First Attempt
 

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your comments! I'd be interested in trading experiences
with you on the OCF topic, either here or direct. Did you make one
or buy one?

I have interleaved some other responses below...

73, Ed

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
Reg,

The type of antenna you describe is very useful and popular.

However, your assertion is much too sweeping as a generalization.
In no particular order, here are some caveats:
1. The qualifier "best" is largely meaningless, absent an agreed
set of weighted criteria for "goodness." (How important is:
size? weight? cost? visual profile? bandwidth? instant QSY?
gain? pattern? low-band performance vs. high-band performance?
power-handling capacity? need for tuner? etc., etc., etc.)

I'm always hesitant to use words like "best" for all the reasons you
state, but I think that Reg qualified things pretty well.

I think Reg's ONLY qualifiers were "all round, all band" (presumably
meaning 80 thru 10). To me, that description falls well short of the
mark, as "qualifiers."

Within the
qualifications of all band dipoles, the ladder-line fed general dipole
is pretty darn hard to beat. I recommend them to any new hams that ask
me for advice on antennas.

You can make a good case for this proposition. But I'm a bit puzzled
on how these qualify as A-1 newbie antennas.

First, our newbie to learn how to coddle finicky ladder line, bring it
into the shack, and make the transition to unbalanced feed. Then he/she
needs a crash course on transmatches:
1. Balanced or unbalanced design? (If unbalanced, may not work well
with this antenna; if balanced, may not work with future, coax-fed
antennas.)
2. Low or high power? (If low, may need to upgrade later.)
3. Manual or automatic? (If automatic, how interface to rig?)
4. Which brand and model? (Might Fine Junk or $quality$?)
5. New or used?
6. How do you operate the transmatch?

If our newbie wants some power-handling capability, and plans
to buy it new, he/she will need an extra 500 to 700 USD and more
space on the desk.

Re Reg's reference to a choke balun: I've been looking for good quality,
commercial choke baluns equipped with SO-239 inputs and outputs.
So far, I haven't found any; and I haven't been quite motivated enough
to make one. What should our newbie do to get one, if needed?

My rationale is that most new hams these days buy rigs that are
all-band, transistorized units.These units are also sensitive to
mismatches between antenna and rig. Most new hams are not antenna gurus
either. So here is an antenna that will allow them to get on the air
without a lot of fussing. The only real measurement caveats are some
lengths that you don't want to use.

I can't quite see how slogging thru all the above is going to be easier for
a newbie than buying a Buckmaster OCF or basic trap dipole, buying a
ready-made coax jumper of the required length, and then doing plug-
and-play with the (typical) rig's built-in auto-tuner. But it probably
would
be more educational.

So we end up with an antenna that allows the newbie to get on the air,
allows them to learn some stuff by twiddling knobs and such, then when
they have a bit more experience, they can tackle that more "advanced
antenna" with it's more exacting design, trimming , and measurements.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what antenna type(s) would be "more
advanced" than the random-length-doublet-with-outboard-ATU, and
yet require more fiddling.

But I will grant you this: IF someone decides from the get-go that they
want a glitzy transmatch at their operating position--whether they need
it or not--then the balanced-feeder doublet makes pretty good sense.
This would be especially true if there wasn't enough space for something
like a Buckmaster OCF, but there was enough space for (say) an 88'
doublet.


2. A good case can be made that choosing the "right" length is
"better" than a random length, within this type.
3. An excellent case can be made that center-fed is NOT always
the "best" option, within this type.
4. I'll let the fans of this antenna type chime in with why they
prefer balanced tuners and/or tuned feeders to the use of an
unbalanced tuner... if they want to. (I use more tailored
antennas,
and don't need a tuner of any kind, most of the time.)

As I do now. I've really been smitten with my OCF dipole, fed with
Coax, because in no small part, the feedpoint drops straight down to my
shack. That coupled with an automatic tuner in my radio , allowing me to
"plug and play.

But I still strongly urge newcomers to put up one of those ladder line
dipoles for the experience. They work okay, too! 8^)


"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
The best, all round, all band, antenna is a high centre-fed dipole of
no particular length, fed with an open-wire feedline of no particular
length or impedance, all the way to the shack, used with a choke-balun
and an unbalanced tuner.

