Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2

To: "topband@contesting.com" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2
From: Rune Øye <runeegil@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:40:23 +0000
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
HI
Thanks to all that have responded regarding my quastion about Hi-Z or Apex loop 
antenna.
73  Rune LA7THA

> From: topband-request@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:00:10 -0400
> 
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
>       topband@contesting.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       topband-request@contesting.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       topband-owner@contesting.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Homebrew capacitors (Tom W8JI)
>    2. Re: Homebrew capacitors (Mike Waters)
>    3. 160m Inverted L High SWR (Bill Stewart)
>    4. Re: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo       bettathanshorterversions??
>       (Tom W8JI)
>    5. Re: 160m Inverted L High SWR (Richard Karlquist)
>    6. Re: 160m Inverted L High SWR (Grant Saviers)
>    7. Hi-Z or Apex loop antenna (Rune ?ye)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:10:06 -0400
> From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Homebrew capacitors
> Message-ID: <CE57B4CC3DC04950A86FC1D21B7C3166@MAIN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>       reply-type=original
> 
> This post is worth reading and saving for homebrewers. Not nearly enough of 
> us understand capacitors this well.
> 
> 
> > KK1L noted that there must be either an overlap or a gap in the sleeve
> > that wraps the inner tube. A gap would create a "hot spot" where the
> > breakdown voltage would be reduced, while an overlap could cause the
> > inner tube to bind. This could be avoided if one could obtain
> > dielectric tubing of the required dimensions or if one could "weld"
> > the dielectric to seal the gap. I don't anticipate having a problem
> > with the possibility of a small gap in my application, but two
> > possible solutions to this condition come to mind.
> >
> > First, one could wrap the dielectric material twice around the inner
> > conducting tube. While there would still be a gap, it would not be
> > entirely an air gap, which would increase the breakdown voltage. Of
> > course, one would also get 1/2 the capacitance per unit length, since
> > the dielectric would be twice as thick - unless material half the
> > original thickness could be obtained.
> >
> > Second, one could cut a slot down the length of the outer tube and
> > center the gap in the dielectric material in the slot. In this way,
> > the potential at the gap would be reduced according to the width of
> > the slot. Here, again, the capacitance per unit length would be
> > reduced, but less so than in the first solution.
> 
> Other issues are any sharp points or edges in conductors will greatly reduce 
> breakdown voltage. This is often an operating time issue, because years of 
> cornoa will slowly eat away the dielectric. This is why some "capacitor" 
> stubs, even though apparently very conservative, will fail over time. I've 
> seen 50kV insulation fail at 5 kV just from having cornoa from a sharp edge. 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 12:25:06 -0500
> From: Mike Waters <mikewate@gmail.com>
> To: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Homebrew capacitors
> Message-ID:
>       <CA+FxYXgfX4wkdTjVpjLfhKku+wvW19x9mSc+zHNa_hPzL4Kr9A@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Good points, as usual, Tom.
> 
> Corona --besides greatly reducing the breakdown voltage-- can also generate
> ozone, which can gradually break down some dielectric materials. When I
> worked at Owens-Illinois in Perrysburg Ohio in the late 70's, they used
> large insulated conductors to feed 12 kV 3 phase from the substations into
> the building. After a few years, ozone finally deteriorated the rubber
> insulation to the point that it failed catastrophically. A spectacular arc,
> explosion, and a lot of damage and downtime was the result. (Bob Wacke
> WA8SHH probably remembers that.) Those HV cables are now made differently,
> some with a static drain on the outer cover.
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com> wrote:
> 
> > ... years of corona will slowly eat away the dielectric...
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:08:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Bill Stewart <cwopr@embarqmail.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: 160m Inverted L High SWR
> Message-ID:
>       <438809017.16709736.1380661735999.JavaMail.root@embarqmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> Good afternoon all, 
> I just finished installing a new Inverted L. The previous one was 
> removed?because 
> a tree fell across a set of guys on my tower, which had to be taken down. The 
> new 
> Inverted L is strung up amongst a lot of tall (80 ft +) pine trees. The vert. 
