Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Mike Coslo wrote:

So is the lesson that Ladder line sucks, or is it that we shouldn't
wash our ladder line with soap and water? 8^)

Although I discovered it long ago, I keep getting surprised at how many
people require a binary answer to any question -- is it good or bad,
sucks or doesn't suck, good or evil. Sure makes it easy for our would-be
politicians and their 15 second sound bite solutions to complex issues.
Hopefully at least some readers will consider what Owen said, that the
knowledge we've gained by this can hopefully help in the intelligent use
of the line. Those needing a binary answer should look elsewhere; there
are plenty of gurus who are more than happy to categorically state
positive but simple answers to just about any question. I use a coin,
myself, but each to his own.

Wes' and my measurements, and Danny's observations, can't be directly
applied to other situations. What they're meant to, and do, illustrate,
is that significant loss *can* occur under some circumstances, and
people who assume that twinlead or window line loss will always be low
can be very much mistaken.


Has anyone run tests on what "real" (open) ladder line does when you
spray it with wetting agent and water?

I don't think any result would be very meaningful, except to show,
again, that significant loss could occur under some conditions (which
I'm confident is the case). Those lines are often run with a very high
SWR. The effect of conductivity and/or loss across the insulators would
depend very heavily on the position and size of the standing waves. For
example, if the SWR is high and the insulators happen to be at or near
the voltage peaks, even a small amount of loss would have a major
impact. But on a slightly different frequency, the antenna's impedance
will change and the standing wave will move. If most insulators are near
voltage minima, you wouldn't likely notice even quite a bit of loss.
This effect would be most pronounced at higher frequencies where the
spacing between insulators might become a sizable fraction of a
wavelength, and not so pronounced at lower frequencies or with more
insulators. But the magnitude of the SWR would still make a major
difference.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
... and aluminium wire braid can be a
disadvantage for solder-ability. (Cecil will correct the spelling if
you don't know what I mean!)

Owen, I can't pull Reg's leg about his spelling anymore
so now I'll have to pull yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
And after a little discourse, we find out that Daniel sprayed
silicon spray of some sort on the line. That starts to make some sense
of why he had a problem with the line.

Maybe the moss liked it? Oh no! I just sprayed mine.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Danny Richardson wrote:
Well Mike, along my experience with ladder line there is also Roy's
and Wes's measurements. Based upon that, for me, I'm off the stuff.

Here in East Texas it rains much less than 1% of the
time. Rain is more often than not accompanied by lightning
during which my antenna is unplugged. Wet ladder-line is
just not a problem at my QTH especially since the only
horizontal portion of the run is under the eaves of my house
sheltered from the rain. The only portion exposed to the rain
is vertical and is usually being whipped dry by the wind.

But what about the water collected on the antenna wire itself?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:23:07 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Has anyone run tests on what "real" (open) ladder line does when you
spray it with wetting agent and water?

If you look at Wes' paper http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/Ladder_Line.pdf (table
1 on page 6) you'll see he did measure wet open line and reported "No
Change".

Danny, K6MHE

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:29:39 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

[snip]

Not trying to insult anyone here, Wes. Just trying to figure out what
is going on.

Uh huh.

My last comments on this are at the bottom of note 11 (except that I
won't be revisiting the subject) he

http://www.k6mhe.com/n7ws/

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:58:12 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Aha! I was troubled with how you got mold or moss or anything to stick
to PE. I believe you are correct in your suspicions. One of PE's main
draws is it's inertness, and it is a real bear trying to get anything to
adhere to it. There is some possibility that the spray may have
contributed to what appears to be pitting on the line.

Certainly something troubles me with the idea that we can test
something under conditions where we apply chemistry to alter a
fundamental property of the material. (I'm referring to the wetting
agent tests) I believe that the tests do show adequately how ladder line
performs when covered with wetting agent and water. And that we don't
want to do that! ;^)

- 73 de mike KB3EIA -


Well Mike, along my experience with ladder line there is also Roy's
and Wes's measurements. Based upon that, for me, I'm off the stuff.

No problem Danny, although I'm not going to accept argument upon
authority. I give some extra weight to Roy and Wes's arguments, but
won't accept the arguments just because they say it's so. Should I?

My present open line setup is appears to be working fine. No
detectable moss, mildew or anything else that I can detect.

And I'll bet you didn't put anything on it?


One can go on forever trying to justify one way or the other, but thus
far, wet ladder or ribbon line has shown not to be the best route to
go - from three different sources. If you have something to the
contrary I certainly would be interested in hearing about it.

