I have always seen mentioned many times when someone writes about the
G5RV antenna that you need to use a minimum of 68 feet of coax connected
to the 30ft of twinlead or ladderline. I'm pretty sure that you can
blame me for that urban legend. Sometime around 1965-1967 several of us
in Maine were fooling around with the G5RV configuration on 75 meters.
Some with good results and some with not so good results! A ham by the
name of Charlie Murch decided to manufacture the antenna, which he
called the 51-30-51 for obvious reasons. He sent many of us a prototype
to test. In that era the rigs were tube finals with a pi network output
which could handle a modest range of input impedances. Antenna tuners
were not in vogue and Lou McCoy's design of the "Ultimate Transmatch"
was just coming upon the scene, the granddaddy of most of the tuners
used today.
So with my trusty HQ129X rcvr and DX100 xmiter, a Jones MicroMatch swr
bridge plus a brand new Omega T noise bridge I set out to solve the
mystery of the G5RV. The first antenna was erected about 200 feet from
the shack and 35 feet in the air with 200 feet of coax hooked to it.
Worked good and showed a less than a 2.1 swr on 3.940MHz. The next
location for it was closer to the shack and required only (you guessed
it) 68 feet of coax. The 2.1 swr went to over 3.1, mystery solved.....
.........anything less than 68 feet would result in a too high swr on 75
meters for most pi networks to handle it. This finding was duly reported
to Charlie, with a recommendation that at least 100 feet of coax should
be used for use on 75 meters for best results. When it went into
production his ad in QST and the instructions packaged with the antenna
said "should be used with at least 68 feet of coax".
Of course I have since learned why the longer coax showed a lower swr.
I wonder if the legend would be different if I only had needed 34 feet
to reach the shack. Of all my G5RV antennas that I have built, and I
have built many, My conclusion is that it is a good tri-band antenna.
80,40 and 20 mtrs. Not an "all band" antenna. 300 ohm ladder line is a
better choice than 450 ohm. The reason is that on 40 mtrs the 1/4 wave
length better transforms the high center impedance nearer to 50 ohms
than 450 ohm line. On 75/80 mtrs it is a 1/8 wave length feeding a very
low impedance which results in adding inductive reactance to the system.
And again 300 ohm line is better than 450 ohm which adds a bit too much
inductive reactance. It would make no difference on 20 mtrs since it is
a 1/2 wave length there and WYSIWYG on both ends of the line. Your
mileage may vary. And like all wire antennas, the biggest factor for
their performance are three things........location...location and location.

John K1BXI

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:52:49 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

John,

.... clipped dissertation on how feedline loss reduces VSWR at the tx
end of the line, and how it can feed urban myths.

to reach the shack. Of all my G5RV antennas that I have built, and I
have built many, My conclusion is that it is a good tri-band antenna.
80,40 and 20 mtrs. Not an "all band" antenna. 300 ohm ladder line is a
better choice than 450 ohm. The reason is that on 40 mtrs the 1/4 wave
length better transforms the high center impedance nearer to 50 ohms
than 450 ohm line. On 75/80 mtrs it is a 1/8 wave length feeding a very
low impedance which results in adding inductive reactance to the system.
And again 300 ohm line is better than 450 ohm which adds a bit too much
inductive reactance. It would make no difference on 20 mtrs since it is
a 1/2 wave length there and WYSIWYG on both ends of the line. Your

I ran a series of models of a typical G5RV in inverted V
configuration, modelling feedpoint Z using NEC2, and transmission line
and tuner losses. The models are reported at
http://www.vk1od.net/G5RV/index.htm .

I refer to Figure 3 which shows nominal 450 ohm ladder line and 15m of
RG58C/U feedline.

I have rerun the model with a feedline that is the same copper
dimensions as TV ribbon available here in Australia, but air
dielectric (in the absence of reliable measured loss characteristics
of the feedline). Real TV ribbon will be very slightly lossier.

Examining the loss on 80m, 40m, and 20m, the nominal 300 ohm line is
not a clear improvement over the nominal 450 ohm line in the model
scenario.

Here are the total loss figures (open wire line, coax, tuner) for the
model scenario:

450 300
3.6 2.4 3.3
7.1 1.9 1.4
14.2 1.0 1.7

Though the 300 line is a little better at 40m, it is a little worse on
80m and 20m.

The interaction of components of a G5RV antenna system are
interesting... the case of 300 line at 3.6MHz is increased loss in the
open wire section (no surprises there), and decreased loss in the coax
section compared to 450 line.

A lower loss 300 ohm line (ie one with thicker conductors) would
perform differently. One just doesn't know unless one runs the
numbers.

Perhaps a "feeling" that something works better leads to urban myths?

The optimum length of coax in a G5RV feed is zero (metres or feet).

Owen
--

Owen Duffy wrote:

Perhaps a "feeling" that something works better leads to urban myths?

The optimum length of coax in a G5RV feed is zero (metres or feet).

Owen
--
No argument there Owen, When I think back I remember at one time I used
a commercial open wire TV line made by Saxton. It said it was a 300 ohm
line. I suspect it was more like 400-500 line since it was #18
copperweld with a polystyrene spacer about every 2" with a wire spacing
of about 7/8" That seemed to work the best on 75 as I remember.
Go's along with what you have modeled I guess.

I've often thought I would like to lengthen the 300 or 450 line by a
factor of 3 and still use a short length of coax just to get outside the
shack. Is there such a thing as end effect with a feed line when
computing multiple 1/2 wave lengths? Or do I just cut long, short the
far end, and trim it using my MFJ-259. Also will the MFJ-259 be accurate
when used in this manner with a line that is not 50 ohms? I think so,
but not sure.

My only reason for using the G5RV at this QTH is that the 102' length
just fits on my small lot. And I'm sure open wire feed all the way into
a real balanced tuner (Johnson Matchbox etc) would be the best. But then
it's not a "real" G5RV and no more urban myths.

John K1BXI

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:44:10 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

....

My only reason for using the G5RV at this QTH is that the 102' length
just fits on my small lot. And I'm sure open wire feed all the way into
a real balanced tuner (Johnson Matchbox etc) would be the best. But then
it's not a "real" G5RV and no more urban myths.

John,

Perhaps you should be pleased that you can string out a 102' dipole...
that is good.

If you feed it with low loss parallel wire line (parallel wire wire
line is not synonymous with low loss) all the way to the balanced
tuner, you should be fine. If the configuration presents a load that
challenges the tuner, increase the line length a little.

Varney did make mention of the configuration using just parallel wire
transmission line, but most people don't understand that to be one of
the described variants. I would call it a G5rv, it is closer to a G5RV
than most implementations.

Owen
--