Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
What about your balun/choke connection?

W2DU choke, virtually lossless. The tuning cap is also virtually
lossless, much more so than a tuner with a coil.

Won't this depend on the match involved? I have trouble seeing that
connection as "virtually lossless".

The only real loss I have is the
loss of the feedline "213", and on 80m, it's about as good as ladder
line.

It's about as good as open-wire line with a 10:1 SWR. The matched line
losses in 100 ft. of RG-213 are higher than the unmatched line losses
in 100 ft. of open-wire line with a 10:1 SWR on 80m.

Sure, but is it enough to notice on the air? I doubt it...

According to Wirebook II, the matched line loss for RG-213 is ten
times higher on 80m than the matched line loss for open-wire line.

If it were better, I could see it. But it's not. It's inferior.
If it were not, I would be using one here at the house.

You are so biased, you wouldn't use one if your life depended
on it. :-)

You got that right. Nothing but the best for me.

Why would
anyone want to do more work, for something a step in the wrong
direction?

It's a step in the right direction, Mark, toward an all-HF-band
antenna.
Who's talking about all band use though? All I've heard mentioned was
80m.

I modified my G5RV yesterday to work well on all eight
HF bands plus 6m. Field strength measurements indicated it is
virtually identical to my 130 foot dipole on 80m.

Virtually huh....

The "average" storebought G5RV is
pitiful on 80m compared to the coax fed dipole.

Mine is virtually equal to a resonant dipole.

Maybe close...
Your "average" storebought
G5RV must be poorly designed -

It was.

maybe lacking a balun -

Nope, it had one. I always considered that choke/balun half the
problem...

maybe using RG-58
coax - maybe using the wrong length of the series section transformer.

No, it was RG-8. The antenna was a common storebought version. I won't
mention names, but it's the most popular version out there.

But everyone ignore what I say. I'm really fibbing, and just messing
with ole Cecils head...

I asked for some scientific proof of what you say. All you responded
with is prejudice and hand-waving. Please take time to calculate
the matched line losses in RG-213 Vs the unmatched line losses for
open-wire line and you will change your mind (if you are rational).

Why? I've already done it. I don't need those numbers to help make up
my mind. I've compared the real antennas. I'll never change my mind.
Nothing but the best for me. Anything less is a waste of my valuable
time. All bands? Who gives a rats rectum about all band use? We have
three tri band yagi's for the higher bands. Will smoke any G5RV used
on those bands...Well, time to unplug..It's lightning time for
nm5k...MK

Mark Keith wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
W2DU choke, virtually lossless. The tuning cap is also virtually
lossless, much more so than a tuner with a coil.

Won't this depend on the match involved? I have trouble seeing that
connection as "virtually lossless".

I feed all my antennas at a low resistance current maximum point so the
W2DU choke is indeed virtually lossless and fully functional to boot
because it is seeing its designed-for resistance. You would know that
if you took time off from your prejudice position to actually think. :-)

It's about as good as open-wire line with a 10:1 SWR. The matched line
losses in 100 ft. of RG-213 are higher than the unmatched line losses
in 100 ft. of open-wire line with a 10:1 SWR on 80m.

Sure, but is it enough to notice on the air? I doubt it...

If it's not enough to notice on the air, doesn't your entire point
evaporate into nothingness? If no one notices whether an antenna is
resonant or not or fed with coax or open-wire line, what is the point
of your argument?

Why? I've already done it. I don't need those numbers to help make up
my mind. I've compared the real antennas. I'll never change my mind.

That's pretty obvious and is a trait shared by the Catholic Priests who
condemned Copernicus and Galileo. I believe you will never change your
mind even if you come over to my house and see scientific evidence to the
contrary. It's a good thing human lifespans are so short or else the human
race would never make any technical progress.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
W2DU choke, virtually lossless. The tuning cap is also virtually
lossless, much more so than a tuner with a coil.

Won't this depend on the match involved? I have trouble seeing that
connection as "virtually lossless".