It is good down to the frequency at which the dipole is about
1/3-wavelength long.

Simplicity = efficiency.

Once tried you will never return to anything else.
----
Reg.

First Attempt
 

Old Ed wrote:
Hi Michael,

Thank you for your comments! I'd be interested in trading experiences
with you on the OCF topic, either here or direct. Did you make one
or buy one?

I made mine. The design is a combination of one of the antennas on the
salsawaves site. (I don't have the URL handy, but if you google
salsawaves it will get you there.) The other section of the design was
with EZNEC demo.



I have interleaved some other responses below...

73, Ed

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
Reg,

The type of antenna you describe is very useful and popular.

However, your assertion is much too sweeping as a generalization.
In no particular order, here are some caveats:
1. The qualifier "best" is largely meaningless, absent an agreed
set of weighted criteria for "goodness." (How important is:
size? weight? cost? visual profile? bandwidth? instant QSY?
gain? pattern? low-band performance vs. high-band performance?
power-handling capacity? need for tuner? etc., etc., etc.)
I'm always hesitant to use words like "best" for all the reasons you
state, but I think that Reg qualified things pretty well.

I think Reg's ONLY qualifiers were "all round, all band" (presumably
meaning 80 thru 10). To me, that description falls well short of the
mark, as "qualifiers."

Within the
qualifications of all band dipoles, the ladder-line fed general dipole
is pretty darn hard to beat. I recommend them to any new hams that ask
me for advice on antennas.

You can make a good case for this proposition. But I'm a bit puzzled
on how these qualify as A-1 newbie antennas.

First, our newbie to learn how to coddle finicky ladder line, bring it
into the shack, and make the transition to unbalanced feed. Then he/she
needs a crash course on transmatches:
1. Balanced or unbalanced design? (If unbalanced, may not work well
with this antenna; if balanced, may not work with future, coax-fed
antennas.)
2. Low or high power? (If low, may need to upgrade later.)
3. Manual or automatic? (If automatic, how interface to rig?)
4. Which brand and model? (Might Fine Junk or $quality$?)
5. New or used?
6. How do you operate the transmatch?

I've always suggested cutting teeth on low power, then working your way
up. Mistakes are a lot less dangerous that way. In most cases, I suggest
the MFJ approach. I have one that is now in a emergency backup. My
thoughts on them are that they are certainly not the highest quality,
but they work, and you can always get rid of one to start another ham on
their way.


If our newbie wants some power-handling capability, and plans
to buy it new, he/she will need an extra 500 to 700 USD and more
space on the desk.

Re Reg's reference to a choke balun: I've been looking for good quality,
commercial choke baluns equipped with SO-239 inputs and outputs.
So far, I haven't found any; and I haven't been quite motivated enough
to make one. What should our newbie do to get one, if needed?

I've made all my baluns, 4:1 and choke, for my setup. But you raise a
good point, as I'll note below.

My rationale is that most new hams these days buy rigs that are
all-band, transistorized units.These units are also sensitive to
mismatches between antenna and rig. Most new hams are not antenna gurus
either. So here is an antenna that will allow them to get on the air
without a lot of fussing. The only real measurement caveats are some
lengths that you don't want to use.

I can't quite see how slogging thru all the above is going to be easier for
a newbie than buying a Buckmaster OCF or basic trap dipole, buying a
ready-made coax jumper of the required length, and then doing plug-
and-play with the (typical) rig's built-in auto-tuner. But it probably
would be more educational.

Ah, Ed, you have exposed me being shortsighted! I'm a compulsive
homebrewer, and I never considered buying a ready made antenna. The
other approach might be quite different than mine, and yet just as valid.

So we end up with an antenna that allows the newbie to get on the air,
allows them to learn some stuff by twiddling knobs and such, then when
they have a bit more experience, they can tackle that more "advanced
antenna" with it's more exacting design, trimming , and measurements.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what antenna type(s) would be "more
advanced" than the random-length-doublet-with-outboard-ATU, and
yet require more fiddling.

