Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 7:01:13 PM UTC-6, FBMboomer wrote:
On 11/15/2014 6:23 PM, wrote: On Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:25:01 PM UTC-6, FBMboomer wrote: Yes, smaller is better. I strongly encourage you to use 1/4 inch antennas. It is like homeopathy, less is more powerful. Getting your antenna length down to microns is the answer. Are you suggesting I use a 33 ft tall mobile antenna? Or are you just being silly because you have no other alternatives? If a short antenna is just as good as a full size dipole, than why not use a 1/4 inch antenna. Or might there be something said for large full size antennas? Or could it be, size actually matters. Who ever said a short antenna is just as good as a full size version? Certainly not I. I only corrected your confusion about the reason for a lack of system efficiency with the usual garden variety G5RV. And it's not the first time I've attempted to correct your false ideas concerning that particular antenna. It seems to enter into one side of your brain pan, and exit the other side in an awful quick hurry, without bearing any fruit in the middle. Trust me, the shortcomings in using a G5RV on 75m CAN be corrected if one does away with the lousy method many use to feed them on that band. The garden variety G5RV fed in the usual manner was never really intended to be used on 75m in the first place. But you CAN change the feed method so it can be quite efficient on that band. The slightly shorter length of the radiator is not the reason for the usual lower *system efficiency* with the typical "designed for 20m" G5RV being used on 75m, vs a full size dipole. You could use a 130 ft full size radiator, but if one feeds it in the same perverted manner IE: coax to choke to ladder line, it will suffer excess feeder losses also, same as the 102 ft G5RV radiator. On 75m, I use full size dipoles or turnstiles fed with coax. An *antenna system* so efficient it really can't be beat unless you used a tuned open line feeder with no antenna tuner involved. The differences between the two would likely be undetectable on the air on that band. On VHF/UHF, you would notice more of a difference, with the tuned open wire feeder being the most efficient system by a noticeable amount. You can feed a full size loop in the same manner, with the same high system efficiency on the band it's cut for. You might need to add a short length of 75 ohm coax as a series transformer to better match the slightly higher 75-100 ohm feed point if one has a picky transmitter, but coax series transformers add very little loss in such a case. The main reason I use full size dipoles is not some magical property with that length radiator. It's because it allows me to use a highly efficient method of feeding, with no tuner involved to add loss. Which means that most of my power makes it to the radiator, instead of turning into heat on the way to it, as with the usual improperly fed G5RV many try to use on 75m. In the past, you admitted you don't know too much antenna theory, but like the one who shalt not be mentioned, you seem to have a problem taking the the advice of people who do, and instead retort with pure silliness. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
FBMboomer wrote:
snip Very good reply. Well stated. However, I do not take the advice of those who use what are supposed to be antenna modelling software that consider all variables. They never do. I take the advice of hams who have spent a lifetime experimenting with antennas and know which ones work and which ones do not. 100 miles from me is a ham with 90 acres. He has many different antennas up. He can switch between an inverted vee with the apex at 200 feet or a double bazooka at 75 feet. He can switch to a vertical loop with a reflector. He tried just about every thing including a sterba curtain over the last 57 years. I live in the middle of a small town. I have lots of QRN. He told me to put up a horizontal loop. It worked wonders over my dipole for noise. I fed it with 450 ohm window line. He told me to use home made 600 ohm line. I could not see how that could make it better. I finally put up that 600 ohm feed line a couple of years after putting up the loop. I kick myself now for not doing what he said immediately. Somehow, the 600 ohm line works significantly better than 450 ohm window line. He does not know theory either. He just knows what works and what does not work. I will take advice from empirical experiments any time over mathematical modelling. Yep, and it only took him 57 years to figure it out. While modeling may not be perfect, it shows you in minutes what can take days, weeks or even months with empirical experiments. Every antenna I have modeled and built has performed as the model predicted to the accuracy of the ham grade test equipment I have. And I have avoided spending time trying to emperically get something to work which modeling shows in minutes is a waste of time. It is your life, spend what time you have doing what you want to do. -- Jim Pennino |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:53:27 PM UTC-6, FBMboomer wrote:
