Jim:
Good points regarding my statement about "proven architecture" - I should
have more properly stated "as proven thus far by those in the field."
73,
Jack
On 7/31/2012 4:13 PM, W0UCE wrote:
> One aspect of the K2AV FCP is KISS. However, experimenting with change of
> components and proven a
For some folks a circle with an 80' radius completely contains their
property. We have cases in point. The FCP is a 66 foot straight line
that will fit on one edge of the property. That is a common FCP
deployment, particularly the back yard fence. 73, Guy.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Herb
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Rick Karlquist
> wrote:
>> We already know that folding an antenna element has no advantage
>> over loading coils, why should radials be any different?
>>
>> Rick N6RK
>
> There is the problem. The folds in a single wire 5/16 wave folded
> counterpoise are desi
Hi Guy,
> The FCP is not resonant because it is designed specifically to
> self-cancel fields, not to be resonant. Said another way, it's
> DELIBERATELY not resonant.
A counterpoise that fully cancels its own fields, by definiton, cannot be a
counterpoise.
Following that logic, because it is tr
Can we please stop this adolescent love fest and get back to the basics?
Does the FCP stand up to modeling to start with and how does it compare to
various other 160 (or 80) verticals?
I for one have a hard time believing it works well when compared to an
electrical 1/4 wave vertical, be it all
On 7/31/2012 4:13 PM, W0UCE wrote:
> One aspect of the K2AV FCP is KISS. However, experimenting with change of
> components and proven architecture should anyone opt to do so will produce
> unfavorable results.
Jack,
"It seems to work good in the places it's been tried" but has never been
compa
Herb:
The intent for deploying an FCP is not to replace a gold standard, near
perfect, or best possible, buried, raised or on ground radial system.
The K2AV allows those who, like me, are space limited and cannot put out a
efficient radial field or resonant raised radials under an Inverted L or
I would think if the KISS rules apply that a good approach would be
30-50 insulated ROG wires of 60-80 feet in length (radials on ground)
and the grass will cover them in a few weeks, due to the VF of such
radials a 1/4 wave is not required, that an efficient ground system can
be obtained with
Jim Brown wrote:
>
> Yes, some controlled tests would be great. I'd be happy to help out if
> someone in this area (N6RK?) wanted to set it up, and I'm certain that
> it wouldn't be difficult to recruit others if needed..
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
Sure I can help. If you want, you can use a corner of
One aspect of the K2AV FCP is KISS. However, experimenting with change of
components and proven architecture should anyone opt to do so will produce
unfavorable results.
So... KISS and construct an FCP in the way it has been proven unless
experimentation is the objective in which case the results
On 7/31/2012 1:45 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
> Well, an inductor and a choke are TWO devices instead of one.
>
> We've all heard of KISS.
Yes, BUT -- two cheap parts I can easily build instead of one expensive
one that I have to buy. An excellent ( >5K ohms resistive) common mode
choke to han
Constructing and installing a K2AV FCP is far less costly than wining and
dining or otherwise bribing neighbors. My FCP works, my neighbors don't.
There is the problem. The folds in a single wire 5/16 wave folded
counterpoise are designed to cancel near fields and not radiate. Now
you're saying
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Rick Karlquist wrote:
> We already know that folding an antenna element has no advantage
> over loading coils, why should radials be any different?
>
> Rick N6RK
There is the problem. The folds in a single wire 5/16 wave folded
counterpoise are designed to cancel
As usual, Guy is once again on target.
How do I know? I, was a secret member of the team, that went to the house
that Danny Boy owns to put up 80 and 160m FCPs that Guy designed for an
Inverted U that Danny Boy's XYL can't see.
I also "hid my 43" foot Rohn 25 tower from view amongst some pine
W0UCE wrote:
> Physical limitations prohibiting installation of four elevated radials is
> one reason to use an FCP which was my situation. As to shootout type
> technical questions Guy is the man to answer...
>
The proposed test was for two radials occupying exactly the same
physical space, each
Physical limitations prohibiting installation of four elevated radials is
one reason to use an FCP which was my situation. As to shootout type
technical questions Guy is the man to answer...
-Original Message-
From: Rick Karlquist [mailto:rich...@karlquist.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 20
Fair point Guy, I'd then suggest adding a relay at the top of the vertical
to add in loading wires when on 160. Easily done and could be "unseen."
73 Clive GM3POI
-Original Message-
From: guyk...@gmail.com [mailto:guyk...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Guy Olinger
K2AV
Sent: 31 July 2012 21:26
To
Bingo... Guy put one over the fence and outta the park with that one...
