Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
On 1/21/2014 4:33 PM, Mike Waters wrote: However, I did run into an antenna design that was significantly different (to me, anyway) last month, in an old article about inverted-Ls by L.B. Cebik. He showed an inverted-L fed at the transition from vertical to horizontal. Open-wire line ran down and away from it at a 45 degree angle. About 30 years ago, I had a 55 foot tower with a feedpoint at the top. It fed a horizontal wire 55 feet high and 130 feet long against the tower. The base of the tower was grounded, but no radials. It loaded up fine, but was nothing great in terms of getting out. On 80 and 40, the same setup resulted in an voltage fed, end fed wire (1/2 or 1 wavelength long). Loaded up fine, but was basically a cloud warmer. Rick N6RK _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
I will have to put that book on my wish list..I have been using a short 43 foot high vertical antenna for quite a few years now...It is based on the Minooka design, A spoked Top Hat with a Loading coil just below the Hat..I use another inductor series to ground to resonate the antenna and match into 50 ohms...Bottom coil is 10 turns of 5/8 dia copper tube 1TPI...The Heliax LDF 4/50 is tapped in about 2 turns up from ground and the mast tapped down a couple of turns to resonate the antenna around 1.825mhz..There are around 40 150 foot and random length radials pinned to the ground.. I have used this antenna for many years now very successfully..As I only operate CW the narrow 2-1 vswr points give me about 25khz of operating bandwidth..I have an inverted V on an 85 foot mast and the short vertical is 3-8db better on long haul DX average..I only use the V for receive.. Short verticals work surprisingly well if one puts some thought into it's construction... Bob..VK3ZL.. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Nostalgic "openings"
There were a lot of those rigs around in the years following WW II, when there still was a "Radio Row"! And a BC-348 is a BIG step up from an S38C. I had the use of one for a while. Long, long ago! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Brown Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:41 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Nostalgic "openings" On 1/18/2014 12:41 PM, Charlie Cunningham wrote: > The first "sideband" rig I ever had -back in the 1950s was a T-19 (3-4 Mc) ARC-5 My first rig was a BC-459 for 40M, a gift from W8IEQ, one of the OTs in the local ham club. Andy also included a power supply to run it. My mom and dad took a week vacation each year in NYC, and I send dad to Radio Row to buy an 80M ARC5. I used them only on CW. RX was an S38C -- real POS. Eventually I found a guy to sell me a BC348, a very nice step up. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
That's certainly true! Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy Olinger K2AV Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:59 PM To: Joe Subich, W4TV Cc: TopBand List Subject: Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160??? Oh, OK. That should have worked. And note who you're talking about. :>) But have you heard of a ham that had 120 1/4 wave bare buried around his 130' insulated tower, and then switched to two raised radials with the 120 left in place. Commercial BC is in the fix of having to maintain the field strength, even when the radials start to get even mildly inefficient. They would be all over having to raise power to compensate. I doubt a typical ham would even know anything was going wrong at the loss level that would instigate action at a BC installation. 73, Guy On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials >> underneath his two raised radials. >> > > ON4UN's original 80 meter wire 4-square hug around his 160 meter > tower came close to that description. The 4 square had a single > elevated radial for each 80 meter element but they were all over > some 100+ radials for 160 meters - most at least 1/4 wave long. > > 73, > >... Joe, W4TV > > > > On 1/21/2014 11:32 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Charlie Cunningham < >> charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> There's been a lot of work done in the broadcast >>> industry using elevated radials to replace deteriorated buried radial >>> fields >>> that shows that pretty clearly. It was published in some IEEE >>> transactions >>> some years ago. >>> >>> >> Be careful not to extrapolate very specifically qualified broadcast >> experience into ham radio. Originally FCC spec radials still make the >> close >> foreground earth appear VERY conductive, which is NOT an advantage one >> will >> have putting up two or four radials over plain old dirt, unless one is >> talking about midwest USA 30 millisiemen super dirt. >> >> I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials underneath >> his two raised radials. A ham is talking about two or four raised over >> plain dirt. Two or four over ugly North Carolina 2 millisiemen will be >> down, though one will need comparison RBN plots watching an entire 160 >> contest to see it. It's not so far down though that you won't work happy >> DX >> with it, but there is a power loss. >> >> 73, Guy. >> _ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Oh, OK. That should have worked. And note who you're talking about. :>) But have you heard of a ham that had 120 1/4 wave bare buried around his 130' insulated tower, and then switched to two raised radials with the 120 left in place. Commercial BC is in the fix of having to maintain the field strength, even when the radials start to get even mildly inefficient. They would be all over having to raise power to compensate. I doubt a typical ham would even know anything was going wrong at the loss level that would instigate action at a BC installation. 73, Guy On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > > I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials >> underneath his two raised radials. >> > > ON4UN's original 80 meter wire 4-square hug around his 160 meter > tower came close to that description. The 4 square had a single > elevated radial for each 80 meter element but they were all over > some 100+ radials for 160 meters - most at least 1/4 wave long. > > 73, > >... Joe, W4TV > > > > On 1/21/2014 11:32 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Charlie Cunningham < >> charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> >> There's been a lot of work done in the broadcast >>> industry using elevated radials to replace deteriorated buried radial >>> fields >>> that shows that pretty clearly. It was published in some IEEE >>> transactions >>> some years ago. >>> >>> >> Be careful not to extrapolate very specifically qualified broadcast >> experience into ham radio. Originally FCC spec radials still make the >> close >> foreground earth appear VERY conductive, which is NOT an advantage one >> will >> have putting up two or four radials over plain old dirt, unless one is >> talking about midwest USA 30 millisiemen super dirt. >> >> I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials underneath >> his two raised radials. A ham is talking about two or four raised over >> plain dirt. Two or four over ugly North Carolina 2 millisiemen will be >> down, though one will need comparison RBN plots watching an entire 160 >> contest to see it. It's not so far down though that you won't work happy >> DX >> with it, but there is a power loss. >> >> 73, Guy. >> _ >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband >> >> _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Thanks, Guy. If I ever try this, it will very likely be on 80m first, and each half will be 1/4 wave. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: > > Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the >> need for radials? >> > > Yeah, but this is 160, and if you can get the bend up 75 feet or so you > are feeding a half-size doublet that consists only of a pair of 1/8 waves. > Really a very different antenna story on 80 meters where the same 75 feet > can get your vertical and horizontal to a 1/4 wave each. > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials underneath his two raised radials. ON4UN's original 80 meter wire 4-square hug around his 160 meter tower came close to that description. The 4 square had a single elevated radial for each 80 meter element but they were all over some 100+ radials for 160 meters - most at least 1/4 wave long. 73, ... Joe, W4TV On 1/21/2014 11:32 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Charlie Cunningham < charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com> wrote: There's been a lot of work done in the broadcast industry using elevated radials to replace deteriorated buried radial fields that shows that pretty clearly. It was published in some IEEE transactions some years ago. Be careful not to extrapolate very specifically qualified broadcast experience into ham radio. Originally FCC spec radials still make the close foreground earth appear VERY conductive, which is NOT an advantage one will have putting up two or four radials over plain old dirt, unless one is talking about midwest USA 30 millisiemen super dirt. I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials underneath his two raised radials. A ham is talking about two or four raised over plain dirt. Two or four over ugly North Carolina 2 millisiemen will be down, though one will need comparison RBN plots watching an entire 160 contest to see it. It's not so far down though that you won't work happy DX with it, but there is a power loss. 73, Guy. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Nostalgic "openings"
On 1/18/2014 12:41 PM, Charlie Cunningham wrote: The first "sideband" rig I ever had -back in the 1950s was a T-19 (3-4 Mc) ARC-5 My first rig was a BC-459 for 40M, a gift from W8IEQ, one of the OTs in the local ham club. Andy also included a power supply to run it. My mom and dad took a week vacation each year in NYC, and I send dad to Radio Row to buy an 80M ARC5. I used them only on CW. RX was an S38C -- real POS. Eventually I found a guy to sell me a BC348, a very nice step up. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the > need for radials? > Yeah, but this is 160, and if you can get the bend up 75 feet or so you are feeding a half-size doublet that consists only of a pair of 1/8 waves. Really a very different antenna story on 80 meters where the same 75 feet can get your vertical and horizontal to a 1/4 wave each. On 160 with a split 1/4 wave L you get a feedpoint at the bend of Z = 12 - j1100 ohms over "average ground". To tune out all that capacitive reactance will employ ~ 94 uH coil or its various equivalents with transformers, feedline tricks, etc, making the match quite narrow, along with many opportunities to generate loss if the whole thing isn't done tightly according to the book. Without any loss factors and with a perfect tuning inductor the 2:1 bandwidth at 12 ohms at feedpoint is only about 10 kHz. Unmatched 50 ohm SWR is over 4:1. Current at feedpoint is over 11 amps for 1500 watts, meaning any balun device must be designed for the heavy current ** at 160m **. Also meaning that a lot of the "balun" stuff I've seen will burn and/or leave huge amounts of common mode on the feedline. If you use balanced line, the typical "450" window line will have an impedance of 13k a quarter wave away. All this would be why such a 160m configuration is really not a big hit and not common as nails. 73, Guy _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Charlie Cunningham < charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > There's been a lot of work done in the broadcast > industry using elevated radials to replace deteriorated buried radial > fields > that shows that pretty clearly. It was published in some IEEE transactions > some years ago. > Be careful not to extrapolate very specifically qualified broadcast experience into ham radio. Originally FCC spec radials still make the close foreground earth appear VERY conductive, which is NOT an advantage one will have putting up two or four radials over plain old dirt, unless one is talking about midwest USA 30 millisiemen super dirt. I have yet to hear about a ham who had 120 buried bare radials underneath his two raised radials. A ham is talking about two or four raised over plain dirt. Two or four over ugly North Carolina 2 millisiemen will be down, though one will need comparison RBN plots watching an entire 160 contest to see it. It's not so far down though that you won't work happy DX with it, but there is a power loss. 73, Guy. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
On 1/21/2014 5:36 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: When the antenna is less than 1/2 wave long, and if we do not change the antenna configuration, we can move the feedline around in an antenna until we turn blue and the only thing that changes is feed impedance. AND, potentially, moving the feedpoint can change the common mode current on the transmission line, which WILL change more than the feedpoint impedance. This will depend on the line (2-wire or coax), the electrical length of the line, the degree of imbalance in the system, the orientation of the feedline with respect to the antenna, and whether the line is isolated on either or both ends by a choke or transformer. 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
The real key is "symmetrical", according to the stuff I re-read earlier today by Rudy, N6LF and K9YC. Mine aren't symmetrical. The N radial is straight; but the S radial has to zig-zag, because I'm too close the neighbor's pasture fence. The current is almost certainly different on each radial. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Charlie Cunningham < charlie-cunning...@nc.rr.com> wrote: > Well, I've worked a lot of good stuff all over the world on 160 with an > inverted L with two elevated radials - because that's what I had room for. > If you get up to 4 symmetrical elevated radials there's not much to be > gained by adding more. > ... _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Found paper logs from July 1997…it was VP8CTR on 3796 SSB at our SR, and a Ukranian base not RU. Still, Cebik's L worked. 73, Gary NL7Y > That's a good one for 80m from KL7! FB! > > 73, > Charlie, K4OTV > > Oh, I left out the RU was in Antarctica. > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Well, I've worked a lot of good stuff all over the world on 160 with an inverted L with two elevated radials - because that's what I had room for. If you get up to 4 symmetrical elevated radials there's not much to be gained by adding more. There's been a lot of work done in the broadcast industry using elevated radials to replace deteriorated buried radial fields that shows that pretty clearly. It was published in some IEEE transactions some years ago. 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike Waters Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:28 PM To: topband List Subject: Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160??? The only real way to tell is have one of each, and do many instant A-B comparisons over a period of time. I just have two 10'+ high elevated radials on my bottom-fed L. It seems to work "well", but I should add more radials this summer. And that's what I'll probably do before I ever build one of those. http://www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html#inv-l_antenna 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Gary and Kathleen Pearse wrote: > I've built them for 40 and 80 via his modeling years ago. Fed both up > high, and both down low. High feed 'seemed better', but no real way to > tell. Worked a RU station on 80 from KL7 so they do emit a signal. It > was a good aerial, easy to build, with some vertical component to the pattern. > > On 160 it may take some bending. Fed low it's a vert with an elevated > radial. Two would be better, but then so would four and so on. > > 73, Gary NL7Y > > > Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least > > eliminate > the > > need for radials? > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
