Antenna Suggestions and Lightning Protection
 

Every year, I fear the spring and summer. I have a random wire antenna
that traverses one side of my property, the wire extending about 70 feet.
No lightning protection. I remove the wire from the radio when I am at home
and I know that I storm is coming. But when I am at work, and storms happen
unexpectedly, the radio stays connected. Even protecting the radio from the
static of a nearby lightning strike by disconnecting it doesn't protect the
house from the results of a strike to the wire.

I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house to both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax, so as to
reduce the likelihood of household interference. The feed would only be
about 20 feet long. I would have trouble grounding it at the apex of the V,
since that would be on the house itself and the patio is directly below it,
providing much cement but little ground to place the rod. Though I could
drill the patio, I am unsure of the pipes below it.

My lot, at least as far as the usable area for the antenna is concerned,
would be about 30 feet wide and 70 feet long, with the elevation of the V
to be approximately 12 feet from the ground.

Can anybody conceptualize an antenna that I can use, with lightning
protection, and provide links to it? Is anybody using something similar?

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote:

Every year, I fear the spring and summer. I have a random wire antenna
that traverses one side of my property, the wire extending about 70 feet.
No lightning protection. I remove the wire from the radio when I am at home
and I know that I storm is coming. But when I am at work, and storms happen
unexpectedly, the radio stays connected. Even protecting the radio from the
static of a nearby lightning strike by disconnecting it doesn't protect the
house from the results of a strike to the wire.

I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house to both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax, so as to
reduce the likelihood of household interference. The feed would only be
about 20 feet long. I would have trouble grounding it at the apex of the V,
since that would be on the house itself and the patio is directly below it,
providing much cement but little ground to place the rod. Though I could
drill the patio, I am unsure of the pipes below it.

My lot, at least as far as the usable area for the antenna is concerned,
would be about 30 feet wide and 70 feet long, with the elevation of the V
to be approximately 12 feet from the ground.

Can anybody conceptualize an antenna that I can use, with lightning
protection, and provide links to it? Is anybody using something similar?

An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think is what you
envision.

Lightning protection is itself a science I suppose. Never had a direct hit here,
but did see blue sparklers off a disconnected lead 20 or so years ago.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Drake R7, R8, R8A and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Lightning strikes very often happen on very pretty Summertime
days/nights when you least expect lightning to happen.There are very
good ways to protect your radio antennas and radios agains't lightning
strikes.I don't know much of those ways,perhaps someone who does know
will show up and elaborate about such things.I know this much though,
www.brickwall.com www.pricewheeler.com I own an use a Brickwall
model 8R15.
cuhulin

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
Every year, I fear the spring and summer. I have a random wire antenna
that traverses one side of my property, the wire extending about 70 feet.
No lightning protection. I remove the wire from the radio when I am at
home
and I know that I storm is coming. But when I am at work, and storms
happen
unexpectedly, the radio stays connected. Even protecting the radio from
the
static of a nearby lightning strike by disconnecting it doesn't protect
the
house from the results of a strike to the wire.

I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house to both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax, so as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference. The feed would only be
about 20 feet long. I would have trouble grounding it at the apex of the
V,
since that would be on the house itself and the patio is directly below
it,
providing much cement but little ground to place the rod. Though I could
drill the patio, I am unsure of the pipes below it.

My lot, at least as far as the usable area for the antenna is concerned,
would be about 30 feet wide and 70 feet long, with the elevation of the V
to be approximately 12 feet from the ground.

Can anybody conceptualize an antenna that I can use, with lightning
protection, and provide links to it? Is anybody using something similar?

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's ends lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

However, for lightning protection, all antenna feedlines regardless of
antenna type should be shield-grounded if using a coax feedline. The first
point of this shield-grounding should be as near as possible to where a
grounding conductor/jumper/bond can be first located. That means on the
tower if the tower is the feedpoint of the inverted-vee, or where the
feedline first reaches earth-grade at 90 degrees from the feedpoint. Coax is
again shield-grounded at the ground rod used as the shack's single point
ground. A surge protector or oft-called lightning arrestor is then used to
protect the equipment where the feedline originates.

If it is physically possible for the antenna to take a direct lightning
strike (not a probability if nearby objects are higher) then the feedpoint
shield ground is the primary discharge point, and should have a network of
ground rods connected by heavy (#4 or larger copper wire or wide copper
straps). Even if a direct strike is not possible, indirect strikes
(flashovers from a nearby tree or other higher object) are still possible,
and the first shield ground remains of primary importance in the protection
scheme. Feedline running along the earth or even buried a few inches in the
earth are also subject to magnetic and capacitive coupling of lightning
strikes nearby. The near surface of earth carries 10's of thousands of volt
potential from strikes as far as 100 yards away. Any ground system that is
connected to equipment in the shack has the potential to reference these
voltages right onto the grounded equipment cases in the shack. This is why
proper bonding of inside equipment and all grounding systems is vital to
prevent this ground potential rise from exiting the equipment through AC
power connections out the rear of the equipment. See my site for further
information about bonding and grounding antennas and equipment:

http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
Every year, I fear the spring and summer. I have a random wire antenna
that traverses one side of my property, the wire extending about 70 feet.
No lightning protection. I remove the wire from the radio when I am at
home
and I know that I storm is coming. But when I am at work, and storms
happen
unexpectedly, the radio stays connected. Even protecting the radio from
the
static of a nearby lightning strike by disconnecting it doesn't protect
the
house from the results of a strike to the wire.

I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house to both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax, so as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference. The feed would only be
about 20 feet long. I would have trouble grounding it at the apex of the
V,
since that would be on the house itself and the patio is directly below
it,
providing much cement but little ground to place the rod. Though I could
drill the patio, I am unsure of the pipes below it.

My lot, at least as far as the usable area for the antenna is concerned,
would be about 30 feet wide and 70 feet long, with the elevation of the V
to be approximately 12 feet from the ground.

Can anybody conceptualize an antenna that I can use, with lightning
protection, and provide links to it? Is anybody using something similar?

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's ends lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



However, for lightning protection, all antenna feedlines regardless of
antenna type should be shield-grounded if using a coax feedline. The first
point of this shield-grounding should be as near as possible to where a
grounding conductor/jumper/bond can be first located. That means on the
tower if the tower is the feedpoint of the inverted-vee, or where the
feedline first reaches earth-grade at 90 degrees from the feedpoint. Coax is
again shield-grounded at the ground rod used as the shack's single point
ground. A surge protector or oft-called lightning arrestor is then used to
protect the equipment where the feedline originates.

If it is physically possible for the antenna to take a direct lightning
strike (not a probability if nearby objects are higher) then the feedpoint
shield ground is the primary discharge point, and should have a network of
ground rods connected by heavy (#4 or larger copper wire or wide copper
straps). Even if a direct strike is not possible, indirect strikes
(flashovers from a nearby tree or other higher object) are still possible,
and the first shield ground remains of primary importance in the protection
scheme. Feedline running along the earth or even buried a few inches in the
earth are also subject to magnetic and capacitive coupling of lightning
strikes nearby. The near surface of earth carries 10's of thousands of volt
potential from strikes as far as 100 yards away. Any ground system that is
connected to equipment in the shack has the potential to reference these
voltages right onto the grounded equipment cases in the shack. This is why
proper bonding of inside equipment and all grounding systems is vital to
prevent this ground potential rise from exiting the equipment through AC
power connections out the rear of the equipment. See my site for further
information about bonding and grounding antennas and equipment:

http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:43:50 -0400, dxAce
wrote:


The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's ends lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA
''Efficiency is less than a horizontal dipole of similar height, but
the radiation pattern is more omni-directional which may be considered
to be an advantage.''

http://www.smeter.net/antennas/inv_vee.php

I think characterising the Inverted V as an ''inferior'' choice is
wrong.

David wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:43:50 -0400, dxAce
wrote:

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's ends lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA
''Efficiency is less than a horizontal dipole of similar height, but
the radiation pattern is more omni-directional which may be considered
to be an advantage.''

http://www.smeter.net/antennas/inv_vee.php

I think characterising the Inverted V as an ''inferior'' choice is
wrong.

Damn, you finally got something right.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house to
both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax, so
as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's ends
lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from
being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave
dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal inverted-vee" v.s. a
"vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud clearly described an
inverted-vee where the house forms the center feedpoint and the ends are
lower at opposite ends of his property. This is like every other
inverted-vee I ever heard of, whether center point was a tower or any other
kind of support. Just because the ends slope downward (giving some vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented antenna. It
is not. It does have less directionality because of it's vertical component,
and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure horizontal half wave dipole. It is
also less efficient.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house to
both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax, so
as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's ends
lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from
being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave
dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal inverted-vee" v.s. a
"vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud clearly described an
inverted-vee where the house forms the center feedpoint and the ends are
lower at opposite ends of his property. This is like every other
inverted-vee I ever heard of, whether center point was a tower or any other
kind of support. Just because the ends slope downward (giving some vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented antenna. It
is not. It does have less directionality because of it's vertical component,
and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is
also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you finally
figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and 'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go out and build
some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually try to
envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a 'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole antenna for
general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what
they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house
to
both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax,
so
as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's
ends
lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from
being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave
dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring
no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal inverted-vee" v.s.
a
"vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud clearly described an
inverted-vee where the house forms the center feedpoint and the ends are
lower at opposite ends of his property. This is like every other
inverted-vee I ever heard of, whether center point was a tower or any
other
kind of support. Just because the ends slope downward (giving some
vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented antenna.
It
is not. It does have less directionality because of it's vertical
component,
and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is
also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally
figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and 'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go out and
build
some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually try to
envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a 'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole antenna
for
general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think is
what you
envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in calling that
horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally vertical
inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question to you was "what
other kind is there"? Which you have failed to answer. I'm still waiting to
hear about this vertical-inverted-vee you're touting. I've been to some
antenna schools, and I guess I missed the day they covered your
vertical-inverted-vee.

Jack

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what
they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house
to
both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax,
so
as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's
ends
lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from
being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave
dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring
no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal inverted-vee" v.s.
a
"vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud clearly described an
inverted-vee where the house forms the center feedpoint and the ends are
lower at opposite ends of his property. This is like every other
inverted-vee I ever heard of, whether center point was a tower or any
other
kind of support. Just because the ends slope downward (giving some
vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented antenna.
It
is not. It does have less directionality because of it's vertical
component,
and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is
also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally
figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and 'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go out and
build
some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually try to
envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a 'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole antenna
for
general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think is
what you
envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in calling that
horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally vertical
inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question to you was "what
other kind is there"? Which you have failed to answer. I'm still waiting to
hear about this vertical-inverted-vee you're touting. I've been to some
antenna schools, and I guess I missed the day they covered your
vertical-inverted-vee.

Your lack of comprehension of what is in the vertical plane and what is in the
horizontal plane is absolutely boggling.

I'd be happy to have you over for a tutorial, but at this point I'd have to
start charging.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Damn canaDUHians,teach em everything I know and they still don't know
nouthing!
cuhulin

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote in message

Lightning strikes very often happen on very pretty Summertime
days/nights when you least expect lightning to happen.There are very
good ways to protect your radio antennas and radios agains't lightning
strikes.I don't know much of those ways,perhaps someone who does know
will show up and elaborate about such things.
cuhulin

Or watch my safety video!

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/safetyvideo23.mpg

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

wrote in message
...
Damn canaDUHians,teach em everything I know and they still don't know
nouthing!

My irony meter just melted into a puddle of slag.

In article 1Rt8e.2096$lz1.1199@lakeread01,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote I would
like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on
my house to both sides of the property. I would like to feed
the antenna with coax, so as to reduce the likelihood of
household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with
it's ends lower than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design,
it usually results from being unable to elevate both ends
equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It nonetheless
works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted
vee' designation.

dxAce Michigan USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal
inverted-vee" v.s. a "vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud
clearly described an inverted-vee where the house forms the
center feedpoint and the ends are lower at opposite ends of his
property. This is like every other inverted-vee I ever heard of,
whether center point was a tower or any other kind of support.
Just because the ends slope downward (giving some vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented
antenna. It is not. It does have less directionality because of
it's vertical component, and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure
horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and
'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted
vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go
out and build some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually
try to envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a
'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole
antenna for general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce Michigan USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think
is what you envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in
calling that horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally
vertical inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question
to you was "what other kind is there"? Which you have failed to
answer. I'm still waiting to hear about this vertical-inverted-vee
you're touting. I've been to some antenna schools, and I guess I
missed the day they covered your vertical-inverted-vee.


That is simple it is a vertical dipole where the angle between the two
elements is something other than 180 degrees. You would need two instead
of one mast. Maybe you could call it a vertical C instead.

There is some confusion here regarding vertical and horizontal
polarization and the V height. Ace is being physically descriptive and
Jack is talking about the electric polarization.

I have not looked up the efficiency but I expect that the V is more
lossy for transmitting and that does not apply to receiving. The angle
for receiving will affect the angle of reception though.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article 1Rt8e.2096$lz1.1199@lakeread01,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote I would
like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on
my house to both sides of the property. I would like to feed
the antenna with coax, so as to reduce the likelihood of
household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with
it's ends lower than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design,
it usually results from being unable to elevate both ends
equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It nonetheless
works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted
vee' designation.

dxAce Michigan USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal
inverted-vee" v.s. a "vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud
clearly described an inverted-vee where the house forms the
center feedpoint and the ends are lower at opposite ends of his
property. This is like every other inverted-vee I ever heard of,
whether center point was a tower or any other kind of support.
Just because the ends slope downward (giving some vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented
antenna. It is not. It does have less directionality because of
it's vertical component, and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure
horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and
'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted
vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go
out and build some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually
try to envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a
'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole
antenna for general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce Michigan USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think
is what you envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in
calling that horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally
vertical inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question
to you was "what other kind is there"? Which you have failed to
answer. I'm still waiting to hear about this vertical-inverted-vee
you're touting. I've been to some antenna schools, and I guess I
missed the day they covered your vertical-inverted-vee.

That is simple it is a vertical dipole where the angle between the two
elements is something other than 180 degrees. You would need two instead
of one mast. Maybe you could call it a vertical C instead.

No, actually one only needs one center support or mast.

There is some confusion here regarding vertical and horizontal
polarization and the V height. Ace is being physically descriptive and
Jack is talking about the electric polarization.

I have not looked up the efficiency but I expect that the V is more
lossy for transmitting and that does not apply to receiving. The angle
for receiving will affect the angle of reception though.

Again, no... it is no more 'lossy' than anything else as long as it is cut
properly.
In practical terms I found the pattern from them to be a bit more omni than what
one might consider a 'standard' dipole to be, but yes, losses applying to
transmitting apply just the same to receiving. A loss is a loss is a loss.

I've had numerous 'inverted vee's' up over the years and found them to be very
good mono-band antennas. Having said that, they are generally very tight
frequency wise and if one wishes to make broad excursions an antenna tuner would
be highly advised.

My current plan here is to put up a 60 or 90 meter band inverted vee for the
upcoming 2005-2006 season. I'd like to put up a long wire to S. America, and
that may be possible if I can secure my neighbours permission, at least over the
winter months.

My problem here at present is that my lot is 85' by 462' and I do have
unrestricted access to the West and North East, up to say 1000' but I am limited
to the South East for something in the several hundred foot range for South
America, providing I can secure permission to cross the neighbours property.

Currently I do have a 70' and 200' wire up.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Telamon" wrote
That is simple it is a vertical dipole where the angle between the two
elements is something other than 180 degrees. You would need two instead
of one mast. Maybe you could call it a vertical C instead.

There is some confusion here regarding vertical and horizontal
polarization and the V height. Ace is being physically descriptive and
Jack is talking about the electric polarization.

I have not looked up the efficiency but I expect that the V is more
lossy for transmitting and that does not apply to receiving. The angle
for receiving will affect the angle of reception though.


Telamon,

If you can figure out why dxAce would make personal attacks on me while we
were having a polite discussion about antennas, good luck. I quoted his
misunderstanding of the original poster's comments three times, and that
poster even verified I was describing exactly what he wanted, while dxAce
was not. Ace never envisioned a "vertical dipole" such as you gave him an
out for above. Nor was he trying to compare polarization of any kind. He
just can't read or listen today. Nor does he understand what lossy means,
such as an inverted-vee can receive much better than it's lossy
transmitting, nearly equaling the horizontal dipole in most reception but
falling far short in transmitting compared to same. And all center-fed
dipoles have small bandwidth, but of course they work well with a tuner
above their cut frequency. I replaced an inverted-vee with a horizontal
dipole years ago, and the same antenna horizontally can do with 125 watts
that which took 1,000 watts to accomplish with the vee. The lossiness comes
mainly from the antennas ends of a vee approaching far to close to the
ground. The horizontal dipole at minimum 1/4 wavelength above ground is
about 80% efficient. At 1/2 wavelength is it over 90% efficient, even over
lossy ground. But receiving has nothing to do with the ground losses from
transmitting from a dipole, and poor Ace is determined to dig himself into a
deeper and deeper hole on that simple fact.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jack Painter wrote:

"Telamon" wrote
That is simple it is a vertical dipole where the angle between the two
elements is something other than 180 degrees. You would need two instead
of one mast. Maybe you could call it a vertical C instead.

There is some confusion here regarding vertical and horizontal
polarization and the V height. Ace is being physically descriptive and
Jack is talking about the electric polarization.

I have not looked up the efficiency but I expect that the V is more
lossy for transmitting and that does not apply to receiving. The angle
for receiving will affect the angle of reception though.


Telamon,

If you can figure out why dxAce would make personal attacks on me while we
were having a polite discussion about antennas, good luck. I quoted his
misunderstanding of the original poster's comments three times, and that
poster even verified I was describing exactly what he wanted, while dxAce
was not. Ace never envisioned a "vertical dipole" such as you gave him an
out for above. Nor was he trying to compare polarization of any kind. He
just can't read or listen today. Nor does he understand what lossy means,
such as an inverted-vee can receive much better than it's lossy
transmitting, nearly equaling the horizontal dipole in most reception but
falling far short in transmitting compared to same. And all center-fed
dipoles have small bandwidth, but of course they work well with a tuner
above their cut frequency. I replaced an inverted-vee with a horizontal
dipole years ago, and the same antenna horizontally can do with 125 watts
that which took 1,000 watts to accomplish with the vee. The lossiness comes
mainly from the antennas ends of a vee approaching far to close to the
ground. The horizontal dipole at minimum 1/4 wavelength above ground is
about 80% efficient. At 1/2 wavelength is it over 90% efficient, even over
lossy ground. But receiving has nothing to do with the ground losses from
transmitting from a dipole, and poor Ace is determined to dig himself into a
deeper and deeper hole on that simple fact.

And you still haven't a clue... keep on promulgating your crap... though it does
indeed have a sense of truth to it.

Still waiting for you to broadcast that 'test' on 8983...

What are you waiting for, John?

dxAce
Michigan
USA





Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

dxAce wrote in
:

Remember, I was the one asking for advice, ergo I am the one ignorant on
the issue. Although I do appreciate any serious response, I especially
appreciated his (Jack Painter's) willingness to have spent so much time
writing a response. As I asked for links, I believed that I would be able
to sort through the responses and make a decision for myself.

To compound the matter, I spent the day looking at vertical antennas for
HF transmitting, something that I am not yet licensed to do (Technician).
Anyway, my property is narrow, I live next door to a borough official
that doesn't like me (understatement, and the feeling is mutual), my
property suffers absolutely tremendous winds during some (most) of the
summer storms (you have to see it to believe it, the rear of the house
looks like pre-tornado, the front, mostly calm wind wise, but there is
not enough front to use for mounting antennas and the high tension and
other wires are but a mere 20 feet away).

I am not going to be able to erect a tower and use a beam (wife's
prohibition), the property doesn't lend itself to traipsing guy wires to
support a vertical in high winds, and my wife isn't going to let me have
guy wires stuck hither and thither anyway (I need a free standing
vertical with 80 mph wind resistance).

I thought that the inverted V might be a start, I realize that I can
transmit on it as well (utilizing a tuner). All I have now is a random
wire down one side of the property, attached by rubber tubing (of a sort)
to a large tree near the end of my property, the other end going directly
to my radio.

The inverted V was just a way to allow me a more convenient way to use
coax for the radio to antenna feed, and to use some form of grounding at
the point where the coax enters the house (though as I said, I can't run
a ground wire straight down, as the patio is directly below).

You comments are appreciated, perhaps you can also help me with the
vertical. But I do need a way to ground my antenna soon, as the storms
will soon be here.

Thanks.

Dr. Artaud

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote:

dxAce wrote in
:

Remember, I was the one asking for advice, ergo I am the one ignorant on
the issue. Although I do appreciate any serious response, I especially
appreciated his (Jack Painter's) willingness to have spent so much time
writing a response.

OK, but if his response was predicated upon crap... so be it! This ain't rocket
science...

I just plain give up.

But I'm still waiting for the fellow who supposedly has a Coast Guard setup in
his home to say something on 8983!

By the way... I checked it out (months ago) ... and as far as I can determine
they've never heard of him. But perhaps he might provide something a bit more
definitive.

As I asked for links, I believed that I would be able
to sort through the responses and make a decision for myself.

To compound the matter, I spent the day looking at vertical antennas for
HF transmitting, something that I am not yet licensed to do (Technician).
Anyway, my property is narrow, I live next door to a borough official
that doesn't like me (understatement, and the feeling is mutual), my
property suffers absolutely tremendous winds during some (most) of the
summer storms (you have to see it to believe it, the rear of the house
looks like pre-tornado, the front, mostly calm wind wise, but there is
not enough front to use for mounting antennas and the high tension and
other wires are but a mere 20 feet away).

I am not going to be able to erect a tower and use a beam (wife's
prohibition), the property doesn't lend itself to traipsing guy wires to
support a vertical in high winds, and my wife isn't going to let me have
guy wires stuck hither and thither anyway (I need a free standing
vertical with 80 mph wind resistance).

I thought that the inverted V might be a start, I realize that I can
transmit on it as well (utilizing a tuner). All I have now is a random
wire down one side of the property, attached by rubber tubing (of a sort)
to a large tree near the end of my property, the other end going directly
to my radio.

The inverted V was just a way to allow me a more convenient way to use
coax for the radio to antenna feed, and to use some form of grounding at
the point where the coax enters the house (though as I said, I can't run
a ground wire straight down, as the patio is directly below).

You comments are appreciated, perhaps you can also help me with the
vertical. But I do need a way to ground my antenna soon, as the storms
will soon be here.

Thanks.

Good luck.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Jack Painter wrote:

"Telamon" wrote
That is simple it is a vertical dipole where the angle between the two
elements is something other than 180 degrees. You would need two instead
of one mast. Maybe you could call it a vertical C instead.

There is some confusion here regarding vertical and horizontal
polarization and the V height. Ace is being physically descriptive and
Jack is talking about the electric polarization.

I have not looked up the efficiency but I expect that the V is more
lossy for transmitting and that does not apply to receiving. The angle
for receiving will affect the angle of reception though.


Telamon,

If you can figure out why dxAce would make personal attacks on me while we
were having a polite discussion about antennas, good luck. I quoted his
misunderstanding of the original poster's comments three times, and that
poster even verified I was describing exactly what he wanted, while dxAce
was not. Ace never envisioned a "vertical dipole" such as you gave him an
out for above.