If a person decides to make a trap or even more so a fan dipole, they
will be doing a lot of cutting and trimming and measuring. I've always
thought that for a newbie to get their feet wet, the less of that and
the more on-air experience with adjustments the better.


But I will grant you this: IF someone decides from the get-go that they
want a glitzy transmatch at their operating position--whether they need
it or not--then the balanced-feeder doublet makes pretty good sense.
This would be especially true if there wasn't enough space for something
like a Buckmaster OCF, but there was enough space for (say) an 88'
doublet.

I've made an 88" doublet for field day. It was a very good antenna on
20 and 40 meters, and so-so on 80.(still not too awful bad). I know
someone is going to ask me to define "Very good". In this case, I
received many unsolicited comments on good signal strength on 40 and 20,
had no trouble getting through on first call. On 80 I had to work a good
bit harder.

It is good to get another perspective on this.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA - -



2. A good case can be made that choosing the "right" length is
"better" than a random length, within this type.
3. An excellent case can be made that center-fed is NOT always
the "best" option, within this type.
4. I'll let the fans of this antenna type chime in with why they
prefer balanced tuners and/or tuned feeders to the use of an
unbalanced tuner... if they want to. (I use more tailored
antennas,
and don't need a tuner of any kind, most of the time.)
As I do now. I've really been smitten with my OCF dipole, fed with
Coax, because in no small part, the feedpoint drops straight down to my
shack. That coupled with an automatic tuner in my radio , allowing me to
"plug and play.

But I still strongly urge newcomers to put up one of those ladder line
dipoles for the experience. They work okay, too! 8^)

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
The best, all round, all band, antenna is a high centre-fed dipole of
no particular length, fed with an open-wire feedline of no particular
length or impedance, all the way to the shack, used with a choke-balun
and an unbalanced tuner.

It is good down to the frequency at which the dipole is about
1/3-wavelength long.

Simplicity = efficiency.

Once tried you will never return to anything else.
----
Reg.

First Attempt
 

Hi Michael,

I tried Google search for salsawaves, and came up with a link to
an OCF "Windom" antenna. But clicking on the link just led to
a sort of highjack web page containing only ad links.

73, Ed

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
Hi Michael,

Thank you for your comments! I'd be interested in trading experiences
with you on the OCF topic, either here or direct. Did you make one
or buy one?

I made mine. The design is a combination of one of the antennas on the
salsawaves site. (I don't have the URL handy, but if you google
salsawaves it will get you there.) The other section of the design was
with EZNEC demo.



I have interleaved some other responses below...

73, Ed

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
Reg,

The type of antenna you describe is very useful and popular.

However, your assertion is much too sweeping as a generalization.
In no particular order, here are some caveats:
1. The qualifier "best" is largely meaningless, absent an agreed
set of weighted criteria for "goodness." (How important is:
size? weight? cost? visual profile? bandwidth? instant QSY?
gain? pattern? low-band performance vs. high-band performance?
power-handling capacity? need for tuner? etc., etc., etc.)
I'm always hesitant to use words like "best" for all the reasons you
state, but I think that Reg qualified things pretty well.

I think Reg's ONLY qualifiers were "all round, all band" (presumably
meaning 80 thru 10). To me, that description falls well short of the
mark, as "qualifiers."

Within the
qualifications of all band dipoles, the ladder-line fed general dipole
is pretty darn hard to beat. I recommend them to any new hams that ask
me for advice on antennas.

You can make a good case for this proposition. But I'm a bit puzzled
on how these qualify as A-1 newbie antennas.

First, our newbie to learn how to coddle finicky ladder line, bring it
into the shack, and make the transition to unbalanced feed. Then he/she
needs a crash course on transmatches:
1. Balanced or unbalanced design? (If unbalanced, may not work well
with this antenna; if balanced, may not work with future, coax-fed
antennas.)
2. Low or high power? (If low, may need to upgrade later.)
3. Manual or automatic? (If automatic, how interface to rig?)
4. Which brand and model? (Might Fine Junk or $quality$?)
5. New or used?
6. How do you operate the transmatch?