Hi, Jim
Well, an inductor and a choke are TWO devices instead of one.
We've all heard of KISS.
As it stands now with what we recommend, the fellow has an antenna
wire up in the trees connected to the transformer, an FCP wi
Well, If I'm getting it right, the 43' feet is being used on all
bands, and there are "approved by the garden committee" kinds of
issues. I don't argue with your general take in the least, but we are
working in severely restrained circumstances in this thread, not
laying out universal rules for th
W0UCE wrote:
>
> What a wonderful test it would be for Tom and Guy to do this analysis. I
> would love to know the results.
A simpler and more relevant test would be to start with a
validated FCP installation and put some jumpers across the
FCP to turn it into two multiwire conventional radials,
Why would anyone use just 43ft of vertical without at least top
loading the vertical section.?
Without considering maximizing the antenna efficiency, I don't think
considering losses in matching coils is valid.
Not many people know this but my 160m vertical is but 51ft tall, top
lo
No, the military is not using tubes except for the occasional TWT high
power amplifier.
When specified for EMP military gear will take it.
Dave WX7G
On Jul 31, 2012 2:23 PM, wrote:
>
> Darl got zapped by an EMP from the Air Force testing range
>
> Darl: Sounds like a good case for t
Hi, Jim
Well, an inductor and a choke are TWO devices instead of one.
We've all heard of KISS.
As it stands now with what we recommend, the fellow has an antenna
wire up in the trees connected to the transformer, an FCP wire
connected to the transformer, a toroid winding in the box, and a coax
j
My former QTH boasted 2 K2AV Z-Slope TX/RX Top Band Antennas which are to
this day KILLERS plus a 5 Element Vertical Fan over 96 1/4 wave on ground
radials, three K2AV BOG RX antennas a 4 SQ receiving antenna system and a
K2AV design 80m end fed half wave. To me, I can honestly say my QTH was Low
B
Darl got zapped by an EMP from the Air Force testing range
Darl: Sounds like a good case for tube type, boat anchors.. No menus,
no microprocessors, no solid state. After all, the military keeps going back to
it from what I've heard. Sand storms in the Middle East causing s
What a wonderful test it would be for Tom and Guy to do this analysis. I
would love to know the results.
- Wes Attaway (N5WA) ---
1138 Waters Edge Circle, Shreveport, LA 71106
318-797-4972 (Office) - 318-393-3289 (Cell)
Computer Consulting and Foren
Hi, Charles,
The short, short twitter answer: 43 feet is too d*mn short for 160. Do
something else.
Merely short answer: Yes, you can use an FCP. But...
Hate to say it's the wrong question, sounds too much like a put down which
I don't intend. The real question is why use a 43 foot vertical w
Hi, Charlie.
5-10 feet longer than quarter wave is starting to sound pretty normal. I
would be interested in comment on the idea of telling people right off to
start with 151 feet (46m) and prune back.
This beyond-quarter-wave length is useful, because it increases current
density (the integral
Hi Tom,
I was hoping that you would clarify your earlier remarks.
The FCP is not resonant because it is designed specifically to
self-cancel fields, not to be resonant. Said another way, it's
DELIBERATELY not resonant. The May/June 2012 NCJ article on this
counterpoise explaining how and why can
> Elegant analysis, Tom. Thanks. I looked at Guy's very well done piece
> in the National Contest Journal (the one timed for reading on the
> airplane going to Dayton) and wondered why a serious common mode choke
> would not work.
Thanks, not really so elegant though.
Any common common mode cho
On 7/31/2012 7:19 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
> The capacitive reactance FCP and inductive reactance matching transformer
> form a tuned system. The combination acts like a single short-length folded
> inductor-loaded "radial". This is why voltages are so high, and why only one
> particular coupling system
I did a little more looking at the FCP system. I said this:
> By the way, a check of voltages shows the voltage from radial center point
> to ground is 226 volts RMS at 1500 watts when four radials are used. This
> is
> for infinite isolation. While this clearly shows we need a common mode
> cho
WOW now the questions begs, do you have new menu items showing up in your
brain ? hi hi
Darl NA8W
--
From: "N7DF"
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:24 AM
To:
Subject: Topband: you think you have interference problems
> I live in the Sacremento M
I live in the Sacremento Mountains of southern New Mexico overlooking the
White Sands Missile Range.
Frequently there are weird signals from the tests being conducted there that
impact the amateur bands but one of the most recent
exceeded all previous events.
I was listening on 160 late one nig
34 matches
Mail list logo
