It's not just the ones marked 100w that are cheaply made. And you can always do
better yourself for less money than the good ones.
73, Kelly
ve4xt
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 26, 2015, at 6:36, "Bry Carling AF4K" <bcarling@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Some of those commercially made cheapie 100 watt baluns and transformers are
> obviously
> nmot made to do the job properly.
>
>> On 26 Apr 2015 at 14:08, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>>
>> If the choke bead is getting too hot, it doesn't mean you shouldn't use a
>> choke. It means the choking impedance isn't high enough. Either the beads
>> aren't the proper ferrite material or there aren't enough of them. With many
>> commercial bead chokes, it's sometimes a combination of both errors.
>>
>> If anything, the heat is proof a choke is required, because if that energy
>> wasn't making the bead choke hot, it would be on the outside of the
>> feedline.
>>
>> 73, kelly
>> ve4xt
>>
>>
>>> On 4/26/15 12:51 PM, "Bry Carling" <bcarling@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes there is no way a monster fan dipole would work here. Small lot. I did
>>> try
>>> one and it was too obtrusive as well as high SWR on every band contradicting
>>> all theory. First I have heard of using any "choke bead" for a G5RV. If it's
>>> getting hot then it's wasting a lot of your RF power.
>>>
>>> Best regards - Brian Carling
>>> AF4K Crystals Co.
>>> 117 Sterling Pine St.
>>> Sanford, FL 32773
>>>
>>> Tel: +USA 321-262-5471
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My G5RV at QRO stopped working when the purchased bead choke at the
>>>> coax/ladderline junction got so hot it melted the coax. They need several
>>>> thousand ohms of choke impedance, usually not found in most of the off the
>>>> shelf bead chokes.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH two 80/40/20 fan dipoles (at right angles) I modeled and built worked
>>>> super at 65' high. They worked on 15m with a tuner (<2.5:1 swr) and
>>>> perhaps
>>>> on 10m if the coax is cut for a match or there is enough loss. I
>>>> separated
>>>> the ends by 24" using 3/8 sq pvc rod which makes for mechanical complexity
>>>> and difficulty winding it up (I use 10" diameter concrete column forms).
>>>> Eznec models are reasonably accurate if you follow the recommendations on
>>>> modeling by Cebik, #108-111 at http://www.antennex.com/w4rnl/
>>>>
>>>> re VE7RF's conjecture that the center of every dipole may not need to be
>>>> connected: Since I had a working EZNEC model, I disconnected the
>>>> transmission line connections to the 40 and 20m dipoles and fed only the
>>>> 80m.
>>>> There is coupling but very poor swr; 4:1 on 40m, 10:1 on 20m, 8:1 on 15m,
>>>> so
>>>> it's not a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Grant KZ1W
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/26/2015 1:26 AM, Steve Hunt wrote:
>>>>> The 51ft "G5RV" performs well on 40m, 20m and 10m - bands where the
>>>>> SWR(50)
>>>>> at the ladderline/coax junction is moderate. On other bands the SWR(50) is
>>>>> high, and how well it performs will depend on the length and quality of
>>>>> your
>>>>> coax run.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 40m you will notice little difference compared to a half-wave dipole;
>>>>> on
>>>>> 20m it has a small amount of broadside gain over a half-wave dipole; and
>>>>> on
>>>>> 10m the azimuth pattern has broken into 6 major lobes, with best
>>>>> performance
>>>>> at 45 degrees to the direction of the wire
>>>>>
>>>>> Using a good CM choke at the coax/ladderline junction is important - it
>>>>> will
>>>>> reduce radiation from the ladderline section and noise pick up on the coax
>>>>> run.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve G3TXQ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/04/2015 21:11, Dick NY1E wrote:
>>>>>> I'm operating from a small lot in Florida winters, I have a 40M dipole up
>>>>>> but it doesn't quite fit my opening, it is into the branches 5 or 6
>>>>>> feet. I
>>>>>> wonder what the 51' G5RV would perform like compared to the dipole on 40,
>>>>>> and as a bonus I might get some other bands... Any ideas???de Dick
>>>>>> NY1E/4www.ny1e.com
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
|