On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:44:33 GMT, "pegge"
wrote:
someone tried to feed a type g5rv antenna with ´european´ zip-cord ?
Would yield a simple ant, peel the first say abt 15- 17 meters, splitting
them up to the dipole part and the the rest X meter to a balanced tuner etc.

Hi Per,

Hard to apply the name g5rv to this, but that makes no difference
anyway. Simply call it a dipole driven with close spaced twin lead.
That twin lead will be 50 to 70 Ohms characteristic impedance. It
will also have a suspect dielectric loss. This does not make it a bad
antenna. There will be the usual high loss with high SWR - depending
upon the gauge of the wire.

In short, no worse than an ordinary antenna used outside of its
natural resonance.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Any body dealing with antennas in this group, what I read was pretty off
color and off subject. Want to know what a CCD antenna is really
supposed to do compared to say a delta loop...Just put one up and it
seems too good to be true compared to my well known hot signal 40 meter
delta...what is your opinion and please reply all so I will get a person
response. dont think Ill be reading this group everyday...who cares
about the british pound? EH? thanks Murray K5MDM

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:44:33 GMT, "pegge"
wrote:

someone tried to feed a type g5rv antenna with ´european´ zip-cord ?
Would yield a simple ant, peel the first say abt 15- 17 meters, splitting
them up to the dipole part and the the rest X meter to a balanced tuner etc.


Hi Per,

Hard to apply the name g5rv to this, but that makes no difference
anyway. Simply call it a dipole driven with close spaced twin lead.
That twin lead will be 50 to 70 Ohms characteristic impedance. It
will also have a suspect dielectric loss. This does not make it a bad
antenna. There will be the usual high loss with high SWR - depending
upon the gauge of the wire.

In short, no worse than an ordinary antenna used outside of its
natural resonance.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:19:28 -0500, Murray wrote:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

This is still pretty obnoxious.

--------------010006030806060308030708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Any body dealing with antennas in this group, what I read was pretty off
color and off subject.

Hi Murray,

It is called the price of admission, and is the exercise of American
rights to unrestrained speech.

Want to know what a CCD antenna is really
supposed to do compared to say a delta loop...Just put one up and it
seems too good to be true compared to my well known hot signal 40 meter
delta...what is your opinion and please reply all so I will get a person
response.

The CCD is one of those arm-chair designs that is a gift to mankind in
the form of gain from a dipole.

To being with, the theory behind it is that this antenna is frequency
specific, and that it is much larger than the standard dipole it
replaces. If this is news to you, then there's trouble ahead.

Continuing, the theory behind it maintains that each section is tuned
and presents a current maxima that aids with each of its neighbors to
thus increase gain. The standard current distribution along the
standard dipole is cosine shaped by and large. For the CCD it is
presumably linear - until you get to the ends of course where it
plummets to 0 in the last section. Myself, I respond to this
description of an antenna by parts as being much like a fresnel lens
in its conception.

However, modeling, such as I have done, fails to substantiate the
claims even if through contortions and exasperation I do manage to
attains some semblance of the linear current model.

Further, physical models bear out no particular boon to mankind that
has been extolled.

dont think Ill be reading this group everyday...who cares
about the british pound? EH?

This falls into the category of off topic response, something you
presumably eschew and simultaneously indulge in. This, too, is a
commonplace activity.

I am happy to respond to all topics that interest me. There are other
endlessly boring discussion of antennas - notably those that have
survived hurricanes as evidenced by photo doctoring - that remain on
topic, and off interest. I don't complain about it though, except to
recite as a parable.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Want to know what a CCD antenna is really
supposed to do compared to say a delta loop...Just put one up and it
seems too good to be true compared to my well known hot signal 40 meter
delta...what is your opinion and please reply all so I will get a
person
response.

We already quickly talked about this a year or two ago, but
I'm not that great a fan of them. Or at least, I see no real advantage
to any other type of antenna. I've worked and check signals on scads
of those over the years, and to tell you the truth, as far as
performance
compared to just a dipole, they are often inferior in the real world.
Or to put it another way....Many of the CCD users often had inferior
signals compared to the dipole users, when you take an average
reading over a period of days or weeks.. I never saw any that were
better...
Why does it seem to good to be true? All a CDD does is supposably
maintain a more constant current distribution across the antenna.
In some cases, IE: a steep inv vee, this could be a *disadvantage*.
Or seems to me...I would prefer the current concentrated at the apex,
which is the high point of the antenna. If you spread current more
towards
lower sections of the wire, this could actually decrease perfomance.
Myself, I see no advantage, and will stick to my dipoles, etc...MK