In article ,
Eric F. Richards wrote:

Telamon wrote:


I disregard everything Dave writes. If he could pay attention, which
unfortunately he can't he would recognize that the T2FD is basically a
folded dipole with modifications so it will load up on transmit. Those
modifications are a waste of time on receive and the reasons given are
the rational unlike the advice given by the short attention span guy.

As DxAce found out it will not pick up the signal levels his current
fairly long horizontal wires will with or without the T2FD
modifications.

Sorry, Telemon, but I disagree with you here. A stopped clock is
right twice a day, and so it is with Dave here.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there as I used to read David's
posts and he was lucky to be right twice a month.

Yes, the resistor is to avoid standing waves and turn it into a more
travelling wave antenna, much like such terrible receive antennas like
the Beverage and the Rhombic. (*sarcasm*)

My personal experience with wires and a T2FD is that the T2FD was
overall the better antenna with the wires having only occasional
advantages and some frequencies AND directions. The wires, BTW, have
extensive ground networks and about 20 ground radials.

For those not familiar with this antenna, this page is a good
jumping-off point for information (be sure to follow some of the
related links):

http://www.hard-core-dx.com/nordicdx...wire/t2fd.html

The late Joe Carr was an unabashed fan of this antenna, and he
certainly was a respected antenna authority for receive antennas with
a number of books under his belt, at least one of which was a
technically oriented book.

I have high regard for Joe Carr and if anyone has a need they should buy
one of his books.

I'm not surprised your experience is good with a T2FD, it's a good
design.

There is a purpose behind the T2FD design and it is for transmit and
receive. For people wanting to use it only for receive the additions to
a basic folded dipole design so it will load well on transmit over a
range of frequencies are not needed and will not help on receive.

For receive only you are much better off using a BALUN of the right
transformation depending on the basic shape of the folded dipole you
construct.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Eric F. Richards wrote:

Telamon wrote:


I disregard everything Dave writes. If he could pay attention, which
unfortunately he can't he would recognize that the T2FD is basically a
folded dipole with modifications so it will load up on transmit. Those
modifications are a waste of time on receive and the reasons given are
the rational unlike the advice given by the short attention span guy.

As DxAce found out it will not pick up the signal levels his current
fairly long horizontal wires will with or without the T2FD
modifications.

Sorry, Telemon, but I disagree with you here. A stopped clock is
right twice a day, and so it is with Dave here.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there as I used to read David's
posts and he was lucky to be right twice a month.

Yes, the resistor is to avoid standing waves and turn it into a more
travelling wave antenna, much like such terrible receive antennas like
the Beverage and the Rhombic. (*sarcasm*)

My personal experience with wires and a T2FD is that the T2FD was
overall the better antenna with the wires having only occasional
advantages and some frequencies AND directions. The wires, BTW, have
extensive ground networks and about 20 ground radials.

For those not familiar with this antenna, this page is a good
jumping-off point for information (be sure to follow some of the
related links):

http://www.hard-core-dx.com/nordicdx...wire/t2fd.html

The late Joe Carr was an unabashed fan of this antenna, and he
certainly was a respected antenna authority for receive antennas with
a number of books under his belt, at least one of which was a
technically oriented book.

I have high regard for Joe Carr and if anyone has a need they should buy
one of his books.

I'm not surprised your experience is good with a T2FD, it's a good
design.

There is a purpose behind the T2FD design and it is for transmit and
receive. For people wanting to use it only for receive the additions to
a basic folded dipole design so it will load well on transmit over a
range of frequencies are not needed and will not help on receive.

For receive only you are much better off using a BALUN of the right
transformation depending on the basic shape of the folded dipole you
construct.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

My TTFD works well only above 7mc because of the size. It isn't as
quiet as I would like, or thought it would be, because it is in the
attic. I mostly use my 160m dipole for swl. I am sticking up a 200'
long wire next week at the back corner of my property across the river.
I'll probably stick a 2m 1/4 wave in the attic and scrap the TTFD. It
was a worthwhile experiment and would probably do very well if it were
bigger, tilted more, and away from the house.

73
NEO

On Nov 9, 10:02 pm, Eric F. Richards wrote:
"Steve" wrote:
I've been reading about these and am intrigued.

These antennas are often mounted in a sloping configuration, but how
steep can the angle be? I'm sure the steepness of the angle is going to
effect the antenna's radiation pattern, but will how? Does it cause the
antenna to become highly directional as the angle increases?

- Actually, the idea behind the slope is to make it more
omnidirectional.

That is one of the the reasons often cited for Sloping the Wire
Antenna Element : The Inverted "V" being another example.

- The ideal slope is something like 30 degrees,
- but there's no hard-and-fast rule on this.

Yes 30 Degrees works well for most Sloping Receiving Antennas.
Horizontal (Flat) Wire = 100% Horizontal Dimension Area of Radiation.
Vertcal (Upright) Wire = 100% Vertical Dimension Area of Radiation.
45 Degree Sloping Wire = 50% Horizontal and 50% Vertical
Dimension Area of Radiation.
30 Degree Sloping Wire = 87% Horizontal Dimension and
50% Vertical Dimension Areas of Radiation.
- - - Roughly speaking.
The 30 Degree Sloping Wire Antenna Element to some
degree can be though of as the same space equalent as
an Inverted "L" Antenna which would make up the other
Two Sides of a Triangle created by the Sloping Side.
* 30 Ft Sloper Antenna would take up the same space as
a 15 Ft Vertical by 26 Ft Horizontal Inverted "L" Antenna.
Note - This Inverted "L" would be 41 Ft long (+11 Ft) and
have 37% more Wire-in-the-Air.
* 52 Ft Sloper Antenna would take up the same space as
a 26 Ft Vertical by 45 Ft Horizontal Inverted "L" Antenna
Note - This Inverted "L" would be 71 Ft long (+19 Ft) and
have 37% more Wire-in-the-Air.

- - - For some it simply comes down to the fact that the
Sloping Wire Antenna may be eaiser to Rig then the
Inverted "L" Wire Antenna.

numb3rs ~ RHF

Telamon wrote:

Sorry, Telemon, but I disagree with you here. A stopped clock is
right twice a day, and so it is with Dave here.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there as I used to read David's
posts and he was lucky to be right twice a month.

True enough, but it's the same idea, different scale.

I have high regard for Joe Carr and if anyone has a need they should buy
one of his books.

I'm not surprised your experience is good with a T2FD, it's a good
design.

There is a purpose behind the T2FD design and it is for transmit and
receive. For people wanting to use it only for receive the additions to
a basic folded dipole design so it will load well on transmit over a
range of frequencies are not needed and will not help on receive.

I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that, simply because of the amount of
material I've read on the T2FD. Yes, it was designed as a transmit
antenna, and yes, the resistor is vital to that role, but like in a
rhombic or Beverage, it still plays an important role in reception.


For receive only you are much better off using a BALUN of the right
transformation depending on the basic shape of the folded dipole you
construct.

Unfortunately, I've no experience modelling the antenna, or I would do
so to see if that's correct. Do you have a model to back up this
assertion? I'm interested in seeing this result.

Regards,

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:51:16 -0700, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

Telamon wrote:

Sorry, Telemon, but I disagree with you here. A stopped clock is
right twice a day, and so it is with Dave here.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there as I used to read David's
posts and he was lucky to be right twice a month.

True enough, but it's the same idea, different scale.

I have high regard for Joe Carr and if anyone has a need they should buy
one of his books.

I'm not surprised your experience is good with a T2FD, it's a good
design.

There is a purpose behind the T2FD design and it is for transmit and
receive. For people wanting to use it only for receive the additions to
a basic folded dipole design so it will load well on transmit over a
range of frequencies are not needed and will not help on receive.

I'm not so sure I'm convinced by that, simply because of the amount of
material I've read on the T2FD. Yes, it was designed as a transmit
antenna, and yes, the resistor is vital to that role, but like in a
rhombic or Beverage, it still plays an important role in reception.