I feed all my antennas at a low resistance current maximum point so the
W2DU choke is indeed virtually lossless and fully functional to boot
because it is seeing its designed-for resistance. You would know that
if you took time off from your prejudice position to actually think. :-)

How many others feed theirs this way? How would I know how yours would
vary from the "usual G5RV"?


If it's not enough to notice on the air, doesn't your entire point
evaporate into nothingness?

No. That is only comparing using coax to ladder line with no other
considerations given.

If no one notices whether an antenna is
resonant or not or fed with coax or open-wire line, what is the point
of your argument?

Because I DO notice the difference between a coax fed dipole and either
a G5RV or the usual "windom" that is sold by "eastern state antenna co.
inc"

Why? I've already done it. I don't need those numbers to help make up
my mind. I've compared the real antennas. I'll never change my mind.

That's pretty obvious and is a trait shared by the Catholic Priests who
condemned Copernicus and Galileo. I believe you will never change your
mind even if you come over to my house and see scientific evidence to the
contrary. It's a good thing human lifespans are so short or else the human
race would never make any technical progress.

Cecil, you might have a modified G5RV that is fairly usable, but most of
the ones that are actually sold, and are in use, are lame 80m antennas
to my standards. Same for the average windom, or OCF dipole. This is
not idle speculation. I've A/B compared them at field days. I started
doing this after getting stuck on G5RV's on 80m for two years in a row.
"What torture..I almost pulled my hair out ..."
The owner of one windom I tested against had no idea what he was losing
until I showed him. He almost fell over at the 2-3 S unit differences we
saw when flipping the switch... To answer one earlier question for you,
my feedline loss at 4 mhz is .4 db for 100 ft of line at the most. Other
than my ground loss, which will be the same for either types of
antennas, for all practical purposes I have no loss.
You can not detect .4 db difference in the real world on 80m. And being
I'll be at 3.500, it will be slightly less. And if I don't use the full
100ft, it will be even less.
When directly comparing the coax fed dipole to the commonly used
"windom" that is sold by said ESA inc., the dipole was better on all
signals , including just the atmospheric noise floor by a min of 2 S
units. This increase is not pattern related. It's purely a difference in
feeder efficiency. And that was on 40m, not 80. On 80m, it probably
would have been a greater difference.
Now, Cecil, do the math. How many db difference does it take to measure
2 s units on the average radio? A lot more that .4 db, I can tell you.
On 80m, the "storebought" G5RV's we tried were the lousiest 80m antennas
I've ever used without going to a hamstick on a VW. Yes, I do have high
standards! I've only used full size antennas my whole 80m life... When
you are running 100w, but have the performance of QRP, field day is not
fun for me. You say I'm exaggerating? How many db drop will you see on
the average radio's S meter if you drop 10 db? About 2 maybe ? The
difference between the funky G5RV's we used, and a dipole on 80m were
2-3 S units easy. You may have modified yours to improve it, but I still
don't want one. Thanks, but no thanks...
I only use full size antennas unless it's impossible. 80m on field day
is ruff cdx. Noisiest time of the year, and the band is packed wall to
wall. No place for compromise antennas..
But to each his own...Like I say, the more that use those things, the
easier I'll have it. Well, except I have to strain my ears more when
working those stations...:/ MK

--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Brian Kelly wrote:
I've read the whole thread thru Tuesday AM, I get your point and it
should work well on 80. I suspect the real advantage of your scheme is
that it might be possible to cover both 80 and 75 with low overall
losses which is difficult to accomplish with a fullsize dipole. Since
you already have the EZNec model on hand how 'bout running a 3.50-3.85
Mhz. sweep to see if it's possible to cover that range with some
single specific length of ladderline and the two-section BC variable
cap? If yes I think you have a real keeper idea.

Maybe you'll like this one. 110 ft dipole at 40 ft, fed with 110 ft of
450 ohm ladder-line and tuned with a single control dual-gang variable cap,
i.e. no conventional antenna tuner. Such an antenna system covers the entire
75-80m band with a 50 ohm SWR ranging from 1.7 at 3.5 MHz to 1.0 at 4.0 MHz,
according to EZNEC. Full band coverage at the twist of one knob? You likeie?

