Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 06, 09:59 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?

Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my current 70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.



  #2   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 06, 10:49 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 285
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?


Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my current 70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.


First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly helped
many newbie SWL learn how to errect
a "long" wire antenna. And many people swear by all of their loops.
However, my
experience suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at
http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some Antennas Signal to
Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to loves
it.
Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running by
the
weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.

Terry

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 06, 11:32 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,324
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?


wrote:
Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my current 70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.


First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly helped
many newbie SWL learn how to errect
a "long" wire antenna. And many people swear by all of their loops.
However, my
experience suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at
http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some Antennas Signal to
Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to loves
it.
Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running by
the
weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.

Terry


I have an open mind on this issue. I use one of the Wellbrook loops and
I like it, but I'm perfectly prepared to believe that a small active
vertical can be just as quiet. What generates confusion about this
issue are the conflicting reports one hears and even the conflicting
experimental results one reads about. I visited the
http://www.kongsfjord.no site and found it very interesting. However,
if you look at some of the reviews available on the Wellbrook website,
you'll see different tests and comparisons that yield results that are
much more favorable to the Wellbrooks. There may well be something
wrong with the tests and comparisons carried out in those reviews. I
don't see anything obviously suspect about them, but I don't have the
technical expertise that some of the folks in this group have. In any
case, I think it's this kind of data that accounts for the reputation
the Wellbrook loops have as being extremely quiet antennas.

  #4   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 02:43 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,495
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?

In article .com,
"Steve" wrote:

wrote:
Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate
for one? Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my
current 70M fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the
noise prone 450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the antenna
tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop
with ALA100 will give better directivity for MW plus very high
gain at HF. The ALA100 will out perform the ALA1530+ , because
the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying
real estate with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining
the ends with the ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or
vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season! Post your logs and good luck.


First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly
helped many newbie SWL learn how to errect a "long" wire antenna.
And many people swear by all of their loops. However, my experience
suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some
Antennas Signal to Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to
loves it. Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running
by the weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.


I have an open mind on this issue. I use one of the Wellbrook loops
and I like it, but I'm perfectly prepared to believe that a small
active vertical can be just as quiet. What generates confusion about
this issue are the conflicting reports one hears and even the
conflicting experimental results one reads about. I visited the
http://www.kongsfjord.no site and found it very interesting. However,
if you look at some of the reviews available on the Wellbrook
website, you'll see different tests and comparisons that yield
results that are much more favorable to the Wellbrooks. There may
well be something wrong with the tests and comparisons carried out in
those reviews. I don't see anything obviously suspect about them, but
I don't have the technical expertise that some of the folks in this
group have. In any case, I think it's this kind of data that accounts
for the reputation the Wellbrook loops have as being extremely quiet
antennas.


One problem of post in a public news group is that at times I feel like
I'm talking to a brick wall.

Most peoples experience in high noise areas will favor a loop antenna
over a dipole for locally picked up noise. This is an expected
theoretical result of local induction fields affecting loop and dipole
antennas.

The IP2 and IP3 differences in the active antennas are due to the
amplifier design not the antenna.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
  #5   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 10:05 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
RHF RHF is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,652
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?


Telamon wrote:
In article .com,
"Steve" wrote:

wrote:
Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate
for one? Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my
current 70M fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the
noise prone 450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the antenna
tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop
with ALA100 will give better directivity for MW plus very high
gain at HF. The ALA100 will out perform the ALA1530+ , because
the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying
real estate with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining
the ends with the ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or
vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season! Post your logs and good luck.

First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly
helped many newbie SWL learn how to errect a "long" wire antenna.
And many people swear by all of their loops. However, my experience
suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some
Antennas Signal to Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to
loves it. Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running
by the weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.


I have an open mind on this issue. I use one of the Wellbrook loops
and I like it, but I'm perfectly prepared to believe that a small
active vertical can be just as quiet. What generates confusion about
this issue are the conflicting reports one hears and even the
conflicting experimental results one reads about. I visited the
http://www.kongsfjord.no site and found it very interesting. However,
if you look at some of the reviews available on the Wellbrook
website, you'll see different tests and comparisons that yield
results that are much more favorable to the Wellbrooks. There may
well be something wrong with the tests and comparisons carried out in
those reviews. I don't see anything obviously suspect about them, but
I don't have the technical expertise that some of the folks in this
group have. In any case, I think it's this kind of data that accounts
for the reputation the Wellbrook loops have as being extremely quiet
antennas.



