Cecil Moore wrote:

N2EY wrote:

Biggest headache, though, is switching the various lengths for
different bands.

No switching the various lengths on this one, Jim. Just a 110 ft
dipole fed with about 110 ft of fixed length ladder-line with two
series variable caps as the one knob tuner. Covers from 3.5 MHz to
4.0 MHz with an SWR less than 1.7:1 and no lossy coils needed.

I apologize to everyone for a mental blunder I made with this
proposed antenna. The reactances are capacitive, not inductive.
It would have to be tuned with series inductors which defeats
the propose of a low loss design.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Covers from 3.5 MHz to
4.0 MHz with an SWR less than 1.7:1 and no lossy coils needed.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

========================

Lossy coils replaced by lossier transmission lines ? ;o)
---
Reg. G4FGQ

Reg Edwards wrote:

Covers from 3.5 MHz to
4.0 MHz with an SWR less than 1.7:1 and no lossy coils needed.

Lossy coils replaced by lossier transmission lines ? ;o)

The loss in 100 ft. of open-wire line on 4 MHz is so low
it isn't even on the chart. :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

The loss in 100 ft. of open-wire line on 4 MHz is so low
it isn't even on the chart. :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

=========================

The loss at 30 MHz with a very high SWR is on MY chart.

And the loss in properly used coils is very small.

But either way, the difference between the two methods is so small you are
unfairly claiming an advantage in the use of transmission lines. Do some
accurate calculations to see what actually happens.
----
Reg.

I apologize to everyone
The reactances are capacitive, not inductive.

Cecil, Looks to me like a 108' flattop, 40' up, fed with 44' of 450 ohm line
might get less than 2:1 across 80 meters with 250pf variable caps. The magic
numbers are 3.8 mhz and 132pf for 1:1. No lossy coils.
I have some silver plated roller inductors that I use in a re-configurable
"L" network that I'll bet used with the above antenna will produce efficiencies
near what the vari-caps will, and 1:1 across 80M. I really don't think the
silver plating has that much to do with it.:-) Anyway that is what I have used
on Field Day.


73 Gary N4AST

Reg Edwards wrote:
But either way, the difference between the two methods is so small you are
unfairly claiming an advantage in the use of transmission lines. Do some
accurate calculations to see what actually happens.

Exactly how can coils replace the transmission line it takes to get
the signal from the hamshack to the antenna? I would love to eliminate
my transmission line but I don't know how.
--
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! =-----

JGBOYLES wrote:
Cecil, Looks to me like a 108' flattop, 40' up, fed with 44' of 450 ohm line
might get less than 2:1 across 80 meters with 250pf variable caps. The magic
numbers are 3.8 mhz and 132pf for 1:1. No lossy coils.

Thanks Gary, with a little modeling and experimentation, almost any
reasonable antenna problem can be solved. It's not enough to say,
"A G5RV is a terrible antenna". The question that should be asked is,
"Exactly what is wrong with a G5RV and how can it be fixed?"
--
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! =-----

Although your method works well you unfairly attribute it to the G5RV. This
undeservedly attaches prestige to that over-rated antenna.

Immediately you change the length of the feedline from 1/2-wavelength at
14.15 MHz it is no longer a G5RV.

And in addition to a top length of 102 feet there is an enormous number of
other top lengths which will work in the manner you describe. 102 feet is
no more magical than 118.5 radials.

Do you hold shares in a G5RV manufacturer? ;o)
----
Reg, G4FGQ

Reg Edwards wrote:
Immediately you change the length of the feedline from 1/2-wavelength at
14.15 MHz it is no longer a G5RV.

Yes, Great Pharaoh, so let it be written, so let it be done. :-)
--
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! =-----

It's not enough to say,
"A G5RV is a terrible antenna".
A G5RV is a terrible antenna if it did not do well the last time you used
it. HF antennas and propagation being what they are, it is difficult to label
any antenna as terrible.
A G5RV type antenna in its many configurations ought to work as advertised.
And as you have proved Cecil, it can be tweaked.

73 Gary N4AST