For a coax fed dipole, EZNEC reports an SWR=2:1 bandwidth of 170 kHz.
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:
How many others feed theirs this way?

I don't know and don't much care. The discussion is about your
antenna Vs mine.

How would I know how yours would vary from the "usual G5RV"?

By the length of the series section transformer. It varies from
20 ft on 10.125 MHz to 35 ft on 18.14 MHz providing less than
2:1 SWR on the coax on all HF bands - no tuner required. On 3.8 MHz
with a series section length of 23 ft, the series section feedpoint
impedance is resonant at 25+j0 ohms.

Because I DO notice the difference between a coax fed dipole and either
a G5RV or the usual "windom" that is sold by "eastern state antenna co.
inc"

Theirs are not optimumized - mine is. Why don't you compare your dipole
to an Isotron so you can feel even better. :-)

Other than my ground loss, which will be the same for either types of
antennas, for all practical purposes I have no loss.

I can say exactly the same thing. My 50 ohm SWR is less than 2:1 without
a tuner of any kind. There's simply no places for losses to occur.

You can not detect .4 db difference in the real world on 80m.

So if my antenna is within .4 dB of yours, it's as good as yours?
I wish I had said that. As a matter of fact, the difference between
your antenna and mine is the difference between an SWR of 1:1 and an
SWR of 2:1 on 75m. The ARRL Handbook loss chart says that is 0.12 dB
difference for 100 ft of RG-213 on 75m.

Now, Cecil, do the math.

There it is in the paragraph above. My dipole is 102 ft long. EZNEC sez
it has a maximum gain of 6.04 dBi compared to 6.24 dBi for your dipole.
Including the 0.2 dB reduction in gain and the 0.12 dB of additional
losses in the coax for an SWR of 2:1, that's 0.32 dB modeled difference
between your dipole and my G5RV and you say one cannot detect a 0.4 dB
difference. Doesn't that shoot your own argument down?

How many db difference does it take to measure
2 s units on the average radio? A lot more that .4 db, I can tell you.

I'll bet $100 that your antenna is NOT anywhere near 2 S-units better than
mine on 3.8 MHz. And I'll bet my antenna is 2 S-units better than your coax
fed 80m dipole on most bands between 40m and 10m where it functions as well
or better than it does on 75m.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
How many others feed theirs this way?

I don't know and don't much care. The discussion is about your
antenna Vs mine.

Well, maybe at this point, but not previously. I have had no idea what
you do to your antenna. I'm talking about G5RV's in general. Mainly
the goofy storebought versions.

How would I know how yours would vary from the "usual G5RV"?

By the length of the series section transformer. It varies from
20 ft on 10.125 MHz to 35 ft on 18.14 MHz providing less than
2:1 SWR on the coax on all HF bands - no tuner required. On 3.8 MHz
with a series section length of 23 ft, the series section feedpoint
impedance is resonant at 25+j0 ohms.

You missed the question...How would I know you do that unless you tell
me in advance...I'm not a mind reader...

Because I DO notice the difference between a coax fed dipole and either
a G5RV or the usual "windom" that is sold by "eastern state antenna co.
inc"

Theirs are not optimumized - mine is. Why don't you compare your dipole
to an Isotron so you can feel even better. :-)

I have. Gives me a woody.... I've compared the coax fed dipole to
everything on 80m. So far, it's never lost a race. To anything. Only
slightly improved by converting to a turnstile maybe...:/


Other than my ground loss, which will be the same for either types of
antennas, for all practical purposes I have no loss.

I can say exactly the same thing. My 50 ohm SWR is less than 2:1 without
a tuner of any kind. There's simply no places for losses to occur.

You can not detect .4 db difference in the real world on 80m.

So if my antenna is within .4 dB of yours, it's as good as yours?

Yes. IF...But I will still prefer the coax fed dipole.

I wish I had said that. As a matter of fact, the difference between
your antenna and mine is the difference between an SWR of 1:1 and an
SWR of 2:1 on 75m. The ARRL Handbook loss chart says that is 0.12 dB
difference for 100 ft of RG-213 on 75m.

