Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

I am helping to install a 135 foot dipole on a hillside for HF
activity. The antenna will be at least 45 feet from the ground in any
direction. I can believe EZNEC so far as the effects of ground on
impedance. but I am at a loss when it comes to considering the
patterns on the various bands. The ridge is about 200 feet from the
antenna.

This is for a club member who recently upgraded to General Class.

Since the ridge is close to the same height and south of the antenna,
I am guessing that the computed charts will be a good representation
of the northern half of the antenna. NVIS should not change much. The
terrain may work as a reflector for over the pole operation. I am
afraid the antenna will be of little use to the south.

I expect we will eventually need to do the best we can with an antenna
on the top of the ridge. When the snow melts I will try to climb the
ridge for a look-see. It will likely be difficult to install due the
dense trees.

Any comments, advice, suggestions etc. are appreciated!
John Ferrell W8CCW

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

On Dec 31, 4:01*pm, John Ferrell wrote:
I am helping to install a 135 foot dipole on a hillside for HF
activity. The antenna will be at least 45 feet from the ground in any
direction. I can believe EZNEC so far as the effects of ground on
impedance. but I am at a loss when it comes to considering the
patterns on the various bands. The ridge is about 200 feet from the
antenna.

This is for a club member who recently upgraded to General Class.

Since the ridge is close to the same height and south of the antenna,
I am guessing that the computed charts will be a good representation
of the northern half of the antenna. NVIS should not change much. The
terrain may work as a reflector for over the pole operation. I am
afraid the antenna will be of little use to the south.

I expect we will eventually need to do the best we can with an antenna
on the top of the ridge. When the snow melts I will try to climb the
ridge for a look-see. It will likely be difficult to install due the
dense trees.

Any comments, advice, suggestions etc. are appreciated!
John Ferrell W8CCW

just put it up, hook up a tuner if the radio doesn't have one, and
have fun. you can spend all your time modeling trying to figure out
what it may look like, but if you are limited on how you can install
it you can't really control much anyway. an antenna laying on the
ground works much better than one that is only in your computer!

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:53:32 -0800 (PST), K1TTT
wrote:

On Dec 31, 4:01*pm, John Ferrell wrote:
I am helping to install a 135 foot dipole on a hillside for HF
activity. The antenna will be at least 45 feet from the ground in any
direction. I can believe EZNEC so far as the effects of ground on
impedance. but I am at a loss when it comes to considering the
patterns on the various bands. The ridge is about 200 feet from the
antenna.

This is for a club member who recently upgraded to General Class.

Since the ridge is close to the same height and south of the antenna,
I am guessing that the computed charts will be a good representation
of the northern half of the antenna. NVIS should not change much. The
terrain may work as a reflector for over the pole operation. I am
afraid the antenna will be of little use to the south.

I expect we will eventually need to do the best we can with an antenna
on the top of the ridge. When the snow melts I will try to climb the
ridge for a look-see. It will likely be difficult to install due the
dense trees.

Any comments, advice, suggestions etc. are appreciated!
John Ferrell W8CCW

just put it up, hook up a tuner if the radio doesn't have one, and
have fun. you can spend all your time modeling trying to figure out
what it may look like, but if you are limited on how you can install
it you can't really control much anyway. an antenna laying on the
ground works much better than one that is only in your computer!

No argument from me! It is going up as planned as soon as the new
General gets a little more time to work with me on the project.

The hillside we are working on is a little tricky for us to deal with
while snow covered but in this part of North Carolina it does not snow
often or stay long.

We need to keep his enthusiasm up with some positive results.

John Ferrell W8CCW

I agree, just put it up, feed it with open wire feeders, tune it and talk. What you get is what you get.

Занялся своим автомобилем, подремантировать, наладить. Где можно найти качественные запчасти ЯМЗ подскажите?

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

I really do not know how to answer this reply...

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:44:09 +0000, YarTransAvto
wrote:


Занялся
своим
автомобилем,
подремантировать,
наладить.
Где можно
найти
качественные
' запчасти
ЯМЗ' (http://www.yartransavto.ru/)
подскажите?
John Ferrell W8CCW

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:41:52 -0500, John Ferrell rearranged some electrons
to say:

I really do not know how to answer this reply...

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:44:09 +0000, YarTransAvto
wrote:
snipped
John Ferrell W8CCW

John, I hope you didn't click on the link, it's probably a virus.

de AJ4TF

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

I put a lot of trust in my Norton Internet Security. The link is in
Russian and appears to be about an engine.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:29:41 +0000 (UTC), david
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:41:52 -0500, John Ferrell rearranged some electrons
to say:

I really do not know how to answer this reply...

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:44:09 +0000, YarTransAvto
wrote:
snipped
John Ferrell W8CCW

John, I hope you didn't click on the link, it's probably a virus.

de AJ4TF
John Ferrell W8CCW

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:50:49 -0500, John Ferrell rearranged some electrons
to say:

I put a lot of trust in my Norton Internet Security.
John Ferrell W8CCW

I don't trust anything by Norton.

de AJ4TF

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

It is all relative!

