had a chance to read the book and see
>> what's really in it, what kind of built and tried in contest experience,
>> etc, and how it applies. 20 bux from ARRL plus shipping.
>>
>> ANY contribution to the pitiful state of 160 know-how for the small-lotter
>> is welcomed. I'll support the guy with a book purchase just because he
>> was THINKING about the little guy on 160.
>>
>> 2012 :>) 75 years since Brown, Lewis and Epstein. Jeeze.
>>
>> Like the FCP, all this should have been out there when they turned off the
>> LORAN. What were they thinking.
>>
>> 73, Guy.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net> wrote:
>>
>> On the surface this seems to agree with what I find. There are dozens of
>>>
>>>> ways to have about the same results. I wonder what Grant has in the
>>>> book?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I recently purchased a copy from the ARRL and it's well worth the $20
>>> price. Table of Contents:
>>>
>>> - Short Antenna Behavior
>>> - A Better Way to Define Antenna Bandwidth
>>> - Why Top-loading Can Improve Short Antenna Performance
>>> - Top Hat Arrangements
>>> - Inverted Cone Antennas
>>> - Closed Antennas
>>> - Antennas with Two Driven Elements
>>> - T-shaped Antennas
>>> - Inverted L-shaped Antennas
>>> - Antennas with Four Driven Elements
>>> - Spiral Antennas
>>> - Small Horizontal Antennas
>>> - Quadrature Feed Arrangements
>>>
>>> Paul, W9AC
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
>>> To: <Topband@contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:02 PM
>>> Subject: Topband: Small antenna book
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While looking for something entirely different, I came across this. I
>>>
>>>> wonder if anyone has this book?
>>>>
>>>> Grant, KM5KG, is one of the most experienced broadcast engineers around.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.km5kg.com/160meter.****htm<http://www.km5kg.com/160meter.**htm><
>>>> http://www.km5kg.com/**160meter.htm <http://www.km5kg.com/160meter.htm>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Grant claims:
>>>> "A New Book from Grant Bingeman, KM5KG
>>>>
>>>> 112 pages 8.5 by 11 inches
>>>>
>>>> This book presents 30 practical wire antenna designs that fit inside a
>>>> 40
>>>> by 40 by 30 foot tall space, including the ground system. This report
>>>> is
>>>> specially written for the ham radio operator who lives on a typical
>>>> quarter
>>>> acre lot and has to maintain a practical budget.
>>>>
>>>> E field radiation efficiencies of 75 percent are possible over a very
>>>> limited ground system of 18 buried radial wires only 20 feet long."
>>>>
>>>> On the surface this seems to agree with what I find. There are dozens of
>>>> ways to have about the same results. I wonder what Grant has in the
>>>> book?
>>>>
>>>> 73 Tom
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>>
>>>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________****_________________
>>>
>>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>>
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5237 - Release Date: 08/31/12
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|