Now, Cecil, do the math.

There it is in the paragraph above. My dipole is 102 ft long. EZNEC sez
it has a maximum gain of 6.04 dBi compared to 6.24 dBi for your dipole.
Including the 0.2 dB reduction in gain and the 0.12 dB of additional
losses in the coax for an SWR of 2:1, that's 0.32 dB modeled difference
between your dipole and my G5RV and you say one cannot detect a 0.4 dB
difference. Doesn't that shoot your own argument down?

No. Your antenna is different than the vast majority used if what you
say is true.

How many db difference does it take to measure
2 s units on the average radio? A lot more that .4 db, I can tell you.

I'll bet $100 that your antenna is NOT anywhere near 2 S-units better than
mine on 3.8 MHz. And I'll bet my antenna is 2 S-units better than your coax
fed 80m dipole on most bands between 40m and 10m where it functions as well
or better than it does on 75m.

If you have improved yours, I'm glad. You may well have a decent
antenna. But you need to spread the word, because most other's that
are unmodified are still gonna be lame radiators. What proposal do you
offer to correct the feedline deficiencies of the average storebought
windom, or OCF dipole on 40 and 80m? They need your help too. If you
all get your heads together, you might be able give me some rf
competition this year... MK

Mark Keith wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I don't know and don't much care. The discussion is about your
antenna Vs mine.

Well, maybe at this point, but not previously.

The argument has always been about your coax-fed dipole antenna
Vs my G5RV antenna.

You missed the question...How would I know you do that unless you tell
me in advance...I'm not a mind reader...

My antenna is a G5RV. You said your dipole would beat "any" G5RV,
presumably including mine. Your ignorance of my G5RV didn't enter
into the discussion at the time. You didn't even slow down to wonder
if a well-designed G5RV might equal your dipole on 75m.

Yes. IF...But I will still prefer the coax fed dipole.

If the design flaws of the G5RV are fixed, we then shift from
performance to preference?

Your antenna is different than the vast majority used if what you
say is true.

It's a well-designed G5RV, the best I know of. You said you dipole would
beat "any" G5RV by S-units.

If you have improved yours, I'm glad. You may well have a decent
antenna. But you need to spread the word, because most other's that
are unmodified are still gonna be lame radiators.

I posted my actual measurements yesterday. To optimize a G5RV for 75m,
make the series section transformer 25 feet long and put a 1000 pf
capacitor in parallel at the coax/open-wire junction. The beauty is
that you still have the framework for an all-HF-band antenna. Take
away the cap and extend the series section to 36 feet and you have
a G5RV optimized for 40m and 17m, my favorite bands. It takes about
two minutes for me to make that change but it could be automated.

What proposal do you
offer to correct the feedline deficiencies of the average storebought
windom, or OCF dipole on 40 and 80m?

The original windom, powered by a tube transmitter with a pi-net matching
network, was a pretty good antenna. For today's "Windoms", I would advise
everyone to feed OCF's with open-wire line, equipped with an excellent
choke, at a current maximum point, using whatever ratio balun is appropriate.
I had an OCF in college, fed with open-wire line, powered by a Heathkit with
a pi-net tuning network. It's feedpoint impedance on the harmonically related
bands was in the neighborhood of 300 ohms. Matching a tube final to 300 ohms
through a pi-net tuner is pretty much a no-brainer and relatively lossless.
--
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! =-----

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:57:41 -0500, Cecil Moore hath writ:
Mark Keith wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I don't know and don't much care. The discussion is about your
antenna Vs mine.

Well, maybe at this point, but not previously.

The argument has always been about your coax-fed dipole antenna
Vs my G5RV antenna.

Pse take this ****ing contest to private email.

Dev Null wrote:
Pse take this ****ing contest to private email.

What no "ploink!"? In case you missed it, this thread is
about improvements that can be made to the standard G5RV,
something in which tens of thousands of hams might be
interested.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:



The argument has always been about your coax-fed dipole antenna
Vs my G5RV antenna.

I'm afraid not Cecil. You are just one of many that seem to run those
things...


You missed the question...How would I know you do that unless you tell
me in advance...I'm not a mind reader...