I've always suggested cutting teeth on low power, then working your way
up. Mistakes are a lot less dangerous that way. In most cases, I suggest
the MFJ approach. I have one that is now in a emergency backup. My
thoughts on them are that they are certainly not the highest quality,
but they work, and you can always get rid of one to start another ham on
their way.


If our newbie wants some power-handling capability, and plans
to buy it new, he/she will need an extra 500 to 700 USD and more
space on the desk.

Re Reg's reference to a choke balun: I've been looking for good
quality,
commercial choke baluns equipped with SO-239 inputs and outputs.
So far, I haven't found any; and I haven't been quite motivated enough
to make one. What should our newbie do to get one, if needed?

I've made all my baluns, 4:1 and choke, for my setup. But you raise a
good point, as I'll note below.

My rationale is that most new hams these days buy rigs that are
all-band, transistorized units.These units are also sensitive to
mismatches between antenna and rig. Most new hams are not antenna gurus
either. So here is an antenna that will allow them to get on the air
without a lot of fussing. The only real measurement caveats are some
lengths that you don't want to use.

I can't quite see how slogging thru all the above is going to be easier
for
a newbie than buying a Buckmaster OCF or basic trap dipole, buying a
ready-made coax jumper of the required length, and then doing plug-
and-play with the (typical) rig's built-in auto-tuner. But it probably
would be more educational.

Ah, Ed, you have exposed me being shortsighted! I'm a compulsive
homebrewer, and I never considered buying a ready made antenna. The
other approach might be quite different than mine, and yet just as valid.

So we end up with an antenna that allows the newbie to get on the air,
allows them to learn some stuff by twiddling knobs and such, then when
they have a bit more experience, they can tackle that more "advanced
antenna" with it's more exacting design, trimming , and measurements.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what antenna type(s) would be "more
advanced" than the random-length-doublet-with-outboard-ATU, and
yet require more fiddling.

If a person decides to make a trap or even more so a fan dipole, they
will be doing a lot of cutting and trimming and measuring. I've always
thought that for a newbie to get their feet wet, the less of that and
the more on-air experience with adjustments the better.


But I will grant you this: IF someone decides from the get-go that they
want a glitzy transmatch at their operating position--whether they need
it or not--then the balanced-feeder doublet makes pretty good sense.
This would be especially true if there wasn't enough space for something
like a Buckmaster OCF, but there was enough space for (say) an 88'
doublet.

I've made an 88" doublet for field day. It was a very good antenna on
20 and 40 meters, and so-so on 80.(still not too awful bad). I know
someone is going to ask me to define "Very good". In this case, I
received many unsolicited comments on good signal strength on 40 and 20,
had no trouble getting through on first call. On 80 I had to work a good
bit harder.

It is good to get another perspective on this.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA - -



2. A good case can be made that choosing the "right" length is
"better" than a random length, within this type.
3. An excellent case can be made that center-fed is NOT always
the "best" option, within this type.
4. I'll let the fans of this antenna type chime in with why they
prefer balanced tuners and/or tuned feeders to the use of an
unbalanced tuner... if they want to. (I use more tailored
antennas,
and don't need a tuner of any kind, most of the time.)
As I do now. I've really been smitten with my OCF dipole, fed with
Coax, because in no small part, the feedpoint drops straight down to
my
shack. That coupled with an automatic tuner in my radio , allowing me
to
"plug and play.

But I still strongly urge newcomers to put up one of those ladder line
dipoles for the experience. They work okay, too! 8^)

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
The best, all round, all band, antenna is a high centre-fed dipole of
no particular length, fed with an open-wire feedline of no particular
length or impedance, all the way to the shack, used with a
choke-balun
and an unbalanced tuner.

It is good down to the frequency at which the dipole is about
1/3-wavelength long.

Simplicity = efficiency.

Once tried you will never return to anything else.
----
Reg.

First Attempt
 

Old Ed wrote:
Hi Michael,

I tried Google search for salsawaves, and came up with a link to
an OCF "Windom" antenna. But clicking on the link just led to
a sort of highjack web page containing only ad links.


Try this link, Ed.

http://www.stroobandt.com/antennas/windom/index.html


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -