Joe,
Go to the ARRL antenna book and look at a windom. It DOES NOT have a break
at the feed point for coax center and coax shield. It is a straight wire
with the coax center at the off center point. The shield is not connected,
or else it is a single wire feed to the horizontal wire.
The AV-640 has a break at the feed point. The coax center goconnects to the
main radiator thru a balun or unun. The shield goes to the counterpoise
radials from the other side of the balun/unun.
It is an off center fed DIPOLE not WINDOM. 3/8 wave from the coax center and
the difference from the shield to the counterpoise.
Dan Schaaf
K3ZXL
"In the Beginning there was Spark Gap"
www.k3zxl.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
Studies)
> The AV-640 in no way resembles a Windom.
Straighten the "radials" into a single wire and the AV-620/640,
or R5/R7/R8 certainly resemble an off center fed antenna -
what it often called a "Windom."
> It is high impedance because it is larger than 1/4 wave.
No, the high impedance is because of the off center feed. The
total electrical length from the tip of the radials to the top
of the vertical element is on half wave. The heavy loading on
the lower bands coupled with the short radials moves the feed
point progressively farther away from the center of the "short"
loaded dipole as the operating frequency decreases. This has
the fortunate effect of keeping the feed impedance higher as
the natural impedance of the shortened antenna decreases.
No matter what you call it, the W1JR design used in the R5/7/8,
AV-620/640 is arguably one of the best and most effective for
elevated multi-band verticals.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 4/25/2010 10:45 PM, 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.
>
> Best Regards
> Dan Schaaf
> K3ZXL www.k3zxl.com "In the Beginning, there was Spark Gap"
> ===============================
> NOBSKA
> www.nobska.net
> ===============================
> Cape Cod Instruments
> www.oceanbiz.net
> ===============================
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Art Trampler"<atrampler@att.net>
> To: "'Tower and HF antenna construction
> topics.'"<towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] AV-640 (was GapChallenger ComparisonTesting
> Studies)
>
>
> I'm going to beg to differ on the theory of operation of the AV640,
> specifically its native impedance and the use of the 4:1 unun (yes, it's
> wired as a unun).
>
> The 4:1 is not stepping up from 12.5 to 50 ohms. It is stepping down from
> roughly 200 ohms to 50 ohms. Yes, the elements are cut at roughly 1/4
> wave,
> but they are mounted electrically about 1/10 wl above the feed point
> yielding a 3/8 wave antenna.
>
> It is thus electrically more akin to a vertically mounted OCF dipole or
> (in
> Hy-Gain's words) Windom. This is why the native feedpoint impedance is
> about 200 ohms. The R8 is similar (from what I gather designed by the
> same
> person) but feeds at about 220 ohms. The unun in the R8 is actually
> something like 4.4:1. Yes, there it does wind up electrically a bit longer
> than the 3/8 wave, hence the series capacitor.
>
> It is the 220 ohm impedance which gives any hope of the 72" counterpoises
> being effective from an efficiency standpoint. If it were really 12.5
> ohms
> it would be like running an vertical radiator with no radials at all.
>
> I'll also submit that at least according to the manual and my usage, it is
> not derated on CW, though for SSTV or RTTY I would agree that it is. I
> had
> problems with QRO on 40 meters which we traced to an improperly wound
> current choke; the windings were bunched together at roughly 5 O'Clock, so
> the choke was getting very hot there. My SWR would climb, so I quickly
> lowered it and sure enough had a hot core.
>
> Hy-Gain saw the pictures and supplied a new unit even though it was out of
> warranty. I have no problem running 1500 watts out on 40 or 20 into it
> and
> haven't had the sunspots on other bands to do more than jumping on a new
> one.
>
> Now if I'm wrong in my presentation of how it works, so be it--but I'll
> refer people to Hy-Gain as this explanation matches theirs.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|