The only real way to tell is have one of each, and do many instant A-B comparisons over a period of time. I just have two 10'+ high elevated radials on my bottom-fed L. It seems to work "well", but I should add more radials this summer. And that's what I'll probably do before I ever build one of those. http://www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html#inv-l_antenna 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Gary and Kathleen Pearse wrote: > I've built them for 40 and 80 via his modeling years ago. Fed both up > high, and both down low. High feed 'seemed better', but no real way to > tell. Worked a RU station on 80 from KL7 so they do emit a signal. It was a > good aerial, easy to build, with some vertical component to the pattern. > > On 160 it may take some bending. Fed low it's a vert with an elevated > radial. Two would be better, but then so would four and so on. > > 73, Gary NL7Y > > > Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate > the > > need for radials? > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
That's a good one for 80m from KL7! FB! 73, Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gary and Kathleen Pearse Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:22 PM To: topband List Subject: Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160??? Oh, I left out the RU was in Antarctica. 73, Gary NL7Y > I've built them for 40 and 80 via his modeling years ago. Fed both up high, and both down low. High feed 'seemed better', but no real way to tell. Worked a RU station on 80 from KL7 so they do emit a signal. It was a good aerial, easy to build, with some vertical component to the pattern. > > On 160 it may take some bending. Fed low it's a vert with an elevated radial. Two would be better, but then so would four and so on. > > 73, Gary NL7Y > >> Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the >> need for radials? >> >> 73, Mike >> www.w0btu.com > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Well, you'd have a "slant" or "tilt" polarized radiator. You could make the top horizontal wire a 1/4 wavelength and let it be an elevated radial and treat the vertical wire (probably bent horizontal at some lower altitude) as a vertical radiator, but you'd still have a "tilt" polarized radiator because of the horizontal and vertical high currents at high elevations. Charlie, K4OTV -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike Waters Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:13 PM To: Tom W8JI Cc: topband Subject: Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160??? Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the need for radials? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: > ... an inverted-L fed at the transition from vertical to horizontal. >> Open-wire line ran down and away from it at a 45 degree angle. >> Basically, it's a dipole with one wire horizontal and the other wire >> hanging down vertically, so no radials are required. It might be fun >> to at least model it, if not actually try one on 160 or 80 sometime ... >> > > When the antenna is less than 1/2 wave long, and if we do not change > the antenna configuration, we can move the feedline around in an > antenna until we turn blue and the only thing that changes is feed impedance. > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Oh, I left out the RU was in Antarctica. 73, Gary NL7Y > I've built them for 40 and 80 via his modeling years ago. Fed both up high, > and both down low. High feed 'seemed better', but no real way to tell. Worked > a RU station on 80 from KL7 so they do emit a signal. It was a good aerial, > easy to build, with some vertical component to the pattern. > > On 160 it may take some bending. Fed low it's a vert with an elevated radial. > Two would be better, but then so would four and so on. > > 73, Gary NL7Y > >> Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the >> need for radials? >> >> 73, Mike >> www.w0btu.com > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
I've built them for 40 and 80 via his modeling years ago. Fed both up high, and both down low. High feed 'seemed better', but no real way to tell. Worked a RU station on 80 from KL7 so they do emit a signal. It was a good aerial, easy to build, with some vertical component to the pattern. On 160 it may take some bending. Fed low it's a vert with an elevated radial. Two would be better, but then so would four and so on. 73, Gary NL7Y > Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the > need for radials? > > 73, Mike > www.w0btu.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least eliminate the need for radials? 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Tom W8JI wrote: > ... an inverted-L fed at the transition from vertical to horizontal. >> Open-wire line ran down and away from it at a 45 degree angle. Basically, >> it's a dipole with one wire horizontal and the other wire hanging down >> vertically, so no radials are required. It might be fun to at >> least model it, if not actually try one on 160 or 80 sometime ... >> > > When the antenna is less than 1/2 wave long, and if we do not change the > antenna configuration, we can move the feedline around in an antenna until > we turn blue and the only thing that changes is feed impedance. > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???