I have had my problems along the way but it is the best for me that I
have found.

If I compile a program without flipping the appropriate switch in
Internet Security it promptly deletes the exe because it does not know
it!

It was a pain at first, but now I like it. The big problem is the
cavelier manner in which Microsoft software is generated.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:14:04 +0000 (UTC), david
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:50:49 -0500, John Ferrell rearranged some electrons
to say:

I put a lot of trust in my Norton Internet Security.
John Ferrell W8CCW

I don't trust anything by Norton.

de AJ4TF

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:14:04 +0000 (UTC), david
wrote:

I don't trust anything by Norton.

Norton may be trustworthy. I say that in spite of your feelings
because for my friends who use it, they do not suffer any attacks.
However, they do suffer from its huge resource drain and my friends'
most consistent complaint is how SLOW their system is.

Norton sucks the air out of performance.

Myself, I use Comodo for its firewall (and turn off its virus
detection); and I use AVG (free) for virus detection. I also use
Process Explorer (a very elaborate Task Manager) to look at the system
usage. Even as I write this, my system has 96-98% CPU capacity left
as it should. Any AVG process barely demands more than a quarter
percent CPU cycles.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

"Norton sucks the air out of performance"
I agree!

I had a family client that I set up with AVG Free. It failed,
situation beyond my skills, reload XP Home required...
Maybe it would have done the job if I had opted for the pay version.



On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:21:03 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:14:04 +0000 (UTC), david
wrote:

I don't trust anything by Norton.

Norton may be trustworthy. I say that in spite of your feelings
because for my friends who use it, they do not suffer any attacks.
However, they do suffer from its huge resource drain and my friends'
most consistent complaint is how SLOW their system is.

Norton sucks the air out of performance.

Myself, I use Comodo for its firewall (and turn off its virus
detection); and I use AVG (free) for virus detection. I also use
Process Explorer (a very elaborate Task Manager) to look at the system
usage. Even as I write this, my system has 96-98% CPU capacity left
as it should. Any AVG process barely demands more than a quarter
percent CPU cycles.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
John Ferrell W8CCW

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

Bull****. I've seen Norton totally fail. I'm an IT guy that repairs this
stuff, and IMHO Norton itself is the same as a virus in many respects.

Its not true that 'everyones' suite sucks out performance, but as you say,
Norton sure does.

All most SUITE software is nothing more than an in-house firewall that is
substituted for the stock MS firewall.

K

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 08:21:03 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:14:04 +0000 (UTC), david
wrote:

I don't trust anything by Norton.

Norton may be trustworthy. I say that in spite of your feelings
because for my friends who use it, they do not suffer any attacks.
However, they do suffer from its huge resource drain and my friends'
most consistent complaint is how SLOW their system is.

Norton sucks the air out of performance.


Norton Security *SUITE* does this. So does everyone else's *SUITE*.

Just plain Norton antivirus or whoever's antivirus isn't a significant
resource hog.

Expectations for 135 foot dipole
 

Yes, everything can fail. I cannot forget the time when a Norton
update shut me down. It was a long ways back and I don't remember the
details, but it was not pretty.

I am an old retired guy who has fallen into the trap of maintaining a
few family and church machines. Usually on my funds and always on my
time. Since I have a lot of more interesting stuff to do I like to
keep things simple as possible for me. Norton has 3-user packages that
are available on sale from time to time and I am the only one that
notices the performance hit. The background scans seem to be the worst
offender for me. I tend to run too many browser windows open at any
give time. Saving & restoring Tab groups has helped a lot there.

It is a good time for an old geek to be retired. Information is widely
available and lots of good guys to communicate with!

BTW and even further off topic, my clothes washing machine failed
early this week. I found a wealth of service info on YouTube which
saved me about $500! I will take me a few days to recover from the
physical efforts but it has been a very satisfying week!

Hopefully I will get some maintenance done on the tower this coming
week and get back to antennas...


On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:05:41 -0800, "K" wrote:

Bull****. I've seen Norton totally fail. I'm an IT guy that repairs this
stuff, and IMHO Norton itself is the same as a virus in many respects.

Its not true that 'everyones' suite sucks out performance, but as you say,
Norton sure does.

All most SUITE software is nothing more than an in-house firewall that is
substituted for the stock MS firewall.

K

John Ferrell W8CCW

I agree with ka7niq. Open wire is the only way to go. I'm using a 135 foot dipole with open wire and it works great.

Larry
wa8qnn

I am all FOR Computer Modeling, but I sometimes see people afraid to wipe their ass w/o modeling the toilet paper first. For God's sakes, just put the dam thing up, and what you get is what you get.
I have had center fed 80 meter dipoles operated on all bands fed with ladder line defy the "predicted patterns". Perhaps this was because of the ground in my area, or feed line radiation ? Whatever, who really cares ? The old saying "If it talks good, but models bad, invent a new way to model" applies here. The Bumblebee don't know, nor does it care, that it should not be able to fly.