Bart Bailey wrote:
I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good
counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at
the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions
but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow
the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary
to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern?
The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long.

At least three symmetrical radials are required for a
close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are
elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation
from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive
interference thus adding constructive interference to the
vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are
also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote:
I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good
counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at
the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions
but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow
the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary
to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern?
The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long.

At least three symmetrical radials are required for a
close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are
elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation
from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive
interference thus adding constructive interference to the
vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are
also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration.

Thanks Cecil
At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple
radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than
none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to
suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the
boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into
choice DX. g

Hi Bart,

Having noticed your question went unanswered, and that you have a very
curious arrangement that begs discussion:

Yes, the fanned out tuned radials are necessary for resonance (or at
least reduce interaction during the tune process). This is because
these types of antennas are especially designed for these very
requirements. That, or ground mounting that allows the proximity of
earth resistance to wash over the inherent Q that forces attention to
radial lengths. You have chosen to mount up high, and that demands
that attention to those lengths. This much should already be apparent
with a SWR meter reading.

Alternatively, this curious several hundred foot long "counterpoise"
may give some relief to a raging SWR meter, but along with that comes
unintended consequences. Given this "counterpoise" is easily ten
times bigger than the "antenna" you may note that my usage of "quote"
marks is to denote another irony. You have, in fact, a horizontal
dipole with a vertically oriented, tuned, short half. The 5BTV is
more the radial than it is the antenna.

This is not to say that it affects performance poorly. In fact it may
be a boon, but it certainly isn't going to be performing for the
reasons you might ascribe to it. Let's just say this is an example of
Ham Luck which proves radio is fun for not having critical
requirements. Any pretense to gain and efficiencies being obtained
through carefully balancing this "counterpoise" are sheer fantasy. You
could as easily pull down the 5BTV, leave the "counterpoise" connected
to the mast, and drive the mast to the same advantage. (Or leave the
5BTV up there as a sort of top-load.)

If you want to resurrect the 5BTV's dignity that is now in shreds,
follow the manufacturer's recommendations for installing tuned radials
for each band, and attached at the correct point. Unfortunately,
there's no promise of any increase of performance, but others may
offer reports that confound my advice.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:

I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so,
we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath,
might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes.

Bart -

Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT).
The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !!
IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your
situation.

You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical ---
that does not require the radials field !!

w9gb

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:45:52 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote:

The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long.

Why don't you split this up as an 80 meter dipole, if that's where
you're trying to get.

bob
k5qwg

In posted on
Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500, "g. beat" @spam protected wrote:


"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:

I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so,
we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath,
might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes.

Bart -

Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT).
The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !!
IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your
situation.

Geography is the problem.
I only have a very small area available.

You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical ---
that does not require the radials field !!

That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right?
I can't really go that high without guying
which is just as restricted as radials are.
...and if you're going to suggest a self supporting tower,
that does get into the financial consideration area.
Thanks for the heads up in any case, I may still get the Hustler,
I'll just lower my expectations for its performance.

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote:

I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so,
we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath,
might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes.

Bart -

Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT).
The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !!
IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your
situation.

Geography is the problem.
I only have a very small area available.
====
YES, I understand this.

You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical ---
that does not require the radials field !!

That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right?
====
NO, the Cushcraft R7 product will easily fit. Now, IF 75/80 meters is your
BID band that you want to work -- it is a challenge with small space and a
vertical (limited bandwidth between 2:1 SWR points.

Thanks for the heads up in any case, I may still get the Hustler,
I'll just lower my expectations for its performance.
====
The Hustler 5BTV is probably the BEST BUY for 1/4 wave verticals.
http://www.dxengineering.com/Product...ID=16&DeptID=8

DX Engineering is the best Internet web site for buying Hustler x-BTV series
HV verticals and ANY parts or accessories that you may need.
http://www.dxengineering.com/Section...6&DeptID=8#Top

STOP, TAKE A BREATH, PULL UP A CHAIR and YOUR FAVORITE BEVERAGE.
Time to read - and learn from the mistakes and lessons of others -- that is
why you posted your question - otherwise if you have spare time on you hands
to repeat previous mistakes and dead-ends that is your decision and
responsibility.

Here are 3 installations of 5-BTV that produce the desired results

K3VR
http://home.ripway.com/2005-7/357648/5btv.html

K7CIE (PDF file)
http://www.dxengineering.com/pdf/K7C...tler%20doc.pdf

AD5TH
http://www.ad5th.com/5-BTV.html

gb

"Bart Bailey" wrote in message
...
In posted on
Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500, "g. beat" @spam protected wrote:

Geography is the problem.
I only have a very small area available.

You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical ---
that does not require the radials field !!

That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right?

Not if you are looking at trap designs. IF you deisre ONE band verticel -
DX engineering is now offering a 40 meter (24 feet high) and 80 meter
vertical (41 feet high)
http://www.dxengineering.com/Parts.a...DXE%2D80VA%2D1

Bart Bailey wrote:
In posted on Thu, 20 Jul
2006 20:58:18 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote:

I also considered the Butternut HF2V,
but thought for less outlay I could get five instead of two bands.
Maybe better to get two bands that work than five that don't.

The butternut will blow the doors off the hustler on 80 and 40.
The hustler verticals use the same lossy traps that the mobile
whips use. I think the resonators are exactly the same unless
they have changed them. I don't like their coils. They are overly
lossy for my tastes. Comparing my cheap homebrew coil directly
against the hustler coil is a large difference in performance.
I think of them as dummy loads on a stick, but to each his own
I guess. I have some of those resonators laying around here I get
free. I won't use em... No way... They collect dust. I guess I
should give them away to someone else...
For 5-6 etc bands, the HF6V is quite a bit more efficient than the
hustler. Not a big deal on the higher bands so much, but the
low bands will separate the sticked heater loads vs the radiators
of RF... :/ OF course , both of those needs either radials on the
ground, or tuned radials if elevated. The "1/2" wave type R7's. etc
might well be a pretty good option. I've worked quite a few of
those, and used one at field day, and they work pretty well.
Not as good as a HF2V on 80m, but maybe close on 40m..
Just depends on the setup. It is handy not requiring radials
to function..
MK