About Us

Lostgallifreyan · October 26th 14, 10:14 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

wrote in :

The log-periodic was several dB better, both transmit and receive, in
part because there was no longer the 50% termination resistor loss.

Thanks, I'll look at those a bit next time I can see well enough to read
much. Even the name is new to me right now..

What I'm wondering is shy so much current discussion of whombic antennas at
all. I try to follow the tech posts because short repeats of good info may be
my best shot at absorbing it efficiently, but I'm not sure how rhombics got
such repeated notice.

[email protected] · October 26th 14, 10:30 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

The log-periodic was several dB better, both transmit and receive, in
part because there was no longer the 50% termination resistor loss.

Thanks, I'll look at those a bit next time I can see well enough to read
much. Even the name is new to me right now..

What I'm wondering is shy so much current discussion of whombic antennas at
all. I try to follow the tech posts because short repeats of good info may be
my best shot at absorbing it efficiently, but I'm not sure how rhombics got
such repeated notice.

Someone is attempting to make some sort of point by comparing apples and
strawberries.

The rhombic was a big deal in it's day back when huge, empty areas were
readily available and better antennas had not yet been invented.

--
Jim Pennino

Lostgallifreyan · October 26th 14, 10:50 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

wrote in :

The rhombic was a big deal in it's day back when huge, empty areas were
readily available and better antennas had not yet been invented.

I like apples and strawberries, but I'll not go into it.

I had a very quick look at log-periodic antennas before I sleep. That looks
like a much more practical notion to me. I guess practical DIY might still be
limited to shorter wavelengths, but it looks like a neat, compact and solid
antenna design, ideally suited to anyone with some accurate tooling and a
need for directivity combined with a relatively broad bandwith reducing need
for adjustments. Would it be a contender against a tuned magnetic loop for a
beginner's experiment?

[email protected] · October 27th 14, 12:37 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

The rhombic was a big deal in it's day back when huge, empty areas were
readily available and better antennas had not yet been invented.

I like apples and strawberries, but I'll not go into it.

I had a very quick look at log-periodic antennas before I sleep. That looks
like a much more practical notion to me. I guess practical DIY might still be
limited to shorter wavelengths, but it looks like a neat, compact and solid
antenna design, ideally suited to anyone with some accurate tooling and a
need for directivity combined with a relatively broad bandwith reducing need
for adjustments. Would it be a contender against a tuned magnetic loop for a
beginner's experiment?

Like all things in life it is a trade off of various things.

The accuracy requirement, at HF anyway, is not that bad and there are
LOTS of plans for DIY log periodic antennas out there.

Upside: Basically frequency independant (over a range), all metal
construction, can directly match 50 Ohms, and gain can be increased
by increasing the number of elements and making it longer.

Downside: A high gain antenna can be quite large, require a lot of
expensive aluminum, be quite heavy and like any beam needs a tower
and a rotor.

Since it is truely frequency independant, for certain uses, like military
that could be operating on any frequency, it is an almost ideal solution.

For hams that are constrained to bands, something like a hex beam
might be a more economical solution.

Your call.

--
Jim Pennino

Lostgallifreyan · October 27th 14, 11:03 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

wrote in :

Downside: A high gain antenna can be quite large, require a lot of
expensive aluminum, be quite heavy and like any beam needs a tower
and a rotor.

Since it is truely frequency independant, for certain uses, like military
that could be operating on any frequency, it is an almost ideal solution.

It does sound like it might be viable for portable use, carried in a backpack
to a hilltop. Probably not so good in my back yard though.

Too many
buildings, too many things out there already, 12 solar panels on various
mounts, one tall whip, an FM dipole. I can maybe get an extra longwire out
there but that's about it now.

[email protected] · October 27th 14, 04:49 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

Downside: A high gain antenna can be quite large, require a lot of
expensive aluminum, be quite heavy and like any beam needs a tower
and a rotor.

Since it is truely frequency independant, for certain uses, like military
that could be operating on any frequency, it is an almost ideal solution.

It does sound like it might be viable for portable use, carried in a backpack
to a hilltop. Probably not so good in my back yard though. Too many
buildings, too many things out there already, 12 solar panels on various
mounts, one tall whip, an FM dipole. I can maybe get an extra longwire out
there but that's about it now.

For VHF/UHF, but not for HF.

You do understand that a log periodic is a series of 1/2 wavelength dipoles
from the lowest to highest frequency of interest?

A "small" log periodic that will cover 20 to 10 M will have a boom about
12 feet long and the longest element will be close to 40 feet long.

--
Jim Pennino

Lostgallifreyan · October 27th 14, 05:43 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

wrote in :

You do understand that a log periodic is a series of 1/2 wavelength dipoles
from the lowest to highest frequency of interest?

I do now.

Point taken, this is not a portable thing... I looked very
briefly last night before sleep, my (wrong) assumption was that the elements
were basically directors using a log scale to compress the effective result
into a smaller space... I didn't realise that each was a separate normal
sized 1.2 wave dipole.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The inefficiency of short antennae compared to long antennae, as previously discussed.	gareth	Antenna	119	February 24th 15 09:54 AM
Minimum Wage Myths? Typical Media Misinformation?	Editor RadioTalkingPoints	Shortwave	0	October 18th 09 05:07 PM
Welcome to Legends 1680AM Radio	RHF	Shortwave	7	July 13th 08 08:41 AM
Reality, "Slippery Facts, and Myths	John Smith	Policy	13	August 9th 05 06:16 PM
Jon Cunningham reposts old urban legends	Hoagues 300 dinars	Shortwave	3	July 13th 04 01:43 PM

Menu

About Us