I do not take the advice of those who use what are supposed to be antenna modelling software that consider all variables. They never do. Antenna modeling is quite useful, and quite accurate as long as you consider the possible faults, and quite useful as a learning tool. I've modeled half a gazillion antennas, and most all were quite accurate as long as you don't run into one of the few "gotcha's" that can occur. That is normally not a problem with the vast majority of antennas one would model. Now, if a G5RV can be made to work as well as a 1/2 wave dipole, I am guessing that it is not easily done. It's quite easy. Just ditch the designed for 20m feed system and replace it with something more suitable for 75m. The best would be to use a tuned ladder line, or a tuned open wire line. Of course, you would need to change the lengths of the tuned feeder if you change bands, but that can be done with knife switches, etc.. The 2nd best would be to feed it with an untuned ladder or open wire feeder, and use a tuner at the shack. The tuner loss won't be huge, and it will perform better than the usual garden variety G5RV. Myself, I would prefer to use a 130 ft dipole, and feed like this if I were to use a tuned feeder. http://www.w5dxp.com/notuner.HTM But you can feed a 102 ft dipole the same way if you vary the feeder length for a good match, with good results. I have never heard a G5RV that was anything but lame. Perhaps everyone puts up the G5RV using short cuts. I don't know. No, they are just using the garden variety G5RV, which was designed as a 20m antenna. And many use a tuner at the shack, which adds even more loss. Using an untuned ladder or open wire line with a tuner at the shack should give quite an improvement over the usual 20m method most newby's use. That's the easy way out for a decent improvement. Now, feeding a half size dipole with the same method can lead to some pretty serious losses if one uses a T match tuner, etc. You would want to avoid that. I always prefer a 1/2 WL dipole for the lowest band to be used to avoid that if feeding with ladder/open wire line and most common tuners "IE: T match, etc" at the shack. But I've always preferred coax fed dipoles and such. The coax fed turnstile is one of the best NVIS antennas for the low bands I've tried so far. Low feeder loss same as a 1/2 wave dipole, and also no tuner required. And you can even steer the pattern a bit if you rig up a way to change the phasing between the two crossed dipoles. The horizontal loop is a good NVIS antenna, but I could see no real advantage over the dipole or turnstile when considering the extra hassle of installing one. But I wasn't worried about local noise even though I'm in the city. Evidently the pattern you are getting from yours has pretty low gain at the low angles, which is likely why you are hearing less local noise. Which is fine. But you have to consider that antennas are generally reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you are hearing less noise at those lower angles on receive, you will also transmit less RF at those same low angles. With a NVIS antenna, not really an issue though. For DX, it would likely be inferior to the previous dipole you used. And modeling should show you the difference between the two patterns at those low angles quite accurately. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
wrote in message
... It's quite easy. Just ditch the designed for 20m feed system and replace it with something more suitable for 75m. But the 102 ft top together with the 34 ft ladder is designed for 3.5MHz! |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
On 11/16/2014 4:36 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 12:53:27 PM UTC-6, FBMboomer wrote: I do not take the advice of those who use what are supposed to be antenna modelling software that consider all variables. They never do. Antenna modeling is quite useful, and quite accurate as long as you consider the possible faults, and quite useful as a learning tool. I've modeled half a gazillion antennas, and most all were quite accurate as long as you don't run into one of the few "gotcha's" that can occur. That is normally not a problem with the vast majority of antennas one would model. Now, if a G5RV can be made to work as well as a 1/2 wave dipole, I am guessing that it is not easily done. It's quite easy. Just ditch the designed for 20m feed system and replace it with something more suitable for 75m. The best would be to use a tuned ladder line, or a tuned open wire line. Of course, you would need to change the lengths of the tuned feeder if you change bands, but that can be done with knife switches, etc.. The 2nd best would be to feed it with an untuned ladder or open wire feeder, and use a tuner at the shack. The tuner loss won't be huge, and it will perform better than the usual garden variety G5RV. Myself, I would prefer to use a 130 ft dipole, and feed like this if I were to use a tuned feeder. http://www.w5dxp.com/notuner.HTM But you can feed a 102 ft dipole the same way if you vary the feeder length for a good match, with good results. I have never heard a G5RV that was anything but lame. Perhaps everyone puts up the G5RV using short cuts. I don't know. No, they are just using the garden variety G5RV, which was designed as a 20m antenna. And many use a tuner at the shack, which adds even more loss. Using an untuned ladder or open wire line with a tuner at the shack should give quite an improvement over the usual 20m method most newby's use. That's the easy way out for a decent improvement. Now, feeding a half size dipole with the same method can lead to some pretty serious losses if one uses a T match tuner, etc. You would want to avoid that. I always prefer a 1/2 WL dipole for the lowest band to be used to avoid that if feeding with ladder/open wire line and most common tuners "IE: T match, etc" at the shack. But I've always preferred coax fed dipoles and such. The coax fed turnstile is one of the best NVIS antennas for the low bands I've tried so far. Low feeder loss same as a 1/2 wave dipole, and also no tuner