Bull****... it was you who could not understand a 'vertical vee'.

Nor was he trying to compare polarization of any kind.

Bull****, 'tard boy.

He
just can't read or listen today.

You obviously can't read last week or tomorrow!

Nor does he understand what lossy means,
such as an inverted-vee can receive much better than it's lossy
transmitting, nearly equaling the horizontal dipole in most reception but
falling far short in transmitting compared to same.

BS... transmitting losses are pretty much the same as receiving losses.

And all center-fed
dipoles have small bandwidth, but of course they work well with a tuner
above their cut frequency.

And indeed, inverted vee's have a smaller bandwidth than a standard dipole...
that's one you refused to answer!

I replaced an inverted-vee with a horizontal
dipole years ago, and the same antenna horizontally can do with 125 watts
that which took 1,000 watts to accomplish with the vee.

But in what direction? Are we comparing apples to oranges here?

The lossiness comes
mainly from the antennas ends of a vee approaching far to close to the
ground. The horizontal dipole at minimum 1/4 wavelength above ground is
about 80% efficient. At 1/2 wavelength is it over 90% efficient, even over
lossy ground. But receiving has nothing to do with the ground losses from
transmitting from a dipole, and poor Ace is determined to dig himself into a
deeper and deeper hole on that simple fact.

The only hole you've dug yourself in is trying to portray yourself as a
homebound Coasty who can transmit on 8983 and 5696 when the regualars can't seem
to hear. Give me a frickin break... or prove it!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"dxAce" wrote
But I'm still waiting for the fellow who supposedly has a Coast Guard
setup in
his home to say something on 8983!

By the way... I checked it out (months ago) ... and as far as I can
determine
they've never heard of him. But perhaps he might provide something a bit
more
definitive.

Ace, we once had pleasant conversations, and I enjoyed talking with you
then. Too bad you have now degenerated through no provocation from me into
someone I don't know, and don't want to know either. But since you made a
personal attack on my credibility, I will respond so you can "look up"
whatever you want to. I get logged every so often on the WUN list and
others, and here are a few excerpts from WUN that you can look up yourself
in the archives:

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:58:50 -0500
Subject: [WUN] Recent SSB Logs from Ohio

12-2-03
5696.0 Coast Guard Auxiliary Oceania Radio 2332 USB wkg
Coast Guard 2109 for flight op's relay to CAMSLANT.
Later assumes radio guard after checking with CAMSLANT.
CAMSLANT at 2335 clg the 2218 and 1706.

Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:12 pm
Subject: HF Logs 1 September 04

1348Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO wkg CG 2136 (HU-25, ATC Mobile) for relay to
CAMSLANT regarding 406 EPIRB search

30 September 04

8983 Oceana Radio calls CG 2128 (HU-25A) for position report Flight ops
normal talk to you again it 30 mins USB 1950 (30Sept04) (CC)

Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: [cothen] HF ALE/Voice 3 October 04

1505Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO taking ops and position report from
CG 2140 for relay to CAMSLANT

To: "WUN"
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: [WUN] CG Oceana

Coast Guard Oceana Radio 8985/ 1519:Z

HF ALE/Voice 5 December 04
2151Z 8983.0 S4A position report to CAMSLANT 24-28N 080-17W.
CAMSLANT has trouble copying and OCEANA RADIO takes report for relay
to CAMSLANT

Tue Aug 3 21:17:02 EDT 2004
0156Z 5696.0 CG 2140 (HU-25) airborne with 5 POB from New Jersey
en route Cape Cod establishes guard with OCEANA RADIO

Date: 3\23\05
8983 CG2121 rep flt-ops normal to CAMSLANT at 2123, at 2133 CG2121 req
CAMSLANT secure guard.
OCEANA RADIO req Q8V report destination, mission & POB at 2158

Those are just a sampling that I noticed getting logged by UTE hobbyists.

For safety of life issues during working MAYDAY cases on 2182 Khz, I have
posted information to enable certain hobbyists to follow the traffic, in the
hopes that if communications were lost, as can happen on SAR cases,
listening stations would be able to provide assistance via telephone to
their nearest USCG Group.

Jack Painter
Communications Officer
USCG Auxiliary Fifth District Division 5
Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia 757-464-1007
Auxiliary Liaison Officer to USCG CAMSLANT CHESAPEAKE
http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm
Lightning Protection website for USCG OCEANA RADIO

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote
But I'm still waiting for the fellow who supposedly has a Coast Guard
setup in
his home to say something on 8983!

By the way... I checked it out (months ago) ... and as far as I can
determine
they've never heard of him. But perhaps he might provide something a bit
more
definitive.

Ace, we once had pleasant conversations, and I enjoyed talking with you
then. Too bad you have now degenerated through no provocation from me into
someone I don't know, and don't want to know either. But since you made a
personal attack on my credibility, I will respond so you can "look up"
whatever you want to. I get logged every so often on the WUN list and
others, and here are a few excerpts from WUN that you can look up yourself
in the archives:

You can be a 'poseur' all you want, John... I asked you several times today to
come up on the freq. for a simple test count...

You refused... Good enough for me.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:58:50 -0500
Subject: [WUN] Recent SSB Logs from Ohio

12-2-03
5696.0 Coast Guard Auxiliary Oceania Radio 2332 USB wkg
Coast Guard 2109 for flight op's relay to CAMSLANT.
Later assumes radio guard after checking with CAMSLANT.
CAMSLANT at 2335 clg the 2218 and 1706.

Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:12 pm
Subject: HF Logs 1 September 04

1348Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO wkg CG 2136 (HU-25, ATC Mobile) for relay to
CAMSLANT regarding 406 EPIRB search

30 September 04

8983 Oceana Radio calls CG 2128 (HU-25A) for position report Flight ops
normal talk to you again it 30 mins USB 1950 (30Sept04) (CC)

Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: [cothen] HF ALE/Voice 3 October 04

1505Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO taking ops and position report from
CG 2140 for relay to CAMSLANT

To: "WUN"
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: [WUN] CG Oceana

Coast Guard Oceana Radio 8985/ 1519:Z

HF ALE/Voice 5 December 04
2151Z 8983.0 S4A position report to CAMSLANT 24-28N 080-17W.
CAMSLANT has trouble copying and OCEANA RADIO takes report for relay
to CAMSLANT

Tue Aug 3 21:17:02 EDT 2004
0156Z 5696.0 CG 2140 (HU-25) airborne with 5 POB from New Jersey
en route Cape Cod establishes guard with OCEANA RADIO

Date: 3\23\05
8983 CG2121 rep flt-ops normal to CAMSLANT at 2123, at 2133 CG2121 req
CAMSLANT secure guard.
OCEANA RADIO req Q8V report destination, mission & POB at 2158

Those are just a sampling that I noticed getting logged by UTE hobbyists.

For safety of life issues during working MAYDAY cases on 2182 Khz, I have
posted information to enable certain hobbyists to follow the traffic, in the
hopes that if communications were lost, as can happen on SAR cases,
listening stations would be able to provide assistance via telephone to
their nearest USCG Group.

Jack Painter
Communications Officer
USCG Auxiliary Fifth District Division 5
Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia 757-464-1007
Auxiliary Liaison Officer to USCG CAMSLANT CHESAPEAKE
http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm
Lightning Protection website for USCG OCEANA RADIO

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote

Remember, I was the one asking for advice, ergo I am the one ignorant on
the issue. Although I do appreciate any serious response, I especially
appreciated his (Jack Painter's) willingness to have spent so much time
writing a response. As I asked for links, I believed that I would be able
to sort through the responses and make a decision for myself.

To compound the matter, I spent the day looking at vertical antennas for
HF transmitting, something that I am not yet licensed to do (Technician).
Anyway, my property is narrow, I live next door to a borough official
that doesn't like me (understatement, and the feeling is mutual), my
property suffers absolutely tremendous winds during some (most) of the
summer storms (you have to see it to believe it, the rear of the house
looks like pre-tornado, the front, mostly calm wind wise, but there is
not enough front to use for mounting antennas and the high tension and
other wires are but a mere 20 feet away).

I am not going to be able to erect a tower and use a beam (wife's
prohibition), the property doesn't lend itself to traipsing guy wires to
support a vertical in high winds, and my wife isn't going to let me have
guy wires stuck hither and thither anyway (I need a free standing
vertical with 80 mph wind resistance).

I thought that the inverted V might be a start, I realize that I can
transmit on it as well (utilizing a tuner). All I have now is a random
wire down one side of the property, attached by rubber tubing (of a sort)
to a large tree near the end of my property, the other end going directly
to my radio.

The inverted V was just a way to allow me a more convenient way to use
coax for the radio to antenna feed, and to use some form of grounding at
the point where the coax enters the house (though as I said, I can't run
a ground wire straight down, as the patio is directly below).

You comments are appreciated, perhaps you can also help me with the
vertical. But I do need a way to ground my antenna soon, as the storms
will soon be here.

Thanks.

Dr. Artaud

You're very welcome, Dr. We share what we have worked and learn what best
fits our individual circumstances in such exchanges. You might enjoy the
features that an automatic tuner such as MFJ produces. They perform well in
most cases except at the actual frequencies a dipole is cut for, as the
impedance at that one place only is felt as almost infitinte to them. Of
course that's one frequency they aren't needed either, just be advised it
could result in erratic behavior of the ATU if used on the resonant
frequency.

Station-Isolation is probably more feasible when you first get started with
a transmitter, receiver and rooftop or other high antenna system. They can
and certainly should be grounded, but until you can plan and design a
whole-property system, it's perhaps safer to isolate by unplugging power
supplies when not in use, and disconnect coax feedlines from the equipment
as well. Having an accessible place to ground those disconnected antenna
feedlines is best, and that can be inside your station as long as no
equipment comes within at least one foot of that ground system and coax when
they are shorted to ground.

Please don't handle coax connectors during the thunderstorm - if you forgot
to disconnect, say a prayer for your equipment, and spare needing one for
yourself! ;-)

As you shop for verticals, consider that a good radial system can be layed
out, totally concealed on a permanent basis, and then a temporary field-day
style of vertical "tipped up" for your work, and put away when you secure.
Maybe leave it up during nice weekends, as the household gets used to it a
little at a time, LOL. Lots of options are possible for the nice property
you described. Neighbors won't object as long as you aren't changing their
tv channels when you transmit.

Keep us posted on your progress, and good luck.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote
But I'm still waiting for the fellow who supposedly has a Coast Guard
setup in
his home to say something on 8983!

By the way... I checked it out (months ago) ... and as far as I can
determine
they've never heard of him. But perhaps he might provide something a bit
more
definitive.

Ace, we once had pleasant conversations, and I enjoyed talking with you
then. Too bad you have now degenerated through no provocation from me into
someone I don't know, and don't want to know either. But since you made a
personal attack on my credibility, I will respond so you can "look up"
whatever you want to. I get logged every so often on the WUN list and
others, and here are a few excerpts from WUN that you can look up yourself
in the archives:

You didn't answer the original query, did you? Please read the above again.



Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:58:50 -0500
Subject: [WUN] Recent SSB Logs from Ohio

12-2-03
5696.0 Coast Guard Auxiliary Oceania Radio 2332 USB wkg
Coast Guard 2109 for flight op's relay to CAMSLANT.
Later assumes radio guard after checking with CAMSLANT.
CAMSLANT at 2335 clg the 2218 and 1706.

Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:12 pm
Subject: HF Logs 1 September 04

1348Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO wkg CG 2136 (HU-25, ATC Mobile) for relay to
CAMSLANT regarding 406 EPIRB search

30 September 04

8983 Oceana Radio calls CG 2128 (HU-25A) for position report Flight ops
normal talk to you again it 30 mins USB 1950 (30Sept04) (CC)

Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: [cothen] HF ALE/Voice 3 October 04

1505Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO taking ops and position report from
CG 2140 for relay to CAMSLANT

To: "WUN"
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: [WUN] CG Oceana

Coast Guard Oceana Radio 8985/ 1519:Z

HF ALE/Voice 5 December 04
2151Z 8983.0 S4A position report to CAMSLANT 24-28N 080-17W.
CAMSLANT has trouble copying and OCEANA RADIO takes report for relay
to CAMSLANT

Tue Aug 3 21:17:02 EDT 2004
0156Z 5696.0 CG 2140 (HU-25) airborne with 5 POB from New Jersey
en route Cape Cod establishes guard with OCEANA RADIO

Date: 3\23\05
8983 CG2121 rep flt-ops normal to CAMSLANT at 2123, at 2133 CG2121 req
CAMSLANT secure guard.
OCEANA RADIO req Q8V report destination, mission & POB at 2158

Those are just a sampling that I noticed getting logged by UTE hobbyists.

For safety of life issues during working MAYDAY cases on 2182 Khz, I have
posted information to enable certain hobbyists to follow the traffic, in the
hopes that if communications were lost, as can happen on SAR cases,
listening stations would be able to provide assistance via telephone to
their nearest USCG Group.

Jack Painter
Communications Officer
USCG Auxiliary Fifth District Division 5
Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia 757-464-1007
Auxiliary Liaison Officer to USCG CAMSLANT CHESAPEAKE
http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm
Lightning Protection website for USCG OCEANA RADIO

What is WUN and Camslant? Or is that ok to ask about?
cuhulin

wrote
What is WUN and Camslant? Or is that ok to ask about?
cuhulin


Utility listening hobbyist group & website

http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/wun
Join or see archives without subscribing here

http://www.wunclub.com/
Worldwide Utility News club website here

CAMSLANT =
Communications Area Master Station Atlantic


Jack

cuhu wrote:

What is WUN and Camslant? Or is that ok to ask about?
cuhulin
----------------------------
WUN World Utility News
http://www.wunclub.com/
A Godsend to the serious utility listener.

Camslant :
http://www.marinecomputer.com/articl...3/CAMSLANT.htm
US Coast Guard

Terry

Ok Jack,Thanks for the information.I was only curious.I learn something
new everyday.
cuhulin

"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:xLD8e.2235$lz1.1261@lakeread01:

I have been perusing the information on Lightning Protection in the link
that you provided. As a side issue, have you studied CAT III Voltmeter
protection? http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_m...afety_measure/

Also, being too tired to digest much more information, and having saved
the information from your posts, have you ever see this antenna, any
comments that you have would be appreciated?
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...wire/4075.html

As usual, reading the reviews on EHAM, several were positive, a couple
were absolutely negative. It's an end fed antenna that they represent as
needing a 25 foot central rise. The reviews seem to talk about
counterpoise, though the drawing at the link above seems to be suggesting
that the central pillar is the counterpoise, I would guess that it is a
network of wires needed to be buried. The 2 legs are 55 feet, to the rise
that is, and one of the reviews complained that the actual overall length
was longer than advertised.

"Also they're saying it only takes 88 feet of space is flat out wrong. If
you do simple math it will tell you 97 feet with the 25 foot support. I
put mine up to 30 feet and it takes up 92 feet overall."

Lastly, I would guess that people should not be exposed to the antenna
when transmitting.

Alas this would still put me back into the need of a vertical antenna for
transmitting with sufficient rise above the yard for safety.

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1550

Nevertheless, I am still seeking to improve my receiving antenna for SWL
with the addition of lightning protection.

Thanks again,

Dr. Artaud

About five years or more ago,I was checking out www.lightningstorm.com
and one of the links in that website was about two or three models of
electronic advanced lightning warning devices.I think one of the lnks
said the devices can give about one minute of advanced lightning strike
warning.I guess a search on the internet might turn up some information
about those devices.I think I remember they are pretty pricey
though.Unless the prices on them have come down.
cuhulin

m II,I just now put YOU on my Ignore the ****ING HELL out of YOU! ****
List,right there with honus and patrick.I will NOT read anything your
Stupid ass has to say from now on! GO **** yourself!
cuhulin

wrote in message
...
m II,I just now put YOU on my Ignore the ****ING HELL out of YOU! ****
List,right there with honus and patrick.I will NOT read anything your
Stupid ass has to say from now on! GO **** yourself!

Welcome to the club, Mike. Took ya long enough.

m II wrote:

wrote:

Ok Jack,Thanks for the information.I was only curious.I learn something
new everyday.

No, you don't.

Are you trying to say he's from CanaDuh?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote

I have been perusing the information on Lightning Protection in the link
that you provided. As a side issue, have you studied CAT III Voltmeter
protection? http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_m...afety_measure/

Arc-flash and arc-blast prevention/safety measure rules have been a big
focus of training programs lately. Guards were installed around many
equipments that have the capabiity to generate arcing, and you can't walk
near HV equipment areas without face shield, etc now. I personally have an
old Beckman Industrial 320B digital multimeter which only has the safety of
it's operator's care behind it ;-) For my use at 240v or less at home
that's fine for me.


Also, being too tired to digest much more information, and having saved
the information from your posts, have you ever see this antenna, any
comments that you have would be appreciated?
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...wire/4075.html

As usual, reading the reviews on EHAM, several were positive, a couple
were absolutely negative. It's an end fed antenna that they represent as
needing a 25 foot central rise. The reviews seem to talk about
counterpoise, though the drawing at the link above seems to be suggesting
that the central pillar is the counterpoise, I would guess that it is a
network of wires needed to be buried. The 2 legs are 55 feet, to the rise
that is, and one of the reviews complained that the actual overall length
was longer than advertised.

"Also they're saying it only takes 88 feet of space is flat out wrong. If
you do simple math it will tell you 97 feet with the 25 foot support. I
put mine up to 30 feet and it takes up 92 feet overall."

Lastly, I would guess that people should not be exposed to the antenna
when transmitting.

Alas this would still put me back into the need of a vertical antenna for
transmitting with sufficient rise above the yard for safety.

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1550

Nevertheless, I am still seeking to improve my receiving antenna for SWL
with the addition of lightning protection.

Thanks again,

Dr. Artaud


As long as a 100-200w ERP antenna is not within about 10 feet of where
people can linger, and it will not be touched, you should be fine. I had to
run a safety data sheet for a 1kw, and post signs in case some numbskull
climbs over my yard fence, but there was no personnel hazard from radiation
beyond 10' of the antennas. The feedpoint on an end-fed antenna has
dangerous voltages present during transmitting. Making sure no person or
animal comes near that during transmitting is your responsibility.

B&W has a reputation for some pretty good but pretty expensive antennas.
Realize that their antenna seem to favor Automatic Link Establishment (ALE)
systems. The military equivalents B&W are copying are all Near Vertical
Incident Skywave (NVIS) antennas. Also known as "cloud-warmers" because they
shower radiation down over a 200 mile area from launching nearly straight
up. So B&W's claims of low radiation angles in the lower bands sounds like a
contradiction, especially from such a short antenna for 160 meters. Possibly
eats 80% of the power input but after all, some hams do that from their cars
on 160m. If you can afford the experiment, that B&W might be just the
ticket, and it probably works fairly well where your current license can
take you. Write me off-line when you get ready to tie some coax shield
grounding and station ground rods together, I'll be glad to help.

best regards,

Jack

Honus wrote:

wrote in message
...

m II,I just now put YOU on my Ignore the ****ING HELL out of YOU! ****
List,right there with honus and patrick.I will NOT read anything your
Stupid ass has to say from now on! GO **** yourself!


Welcome to the club, Mike. Took ya long enough.



The air is very rarified here...and what an eclectic mix of personalities. I
feel as though a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders as my mortality
melts into a mere memory. Alliteratively speaking, of course.

Are there regular meetings? Will there be girls bringing cookies and lemonade?
This is fun..





michael

"m II" wrote in message
news:F3%8e.62100$7Q4.14049@clgrps13...
Honus wrote:

wrote in message
...

m II,I just now put YOU on my Ignore the ****ING HELL out of YOU! ****
List,right there with honus and patrick.I will NOT read anything your
Stupid ass has to say from now on! GO **** yourself!


Welcome to the club, Mike. Took ya long enough.



The air is very rarified here...and what an eclectic mix of personalities.

I'm a little worried. Is Al Patrick the other member?

feel as though a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders as my
mortality
melts into a mere memory. Alliteratively speaking, of course.

Let's stay on topic, shall we? Back to cuhulin: The pervert's puny pecker
porked a pretty pudgy Pekingese.

Are there regular meetings? Will there be girls bringing cookies and
lemonade?

They're women, they're beautiful, and they're topless. The lemonade is, of
course, spiked. The joke's on cuhulin.

This is fun..

Wait until you get your first bill for monthly dues.

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote
But I'm still waiting for the fellow who supposedly has a Coast Guard
setup in
his home to say something on 8983!

By the way... I checked it out (months ago) ... and as far as I can
determine
they've never heard of him. But perhaps he might provide something a bit
more
definitive.

Ace, we once had pleasant conversations, and I enjoyed talking with you
then. Too bad you have now degenerated through no provocation from me into
someone I don't know, and don't want to know either. But since you made a
personal attack on my credibility, I will respond so you can "look up"
whatever you want to. I get logged every so often on the WUN list and
others, and here are a few excerpts from WUN that you can look up yourself
in the archives:

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 19:58:50 -0500
Subject: [WUN] Recent SSB Logs from Ohio

12-2-03
5696.0 Coast Guard Auxiliary Oceania Radio 2332 USB wkg
Coast Guard 2109 for flight op's relay to CAMSLANT.
Later assumes radio guard after checking with CAMSLANT.
CAMSLANT at 2335 clg the 2218 and 1706.

Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:12 pm
Subject: HF Logs 1 September 04

1348Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO wkg CG 2136 (HU-25, ATC Mobile) for relay to
CAMSLANT regarding 406 EPIRB search

30 September 04

8983 Oceana Radio calls CG 2128 (HU-25A) for position report Flight ops
normal talk to you again it 30 mins USB 1950 (30Sept04) (CC)

Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:14 PM
Subject: [cothen] HF ALE/Voice 3 October 04

1505Z 8983.0 OCEANA RADIO taking ops and position report from
CG 2140 for relay to CAMSLANT

To: "WUN"
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:21 AM
Subject: [WUN] CG Oceana

Coast Guard Oceana Radio 8985/ 1519:Z

HF ALE/Voice 5 December 04
2151Z 8983.0 S4A position report to CAMSLANT 24-28N 080-17W.
CAMSLANT has trouble copying and OCEANA RADIO takes report for relay
to CAMSLANT

Tue Aug 3 21:17:02 EDT 2004
0156Z 5696.0 CG 2140 (HU-25) airborne with 5 POB from New Jersey
en route Cape Cod establishes guard with OCEANA RADIO

Date: 3\23\05
8983 CG2121 rep flt-ops normal to CAMSLANT at 2123, at 2133 CG2121 req
CAMSLANT secure guard.
OCEANA RADIO req Q8V report destination, mission & POB at 2158

Those are just a sampling that I noticed getting logged by UTE hobbyists.

For safety of life issues during working MAYDAY cases on 2182 Khz, I have
posted information to enable certain hobbyists to follow the traffic, in the
hopes that if communications were lost, as can happen on SAR cases,
listening stations would be able to provide assistance via telephone to
their nearest USCG Group.

Jack Painter
Communications Officer
USCG Auxiliary Fifth District Division 5
Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia 757-464-1007
Auxiliary Liaison Officer to USCG CAMSLANT CHESAPEAKE
http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm
Lightning Protection website for USCG OCEANA RADIO

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Oceana Radio located at NAS Oceana?

Dr Artaud & DX Ace,