On 2007-05-04, Owen Duffy wrote:

Efficient and effective multi-band antennas don't happen by accident,
they are a significant challenge, and an efficient and effective 160m to
70cm is an extreme challenge. On the other hand, you will see proof that
"loading up the fencewire works", but it goes to the meaning of 'works',
which is less specific than 'effective and efficient'.

Thanks to all for the insightful replies. Evidently the reason
I couldn't find much information on 'oversized' antennas is that
they aren't very effective. Then again, if you never experiment
with unconventional ideas you'll never discover anything new, so
I may just try it and see what happens. If all else fails I can
always make several smaller narrowband antennas out of the wire.

Thanks again,
Frank
KE5MJZ

Spam Collector wrote:
Evidently the reason
I couldn't find much information on 'oversized' antennas is that
they aren't very effective.

My 130 ft. dipole is 'oversized' on 10m and has a
gain of 10.6 dBi at a take off angle of 12 degrees.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 08 May 2007 17:47:27 GMT, Spam Collector
wrote:

On 2007-05-04, Owen Duffy wrote:

Efficient and effective multi-band antennas don't happen by accident,
they are a significant challenge, and an efficient and effective 160m to
70cm is an extreme challenge. On the other hand, you will see proof that
"loading up the fencewire works", but it goes to the meaning of 'works',
which is less specific than 'effective and efficient'.

Thanks to all for the insightful replies. Evidently the reason
I couldn't find much information on 'oversized' antennas is that
they aren't very effective. Then again, if you never experiment
with unconventional ideas you'll never discover anything new, so
I may just try it and see what happens. If all else fails I can
always make several smaller narrowband antennas out of the wire.

Thanks again,
Frank
KE5MJZ
I put about 2000 feet of wire in the grass this winter for radials.
There is always another use for extra wire...
John Ferrell W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to
plow around the stumps"

wrote in
:

....
The rule still holds, for a bigger signal put up more metal.

An appealing rule, isn't it!

I had three QSOs with stations on Saturday on 40m that were using an "80m
coax centre fed dipole". I explained to them that if they halved the size
of their antenna, it would work ten times as good.

This simple case shows that the "rule" ain't a rule.

Owen

wrote:

Wrong, it just means you didn't read the whole posting. The issue
with a doublet of two full half waves is feed impedence is very high
and a very poor match for coax. Feed it properly (voltage feed) and
it will perform better than a 40m dipole. . .

A full wave dipole has less than 2 dB more gain than a half wave dipole
at its best angle. It has gain equal to or more than that of a half wave
dipole over only 88 of the 360 degrees of coverage -- at all other
angles the full wave dipole has less gain. In fact, over 140 of the
total 360 degrees, the gain of a full wave dipole is more than 10 dB
less than that of a half wave dipole.

So in what way does the full wave dipole "perform better" than a half
wave dipole?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
So in what way does the full wave dipole "perform better" than a half
wave dipole?

My 20m rotatable dipole gives ~2dB gain on 10m according
to EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

what does the squiggly line mean?
On May 9, 1:21 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
So in what way does the full wave dipole "perform better" than a half
wave dipole?

My 20m rotatable dipole gives ~2dB gain on 10m according
to EZNEC.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
what does the squiggly line mean?

Approximately
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

ok not much to worry about then. I had the imprssion it was.
On May 10, 1:00 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
what does the squiggly line mean?

Approximately
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

wrote in news:1178825684.600426.15110
@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

what does the squiggly line mean?

Approximately, a shortening of the notation and adaptation to the ASCII
character set for "approximately equal to" being a "squiggly" equals
symbol.

Owen