However, I did run into an antenna design that was significantly different (to me, anyway) last month, in an old article about inverted-Ls by L.B. Cebik. He showed an inverted-L fed at the transition from vertical to horizontal. Open-wire line ran down and away from it at a 45 degree angle. Basically, it's a dipole with one wire horizontal and the other wire hanging down vertically, so no radials are required. It might be fun to at least model it, if not actually try one on 160 or 80 sometime. The vertical portion would have to be bent and run parallel to the earth in some cases. Anyone here ever try one like it on 160? When the antenna is less than 1/2 wave long, and if we do not change the antenna configuration, we can move the feedline around in an antenna until we turn blue and the only thing that changes is feed impedance. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
When I first got into amateur radio, I bought a lot of different antenna books. And every so often, I would look at new ARRL Handbooks, antenna books, etc. After awhile, you realize that there are only so many basic and/or practical antenna designs. However, I did run into an antenna design that was significantly different (to me, anyway) last month, in an old article about inverted-Ls by L.B. Cebik. He showed an inverted-L fed at the transition from vertical to horizontal. Open-wire line ran down and away from it at a 45 degree angle. Basically, it's a dipole with one wire horizontal and the other wire hanging down vertically, so no radials are required. It might be fun to at least model it, if not actually try one on 160 or 80 sometime. The vertical portion would have to be bent and run parallel to the earth in some cases. Anyone here ever try one like it on 160? Get ON4UN's book, if you don't have it. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Ron Settle wrote: > ... I could not make practical use out of any of it ... ON4UN's book is > much more useful and valuable in my humble opinion. > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
When Grant's book came out, I purchased it and gave it a careful read. I posted my review to TopBand and it can be read here: http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/2012-09/msg00177.html I should note that the use of models requiring a NEC4 engine to evaluate buried radials are not a problem for me as I have all the requisite licenses. 73, Guy K2AV On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Cecil wrote: > I did a year or so back > > First off for the price I was sadly disappointed with the size...it's a > thin booklet. Second I found little of practical use in it for an average > small lot Top Bander. > > I'll be more careful with my antenna book purchases in the future. > > Cecil > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:29 AM, James Rodenkirch > wrote: > > > This is the title, Short Antennas for 160 Meter Radio - anyone read > through it? > > I have ON4UN's book from a couple of years back so wonder if there is > anything worthwhile in that ARRL version ... thank you, in advance, for > thoughts..Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV > > _ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
I did a year or so back First off for the price I was sadly disappointed with the size...it's a thin booklet. Second I found little of practical use in it for an average small lot Top Bander. I'll be more careful with my antenna book purchases in the future. Cecil Sent from my iPad On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:29 AM, James Rodenkirch wrote: > This is the title, Short Antennas for 160 Meter Radio - anyone read through > it? > I have ON4UN's book from a couple of years back so wonder if there is > anything worthwhile in that ARRL version ... thank you, in advance, for > thoughts..Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV > _ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
Thanks to all that replied - enuff "keep reading the ON4UN tome" comments to keep me from reaching in to my wallet for a charge card...Hi Hi Hope to hear and work you in the upcoming CQ 160 'test' this weekend. _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
I think I reviewed it for our national magazine some years back. I don't think you will find much in there that isn't in ON4UN's book. 73, Greg, ZL3IX On 2014-01-22 04:29 a.m., James Rodenkirch wrote: This is the title, Short Antennas for 160 Meter Radio - anyone read through it? I have ON4UN's book from a couple of years back so wonder if there is anything worthwhile in that ARRL version ... thank you, in advance, for thoughts..Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
On 1/21/2014 7:29 AM, James Rodenkirch wrote: his is the title, Short Antennas for 160 Meter Radio - anyone read through it? Who is listed as author? That might give a clue. :) There's a slide show (pdf file) from a tutorial presentation I've done at Pacificon and for several local DX clubs on the fundamentals of 160M antennas with limited space. No original work on my part, but combining excellent work by others, most notably N6LF, K3LC, W8JI, K2AV, NC0B, and N7CL. http://k9yc.com/publish.htm 73, Jim K9YC _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
I bought it and read through it. It is a small book so it doesn't take long to read through. Several interesting designs with EZNEC models to play with. I could not make practical use out of any of it, ended up building an old standard inverted L. ON4UN's book is much more useful and valuable in my humble opinion. 73 Ron WM9Q -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of James Rodenkirch Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:30 AM To: Top Band Contesting Subject: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160??? This is the title, Short Antennas for 160 Meter Radio - anyone read through it? I have ON4UN's book from a couple of years back so wonder if there is anything worthwhile in that ARRL version ... thank you, in advance, for thoughts..Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for 160???
This is the title, Short Antennas for 160 Meter Radio - anyone read through it? I have ON4UN's book from a couple of years back so wonder if there is anything worthwhile in that ARRL version ... thank you, in advance, for thoughts..Jim Rodenkirch K9JWV _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband: XW8BM
FYI. I received this from JA8BMK. Bernie W3UR/4 Miami on my way to V4. Hi! , Bernie I have just set up 160m inverted V(or U!) and try to work at 19:00 UTC of Jan21. The freq. will be around 1812.5 , I am not sure to work DX as the noise level is so high! 73, Toshi XW8BM Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of The Daily DX and The Weekly DX www.dailydx.com 410-489-6518 Sent from my iPhone _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