- One problem of post in a public news group is
- that at times I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

Telamon - You Just Keep-On Writing :
Cause This Brick Wall Is Listening ! ~ RHF

- Most peoples experience in high noise areas will favor
- a loop antenna over a dipole for locally picked up noise.

OK !

- This is an expected theoretical result of local induction
- fields affecting loop and dipole antennas.

OK !

- The IP2 and IP3 differences in the active antennas
- are due to the amplifier design not the antenna.

The ablity to 'rotate' a small Loop Antenna to Null-Out
a Local Offending Radio Station {Signal Source} does
have to be factored into the practical {use} equation.
-vice- A small Vertical Whip Antenna {Omni-Directional} :
Given that the Amplifier used with both Antennas has
the same characteristics.

However - The Practical {Use} Equation {Societal Factoring}
may make the 'near invisibility' of the Small {Short-and-Thin}
Vertical Whip Antenna the only realistic choice for an Antenna
by a Shortwave Listener (SWL) "When NO Antenna Is Allowed."

what antenna ? i don't see an antenna :
i ain't got no stinking antenna ~ RHF


  #6   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 06:07 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?


wrote in message
oups.com...

Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for

one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my current

70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with

ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The

ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real

estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.


First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly helped
many newbie SWL learn how to errect
a "long" wire antenna. And many people swear by all of their loops.
However, my
experience suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at
http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some Antennas Signal to
Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to loves
it.
Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running by
the
weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.

Terry


Terry, this post wasn't intended as an addendum to my previous post to you
about horizontal loops.

I don't/can't dispute the claims about verticals Vs. loops regarding noise.
Generally, a vertical antenna is ideal for DXing since its main "lobe" is
towards the horizon (in all directions). But I know you knew that. Could
that account for the difference in S/MMN ratio in the Kongsfjord comparison?

The two main practical advantages of loops is steerability or nulling with
relatively small loops and inherently broadbanded performance with
relatively large (full wave) loops. The Wellbrook ALA1530+ claims both -
broadband performance using a broadband amplifier and steerability using a
small "shielded" loop.

The ALA1530+ design is different from the ALA100 in that the ALA1530+ "loop"
is inside an aluminum tube/shield. Alegedly this shield(?) rejects the
nearby Electric-field which supposedly contains the noise component and
amplifies the Magnetic-field which supposedly does not contain the noise
[Electro-Magnetic wave = RF]. The ALA100 wire antenna component has no
shield so how can it reject nearby Electric-fields containing noise?
Additionally, in the Kongsfjord power line comparison (45Ft vertical Vs.
Loop) the vertical's main lobe is at the horizon (under the powerline). The
lobes of the loop are very much like that of a dipole (above the horizon) -
more closely aimed at the powerline. Therefor, I think the Kongsfjord
comparison is missplaced. But I am not versed with the noise argument
related to loops Vs. verticals.

My point to my original post in this thread was that if you already have a
dipole or longwire (which is inherently NOT broadbanded) you can use the
ALA100 to convert them into a loop. The Wellbrook ALA100 product is simply
a broadband amplifier (I suspect similiar to the 1530). It does not include
any "antenna" or coax. You supply the antenna wire yourself - an existing
dipole or longwire folded into some resemblance to a large broadbanded loop.
The shape is not critical as long as the wires are not too close.

Converting a dipole or longwire into a broadbanded loop and adding a
broadbanded amplifier like the ALA100 seems like a good idea. Although the
ALA100 was meant to be used with a relatively medium sized rotatable
vertical loop, http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html
Wellbrook's email in essence said it will work with any reasonably sized
loop oriented in any plane - vertically or horizontally.

My antenna goal is to have one antenna and to squeeze as much performance
out of it on as many frequencies (500KHz-30MHz) as possible. That, my
friend, can be most closely accomplished with a large loop. However, I am
intriqed by the 15ft vertical that is diagramed at the Kongsfjord noise
measurments link.

There are no ideal antennas. Just antennas with ideal applications.


  #7   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 06:36 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?

Terry,
Please read the last paragraph of this 1991 paper:
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas...ensitivity.pdf

"Seeing-I-dawg" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Seeing-I-dawg wrote:
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for

one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my

current
70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise

prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with

ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The

ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real

estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.


