Mark Keith wrote:
I was so disgusted with the things after
the 2nd FD, I refused to ever use one again. And I haven't. I bring my
own wire and coax just to make sure I don't get stuck on one. And I
wasn't the only one complaining either...
I won't be suffering with a system efficiency in the mid 90's...

It would be easy to try my G5RV modification. For 3.8 MHz, it is
25 ft of "450" ladder-line with a 1000 pf cap in parallel at the
ladder-line/coax junction. I wish you would open your closed mind
and try it sometime.

I guess this is what led me to question your choice of the perfect FD
antenna. 80m, being the band of real issue.

A perfect FD antenna would allow one to change bands relatively
quickly without sacrificing performance. My G5RV does that.

The 110 ft dipole that I came up with has an SWR of less than 1.7:1
over the entire 75-80m band. That sure beats the bandwidth of a
resonant coax-fed dipole.

W5DXP wrote:
Many hams cannot string a 130 foot dipole but can manage a 102 foot dipole.

At field day?

No, at their QTH. Many hams have reported that they just don't have
130 feet of room.

I simply cannot stand by
and allow new old wives' tales to take over ham radio.

I like your all ladder line design better from an efficiency
standpoint...But claiming a coax fed dipole is nearly invincable as far
as wire ant/dipole efficiency's go, is hardly a wives tail. MK

That's not the old wives' tale. The old wives' tale is, "A G5RV
is a terrible antenna that cannot be improved to near perfection."
With minor modifications, a G5RV will compete favorably with any
other HF dipole on any HF band.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----