-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm working QRP (5W max) and I'm construction my own antennas. I've
read that antenna efficiency can be degraded by "high ohmic connections"
(especially deleterious to QRP ops). I'm assuming that we shouldn't
make potato-sized solder joints when assembling the antenna. So, I was
wondering what would be the best way to connect various parts of the
antenna?

Example: I've created a 4:1 balun based on Ron's (VK2DQ) description in
his article "Understanding and building the OCF dipole." The toroid
windings had to be connected. So, rather than twist them together (they
are 18 AWG) and solder them, I laid the pieces side-by-side (abt 1/4")
and solder them together. Is that a "high ohmic" connection? If so,
what other way could the pieces be soldered together w/o creating a high
ohmic connection?

For other parts of the antenna (e.g., the feed-point) would connectors
(quick release, ring type, etc.) be better than a solder joint?

Thanks,
--
MGFoster:::mgf00 at earthlink decimal-point net
Oakland, CA (USA)
KI6OFN

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBR7Nvi4echKqOuFEgEQIUIQCg2fSd/P9gK8ANzngBvKLQ0uj72qwAoIxS
1sXN9l/C5N9aeftVEm6iqqPp
=f3tu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, MGFoster wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm working QRP (5W max) and I'm construction my own antennas. I've
read that antenna efficiency can be degraded by "high ohmic connections"
(especially deleterious to QRP ops). I'm assuming that we shouldn't
make potato-sized solder joints when assembling the antenna. So, I was
wondering what would be the best way to connect various parts of the
antenna?

Example: I've created a 4:1 balun based on Ron's (VK2DQ) description in
his article "Understanding and building the OCF dipole." The toroid
windings had to be connected. So, rather than twist them together (they
are 18 AWG) and solder them, I laid the pieces side-by-side (abt 1/4")
and solder them together. Is that a "high ohmic" connection? If so,
what other way could the pieces be soldered together w/o creating a high
ohmic connection?

For other parts of the antenna (e.g., the feed-point) would connectors
(quick release, ring type, etc.) be better than a solder joint?

Thanks,
--
MGFoster:::mgf00 at earthlink decimal-point net
Oakland, CA (USA)
KI6OFN

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBR7Nvi4echKqOuFEgEQIUIQCg2fSd/P9gK8ANzngBvKLQ0uj72qwAoIxS
1sXN9l/C5N9aeftVEm6iqqPp
=f3tu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Well, I recently finished installation of a 160 meter lazy quad,
horizontal loop, fed with home made 600 ohm feed line. All connections
have crimp type terminals that are also soldered. The plastic was
removed from the terminal before use. Then the terminals are bolted
together. I change things quite often and needed to have an easy to
disconnect the feed line from the antenna and house. Seems to be
working just fine.

Paul, KD7HB

Any soldered connection is fine, and not a "high ohmic connection". The
only time you really need to worry is if you're using an electrically
small antenna such as a small loop for transmitting and even then any
soldered joint is ok.

I often use wire nuts (the sort used for house wiring) for temporary or
even semi-permanent antenna connections.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

MGFoster wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm working QRP (5W max) and I'm construction my own antennas. I've
read that antenna efficiency can be degraded by "high ohmic connections"
(especially deleterious to QRP ops). I'm assuming that we shouldn't
make potato-sized solder joints when assembling the antenna. So, I was
wondering what would be the best way to connect various parts of the
antenna?

Example: I've created a 4:1 balun based on Ron's (VK2DQ) description in
his article "Understanding and building the OCF dipole." The toroid
windings had to be connected. So, rather than twist them together (they
are 18 AWG) and solder them, I laid the pieces side-by-side (abt 1/4")
and solder them together. Is that a "high ohmic" connection? If so,
what other way could the pieces be soldered together w/o creating a high
ohmic connection?

For other parts of the antenna (e.g., the feed-point) would connectors
(quick release, ring type, etc.) be better than a solder joint?

Thanks,

Daddy always said the solder joint oughta be mechanically sound before you
even put the heat to it.
Use an abrasive and clean the wires to be joined.
Join them mechanically (like a good twist or compression connector) (If the
wire is copper, this would be low-resistance in itself) - then flux it and
solder it. (use Rosin flux - not acid flux).
Then considering its for an outside antenna, dip it in 3M ScotchKote which
is like an electrical-grade varnish.
That would make a "low-ohmic" (some call it "low-resistance") connection.

Oh and considering you're only using 5 watts, you need to shake the antenna
real hard while transmitting to be sure to get every little bit of RF out of
it. :-)


"MGFoster" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm working QRP (5W max) and I'm construction my own antennas. I've
read that antenna efficiency can be degraded by "high ohmic connections"
(especially deleterious to QRP ops). I'm assuming that we shouldn't
make potato-sized solder joints when assembling the antenna. So, I was
wondering what would be the best way to connect various parts of the
antenna?

Example: I've created a 4:1 balun based on Ron's (VK2DQ) description in
his article "Understanding and building the OCF dipole." The toroid
windings had to be connected. So, rather than twist them together (they
are 18 AWG) and solder them, I laid the pieces side-by-side (abt 1/4")
and solder them together. Is that a "high ohmic" connection? If so,
what other way could the pieces be soldered together w/o creating a high
ohmic connection?

For other parts of the antenna (e.g., the feed-point) would connectors
(quick release, ring type, etc.) be better than a solder joint?