First, please understand and accept that I have nothing against the
Wellbrook company or thier products. Their web page has clearly helped
many newbie SWL learn how to errect
a "long" wire antenna. And many people swear by all of their loops.
However, my
experience suggests loops may not be the do all end all.

For a alternative perspective please read the research by Dallas
Lanford at
http://www.kongsfjord.no/ "Measurements of Some Antennas Signal to
Man Made Noise Ratios"

Every situation is different. And the guy I traded theALA 1530 to loves
it.
Perhaps under extreme noise situations loops are better.

My recent experiments mirrored Dallas' experiences.

My "shack" is still disassembled. I hope to have it up and running by
the
weekend. 2 days of rain really messed with my plans.

Terry


Terry, this post wasn't intended as an addendum to my previous post to you
about horizontal loops.

I don't/can't dispute the claims about verticals Vs. loops regarding

noise.
Generally, a vertical antenna is ideal for DXing since its main "lobe" is
towards the horizon (in all directions). But I know you knew that. Could
that account for the difference in S/MMN ratio in the Kongsfjord

comparison?

The two main practical advantages of loops is steerability or nulling with
relatively small loops and inherently broadbanded performance with
relatively large (full wave) loops. The Wellbrook ALA1530+ claims both -
broadband performance using a broadband amplifier and steerability using a
small "shielded" loop.

The ALA1530+ design is different from the ALA100 in that the ALA1530+

"loop"
is inside an aluminum tube/shield. Alegedly this shield(?) rejects the
nearby Electric-field which supposedly contains the noise component and
amplifies the Magnetic-field which supposedly does not contain the noise
[Electro-Magnetic wave = RF]. The ALA100 wire antenna component has no
shield so how can it reject nearby Electric-fields containing noise?
Additionally, in the Kongsfjord power line comparison (45Ft vertical Vs.
Loop) the vertical's main lobe is at the horizon (under the powerline).

The
lobes of the loop are very much like that of a dipole (above the

horizon) -
more closely aimed at the powerline. Therefor, I think the Kongsfjord
comparison is missplaced. But I am not versed with the noise argument
related to loops Vs. verticals.

My point to my original post in this thread was that if you already have a
dipole or longwire (which is inherently NOT broadbanded) you can use the
ALA100 to convert them into a loop. The Wellbrook ALA100 product is

simply
a broadband amplifier (I suspect similiar to the 1530). It does not

include
any "antenna" or coax. You supply the antenna wire yourself - an existing
dipole or longwire folded into some resemblance to a large broadbanded

loop.
The shape is not critical as long as the wires are not too close.

Converting a dipole or longwire into a broadbanded loop and adding a
broadbanded amplifier like the ALA100 seems like a good idea. Although the
ALA100 was meant to be used with a relatively medium sized rotatable
vertical loop, http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html
Wellbrook's email in essence said it will work with any reasonably sized
loop oriented in any plane - vertically or horizontally.

My antenna goal is to have one antenna and to squeeze as much performance
out of it on as many frequencies (500KHz-30MHz) as possible. That, my
friend, can be most closely accomplished with a large loop. However, I am
intriqed by the 15ft vertical that is diagramed at the Kongsfjord noise
measurments link.

There are no ideal antennas. Just antennas with ideal applications.




  #8   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 07:05 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?



Please read the last paragraph of this 1991 paper:
http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas...ensitivity.pdf

Generally, a vertical antenna is ideal for DXing since its main "lobe"

is
towards the horizon (in all directions). But I know you knew that.

Could
that account for the difference in S/MMN ratio in the Kongsfjord

comparison?

....
Additionally, in the Kongsfjord power line comparison (45Ft vertical Vs.
Loop) the vertical's main lobe is at the horizon (under the powerline).
The lobes of the loop are very much like that of a dipole (above the
horizon) - more closely aimed at the powerline.


Addition part II:
The powerline noise is horizontally polarized while a vertical antenna is
vertically polarized. The noise was 90 degrees out of phase [typically a
difference of what? 6db?]. Thus the vertical antenna in this situation was
at a distinct advantage.
Out of phase and major lobe pointed away from the powerline.

A square loop, as is the ALA100 loop, is both horizontally and vertically
polarized. Thus more sensitive to receiving the horizontally polarized
powerline noise compared to a vertical antenna.


  #9   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 09:39 PM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 25
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?

Here's another idea:

Custom made, 5ft square, rotatable loop using Wellbrook ALA-100 amp

"...so far it looks to be a fine replacement for my 700 ft. NW Beverage
antenna..."

http://sdr-1000.blogspot.com/2006/07...0-antenna.html

__________________________________________________ ____________

"Seeing-I-dawg" wrote in message
...
Do you currently use a longwire or dipole or have the real estate for one?
Have you been considering the ALA1530+ instead?

I exchanged emails with Wellbrook about using the ALA100 with my current

70M
fullwave Horizontal loop.

About Horizontal loops
http://www.cebik.com/wire/hl.html
http://www.cebik.com/fdim/atl1.html
http://www.cebik.com/wire/horloop.html

About ALA100 http://www.wellbrook.uk.com/ALA100b.html

The ALA100 will allow me to use a coax feeder instead of the noise prone
450ohm ladder-line and dispense with the
antenna tuner/matchbox.

Per Wellbrook, "You may also find that a smaller vertical loop with

ALA100
will give better directivity for MW plus very high gain at HF. The ALA100
will out perform the ALA1530+ , because the loop area is much larger."

So if you are considering a ALA1530+ and are currently occupying real

estate
with a long-wire or dipole, you may consider joining the ends with the
ALA100 for a loop in either the horizontal or vertical plane.

Here's to the '06/'07 DXing season!
Post your logs and good luck.




  #10   Report Post  
Old October 5th 06, 12:50 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 285
Default Wellbrook ALA1530+ Vs. ALA100?



On Oct 4, 6:36 pm, "Seeing-I-dawg" wrote:
Terry,
Please read the last paragraph of this 1991 paper:http://www.kongsfjord.no/dl/Antennas...ensitivity.pdf

Yep, the directivity of a loop is what the "magic" is all about.

Dallas' active dipole exhibited better, as in a better null,
directivity from 100KHz (loran)
to CB. A good buddy ratchet mouth about 3 miles from me makes a great
far field test
signal.

The Feb 1955 "Wireless Engineer" paper by J.S.Belrose gives some very
usefull
info on loop. I am not saying loops have no place. Jeff, the guy I
traded the wellbrook
to, loves it. In his RF hell it works better then anyother antenna he
has tried. Once I
get the shack rebuilt I intend to take my latest version of Dallas'
active dipole there to
see if the tighter null will help. I plan on building the WL1030 that
RHF mentioned.
Martinn Hagg's design look workable. I have major doubts about wide
band OpAmps
in a harsh RF task, but I am willing to give it a try.

I suspect that Dallas' Ultra Linear Amplifier will work as well as the
Wellbrook loop maker.
And it would be a lot less expensive. The Kiwa amp version 2, should
also work. It will
need a ?1:! broadband transformer but it is a pretty good amp.

The Belrose paper explained why the 2 different heads I have for my
McKay-Dymek DA5
behave so differently under temperature extremes. The unit that
performs the best under
wide, 100F to -20F temperature swings has a slot lengthwise to the
hollow center.

I have been in a heated conversation with some SWL aquantances here in
the central
KY area about how long a "long wire" should be. And at what length does
it start degrading
radio performance. Most SWL or hams, or even professional RF engineers,
either don' know,
or refuse to think about, the effects too much signal can cause. Front
ends and first mixers
behave very badly with 1dB to many. I envy DXace becuase he clearly has
a superior RF
location with a low enough background RF to degrade his R8B. Sadly
around here, anything
over 100' is more likely to cause problems then help you dig out the
really weak DX.

Jeff, he lives in a downtown Lexington condo, has had nasty experiences
with out of band
overload causing all sorts of receiver misbehavoir. And he has an
AOR7030, not the plus
version.

Terry



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wellbrook question [email protected] Shortwave 35 October 2nd 06 05:36 PM
Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Guy Atkins Antenna 4 July 23rd 06 07:49 PM
Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Guy Atkins Homebrew 4 July 23rd 06 07:49 PM
Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Guy Atkins Shortwave 4 July 23rd 06 07:49 PM
Wellbrook Antenna Arrives Jay Shortwave 1 December 10th 05 05:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017