For receive only you are much better off using a BALUN of the right
transformation depending on the basic shape of the folded dipole you
construct.

Unfortunately, I've no experience modelling the antenna, or I would do
so to see if that's correct. Do you have a model to back up this
assertion? I'm interested in seeing this result.

Regards,

Cebic has some interesting feedpoint info on the terminated folded
dipole at http://www.cebik.com/gup/groundup.html

Also, I'm guessing the signal loss he mentions might be why some find
the antenna to be "quiet."

bob
k5qwg

i cant vouch for the T2FD at shortwave frequencies but i built one cut
for vhf and it was a rocket! it was red hot when compared to all of my
other scanner antennas, including a fairly expensive name brand ground
plane antenna (whose name escapes me at this moment). as far as one
persons statement goes that for receive a simple unterminated dipole is
the same or superior to the terminated one, if that is true then it
would simplify the antenna considerably. it does seem logical that the
terminating resistor would attenuate or reduce at least some received
signal. however at rf frequencies some strange factors arise that are
unknown to me and logic doesnt always serve well when it comes to
antennas. for instance as a teenager i had one of those antique all
metal box springs for my bed. it didnt calculate out that the springs
would load up at all but they were the best hf receive antenna that i
have ever had in my life. the bottom line is this, T2FD is a GREAT
antenna! maybe plain TFD is as good? TRY ONE! (tilt is for omni pattern,
sometimes this is good, sometimes not so good!) you will find
circumstances that arise where the one antenna receives when the other
hears nothing. there is no perfect antenna, several variations to choose
from and compare between is the swl ideal. BUILD THAT DAMN ANTENNA! and
the others too! and most of all, post your results!

Bob Miller wrote:

Cebic has some interesting feedpoint info on the terminated folded
dipole at http://www.cebik.com/gup/groundup.html

Thanks, I'm going to be looking at it soon.

Also, I'm guessing the signal loss he mentions might be why some find
the antenna to be "quiet."

When I compare it against my 400 foot wire with a ground, matching
network, radials, etc., I find that the S/N ratio is far better on the
T2FD. In fact, usually, the signal level is indistinguishable on
receivers with accurate S meters.

There are exceptions, of course -- the T2FD doesn't do as well below 2
MHz, but then it wasn't designed to. Above there, the T2FD is the
better all 'round player. If I had to have only one of my two
antennas, there simply would be no competition.

--
Eric F. Richards

"Nature abhors a vacuum tube." -- Myron Glass,
often attributed to J. R. Pierce, Bell Labs, c. 1940

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:33:28 -0700, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:

Cebic has some interesting feedpoint info on the terminated folded
dipole at http://www.cebik.com/gup/groundup.html

Thanks, I'm going to be looking at it soon.

Also, I'm guessing the signal loss he mentions might be why some find
the antenna to be "quiet."

When I compare it against my 400 foot wire with a ground, matching
network, radials, etc., I find that the S/N ratio is far better on the
T2FD. In fact, usually, the signal level is indistinguishable on
receivers with accurate S meters.

There are exceptions, of course -- the T2FD doesn't do as well below 2
MHz, but then it wasn't designed to. Above there, the T2FD is the
better all 'round player. If I had to have only one of my two
antennas, there simply would be no competition.

I'd wonder how it would compare to an ordinary non-folded,
non-terminated dipole, although that might not be a valid comparison,
since a dipole is typically designed for a single frequency. Oh,
well...

bob
k5qwg

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:23:44 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:



I'd wonder how it would compare to an ordinary non-folded,
non-terminated dipole, although that might not be a valid comparison,
since a dipole is typically designed for a single frequency. Oh,
well...

A dipole, as used by most SWLs, is unbalanced and has no CMR.

But what about them purples?
cuhuln
.................................................. .............
went upstairs,went to bed,stepped over the pee pot over my head,,,,
couldn't swim,couldn't float,a little green turd went down my throat.
.................................................. ............