> section is 
> abt 55 ft & the rest is nearly flat horizontal. Total length is 130 ft/6 in. 
> I am using a 
> 4 wire c-poise abt 9 ft high of which none are directly under the horiz. 
> section. 
> Each wire is abt 135 ft long. The min. SWR is abt 2.9:1 at 1833 khz. The SWR 
> curve is broad which looks odd to me. I am feeding it direct with a random 
> length of 
> 50 ohm coax. For these tests, I am using a TS-440S, which reduces power at 
> this 
> value of SWR (the internal tuner does not operate on 160). Normally, I would 
> run 
> vintage xmtrs, which load up ok. I will try it tonight to see if it gets out 
> of the yard. 
> ? 
> Any suggestions how I can get the SWR down below 2:1 so the?TS-440S will work 
> at 
> full power? I apologize if this subject has been discussed before. If so, 
> please point 
> me towards that info. 
> ? 
> Many thanks for any comments....73 de Bil l K4JYS 
> ?
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 18:03:49 -0400
> From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
> To: <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: 5/8 wavelength vertical is mo
>       bettathanshorterversions??
> Message-ID: <5B579A7896514645A05FE436197AFEEF@MAIN>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>       reply-type=response
> 
> >> Why would anyone use significantly more power to get a job done using a 
> >> low angle, when the same job could be done with a higher angle and less 
> >> power?
> >
> > ** If that higher angle has excessive path loss then the lower one stands 
> > a good chance of getting thru even though it starts at a launch loss 
> > disadvantage.
> 
> That still makes absolutely no sense. The 5/8th wave is virtually never 
> better for overall operation, DX or not, and most of the time is a real 
> noticable dog.
> 
> Why would someone use a "dog of an antenna" when that antenna costs more, 
> and has a poorer signal under almost any condition?
> 
> 
> > ** It might to the few who feel that power rules are only for the other 
> > guy and working a new country, contest multiplier, or playing king of the 
> > hill, is the only goal that counts.
> > Tubes with handles are readily available to those with something as small 
> > as an ALS-600, AL-80A/B, etc, as a driver.
> 
> So let me see if I have this right. You think someone who wants to be loud 
> should intentionally uses a worse antenna just so they can run more power to 
> overcome the weakness they created by using the poor antenna.
> 
> That makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:14:12 -0700
> From: Richard Karlquist <richard@karlquist.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Inverted L High SWR
> Message-ID: <2d0e22f5785d1c944743ceaa2e22d87e@sonic.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 2013-10-01 14:08, Bill Stewart wrote:
> > Good afternoon all,
> 
> > The vert. section is
> > abt 55 ft & the rest is nearly flat horizontal. Total length is 130
> > ft/6 in. I am using a
> > 4 wire c-poise abt 9 ft high of which none are directly under the
> > horiz. section.
> > Each wire is abt 135 ft long. The min. SWR is abt 2.9:1 at 1833 khz. 
> > The SWR
> 
> This is exactly what you would expect.  It corresponds to a drive 
> impedance
> of something like 18 ohms, about right for a top loaded 55 foot 
> vertical.
> 
> You will need to put a shunt capacitor of about 2400 pF across your 
> coax,
> and then increase the length of the L until you get the resonance to
> 1833 kHz.
> 
> I currently have a top loaded 60 foot vertical and this is very similar
> to my situation.  You will find that after proper matching, the 
> bandwidth
> is really quite narrow, indicating reasonable efficiency.
> 
> You should probably add a common mode choke at the feedpoint if you
> don't already have one.
