Dan Schaaf wrote:
> HyGain calls it a Windom, but a Windom is a single wire fed in from the end.
> The AV-640 in no way resembles a Windom.
> It is simply a 3/8 wave vertical and the counterpoise is the other side,
> analagous to radials.
> It is high impedance because it is larger than 1/4 wave.
> Another nicety is the static bleeder choke inside the box. I have since
> bought several chokes from HyGain and installed them on other verticals.
>
>
<snip>
> As for improving it, before Hy-Gain agreed to replace the unit I was going
> to go with Balun Designs 4:1, 5KW unun and 1:1 current choke (5KW). A bit
> pricey but I have no doubt they would have worked.
>
>
Using 4 or 5 Fair-Rite cores you can build them that'll handle more
power than that for about $30 each.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> 73,
> Art, KØRO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Gillenwater
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:37 PM
> To: Tower and HF antenna construction topics.
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> Studies)
>
> I had the AV620 on a 40 foot tower for four years, unguyed. Used it as an
> SO2R second radio antenna, it performed well. It is rated to take 70 mph
> winds. After 4 years the base of the antenna started to come apart, with
> the aluminum splitting at the lower bolt pattern. I replace the bottom
> section of alum. and now it is guyed. Still works well.
> 73 Bill K3SV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger (K8RI)" <K8RI-on-TowerTalk@tm.net>
> To: "Tower and HF antenna construction topics." <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> Studies)
>
>
>
>> The AV640 is electronically simple, although a bit complex mechanically
>> (lots of parts)
>> Each band is independent of the others and there is no interaction
>> between bands when setting the resonant frequencies. The matching
>> network consists of a current balun wound on two toroid cores. This is
>> followed by a 4:1 balun which is also wound on two cores and is used to
>> "step up" the antennas low impedance of 12.5 ohms to 50 ohms. The
>> elements are a bit longer than a 1/4 wave electrically and that
>> reactance is tuned out by a fixed value "compensating" capacitor. SWR
>> "for mine" is virtually 1:1 at resonance on all bands. It will also
>> cover each band in it's entirety with the exception of 40 with a low
>> (read useable) SWR. IIRC it'll cover about half of 40 at less than 2:1.
>>
>> Although advertised as self supporting, with mine mounted at 40' I have
>> insulated guys at roughly the mid point.
>> I cut a disk out of 1/4" Lexan using a hold saw and drilled 3 1/4" holes
>> around the edge at 120 degree spacing. The center has a hole just large
>> enough that it's a loose fit over the center radiator, so the guy
>> connection is more of less floating.
>>
>> The system is broad banded compared to trap verticals and should be a
>> better performer than trap verticals although I'd not expect the
>> performance between any of the multi band verticals to be "blazingly"
>> different.
>>
>> It is rated for the legal limit on SSB for 40 though 10 and 300 watts on
>> six meters. The antenna is derated for other modes. I'm assuming the
>> de-rating is due to heating of the toroid cores. I believe the early
>> ones were rated for 200 watts on six. I've run 800 watts SSB on six for
>> up to two hours with no problems
>>
>> I'm going to try 4 toroid cores in both the 4:1 and current balun and
>> see if it will handle more power. It'll be #31 mix for the current
>> balun, but I'm not sure which mix to use for the 4:1 voltage balun as
>> it's a true transformer.
>>
>> I have no experience with the R7 and R8 but I'd expect them to be
>> comparable to the AV640 and all to be much better than the trap, multi
>> band verticals.
>>
>> 73
>>
>> Roger (K8RI)
>>
>> Dan Schaaf wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't get it to work on 160. !!!
>>> But, if you notice, the frequency on the 17 meter band is 10 times the
>>> frequency on 160 meters. A tuner can load it. but it is not wise to do
>>> so.
>>> Once I realized that I had the antenna switch in the wrong place, it was
>>> too
>>> late.
>>> Likewise, a 17 meter vertical too close to a 160 meter vertical causes
>>> SWR
>>> fluctuations when the wind blows the antennas around.
>>>
>>> Dan Schaaf
>>> K3ZXL
>>> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
>>> www.k3zxl.com
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "RICHARD SOLOMON" <w1ksz@q.com>
>>> To: "TowerTalk" <towertalk@contesting.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was Gap Challenger ComparisonTesting
>>> Studies)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> How did you get the AV-640 to work on 160 ??
>>>>
>>>> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: n7xy@clearwire.net
>>>>> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:40:58 -0700
>>>>> To: towertalk@contesting.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was Gap Challenger Comparison Testing
>>>>> Studies)
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't had any insulator issues, but one of the 40 meter capacity
>>>>> hat wires has a noticeable bend from putting it up single-handed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have had better-than-expected results on 160 at 100 watts (> 150
>>>>> QSOs at distances up to ~1500 miles). I wouldn't try running higher
>>>>> power than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob N7XY
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan Schaaf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, My AV-640 has worked the world, literally. I could spend a
>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>> time telling stories .
>>>>>>> On 12 meters, ragchewed with N2WB op at VP6DX on 12 meters between
>>>>>>> band
>>>>>>> opening. I was running 100 watts SSB
>>>>>>> Likewise on 30 and 40 I have 266 and 269 countries logged .
>>>>>>> You just have to keep an eye on the 17 meter stub insulator at the
>>>>>>> top of
>>>>>>> the stub. The insulator can burn and short the stub to the main
>>>>>>> radiator. I
>>>>>>> think it happened here once due to accidentally loading the
>>>>>>> antenna on 160
>>>>>>> meters. That point on the stub became a high voltage point and the
>>>>>>> insulator
>>>>>>> was wet from morning dew.
>>>>>>> Replaced the insulator and all was well again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had a couple of the insulators break. (hit a tree on the way
>>>>>> up and
>>>>>> down - Hired tree trimming crew, Strong wind blew small limb from
>>>>>> neighbor's lot and hit antenna) I made new ones from scrap 1/4" Lexan.
>>>>>> Just use one of the old ones for a template. I also found that if the
>>>>>> material from the broken one is sound, they can be "super glued" back
>>>>>> together and last quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compared to sloping half wave dipole it does quite surprisingly
>>>>>> well on 40.
>>>>>> Not meant for heavy duty QRO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 73
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roger (K8RI)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan Schaaf
>>>>>>> K3ZXL
>>>>>>> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
>>>>>>> www.k3zxl.com
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Bob Nielsen" <n7xy@clearwire.net>
>>>>>>> To: "Tower and HF antenna construction topics."
>>>>>>> <towertalk@contesting.com>
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:40 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gap Challenger Comparison Testing Studies
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try <http://www.championradio.com/HF-VERTICAL-PERFORMANCE-TEST-
>>>>>>>> METHODS-RESULTS.3>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The AV-640 was not included in the comparison, however it is quite
>>>>>>>> similar to the R8. Based on the R8 data I decided to purchase a
>>>>>>>> AV-640 and have not been disappointed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob, N7XY
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This link only takes me to the home page. (http://
>>>>>>>>> www.championradio.com) I
>>>>>>>>> want to know where is the related comparison?
>>>>>>>>> I want to see how my AV-640 stacks up against the others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan Schaaf
>>>>>>>>> K3ZXL
>>>>>>>>> "In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
>>>>>>>>> www.k3zxl.com
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>> From: <K7LXC@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>; <ka2qwc@verizon.net>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:16 PM
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Gap Challenger Comparison Testing Studies
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In a message dated 4/25/2010 8:38:22 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>>>>>>>>> towertalk-request@contesting.com writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Has anyone done a study? evaluating? the GAP CHallenger DX,?
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> other verticals?
>>>>>>>>>> Butternuts, Hygain, CrushCraft, Steppir rtc..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If so I would like to see the results as the peratin to
>>>>>>>>>>> performance. I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> am not intersted in anecdotal evidence just fact. If any one has
>>>>>>>>>> performed
>>>>>>>>>> testing I would like to hear from you. If there is enough?
>>>>>>>>>> response I
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> summarize and post the results.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yessireebob. To quote from _www.championradio.com_
>>>>>>>>>> (http://www.championradio.com) , "Now you can read an unbiased
>>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>>> how they really
>>>>>>>>>> performed. Antennas tested include the Cushcraft R8, Butternut
>>>>>>>>>> HF6V, MFJ
>>>>>>>>>> 1798,
>>>>>>>>>> Force 12 ZR-3 and V-3, Diamond CP-6, Hustler 6BTV and Gap Titan.
>>>>>>>>>> It's 64
>>>>>>>>>> pages of protocol, data sets and summaries. Presented at the
>>>>>>>>>> Dayton
>>>>>>>>>> Hamvention."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly the Challenger but full of lots of actual data and
>>>>>>>>>> observations. It's the only on-the-air HF vertical comparison
>>>>>>>>>> report in
>>>>>>>>>> the world.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Steve K7LXC
>>>>>>>>>> Champion Radio Products
>>>>>>>>>> Cell: 206-890-4188
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2835 - Release Date: 04/25/10
> 13:31:00
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|