You coated your line with something it shouldn't have had on it. The
other line was coated with wetting agent, which some of us might think
was an artificial substance to be coating it with.

We can draw lessons from all this.


To each his own.

Indeed!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


So is the lesson that Ladder line sucks, or is it that we
shouldn't wash our ladder line with soap and water? 8^)


Although I discovered it long ago, I keep getting surprised at how many
people require a binary answer to any question -- is it good or bad,
sucks or doesn't suck, good or evil. Sure makes it easy for our would-be
politicians and their 15 second sound bite solutions to complex issues.

Hi Roy. I must have used the incorrect wording here. I'm pretty well
convinced that PE coated ladder line doesn't suck. Just one of those
email things I guess... 8^)


Hopefully at least some readers will consider what Owen said, that the
knowledge we've gained by this can hopefully help in the intelligent use
of the line. Those needing a binary answer should look elsewhere; there
are plenty of gurus who are more than happy to categorically state
positive but simple answers to just about any question. I use a coin,
myself, but each to his own.

I ask the questions that I do to find out what might be going on. I've
learned a few things here. one is that if you coat PE with some
substances, it will alter it's properties.

Another is that there is a measurable difference in loss when a PE line
is coated with a wetting agent, which is needed to evenly (read wet)
coat PE with water. Some portion of this could be applicable to
non-wetted PE coated line.


Wes' and my measurements, and Danny's observations, can't be directly
applied to other situations. What they're meant to, and do, illustrate,
is that significant loss *can* occur under some circumstances, and
people who assume that twinlead or window line loss will always be low
can be very much mistaken.

However, some *are* applying them to other circumstances.


Has anyone run tests on what "real" (open) ladder line does when
you spray it with wetting agent and water?


I don't think any result would be very meaningful, except to show,
again, that significant loss could occur under some conditions (which
I'm confident is the case).

Agreed.

Those lines are often run with a very high
SWR. The effect of conductivity and/or loss across the insulators would
depend very heavily on the position and size of the standing waves. For
example, if the SWR is high and the insulators happen to be at or near
the voltage peaks, even a small amount of loss would have a major
impact. But on a slightly different frequency, the antenna's impedance
will change and the standing wave will move.

Good point

If most insulators are near
voltage minima, you wouldn't likely notice even quite a bit of loss.
This effect would be most pronounced at higher frequencies where the
spacing between insulators might become a sizable fraction of a
wavelength, and not so pronounced at lower frequencies or with more
insulators. But the magnitude of the SWR would still make a major
difference.

I would assume then that the big difference is the continuous coating of
the PE then?

Thanks for the feedback, Roy, I'm here more to learn than to argue.
(perhaps Quixotic?)

-73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:29:39 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


I'd wager his mold, moss, or mildew problem has more to do with his
unapproved use of chemistry on the line.


Hi Mike,

This doesn't explain mold, moss, or mildew that naturally occurs under
very similar circumstances.

Mebbe, Richard. I hate to sound skeptical, but it actually grows on
untreated PE? I mean PE's inert behavior and the difficulty of anything
sticking to it are one of the reasons that companies like Nalgene (okay,
Nalge) use it.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

And after a little discourse, we find out that Daniel sprayed
silicon spray of some sort on the line. That starts to make some sense
of why he had a problem with the line.


Maybe the moss liked it? Oh no! I just sprayed mine.


Just so it isn't unhealthy for the anoles! 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Wes Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:29:39 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

[snip]

Not trying to insult anyone here, Wes. Just trying to figure out what
is going on.


Uh huh.

Okay, Well, despite your disbelief, I'm not. I apologize for upsetting you.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:05:48 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:58:12 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Aha! I was troubled with how you got mold or moss or anything to stick
to PE. I believe you are correct in your suspicions. One of PE's main
draws is it's inertness, and it is a real bear trying to get anything to
adhere to it. There is some possibility that the spray may have
contributed to what appears to be pitting on the line.

Certainly something troubles me with the idea that we can test
something under conditions where we apply chemistry to alter a
fundamental property of the material. (I'm referring to the wetting
agent tests) I believe that the tests do show adequately how ladder line
performs when covered with wetting agent and water. And that we don't
want to do that! ;^)

- 73 de mike KB3EIA -


Well Mike, along my experience with ladder line there is also Roy's
and Wes's measurements. Based upon that, for me, I'm off the stuff.

No problem Danny, although I'm not going to accept argument upon
authority. I give some extra weight to Roy and Wes's arguments, but
won't accept the arguments just because they say it's so. Should I?