required. And you can even steer the pattern a bit if you rig up a way to change the phasing between the two crossed dipoles. The horizontal loop is a good NVIS antenna, but I could see no real advantage over the dipole or turnstile when considering the extra hassle of installing one. But I wasn't worried about local noise even though I'm in the city. Evidently the pattern you are getting from yours has pretty low gain at the low angles, which is likely why you are hearing less local noise. Which is fine. But you have to consider that antennas are generally reciprocal between transmit and receive, so if you are hearing less noise at those lower angles on receive, you will also transmit less RF at those same low angles. With a NVIS antenna, not really an issue though. For DX, it would likely be inferior to the previous dipole you used. And modeling should show you the difference between the two patterns at those low angles quite accurately. I have a Pixel magnetic loop with an A/B switch for receive using the full size horizontal loop or the vertical Pixel loop. The full size loop is almost invariably better on 75. On 40, the Pixel may or may not be better. Mostly the full size antenna is better. On 20, 15, 17, and 10 the Pixel magnetic loop is better for me. Not always. But most of the time. Having the A/B switch is really good for tracking QSB. For some reason I do not understand, as the signal strength from the full size loop decreases, the signal on the magnetic loop increases. This phenomena is very consistent on the higher frequency bands. DX performance of the full size loop is very good from 20 meters on up. Perhaps the fact that the antenna is resonant with no tuner on 20, 15, and 10 may have something to do with this. I have read that the angle of radiation from this loop is lower on the higher frequencies. My magnetic loop receiving antenna has a 30 db preamp. Even with this preamp the noise floor is always lower than my full size loop. My S meter invariably shows the noise floor at 0 on all bands. And, yes, on 75 I do not expect and do not receive much DX. During the day I seem to have only a 250 mile radius of effective use. And at 300 miles my signal is pretty well cut off. Of course this changes at night. My friend with the inverted V at 200 feet is easily able to make day contacts out to 800 miles. He has the room and 200 foot towers. I spent 400 dollars on that Pixel antenna. It has been worth it for me. For someone who lives in the country side with no QRN, it may not be helpful. I have owned it for 6 months now. I did not discover the reciprocal reception phenomena when used with my 75 meter loop until a couple of months ago. I now take full advantage of this now on the high frequency bands. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:47:35 PM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
wrote in message ... It's quite easy. Just ditch the designed for 20m feed system and replace it with something more suitable for 75m. But the 102 ft top together with the 34 ft ladder is designed for 3.5MHz! Not exactly.. It's a bit long when used as the makeup section on 75m. But I believe it's the use of the chokes which cause the losses many people see. Many claim it can be fairly efficient on 80m using the standard G5RV with the 34 ft ladder line. On paper I suppose it can if all clicks in an orderly military manner.. If... And the various types of chokes are not created equal for this type of use. I just don't like the design myself. On bands that show a large reactance on the load side of the choke, you can saturate the core of the choke, which turns RF to heat. No bueno.. In those cases, I think it would be better to ditch the choke and live with the feed line radiation unless it causes problems. I think it's kind of a mickey mouse design for my uses, but I'm spoiled on the highly efficient coax fed dipoles, and see no reason to compromise with lesser designs. Life is too short for compromise antennas unless one actually needs one to fit the space, or really wants to work all bands with a single wire up. That's not me.. I don't work the high bands that much, and I have a tower and tri-bander I can put up if I really wanted to. I'm not worried about room for the dipoles. I can fit a full size 80m dipole no problem here at home, and I have room for anything I can think of at the dirt patch. I think ladder line all the way is the best for all band G5RV use, and is the only way I would run one, if I were to run one. I've also seen quite a few examples of excess choke losses on many of the various commercial windoms. I've never used a G5RV or windom myself, and I doubt I ever will, being I can run full size dipoles. I've tried a few portable, and was not impressed at all with the ones I used. One particular G5RV I once used at a field day was fairly pathetic on 80m, and had me pulling my hair out. Wasn't mine, so not sure on the type of choke, etc.. But it was bad news vs a coax fed dipole. Terrible I tell you.. yuk.. I refused to ever be stuck on one again after that, and always took supplies to build my own dipoles on later field days. The next year, they were using a windom on 40m. I strung up a coax fed 40m dipole also, and used a switch to A/B the two. The owner of the windom was fairly shocked at the difference between the two. I've talking 2-3 S units worth of difference on the rig's meter. All signals, noise floor, the whole ball of wax was way up on the dipole. And again, I lay most of the blame on the choke that was used more than anything, but I've also never really been a fan of OCF wires either. I guess I don't have to tell