My antenna is a G5RV. You said your dipole would beat "any" G5RV,
presumably including mine. Your ignorance of my G5RV didn't enter
into the discussion at the time. You didn't even slow down to wonder
if a well-designed G5RV might equal your dipole on 75m.

I think it would *still* probably slightly beat your antenna. I'm fairly
certain even your G5RV will not be a complete equal to my coax fed
dipole. But that is my opinion, and it's not worth 100 more posts to
argue about it. It's common knowledge a coax fed dipole on the low bands
can be in the range of 95% +- efficient as far as the whole system. You
claim to be in that neighborhood, and may well be. But I'd have to see
it to totally believe you would be effectively equal. I bet on the air,
you would still see a slight difference. Might be small, but I bet it
would be there. I still don't like the coax/choke/ladderline combo
despite your claims that they are totally lossless. If you were to run
ladder line the whole way, I'd have much less trouble believing you.


Yes. IF...But I will still prefer the coax fed dipole.

If the design flaws of the G5RV are fixed, we then shift from
performance to preference?

Well, I suppose, but I would still prefer normal dipoles.

Your antenna is different than the vast majority used if what you
say is true.

It's a well-designed G5RV, the best I know of. You said you dipole would
beat "any" G5RV by S-units.

No I didn't . I've clearly agreed with improvements it could be a lot
closer. "As in your's" You reposted it below yourself... But yes, I
will repeat...My dipoles will handily beat *most* G5RV's on 80m.
Probably even yours by a slight amount.


If you have improved yours, I'm glad. You may well have a decent
antenna. But you need to spread the word, because most other's that
are unmodified are still gonna be lame radiators.

I posted my actual measurements yesterday. To optimize a G5RV for 75m,
make the series section transformer 25 feet long and put a 1000 pf
capacitor in parallel at the coax/open-wire junction. The beauty is
that you still have the framework for an all-HF-band antenna. Take
away the cap and extend the series section to 36 feet and you have
a G5RV optimized for 40m and 17m, my favorite bands. It takes about
two minutes for me to make that change but it could be automated.

I guess thats great if you are worried about all bands...I'm more
worried about brute performance on the band I'd be actually using at
field day...We aren't discussing home antennas...I don't think they even
do 17m on FD...

What proposal do you
offer to correct the feedline deficiencies of the average storebought
windom, or OCF dipole on 40 and 80m?

The original windom, powered by a tube transmitter with a pi-net matching
network, was a pretty good antenna. For today's "Windoms", I would advise
everyone to feed OCF's with open-wire line, equipped with an excellent
choke, at a current maximum point, using whatever ratio balun is appropriate.
I had an OCF in college, fed with open-wire line, powered by a Heathkit with
a pi-net tuning network. It's feedpoint impedance on the harmonically related
bands was in the neighborhood of 300 ohms. Matching a tube final to 300 ohms
through a pi-net tuner is pretty much a no-brainer and relatively lossless.

I'll let all those tube rig users at field day in on this information.
But most I see use solid state rigs...But I'll pass this on anyway...
They most all are using the tuners, so only a feedline change will be
needed. I bet they still will have inferior radiating devices in the end
though.....
Myself, I think multiband 102 ft dipoles should be fed only with ladder
line...Why are you not using your cut ladder line method for G5RV's?
Enquiring minds wanna know...:/ Why would someone prefer a G5RV over
your normal 80m size all band ladder line fed antenna for FD on 80m?
Enquiring minds wanna know that too...:}
Actually, I could care less what people use at field day, I just wonder
why many I see seem to prefer semi-dummy loads when they have the room
to avoid it...It's gotten to where full size efficient antennas seem to
be the exception, not the norm. And most have never heard of you, or
your modifications, and many are not really into antennas that much,
except to know they have to string them up somewhere. So they just
semi-dummy load along, blissfully unaware it would seem...They don't
know what they miss, because many never try one, thinking they need all
those extra bands...A regular coax fed dipole is not fancy or gimmicky
enough I guess... Oh well..G5RV onwards folks! MK

--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k