Thanks,
--
MGFoster:::mgf00 at earthlink decimal-point net
Oakland, CA (USA)
KI6OFN

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBR7Nvi4echKqOuFEgEQIUIQCg2fSd/P9gK8ANzngBvKLQ0uj72qwAoIxS
1sXN9l/C5N9aeftVEm6iqqPp
=f3tu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:54:47 -0500, "Hal Rosser"
wrote:

Daddy always said the solder joint oughta be mechanically sound before you
even put the heat to it.

Hi Hal,

Your daddy was teaching you that solder is a gas-tight seal, not a
mechanical connection.
Use an abrasive and clean the wires to be joined.
Join them mechanically (like a good twist or compression connector) (If the
wire is copper, this would be low-resistance in itself)
To the OP: a Western Union Splice is the correct form of joining
wires, and then flooded with solder. Flooded does NOT mean like Noah
and the Ark.
Then considering its for an outside antenna, dip it in 3M ScotchKote which
is like an electrical-grade varnish.
That is more so the weather doesn't leach the solder.
That would make a "low-ohmic" (some call it "low-resistance") connection.
Quite so.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Hal Rosser wrote:

Daddy always said the solder joint oughta be mechanically sound before
you
even put the heat to it.

Hi Hal,

Your daddy was teaching you that solder is a gas-tight seal, not a
mechanical connection.
Use an abrasive and clean the wires to be joined.
Join them mechanically (like a good twist or compression connector) (If
the
wire is copper, this would be low-resistance in itself)
To the OP: a Western Union Splice is the correct form of joining
wires, and then flooded with solder. Flooded does NOT mean like Noah
and the Ark.
Then considering its for an outside antenna, dip it in 3M ScotchKote
which
is like an electrical-grade varnish.
That is more so the weather doesn't leach the solder.
That would make a "low-ohmic" (some call it "low-resistance") connection.
Quite so.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If the splice will be under strain, a Western Union or Lineman splice
(http://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp.../407%20Splices
..html) is "bestest". I use such splices when there is nothing (i.e.
insulator) to take the strain. IMO, the OP's description of his splice
would not require such tensile strength. In his application, anything that
prevents oxidation of the mating surfaces would suffice.

73,
Bryan WA7PRC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

MGFoster wrote:
I'm working QRP (5W max) and I'm construction my own antennas. I've
read that antenna efficiency can be degraded by "high ohmic
connections"
(especially deleterious to QRP ops). I'm assuming that we shouldn't
make potato-sized solder joints when assembling the antenna. So, I
was
wondering what would be the best way to connect various parts of the
antenna?

SNIP

Thanks to everyone who gave advice; very helpful.

The person who stated that "high ohmic connections" were deleterious to
QRP ops was describing his construction of a linear loaded dipole and
the connections to the inductance section of the antenna (see N5ESE's
article on the "Notebook antenna"
http://www.io.com/~n5fc/notebk_ant.htm). This is a small radiation
resistance antenna and could be affected by bad connections.

The balun's connections, described in my original post, will not be
subject to mechanical stress 'cuz it will be bolted down inside a
connection box and protected from the wx.

Thanks & 73
--
MGFoster:::mgf00 at earthlink decimal-point net
Oakland, CA (USA)
** Respond only to this newsgroup. I DO NOT respond to emails **

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBR7PGDYechKqOuFEgEQL05ACfb1CWbMksIbJjTXdKprq00w 9OwJoAn3LB
1ZYIIsNktVMGLKCFdQAoimUD
=9oQp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

MGFoster wrote:

Thanks to everyone who gave advice; very helpful.

The person who stated that "high ohmic connections" were deleterious to
QRP ops was describing his construction of a linear loaded dipole and
the connections to the inductance section of the antenna (see N5ESE's
article on the "Notebook antenna"
http://www.io.com/~n5fc/notebk_ant.htm). This is a small radiation
resistance antenna and could be affected by bad connections.
. . .

Yes, it does have a low radiation resistance:

21 MHz: 31.7 ohms
14 MHz: 11.6 ohms
7 MHz: 2.6 ohms
3.5 MHz: 0.64 ohms
1.8 MHz: 0.17 ohms

And the tuner has a lot of reactance to take care of, from about 180
ohms at 21 MHz to nearly 8000 at 1.8 MHz. If a 1.8 MHz tuner had a coil
with Q = 400, the tuner loss alone would be 20 dB.

My model doesn't show the claimed spectacular rise in radiation
resistance from the meander lines. Replacing them with straight 14 inch
wires just about halves the radiation resistance. That's nearly 3 dB at
the lower frequencies, so nothing to sniff at, but nowhere near the
factor of up to 14 claimed. The meander lines cut the reactance by a
factor of 1-1/2 to 2, which helps the tuner efficiency.

The fact that QSOs can be made with this antenna and QRP is yet another
illustration of just how little radiated power is needed in order to
communicate.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

MGFoster wrote in
:
....
The person who stated that "high ohmic connections" were deleterious to
QRP ops was describing his construction of a linear loaded dipole and
the connections to the inductance section of the antenna (see N5ESE's
article on the "Notebook antenna"
http://www.io.com/~n5fc/notebk_ant.htm). This is a small radiation
resistance antenna and could be affected by bad connections.

I had a look at that article, and have concerns about many things stated,
and the way in which the author distances himself from some of what is
said.

The effect of linear loading is that the contribution to radiation of
current in a segment of one section of the linear loading is offset to
some lesser or greater extent by the currents in parallel segments. The
heat loss is incurred by the current flowing in all the conductors, but
the radiation effect is diminished.

This mechanism can increase the loss resistance more than it increases
the radiation resistance.

This is contrary to the widely held view that linear loading is
essentially lossless.

Owen