which antenna I used.. :| I'd rather run parallel fed coax fed dipoles for more than one band. And also, I rarely have a need to work all bands being as I run the lower bands most of the time. I generally work 80 and 40 mostly, so the parallel 80 and 40 dipoles fed with a single coax feed is a better choice for me and is a highly efficient system. I usually run the dipoles at right angles if possible to reduce interaction, which can sometimes cause tuning quirks for the higher band dipole. I never run them closely stacked like some do unless no other choice. And that will work some of the higher bands with a reasonable SWR on the harmonics if I want to take a walk on the wild side and work a higher frequency. I just slap a tuner inline as a line flattener and live with the losses, which will vary to the quality of the coax and the band used. Some parallel dipole setups I also add 160m legs, but if I don't, I just tie the coax together at the shack and feed as a T vertical on 160m, which often is just as good, or even better on longer paths. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 7:39:53 PM UTC-6, FBMboomer wrote:
I have a Pixel magnetic loop with an A/B switch for receive using the full size horizontal loop or the vertical Pixel loop. The full size loop is almost invariably better on 75. On 40, the Pixel may or may not be better. Mostly the full size antenna is better. On 20, 15, 17, and 10 the Pixel magnetic loop is better for me. Not always. But most of the time. Having the A/B switch is really good for tracking QSB. For some reason I do not understand, as the signal strength from the full size loop decreases, the signal on the magnetic loop increases. This phenomena is very consistent on the higher frequency bands. The 80m horizontal loops I've modeled didn't seem too hot on the upper bands. Pretty high angles for most all the upper HF bands. So what you see sounds fairly normal. I just checked one model for one at 30 feet, and none of the higher bands were doing all that great. And the higher bands all had the max gain at fairly high angles. DX performance of the full size loop is very good from 20 meters on up. Dunno. I don't think it's all that good, considering what you mentioned. Usable I'm sure, but not great by any means. Perhaps the fact that the antenna is resonant with no tuner on 20, 15, and 10 may have something to do with this. I have read that the angle of radiation from this loop is lower on the higher frequencies. Lower than 80m, but not too low vs better antennas for those bands. My magnetic loop receiving antenna has a 30 db preamp. Even with this preamp the noise floor is always lower than my full size loop. My S meter invariably shows the noise floor at 0 on all bands. Normal for a small loop. Doesn't mean much. Only the s/n ratio really matters. As long as you have enough signal to bring the background noise up when connecting the antenna, should be good enough. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
wrote in message ... On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:47:35 PM UTC-6, gareth wrote: wrote in message ... It's quite easy. Just ditch the designed for 20m feed system and replace it with something more suitable for 75m. But the 102 ft top together with the 34 ft ladder is designed for 3.5MHz! Not exactly.. It's a bit long when used as the makeup section on 75m. But I believe it's the use of the chokes which cause the losses many people see. The G5RV design has no chokes. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
It is a truism
El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
On 11/15/2014 1:58 PM, wrote: On Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:40:29 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 11/15/2014 12:58 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote: Jerry wrote: snip You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the case in a real installation. You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment. But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less than 100' is crap. This is solid proof. I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less than 100' is crap". That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you: "Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about 100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths." That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked, not me. It is still your statement. It was the posters statement and my response to that statement. snip remaining puerile drivel Wrong again, as the archives prove. And you can't lie your way out of it. You can copy and paste. But you do not UNDERSTAND. So much drama, so little time... :| I just don't want people to think his crap is the truth. It's far from it. He makes all kinds of claims - which knowledgeable people know are false. But others might get the wrong idea. It is not just a matter of little drama. There is a subject named "a short 160m antenna - loading and hats". Simulation results were presented for a 0.029lambda long radiator over REAL ground. The only reason I gave a reaction was to avoid that other people might get a wrong idea. The statements on the loading coil are very likely valid, but the gain figures are far from reality considering the conditions stated. Other issue was radiation from a rotating permament magnet. Some people act in a way that is far from constructive, misleading, or even insulting. The misleading reactions may give less instructed readers a wrong idea. -- Wim PA3DJS Please remove abc first in case of PM |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|