> 
> Rick N6RK
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:21:10 -0700
> From: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>
> To: Bill Stewart <cwopr@embarqmail.com>
> Cc: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Inverted L High SWR
> Message-ID: <524B4AD6.3030501@pacbell.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> In order of approximate decreasing importance:
> 
> 1. the elevated radials should not be grounded anywhere.
> 2. With elevated radials, you must have a good feedline choke at the 
> feedpoint, about 9 turns on a type 31 "big clamp-on", and that will 
> require RG58 or TFE RG174 if you run 1500 watts.
> 3. My 160m T has about the same vertical dimensions but needed another 
> 80' total on the T top to resonate at 1835, or about 157' total wire.  
> Keep all wires more than 18" from paralleling the tree trunk and large 
> branches.  Remember there are very high voltages at the top load wire ends.
> 4. my feedpoint Z is 25 ohms (per EZNEC and VNWA measurements) and a 2:1 
> balun brings the SWR to about 1.1 at 1835 with 6 x 125' radials at 10' 
> elevation
> 5. I will add another 2 radials and probably a Hi Z choke for DC 
> grounding.  I don't expect much change in the resonant F since radials 5 
> & 6 had little effect. Check antennasbyn6lf.com for a lot of data about 
> elevated radials.
> 6. series capacitors switched in series to the feedpoint with vacuum 
> relays or a motorized vacuum variable is planned per W8JI's suggestion 
> to be able to tune higher up the band.
> 
> Grant KZ1W
> Redmond, WA
> 
> 
> On 10/1/2013 2:08 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
> > Good afternoon all,
> > I just finished installing a new Inverted L. The previous one was removed 
> > because
> > a tree fell across a set of guys on my tower, which had to be taken down. 
> > The new
> > Inverted L is strung up amongst a lot of tall (80 ft +) pine trees. The 
> > vert. section is
> > abt 55 ft & the rest is nearly flat horizontal. Total length is 130 ft/6 
> > in. I am using a
> > 4 wire c-poise abt 9 ft high of which none are directly under the horiz. 
> > section.
> > Each wire is abt 135 ft long. The min. SWR is abt 2.9:1 at 1833 khz. The SWR
> > curve is broad which looks odd to me. I am feeding it direct with a random 
> > length of
> > 50 ohm coax. For these tests, I am using a TS-440S, which reduces power at 
> > this
> > value of SWR (the internal tuner does not operate on 160). Normally, I 
> > would run
> > vintage xmtrs, which load up ok. I will try it tonight to see if it gets 
> > out of the yard.
> >    
> > Any suggestions how I can get the SWR down below 2:1 so the TS-440S will 
> > work at
> > full power? I apologize if this subject has been discussed before. If so, 
> > please point
> > me towards that info.
> >    
> > Many thanks for any comments....73 de Bil l K4JYS
> >   
> > _________________
> > Topband Reflector
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 06:16:57 +0000
> From: Rune ?ye <runeegil@hotmail.com>
> To: "topband@contesting.com" <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Hi-Z or Apex loop antenna
> Message-ID: <DUB126-W87F89769EE6A7471BC8489C4160@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
>  
> I All,
> I am moving in to a new qth in end of November and start to prepare my 
> antenna farm. My new land is around 3700 square meter so I should be able to 
> install some RX antenna for TB.
> My new qth is around 20Km south of Oslo and are in a farmer land.  I guess i 
> will be able to even install some 2-300 meter long beverage antenna if my 
> neighbor farmer allows me toJ. I have recently reading about HI-Z receiving 
> antenna (8 element version) last number of QST I found info about the new 
> Apex loop antenna. Is here anyone that has tried any of the two antennas? Are 
> they comparable? I am not afraid the size for an 8 element HI-Z or even the 
> Beverage antennas, I simply want to use the best antenna at present time. 
> (Well phased beverage antennas is probbably to big in that area)
>  
> 73 Rune LA7THA                                          
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2
> ***************************************
                                          
_________________
Topband Reflector

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 130, Issue 2, Rune Øye <=