My present open line setup is appears to be working fine. No
detectable moss, mildew or anything else that I can detect.

And I'll bet you didn't put anything on it?

Don't have to. Moss won't grow on copper oxide. In fact, we add copper
flashing to the peaks of our roof line to prevent moss growth on the
shingles.


One can go on forever trying to justify one way or the other, but thus
far, wet ladder or ribbon line has shown not to be the best route to
go - from three different sources. If you have something to the
contrary I certainly would be interested in hearing about it.

You coated your line with something it shouldn't have had on it.

How do you know this? What proof do you have for that statement?


The other line was coated with wetting agent, which some of us might think
was an artificial substance to be coating it with.

I'm not going to defend Wes here but do you really feel for a moment
that a couple drops of detergent soap to a gallon or two of water
would really make that much difference? My gwad, what about salt
spray, pollen and dust accumulated on my line?

I noted that it was stated (in an earlier posting on this thread) that
I had used an unauthorized procedure. Pray tell just who do I contact
to get necessary authorization - EPA, OSHA, or?? I just took the
advise of the supplier who recommended for those living is a wet area
(like me) to coat the line with car wax, spray it with pledge or a
silicon spray - I choose the latter. Something wrong taking the advise
of someone experienced with the product?

Are you by chance a government employee?

I do wonder if you have any experience living in an area such as mine
because if you did you would know that here on the northern California
coast we have a lot of rain (over 65" last year). Coupled with that I
live about ½-mile from the ocean and also have a lot of heavy marine
fog. Here the three Ms (moss, mildew and mushrooms) grow very well
indeed.

{An aside: Roy, if you're reading this no comment about the fourth M.}

If you don't want to give any creditability to what happen to me -
fine. Or if you believe through the miracle of applying silicon spray
makes moss grow where otherwise it wouldn't - that's fine too.

Danny, K6MHE

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:25:33 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Mebbe, Richard. I hate to sound skeptical, but it actually grows on
untreated PE? I mean PE's inert behavior and the difficulty of anything
sticking to it are one of the reasons that companies like Nalgene (okay,
Nalge) use it.

Hi Mike,

In fact you are trying to rope in three species to do the same thing.
Mold is a fungus as is mildew, moss is not. Mold is often intolerant
of light (rainy regions offer plenty of sun-free days, I only have to
glance out the window to confirm this - but not today.). Fungi are
not even in the plant kingdom.

Moss is not a fungus, it is a plant. Along with Lichens, I've seen
plenty enough growing on rocks to know how little is needed for
nourishment. Contrary to the Fungi's lack of sunlight tolerance,
Mosses survive quite well, and sunlight is more a threat to their
water supply (evaporation). Simply put, Mosses are very different
plants.

Nalgene may be *resistant, but it is not *proof (remember how they
changed advertising of watches decades ago?). Mold has been known to
destroy EVERYTHING, even other molds.

Certainly this demands exceptional circumstances, but that is why it
has been reported he exceptional circumstances have been found and
not as rare as some might believe - certainly in this region.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Danny Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:05:48 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Danny Richardson wrote:

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:58:12 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:



Aha! I was troubled with how you got mold or moss or anything to stick
to PE. I believe you are correct in your suspicions. One of PE's main
draws is it's inertness, and it is a real bear trying to get anything to
adhere to it. There is some possibility that the spray may have
contributed to what appears to be pitting on the line.

Certainly something troubles me with the idea that we can test
something under conditions where we apply chemistry to alter a
fundamental property of the material. (I'm referring to the wetting
agent tests) I believe that the tests do show adequately how ladder line
performs when covered with wetting agent and water. And that we don't
want to do that! ;^)

- 73 de mike KB3EIA -


Well Mike, along my experience with ladder line there is also Roy's
and Wes's measurements. Based upon that, for me, I'm off the stuff.

No problem Danny, although I'm not going to accept argument upon
authority. I give some extra weight to Roy and Wes's arguments, but
won't accept the arguments just because they say it's so. Should I?


My present open line setup is appears to be working fine. No
detectable moss, mildew or anything else that I can detect.

And I'll bet you didn't put anything on it?


Don't have to. Moss won't grow on copper oxide. In fact, we add copper
flashing to the peaks of our roof line to prevent moss growth on the
shingles.

How about the insulators?




One can go on forever trying to justify one way or the other, but thus
far, wet ladder or ribbon line has shown not to be the best route to
go - from three different sources. If you have something to the
contrary I certainly would be interested in hearing about it.


You coated your line with something it shouldn't have had on it.


How do you know this? What proof do you have for that statement?



The other line was coated with wetting agent, which some of us might think
was an artificial substance to be coating it with.


I'm not going to defend Wes here but do you really feel for a moment
that a couple drops of detergent soap to a gallon or two of water
would really make that much difference? My gwad, what about salt
spray, pollen and dust accumulated on my line?

First, we are talking about two different things here.


Thing one:


Ladder line grows moss - or whatever you had growing on your line.


Thing two:


Ladder line shows some significant loss when wetted.



When you try to combine the two, you can make my points look pretty
silly. But I'm not saying that putting wetting agent makes moss grow on
ladder line. I don't think I ever said that.

On the other hand, PE is a Thermoplastic. And as such, there are things
that can have an effect on it that might allow opportunistic life forms
to grow on it.



I noted that it was stated (in an earlier posting on this thread) that
I had used an unauthorized procedure. Pray tell just who do I contact
to get necessary authorization - EPA, OSHA, or?

Okay Danny. I see I have to wordsmith with ya. Forgive me if I get a
little long winded here. When we have to be exact, it can get that way.


I apologize for using the term "approved". You applied a substance to
the polyethylene (or polythene for our friends across the pond)coating
on the twinlead, that under certain circumstances may have caused a
chemical change in the polyethylene. It is possible that the silicone
spray that you applied may have contained such a substance. I don't
know, because you didn't disclose the brand. One might look up the
brand's MSDS to see what the product contained.


I just took the
advise of the supplier who recommended for those living is a wet area
(like me) to coat the line with car wax, spray it with pledge or a
silicon spray - I choose the latter. Something wrong taking the advise
of someone experienced with the product?

Sometimes there is.

Are you by chance a government employee?





I do wonder if you have any experience living in an area such as mine
because if you did you would know that here on the northern California
coast we have a lot of rain (over 65" last year). Coupled with that I
live about ½-mile from the ocean and also have a lot of heavy marine
fog. Here the three Ms (moss, mildew and mushrooms) grow very well
indeed.

I spent some months on the west side of Puget sound some years ago.
Wasn't a ham then.



{An aside: Roy, if you're reading this no comment about the fourth M.}



If you don't want to give any creditability to what happen to me -
fine. Or if you believe through the miracle of applying silicon spray
makes moss grow where otherwise it wouldn't - that's fine too.


Sigh..... I just think that you may have done something that
inadvertently contributed to the problem. Maybe yes, maybe no.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:19:54 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
[snip a whole buch of stuff]

Sigh..... I just think that you may have done something that
inadvertently contributed to the problem. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Mike,

I'm bowing out. Just too many " it may"s and " it is possible"s for
me.

Congratulations! Written as a excellent candidate for a government
job.

73,
Danny, K6MHE

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

If most insulators are near voltage minima, you wouldn't likely
notice even quite a bit of loss. This effect would be most pronounced
at higher frequencies where the spacing between insulators might
become a sizable fraction of a wavelength, and not so pronounced at
lower frequencies or with more insulators. But the magnitude of the
SWR would still make a major difference.

I would assume then that the big difference is the continuous coating of
the PE then?
. . .

Classic ladder line and punched PE "window line" differ in several
fairly obvious ways, of course. First, the spacing of window line is
typically closer, so the leakage path is shorter. Second, the impedance
of window line is typically lower than window line, so the effect of
shunt Z on the impedance is less when the line is matched. But high SWR
could move the advantage either way, and for different load impedances
either type could have the higher SWR. Third, the fraction of the line
which is actually air-insulated is less with window line. Fourth, the
shape of the insulation is different -- flat with window line and
typically round for ladder line. This impacts the surface area involved
for potential leakage, and the way water might adhere. And finally, the
type of insulation is usually different -- PE for window line and
various materials for ladder line. (The coating of PE on the wires on
the sides of window line "windows" wouldn't make any significant
difference, except maybe to have some impact on how water would flow on
or off the insulating sections.)

Each of these will have some effect on the loss when wet, and different
effects as frequency and SWR change. As for the effect that I mentioned
where the loss could change quite dramatically with frequency or load
impedance depending on the position of the insulators relative to the
standing wave -- that won't happen at all if the insulation is solid,
and would be most pronounced when the insulators are distinct and
periodically spaced. So window line would fall somewhere in between.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Use of lattice line to feed dipole
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Classic ladder line and punched PE "window line" differ in several
fairly obvious ways, of course.


Thanks, Roy - good assessment there.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -