|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
Don Keith (N4KC)
on
May 24, 2007
View comments about this article!
Lessons From the Old Timers
By Don Keith N4KC (www.donkeith.com)
Down here in Alabama, we know that three things inevitably lead to fistfights:
Where your loyalty lies when it comes to Alabama or Auburn football
Which rib joint has the best barbecue
And which route offers the quickest trip to the beach
On the ham bands and in Internet forums, there are at least three equally incendiary topics:
Contesters “crowding the bands”
The FCC dropping the Morse code requirement for new licensees
And whether an antenna cut to resonance radiates better than one that is not
Don't think these are hot topics? Then you have not been listening or reading! I'll leave the first two alone for now so I can foolishly—and at risk of “flaming,” personal attacks, and questions about my heritage—take on the third topic. I do such a silly thing primarily for three reasons:
We are enjoying an influx of newly licensed and newly privileged HF operators who might be able to benefit from a rational discussion on the subject.
We now have TEN amateur radio HF bands, and extended Advanced/Extra SSB privileges that challenge the bandwidth of most antenna system installations, especially on 80/75.
And as a student of history, I maintain that we can learn valuable lessons from those who came before us. The old timers who pioneered radio were correct on lots of things…including getting the most from limited antenna systems.
Here's the contention of many otherwise knowledgeable hams: you are always better off using an antenna that is cut to resonance for a particular operating frequency. That claim, many say, should be engraved in stone. It's one of the great truisms.
“Resonance.” It sounds like such a nice word. “We're in resonance on that issue, my friend.” “That topic resonates with the people!” Dictionary.com defines the word thusly: “To reinforce oscillations because the natural frequency of the device is the same as the frequency of the source.” Who could possibly argue with such a wonderful purpose? Don't all we hams want to reinforce oscillations? I know I do!
To cut to the chase, when talking about antenna systems, we call them “resonant” when the capacitive reactance present in the system is equal to the inductive reactance, and the two cancel each other out, leaving the impedance at the load point at its design value—typically 50 ohms. In that magic alignment by the gods of RF, the antenna is able to radiate into space most of the radio frequency energy that is sent to it from the transmitter via a feed line. Everything seems predestined to work well together. A dipole antenna hanging high between two trees will—on its design frequency and if properly constructed—present something close to 50 ohms impedance. Our typical coaxial feed line has a characteristic impedance of 50 ohms. The output circuit of your YaeKenEleIcomTech radio craves a 50-ohm load.
There we are! Resonance! Maximum transfer of energy occurs! Music swells, flags unfurl, the sun breaks through the clouds, and all is right with the world! We have achieved resonance!
But then, relatively new ham radio operator, you simply cannot leave well enough alone. You go and do something dumb, like touch the tuning knob and change frequency up or down the band in search of new people with whom to chat, or you go off down the band looking to chase some rare morsel of DX. Or, in a truly desperate move to find someone to talk with or to seek better propagation, you flip the switch to change to another amateur band entirely. Suddenly, your fancy, new transceiver is faced with an impedance value that is considerably removed from the Holy Grail of 50 ohms. The value may climb into the hundreds or even thousands of ohms, or drop to almost nothing, becoming disgustingly capacitive or inductively reactive. Suddenly, standing waves are introduced into the system as the RF energy encounters the ugliness of non-resonance. Energy is rudely deflected back down the coaxial feed line, all the way to the output of the transmitter from whence it came only a fraction of a second before, but it does not like the 50 ohms it finds there either. Zoom! Off it bounces once more, back up the cable, waving at its friends who are on their way back down already. But there are fewer and fewer of the reflected radio frequency waves now because some of them are being burned up—zapped energy—due to the loss in the coax.
Thankfully, if the carnage is too much—the standing waves too large a portion of the originally emitted energy—the transmitter does the only humane thing it can do. It shuts down. Then it refuses to operate at that wavelength ever again. You, dear operator, have no other choice. You return to the vicinity of the spot on the dial for which you originally designed that antenna, ignoring the limitless other frequencies and bands where others seem to play at will with no concern for the impedance encountered by their shiny YaeKenEleIcomTech radios.
But how do they do it? Gosh, there are ten amateur HF bands, and some of them are remarkably broad. Your transmitter only seems to like certain spots on those bands—those that are odd multiples of the design frequency of your nice dipole antenna, but those are few and far between and are mostly dead all the time. Finally, you ask another ham when he wanders down to where you are stuck, in the middle of the band. He is on the air, operating all over the spectrum, even though his signal is not really all that strong when compared to some of the others. Still, he seems able to move and transmit even when he is farther away than a few kilohertz in either direction, so you swallow your pride and ask him how he does it. Somehow, you manage to pull his answer out of the static and noise.
An antenna tuner! Well, of course! All you need is that wonderful device that allows you to show your expensive radio a nice 50-ohm match and all is right with the world. You can dash and flip all over the RF spectrum, working everything you hear. You had no idea the answer was so simple! Soon the box arrives from the manufacturer and you hook the “tuner” up between the rig and the coax feed line. You follow the directions and soon, after some spitting and sparking somewhere inside the radio as you learn to adjust the capacitor and inductor inside the shiny, new box, it shows you a wonderful thing on its sexy front-panel meter—a near one-to-one SWR! The rig's happy again. You go off to the hinterlands of each band, trying the thing out. It still balks in some places, but for the most part, it seems to load fine.
It should. The manufacturer's catalog said it would match almost any load. You've heard guys talk about loading to a bedspring, a hank of wire tossed out the window, a screen door. And it cost two weeks' salary. It has to be good!
Soon you are able to transmit on frequencies previously unavailable to you, using your high-hung, well-designed dipole all over creation. Sometimes you actually get a response to people you call, though they often lose you before the QSO is completed. You even work DX, though the reports are typically bad, and you never seem to be able to get through in the pileups for the really rare ones. The mic bites you when it touches your lip while you are talking. The XYL complains about the answering machine starting up by itself when you are on “that #%&*@ radio!” The neighbor lady stares at you angrily when you meet at the mailbox.
Hey, the sunspots are really bashful nowadays. The ionosphere sleeps most of the time. You only have a hundred watts. The bands are rife with static this time of the year. All ham stations have some RFI and the fact that your mic stings your lip confirms for you that the rig is making RF somewhere inside its box. You'll do a better station ground someday, even though you thought you had a pretty good one already. At least you are on the air, exercising those new privileges, having a blast in the world's greatest hobby.
But there is still that nagging suspicion that other hams are hearing and getting out better than you are. It can't be, though. You have a one-to-one SWR. The meter says so. That's the best you can do. The rig is happy. You work DX sometimes. You get through on the local roundtable most of the time. And all with that one dipole, the only antenna you will be able to put up for a while.
Then, one day you have a nice conversation on a band far removed from your antenna's design frequency, talking with a distant station who has a really big signal. You assume he is running power but when you ask what kind of amp he has, and that you've been considering getting one so you, too, can get out better, he tells you something that is hard to believe. Even though he has an amplifier, he doesn't even have the filaments turned on at the moment. He rarely uses the thing. Doesn't need to. You grin. The guy's clearly lying. He's what you call “arm chair copy,” one of the loudest signals on the band.
You ask about the antenna. He tells you it is a dipole, no higher or longer than yours. How about the tuner, then? Same make and model as yours. Lucky guy! He obviously lives in an RF hotspot, over great soil, maybe surrounded by saltwater. Nope. City lot. Rocky clay soil. Nearest saltwater is 500 miles away.
Then he casually mentions his feed line. It's something he calls “ladder line.” 600-ohm ladder line, homebrew, using bits of plastic coat hanger cut to 6-inch lengths to keep parallel runs of 14-guage wire an equal distance apart as it runs from the antenna feed point to the house. It runs right into the shack, through a feed-through in a windowpane, directly to the balanced output of his “antenna matching device.” For some reason, he makes a point of not calling the box an “antenna tuner.”
But what difference does this “ladder line” stuff make? You have some really nice RG-8X that the dealer said was perfectly fine for HF. And it is so easy to work with. “Ladder line” sounds ugly and not a little bit dangerous. And without a layer of copper shield to protect its insides, doesn't he have to be really careful where he runs the stuff to keep from frying neighborhood kids and small furry critters?
Then your new friend says he wants to tell you a few things about the old days so you will understand his preference for that old, outdated method of feeding RF to an antenna. You roll your eyes, check the station clock, and almost make up an excuse so you can tell him you have to QRT. But it's still a few minutes until net time so you humor the guy and listen to what he is anxious to tell you.
“Back in the early days of radio, hams had to find the easiest and most efficient ways of doing things,” he says. “Often they had to make whatever they needed. There was no coax back then. It had not been invented. They came up with air-dielectric feed line and found it worked very, very well. Nice, low loss. Cheap. Easy to make themselves. So the standard in those days was 600-ohm ladder line, two parallel runs of wire separated by some kind of non-conductive material every foot or so.”
600 ohms? Your ears perk up. You're still learning about all this impedance stuff, but you know 600 ohms is a heck of a long way from the 50 ohm match your rig wants. The 50 ohms your pretty run of coax presents. And a far cry from the impedance typically encountered at the feed point of a simple dipole antenna. You ask him the “SWR” question. Surely it was a problem, even way back then, when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
“Back then, the output circuits of the tube-type rigs they used had a great deal of matching range built in,” he explains. “Most of the inductors and capacitors we now find in our outboard antenna matching devices were a part of the transmitters way back in the early days. But even so, those guys not only didn't know much about standing waves, they didn't really worry much about it. The loss in that ladder line was so low, even if there was a mismatch at the antenna feed point, and even if there were standing waves on the line, the RF was eventually mostly all radiated. It didn't get lost in the feed line, like it can in coax.”
For some reason, you feel compelled to defend the honor of good, old coax. If ladder line was so good, why did everyone go to coax in the first place, once somebody built that better mousetrap?
“It is easy to use and work with, not a problem to run into a shack next to all kinds of other cables and metal, and the stuff works well in many instances,” your new friend acknowledges. “For unbalanced antennas or VHF and UHF, it's preferable by far. Remember, though, that back in the day, there were no 60-, 30-, 17- or 12-meter bands yet. Most ops used a relatively narrow range of frequencies, and the typical antenna farm usually consisted of a dipole for 80/75, a dipole or vertical for 40, and a tri-bander for 20, 15 and 10. Nowadays, with so many potential operating frequencies, few of us can manage antennas that are specifically cut to work on each of those bands. Thanks to the old-timers, we knew there was a way. And the way was the open-air-dielectric ladder line or mostly-open-air window line.”
Net time has come and gone but you still don't get it, so you ask him to clarify his position. “Wait,” you say, ignoring the tingle when the microphone brushes your lip. “You are saying SWR doesn't matter? That can't be!”
“Well, sure it matters, if it's high enough. But by simply using a much lower loss feed line, you make it much less a factor. Look in the ARRL `Antenna Book' at the comparative loss between different types of coaxial cable and ladder or window line. There is loss in any real-world conductor, but it is so much less in the old-fashioned stuff that it makes those trips up and down the feed line for reflected power much easier, and most of it gets radiated eventually by your antenna, not burned up in your coaxial cable.”
But what about that 600-to-50-ohm mismatch back at the rig? 12 to 1? Serious stuff! Your radio ain't gonna like that one bit!
“Best thing for a balanced, ladder-line-fed antenna system is what is called a balanced antenna matching unit, which is, of course, designed for matching a balanced antenna system. It does a nice, effective job of matching the 50-ohm output of your rig to whatever impedance you encounter. And believe me, that impedance will vary all over the place when you try to use one big dipole on all ten bands. But it is not really a worry. The low-loss line takes care of most load mismatches you'll see. Those standing waves eventually go dancing off into space to hopefully be reflected back to earth somewhere near that big dx-pedition everybody's calling.”
You check to make sure but you have a balanced output on your tuner…er…antenna matching device. Can't you just use that to match the antenna?
“Sure,” he says. “That's what I'm doing now, though I'm going to build myself a balanced tuner when I get the time and find the parts I need. It's an easy project, even for a beginner. You and I have a 4-to-1 current-type balun…a balanced-to-unbalanced transformer…in the ATU…antenna tuning unit, if you want to call it that…and the circuit inside the device will present a nominal 50-ohm load to your transmitter. Our balun is heavy enough to work fine at the power levels we use, but I have another much heftier unit I use when I throw on the afterburner. Some ATUs use voltage-type baluns or they simply are not built tough enough to handle the kinds of mismatches you may encounter on a very wide range of frequencies you will be able to operate on. Those don't give very good results and could even fail. By the way, I don't call them `antenna tuners' for a reason. You are not `tuning' the `antenna.' The typical way most folks `tune' an antenna is make it longer or shorter. What you are really doing with that box in the shack is matching your transmitter to the antenna system. It is an antenna system!”
How can you tell if the internal balun isn't “tough enough?” you ask.
“Smoke and flames,” he says and laughs. “Just make sure the thing is rated for much higher power than what you intend to run. By the way, there are other ways to do this thing, you know. Want to hear about them?”
You ignore the XYL screaming about your “Donald Duck voice” messing up “American Idol” on TV and tell him to go ahead. There are some logistical problems with open wire line, he admits. It needs to be kept at least a few inches away from other metal, cables, and the ground. He tells you about how some hams run the ladder line to a balun outside the shack and use as short a run of high-quality, low loss coax as they need to get inside the house and to the tuner. They usually have a one-to-one balun for this purpose since it's typically best to pass whatever impedance you encounter at the feed point to the tuner. If your system sees a very low impedance, you don't want to step it down any more. Matching devices do better when they are attempting to match higher impedances rather than lower ones.
Some fellows put a balun right there at the feed point, then run coax to the shack. That's not necessarily a good idea since there will still be standing waves as you move around the bands and they will still be dissipated as heat in the cable.
There are some who put a remote matching device at the feed point, tuning for 50 ohms, and then running coax. That works pretty well, but you still have to have an ATU that can stand weather, be light enough that it doesn't drag down your aerial, and has current running to it to remotely so you can change the capacitive and inductive parameters from your operating position in order to find the best match.
Other hams tape two runs of good, low-loss 50-ohm coax together and solder each of the two sides of the ladder line to the center conductors of the coax cables. Then the grounds are tied together on the matching device end and hooked to the station ground. Finally, the two center conductors are attached to the balanced output of the matching device. The twin-run of coax should be kept as short as possible, of course, but the 100-ohm impedance presented is little or no problem.
You think for a moment. You have saved your best question for last. You ignore the buzzing sound from your nearby stereo speakers as you speak into the microphone.
“But regardless of the feed line, using an antenna on frequencies where it is nowhere near resonant is not as good as having an antenna cut to resonance for that frequency, right? This is just a compromise and we pay a heavy price for trying to use just one antenna from 1.8 to 30 mHz.”
So you've said it. A cut-to-resonant-length antenna is always better. There is only a slight pause on the other end of the circuit.
“You've been listening to some of the guys on 75 meters, right? Or reading those forums on the Internet. First thing, don't think of it as an `antenna.' Think of it as an `antenna system.' There are lots of things that make up your antenna system—the output circuit of your transmitter, the cable to the ATU, the ATU, the feed line to the antenna, the antenna itself, the earth beneath it, the trees in your yard, the chain link fence at the back of the lot, a mountain a mile away, the atmosphere above you. Obviously you don't have much control over some of that. But you can bring a good portion of it into a state that is what we call `resonance.' You have two goals in the process.
“First, because of the way most of our solid-state radios are designed to work these days, you must present a load at the output of the rig that is relatively close to 50 ohms. Some radios are more forgiving than others, but a serious mismatch will either damage the rig or cause it to cut back power or shut off completely. Most amplifiers—and especially the new solid state ones—are just as picky about the load they prefer. If the mismatch is so great that the rig won't work, it's darn hard to make contacts!
“Your second goal in life is to cause the antenna…the wire-in-the-sky part of the system…to radiate as much of the power that you send it as it can. Yes, one way to do that is to trim the antenna so that it is non-reactive at a particular frequency—the one you use all the time—and close to 50 ohms. Then you can feed it with coax. Even then, you may want a balun at the feed point to try to keep common mode currents off the shield of the coax and stray RF out of the shack and house. That RF energy does you no good there. It just makes XYLs and neighbors really irritable and gives you a painful tingle sometimes. But remember, the farther you venture from the design frequency of the antenna, the greater the mismatch, and eventually, with coax, the standing waves will be high enough to cause loss of precious power. Yes, the antenna will work okay at odd multiples of the lowest design frequency, but how many of those actually fall within an amateur band? And yes, you may be able to dial in the right combination of inductive and capacitive reactance to please your radio, but you won't be throwing much of your original power in the direction of the DX station's antenna system.”
He offers to email you a diagram of the antenna system he built when he first began to experiment with the old hams' way of doing things. He promises it is cheap and simple, and that the dipole part of the antenna system is decidedly non-resonant—by itself—at an almost infinite number of frequencies. It is not even the best setup possible, he notes, but it is far better than what you are currently using. It is cut to be a total of a half-wavelength long (each leg is a quarter-wavelength and should be exactly the same length so it will be truly balanced) for the lowest frequency that is anticipated to be used…or that will fit in a yard. He maintained that it would work fine on most bands from there through ten meters when used with ladder line or window line, 300 to 600 ohm impedance, and a good quality one-to-one balun.
When the diagram arrives in your in-box, it looks like this:
After saying your 73, you sit back and think about what the nice Elmer has said. It does make sense. So much so that you invest in an antenna book and do some research on the web. Though you still see some of the “resonant antenna rules” posts and hear on the air lots of people preaching the gospel of the resonant antenna, you also see lots of information that backs up what the fellow said.
You Google W2DU and read excerpts from his book on the subject. You visit W4RNL's site and find a wealth of information. You purchase a good-quality one-to-one current-type balun, a spool of inexpensive window line, and a good, strain-relief center insulator designed for the open-air-dielectric feed line. Then, when you get the antenna built and up in the air, you marvel at what you have been missing all this time.
And you vow that from now on, you will begin listening to what the old folks say. Sometimes, while they were dodging dinosaurs and discovering fire, they actually figured out how to make simple antennas work much better!
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by SSB on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article does not go to the problem a large number of hams have which is no space for a full size antenna. Resonant antennnas are not always better if you can't fit one in the space available. This article does not give numbers backing up anything. If non resonant antennas are inferior then give me the numbers proving it is and by how much. This article suffers from the same vague info most of these articles have.
I have been using short antennas for a long time and they work within a db of full size versions. Why? Because I use loading coils with heavy ribbon coils. I use very efficient center baluns that are 25:1 to boost the center Z to 50+ ohms. I use home brew antenna tuners that make Palstars look like MFJ.
For all those who want to write antenna articles, give numbers and the source or derive the numbers or their measured value using decent and accurate test equipment. Otherwise, I am not listening.
Alex.....
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by ONAIR on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Any self respecting ham that knows anything about antenna theory realizes that a decent amount of real estate is necessary to put up the best antennas for the ham bands! Therefore, it is every hams duty to get out of their small crummy apartments or condos and get themselves a nice bit of acreage in the suburbs or the country. An antenna is 80% of any station, so the only way to do it right is to get away from small restrictive environments and move to a place where one can realize their true antenna building potential!
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KF4HR on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting article. Another alternative might be to use a SteppIR antenna (variability resonate), and not worry so much about the minimal losses in a reasonable length of coax, because:
a) with good quality coax, (at HF frequencies) losses are typically minimal and,
b) any power that is lost in the coax will make little difference on the S-meter of the receiving station.
Then the more important questions might become, if I ground my station properly can I eliminate RF on the mic from biting my lip, and do I order my ribs wet or dry? :^))
KF4HR
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't use ladder line. Ever.
If you operate in a way that REQUIRES ladder line, then consider giving up ham radio and playing character roles at Medeival festivals.
I found these so-called 'lessons' of little use to anyone I am afraid. They are either obvious, wrong, or outdated.
But hey--lotsa people who aren't hams may read this, and if we steer the 'wrong ones' up a squirrel hole then we've done a 'blessing'.
!
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by NT4XT on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nice. Very nice article. FB OM. TNX ES VY 73.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you operate in a way that REQUIRES ladder line, then consider giving up ham radio and playing character roles at Medeival festivals. "
Why? Did you come up with a proof that self-similar antenna structures always have higher gain when resistance at resonance is 50 ohms instead of, say, 450 ohms?
Just kidding... but I wonder what your particular objection to this particular feedline is?
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here we go again. ALL antennas are a trade off, a compromise at best, even one that is cut to frequency is compromised because it is only good on that frequency. The antenna described in this article, suffers from standing waves that are reflected back into the shack, RF in the shack, and severe antenna pattern distortion, especially on the higher frequencies. It also have to be built out of very hi-rated componets, because of the reflected energy creating lots of heat. There is NO perfect all band antenna that works equally well everywhere! Not to mention that this antenna design would be 270'+ long and won't fit on 95% of the lots that hams have. Use of the the "tuner" in the shack will tune out the reactance and/or capacitance presented at the end of the feed line, but it will do "NOTHING" with the reflected energy on the antenna itself. This energy will still go up in heat, and heat can't be heard!!!
Think of your antenna system as a speaker system on a stereo. Sure you can put all frequencies on a single speaker, but it certainly works and sounds better using a multi-spearker system with drivers designed to operate in a given frequency range. AF and RF share many of the same principles.
Over my 40+ years in the hobby I have learned there are 3 things that really work! Band conditions, Band conditions, Band conditions! If the bands are dead, there is no antenna in the world or amp that will work, and when it is in good shape, 5 watts of radiated energy will talk around the world.
Do what you have to do to get out and make your radio happy, but there will always be compromises.
73 de W4LGH - ALan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by NA4IT on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nothing better than a resonant antenna...
fan dipole...
NA4IT
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AA4PB on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find the article neither wrong nor outdated. It is good, timely information. As it implies, the antenna "element" does NOT have to be resonant to radiate maximum power. The antenna "system" (element plus feed line) is tuned to resonance by the tuner. Its a good way to use a single wire antenna on all HF bands provided you can deal with the antenna size and the ladder line feeder.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4CQR on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article. And for those who fear ladder line and twin lead, you can HTDR. Silly boys...
J C S
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K0BG on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sort of brings back memories. One of my early Elmers used a similar home brewed ladder line. In his case, it was made from 1/2 inch ridged copper water pipe. It was some 100 feet long, most of which ran up the side of a telephone pole to his extended zepp. The spreaders were made from soft pine, and paraffin soaked. It took him about 6 months to build.
The question remains, why don't amateur do this sort of thing today? Well, its because everyone seemingly is into instant gratification nowadays. So, it's why build what you can buy. We are (and have) diminished.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
- what was Marconi said?
"RF is funny stuff."
:-)
- tks for the article!
p.s. nothing beats a cheap $5 wire dipole at good height...
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K1TN on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Brilliant story. Top notch. Bravo.
Jim Cain, K1TN/2
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NA4IT, you might offer to come out to new hams' houses and spend the time designing and executing a fan dipole that actually has an impedance around 50 ohms resistive on all 9 HF bands?
It's hard. You've got all these wires up there, each one is tightly coupled to the rest, and you're trying to use 468/f to calculate the proper lengths of the legs. You'll tear your hair out even if you have the space for a 160m-10m fan.
Once you get the monster up there, it's ugly... this big spiderweb of wires where you might consider just having one elegant wire.
Antenna element resonance is a religion among some of you guys. I'll agree that for two, or maybe three bands, a fan dipole fed with coax is a practical and straightforward solution. A 9-bander is going to be too sensitive to pruning and tuning... if we had 9 spatial dimensions so that every element could be orthogonal to every other element, it would be a different story.
There is a culture of obsession with 50-ohm resonant antennas... otherwise decent antenna designs get discarded just because they might need a little coil of copper wire and a decent capacitor to keep a transmitter happy. I personally prefer to keep coax feed and stick matching networks at the antenna... but that's simply personal preference for convenience in my installation.
There are plenty of good reasons to use antennas that aren't a ladder-line fed doublet (including, apparently, avoiding an appearance of goofy anachronism), but I prefer to select my antennas on the basis of *antenna performance* rather than feedpoint impedance.
A test: would you rather have a resonant dipole antenna or a 10dBi gain beam with a feed impedance of 250-j400 ohms?
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"p.s. nothing beats a cheap $5 wire dipole at good height..."
What about a $20 4 element wire yagi at the same height ;-)
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by NB9D on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have an old book entitled something like "Dipole and Longwire Antennas" that was published by 73 Magazine many years ago (in the 1970's I think) that is probably one of the best overall sources for simple antenna design you will find. I don't know where that book is available because I am sure it is out of print, but I find it a very good source for really down-to-earth data for wire antennas. If you find one, get it; there is more good information packed in those small pages than probably any other book or web site. Unfortunately, most of the antennas in the book are full-sized requiring lots of real estate, and I agree with the other posters that this is increasingly a problem today with smaller lots and more restrictions. The overall objective in selecting an antenna is one that works within the available space, and having fun with it, recognizing that any simple antenna is a compromise on the ideal system.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote, "The question remains, why don't amateur do this sort of thing today? Well, its because everyone seemingly is into instant gratification nowadays. So, it's why build what you can buy. We are (and have) diminished."
Or maybe people are just too busy Alan.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can't see any better antenna system for instant gratification than a doublet fed with ladder line into a *good* tuner.
New hams are going to use their tuner on whatever they've got. I did it, for better or worse (and it didn't take me all that long to figure out which was which).
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K3AN on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So if an antenna is resonant there's no reflected power on the feedline???
A resonant, yes resonant, folded dipole has an impedance of about 300 Ohms. Feed it with 50 Ohm coax and you've got those nasty reflections and standing waves. How could that be?
It's unfortunate that the author has introduced even more confusion to newcomers about antenna resonance vs a matched antenna system. An antenna doesn't have to be resonant to radiate efficiently.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W9AC on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The antenna described in this article, suffers from standing waves that are reflected back into the shack, RF in the shack, and severe antenna pattern distortion, especially on the higher frequencies. It also have to be built out of very hi-rated componets, because of the reflected energy creating lots of heat."
One problem I see is either a mis-application of terminology or a lack of understanding of the subject matter altogether. What exactly is "reflected energy" and why does a balanced open line necessarily exhibit radiated pattern distortion? When we mention "reflected energy" are we really referring to the reflected wave?
The entire notion of "reflected power" is probably the most mis-applied term I've seen when discussing transmission lines and antennas. Power is not reflected to and from a load on a transmission line. It is the travelling wave, composed of a forward wave and a reflected wave, that propogates to and from the load from the source generator. It's the magnitude of a wave that ultimately disipates as power in a resistance.
Notwithstanding power disipated as a matter of line loss, the transmission line is nothing more than a transforming medium between the transmitter and the load. Power does not flow between the source and the load on a lossless transmission line. Think in terms of a forward wave and a reflected wave -- not "reflected energy," nor "reflected power."
The author of the article raises several good points, but one that should also be addressed is why a dipole fed with a near lossless 50-ohm line still cannot radiate as well on all HF bands as one fed with 600-ohm line when being used for multiband purposes. One must not only look at line loss, but the additional loss created by the line-to-load Z mismatch. When you look at the line-to-load mismatch charts, all of a sudden the entire picture of why a higher Z (e.g., 600-ohm) line works well into a load of vastly changing impedance as a function of frequency.
About a year ago, this topic was addressed in an issue of QST and was used in an excellent Smith Chart tutorial.
Paul, W9AC
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AE6CP on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don,
Awesome.... ignore the naysayers. Honestly most hams, regardless of license class still do not REALLY understand SWR.. I didn't until about a year ago and I've had an extra ticket for about five years.
I think this is one of the most valuable bits of info for new hams and written in a way that won't loose the interest of a 15 year old brand new general ticket holder new to the HF bands.
I went through the exact same scenerio when I built my first HF antenna. I had a 40 meter dipole fed with coax and an automatic antenna tuner..... Worked great on 40 meters... worked like crap on every other band even though SWR was 1.5:1.
Here I am years later, I've been living in an apartment for two years with shortened, bent attic dipoles and Isotrons but... I'm moving to a new QTH next month with a huge yard and I've been cursing my antennas and saving my money for the day that I get out of apartment living. Now I have plenty of money and space to put up whatever I want... a 50ft tower with a four element Steppir was my first instinct... Not that the Steppir would not be a great antenna on the top five bands...
No, my first antenna will be a full size 80 meter loop made of 14 ga copper-clad steel up as high as I can get it, fed with homemade ladder line to a $700 Palstar BALANCED tuner the BT1500A.
Think I'm spending $700 on an antenna tuner because I'm a snob... Nope, read the ARRL comparisons at the following link:
http://www.arrl.org/members-only/prodrev/pdf/pr0409.pdf
The lesser antenna tuners exibit as much as 50% power loss and operating bandwidths as low as 0.1% of the operating frequency once tuned. The Palstar had loss of less than 10% (which is less than half a dB) on every band and bandwiths of greater than 100% of operating frequency once tuned.
Thanks again for the great article...
73,
-Larry
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9XY on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article... nice story to step the reader through the logic.
Sure, this solution is not workable for the apartment dweller, or those on a very small, or restricted lot. But for a lot of us, an antenna coupler and ladder line and lot's of wire is the way to go.
Sure it would be nice to be able to afford the STEPir solution.....
At this link is an interesting solution http://www.tuneatenna.com/
automtically tuned wire dipole.
73
Michael
N9XY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K2TV on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent Article! I've been using a 120 foot flat-top fed with 450 ohm ladder line for many years and it works fine. The antenna is fed with the ladder line going directly into the balanced output of antenna tuner. It will tune and radiate on all bands with no problem and will handle my amplifier during the few times I use it, although 99% of time the filaments are off. If you run anything more than 100 watts or so, buy or make the ladder line with the larger conductors. I even tie the two conductors of the ladder line together and feed it as a tee antenna for 160 meters which of course requires a good earth ground or radial system ground and RF is in the shack, so run low power on 160. It's a compromise on 160, but allows me to operate from a 70 by 100 foot lot. Remember that the antenna pattern will depend on the frequency and the height above ground as well as the position in relation to other metal objects in the vicinity.
I've worked individual DXCC on 80, 40, 30, 17 & 12 meters with little effort. On 10, 15 and 20 meters I use a HyGain TH3MK3 tri-bander and of course out performs the wire antenna on those bands.
If you want "numbers" for the antenna check the ARRL Antenna Handbook.
Bob Myers, K2TV
http://www.qsl.net/k2tv
ps. I guess I'm an "old timer" since I've been hamming for 47 years, but still young enough to learn something new.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...and friends ask why some of us don't do articles anymore; it can't be the nihilistic bomb-throwers who fail to be pleased by anything except their own negativism.
To the Author: Thanks for a cogent, well-written article. I use twin lead. Great stuff.
KA4KOE
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K0IZ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don, very nice article. THanks for taking the time to prepare it. Reading some of the above responses, some people will never learn.
One error I see many hams making is believing that the reflected power (if not 1:1 SWR) is "lost" or "heating up" something in the transmitter. Suppose reflected power is 30% of actual power. When the 30% reflected power gets back to the coupler (tuner, Pi Network, etc), it is bounced back towards the antenna. When at the antenna, 30% of this 30% is re-reflected back towards the coupler (tuner, Pi Net, Etc). This process continues until the reflected power is minimal.
If the transmission line is lossy, the 30% reflected power is reduced twice (to coupler, back to antenna). Then the 30% of 30% is reduced twice, etc, etc.
But with a losses transmission line (open wire comes close), the reflected power will ALL eventually be radiated by the antenna. So a non-resonant antenna is 100% efficient (ie all power will be radiated) if the transmission line is 100% loss free. I'm also assuming for this example that the coupler has no losses.
Don, your antenna suggestion has withstood the test of time. Good job.
John.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sure, this solution is not workable for the apartment dweller"
Actually, it was the BEST solution I could come up with.
I wound a bunch of magnet wire onto a drinking glass:
http://n3ox.net/projects/antennas/legowinder1.jpg
Shot out two random legs, each about 50 feet into two trees. One went pretty much straight out and up... the other had a bend in it at the tree and dropped down about 20 feet. Put a tuner about six feet from the feedpoint:
http://www.n3ox.net/projects/servo
It wasn't worth bothering with on 160m, but on 80m-10m it was a good antenna... nearly invisible. No one really seemed to notice. It kept me on the air, pulling down DX even though I was apartment-bound.
73,
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K0IZ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, your antenna article is NO GOOD. I can't install it on my car .....
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KE5ICG on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don, thanks for the article. I found it very interesting reading, and timely as well since I'm preparing to upgrade to General. I can see myself doing something like this pretty easily and for far less $$$ than putting up some big multiband vertical (not that there is anything wrong with that). My whole thing with ham radio is just to have some fun and maybe learn something interesting. Thanks for helping out with that . . .
73 to all -- Ray KE5ICG
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA7NCL on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article certainly brought out the trolls early didn't it.
There were a lot of words in the article to come up with something that is found in a lot of getting started literature.
I'd say the biggest thing with antennas is to experiment, experiment. Cut up some wire, string it up and try it. If it doesn't seem to work well enough, ball it up and try some more wire. Its cheap fun.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K3SUI on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Excellent article. Anyone who says that a non-resonant antenna fed with open wire line does not do an excellent job has NEVER tried it. Open wire line is a litte fussy getting it into the shack, but it is a very efficient carrier of RF when you run it in the TEM(balanced) mode. Please refer to W8JI's web site for very detailed information on this subject.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WW5AA on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More antenna theory.....One hardly ever hears about using good receiving antennas.....Yes 80% of a good station is the antenna SYSTEM. For limited space, the receiving antenna is 80% of the system. To many run alligator stations at 1500 watts but are deaf because of that 1:1 wiz-bang folded dipole, shorty G5RV, or OCF dipole, and on and on. LISTEN....almost any wire antenna, resonant or not will transmit but will NOT Hear as well as a properly designed RX antenna. I am not talking about a 500' beverage either.
73, de Lindy
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA9UAA on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Don,
Another thank you for a nice antenna article. I have been running such an antenna system for years. I may try some heavy duty feeders just for the extra performance too. Some of these people need to take a good look at Maxwell's article on tuned antenna systems! Good ole KNS was saying the same things in the mid 80's.
73,
Rob WA9UAA
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N5KBP on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've run a 200 ft zep center fed with 450 ohm ladder line for years. Using an old Dentron super tuner it works great from 160 to 10. Heck I've even loaded it up on 6 meters a time or two. On the higher bands the clover leaf gain lobes give me great signal footprints into Europe, S Africa and the S Pacific. For a cheep, multiband HF antenna you can't go wrong with one of these.
Marty
N5KBP
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N0ZLD on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article, thanks for writing it up and spending time on it.
There are so many negative people on this site it's sickening at times. If you don't have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to add, please, shut the hell up.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W3KM on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don,
Your article IS a very good one, regardless of some of the comments to the contrary.
Back in the 60`s es 70`s, I used open ladder feedline on HF and good foam 300-ohm twin lead on 220 and 432-MHz - both for the same reason - lower loss than coax and good on-the-air performance.
These days I have become less active and chose the easy way out on HF by using a long dipole with auto-tuner and hardline on VHF/UHF.
As was mentioned, numbers and performance data can be found in the ARRL, W8JK and W2DU and other publications.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I liked the pretty picture of the inverted vee installed over the crank-up tower, with the little puffy clouds in a blue sky background.
We need more excellent photography like this!
Now, what was the subject, again?
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W5ESE on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the good article. Very appropriate and
timely with Field Day approaching.
A balanced-line fed doublet offers good performance
and versatility for the cost and effort required to
put one up. Just what's required for smaller Field
Day groups.
73
Scott
W5ESE
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice prose, but the article could have been shortened considerably to communicate 2 key points:
1) In the common context, "resonance" is not required for an antenna system to be an efficient radiator - which is the goal. Resonance implies a pure resistance AT THE DESIRED FEEDPOINT. Proper COUPLING of the transmission line to the load is key.
Problem is, for many antennas hams use, the feed point is reactive and requires some means of "coupling" to the transmission line. A couple of examples include:
> Yagi antennas; most require some sort of feedpoint matching device. i.e. Gamma, T and Hairpin (Beta) match.
> Center fed Zepp; Cut for a half wavelength on 80 meters, elevated ~ 1/2 wave over ground and fed with 600 ohm line, it presents a 70 ohm balanced load to the 600 ohm feed line, or an 8.6:1 SWR. That's not a problem so long as you use a suitable tuner and the open wire line is of good design, as the losses on the line are negligible at this frequency. But add a junk 4:1 balun in line with that "trusty" autotuner and all bets are off.
Using the Zepp on 40 presents an entirely different load for the line - approx. 5000 - j2000 ohms - hardly resonant in terms of being a match to the feedline impedance. But once again, since the 600 ohm line losses are very low on this band, the antenna tuner comes to the rescue and couples the 50 ohm transmitter to the complex line/load impedance.
2) Ladder line (and a G5RV) isn't a requirement for a good multiband antenna.
A Center Fed Zepp will get the job done as stated above and by the author. But so will a Trap dipole or vertical. Verticals can also be shortened without traps using various loading and coupling schemes and designed for multiband operation - etc,, etc....
...WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4VNZ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You need to give credit to www.w7fg.net for the nice photo of the tower and feedline.
I thought I had seen that pix somewhere before.
Yeah, I know it's not copyrighted, but you implied by your article that it was your photo.
73, Boog
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4VNZ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BTW, just throw up the longest piece of wire you have room for, cut it at a place where it will be easiest to run a feedline to your shack, feed it with ladder or window line, and use a quality tuner before the radio. Been using this philosophy for years with QRO and QRP and everything in between with no RF problems in the shack, etc. The only time I have ever had RF problems in the shack is when I was running coax feed.
If you DO use this idea, it is best to have at least a 1/4 wavelength at the lowest frequency on the shorter leg for easier loading.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KD6NEM on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article, very relevant to say the least. I had to snicker at some of the troll pundit comments, fortunately they were greatly outnumbered by those who appreciate this article and still have enough of an open mind to consider some truly effective options. To those who would ignore this article "unless it shows the numbers": get off your lazy duffs & check out the links to the w4rnl website & others. See if you even understand the all the many numbers there! There remains so much more to ham radio than just operating an appliance!
Thanks for an excellent article, Don!
Stu KD6NRM
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K8VPL on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here are a few comments from an old radio broadcaster......concerning my experiences with vertical antennas, but the idea is applicable to all.
When using coax, always do what you have to, to match the coax. I.E. 50 ohm coax, driven by a 50 ohm source and looking into a 50 ohm load. That minimizes loss in the cable. Then match the coax to the antenna at the feed point of the antenna. The actual length of the radiating element(s) can vary a LOT.
I have seen, used, tuned up, and/or worked with all kinds of broadcast verticals, 1/4 wave (90 degree) and others. All were matched with a proper Antenna Tuning Unit at the base. Some towers were over 5/8 wave in length for the frequency in use. Several systems used all "non-resonant" towers in a directional system. All had substantial grounds under them, and all radiated very well. All used low loss tuning components to minimize resistive losses.
Feeding 50kw into a "short" vertical (170 feet on 1100 kHz) resulted in about 48 amps of base current. That was not a resonant quarter wave antenna....its "to short". Do your calculation for the actual driving point impedance. But, using properly sized components for the ATU, that tower radiated one whale of a signal.
So, it doesn't matter if an antenna is self resonant or not, what matters is the method used to transfer the power from the transmitter's PA, through the transmission line, to the ATU, and into the radiating element(s).
Of course, the amount of actual "radiator" you have in the air contributes to how much signal goes where, but resonance isn't the only thing.
How YOU do it is up to you. But aiming for lowest loss components, and matching EVERYTHING properly, usually results in best antenna performance for whatever size it is.
73.
Ted K8VPL
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well written and interesting read.
Sometimes in order to figure out our antennas in the future, we only need to take a few lessons from those in the past.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sound advice from K8VPL.
Expanding on my earlier comment--I don't know why hams think coax, at HF/MF, is particularly lossy. If you buy yours from a FLEA and its been buried 10 years and dug up, it will be lossy. But every piece of 100 feet of RG8U I've looked at with a VNA from 2-30 Megs has minimal insertion loss. All were better than spec. Of course I don't let crap coax into the lab, and if it sneaks in, it gets chucked. Who knows what water did on it's buried sleep?
Basically, IMO, if you can't afford to buy coax then don't be in ham radio.
Maybe you were one of the guys I caught fishing the dumpster outside the firm for the crap coax I chucked out??
If you want to MAKE a feedline, then go waste your time with ladder line. It says your time ain't worth much. And you don't know much about dielectrics; spacing; weight loading; transformer matching; and effects proximity to metal (such as towers).
The photo--and we still don't know who's photo it is-- is exactly the WRONG way to use ladder line, and is an outstanding example of why you shouldn't.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4KC on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Three quick points:
--I wrote this, as mentioned, for relatively new hams, not for those of you who know it all already, but thanks for the input nonetheless.
--I did credit www.w7fg.com (who sells excellent open-wire feedline and complete antennas at a price at which he could not be making much of a profit) for the photo in the original draft of the article but the text somehow got lost in the upload of the manuscript.
--And, as an old broadcaster myself, I take no issue with K8VPL's comments. Only difference is that most broadcast stations sit there and crank away on a single frequency, day after day, year after year. I, as they say, "QSY" widely and on a regular basis.
73,
Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I also agree with K8VPL's theory behind good antenna design.
Focusing on the overall efficiency of the RF components used is a much better approach than focusing on building a 1:1 resonate dummy load.
Throwing any given 1/4 wave resonate antenna into the air just because it's "resonate" is no match for a well designed non resonate antenna where all the right components are selected for it's design, losses are taken into consideration, height above ground becomes a contributing factor and when the feedline chosen serves to maximize efficiency.
In that case, the non resonate antenna actually becomes the better antenna system.
Of course if we choose to install a resonate antenna AND we take into account all of the other vartiables to maximize it's efficiency, then that too will further maximize the frequency resonate antenna's efficiency.
However, since hams need to contend with using a wide swath of operating frequency, a resonate antenna for every operating frequency is not always possible.
So therefore we could need to conclude that if we follow the principles, theory and good engineering practices behind antenna design instead of focusing on "resonance" alone, then we will achieve real on air performance results beyond a frequency resonate antenna. In addition, the non resonate antenna also serves to function "efficiently" over a wide berth of operating frequencies.
Contrary to popular belief, resonance is not about maximizing signal efficiency. Resonance is about a load your equipment see's at a specific operating frequency.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Basically, IMO, if you can't afford to buy coax then don't be in ham radio."
Hmm. Well, you'll catch (or ignore) enough flak for this one, so I'll keep my response collected.
The ladderline + doublet solution is a low total cost solution in time and money for a lot of hams, no matter what their financial outlay on their feedline might be.
I like K8VPL's solution just as you do. I have three antennas for eight HF bands. All are coax fed to proper matching networks at the feedpoint if needed. These matching networks are likely to exceed the efficiency of a good ham-grade autotuner.
They also took me a significant outlay of time even with software shortcuts for network and physical coil design. Mechanical assembly takes time. Building a remote switching system takes time.
I put in a lot more of my time building matching networks than it would have taken to build 50 feet of my own ladderline. I put MUCH more time in and more money, probably, than to buy a decent manual tuner and some window line.
I did it because, damn, I ***hate*** twiddling three knobs on a T-network at the radio end of a run of open wire line every time I switch bands, and I apparently like winding coils and motorizing ceramic wafer switches!
If you have two tall trees, a slingshot, and a telephone, you can have a fairly low loss variable matching network and a length of open wire line hit your doorstep and in a weekend have an antenna that will radiate a respectable signal with decent efficiency on nine HF bands, and really, the cost of the feedline hardly enters in.
There's nothing modern or progressive about using matching networks to match radiating element feedpoint impedance to 50 ohm coaxial cable, and it takes more time out of your schedule to do that than to just leave those standing waves on your feedline unless you spend significant cash on a good automatic tuner.
Would you also say that those who can't afford a 1.5kW-class automatic matching unit should also stay out of ham radio? Maybe those who can't put up an antenna that provides a suitable match to coax on each band should also stay out of radio?
I fail to see how a good manual antenna tuner + exceedingly low loss feedline under elevated SWR conditions + a single wire high in the sky is anything other than a sensible solution to quickly getting on all 9 HF bands with reasonable efficiency, a nice tidy installation, a minimal outlay of time, and a responsible outlay of cash.
It may not be completely optimum, but we're near in the neighborhood of it in the phase space of cost, frequency agility, aesthetic appeal, performance, and convenience.
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K5FH on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don,
As you have stated, and as experts such as Walt Maxwell, W2DU, have said for decades, we need to think in terms of antenna SYSTEMS.
I have always found it interesting that the 2M crowd reveres the 5/8 wavelength vertical, ignoring the fact that a 5/8 wave at resonance is nowhere near 50 ohms nonreactive. If they look closely at their commercial 5/8 wave antennas they'll find a matching network built into the base. The SYSTEM is resonant at 50 ohms; the 5/8 wavelength vertical part, taken by itself, is not.
The resonance of individual system components isn't the goal; the resonance of the entire system is.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JV on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article with a lot of very sound advice.
I find it constantly amazing that some peope will try to find something to argue about in anything presented here, regardless of facts.
Tnka again and vy 73!
Jim, N3JV
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article, and good information too. To those who said co-ax is better than ladder line, to each his own. Just don't start shooting down those who have different ideas--you may (or may not, granted) find out that your conceptions aren't as good as theirs in the long run.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So happy to learn that real hams don't use coax exclusively, haha. Ladder line is worth the extra installation effort and way cheaper too.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AD5ZC on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip either got his license in a Cracker Jack box or he's a troll.
I would never...NEVER use coax (not even the kind Chip is testing in his "lab") for a single wire dipole used multi-band (didn't say fan dipole) and I can afford it gold plated.
There are many ways to run balanced feed and bring it into the shack in an acceptable manner and a simple search of the internet will reveal more than you could possibly need. Interactivity with other conductive objects and balanced feedlines has been vastly overstated in most cases and is of most concern when running significantly higher power than most rigs put out. If you do detect some RF in the shack then a little more care might be needed in the routing but thats usually not the case. I have never experienced feedline radiation with balanced line and a balanced antenna (randoms and OCF dipoles don't count folks).
Rick
AD5ZC
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
.
If you have room for a dipole, you most certainly have room for a Zepp antenna.
I have been using 600 ohm line and then 450 ohm ladder for the past 69 years and can't see any fault in its use.
My favorite antenna is the Center Fed Zepp. Remember, if the lot is too short for the flat top, you can make up the length by a longer feed line.
The center of a dipole is at 73 ohms impedance and feeding with 50 ohm coax shows a VSWR of 1.46:1.
73 divided by 50 = 1.46:1 vswr; This doesn't cause a mic to bite you, but a 5:1 will. Prune that line or go to ladder line to stop that bite. Use a transmatch, not a antenna tuner.
Very nice reading.
.:
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC9JTQ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I Loved the article. Some of us dont have a big yard or do want to maintain the pleasing appearance of the QTH. I have a G5RV in a sloper configuration and have worked about 30 different countries in the two months I've had HF privledges. Ham Radio is amazing and I've learned very much since I've been a Ham.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JBH on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AD5ZC Say's
"Chip either got his license in a Cracker Jack box or he's a troll."
Aint that the truth?
Yes Chip i know aint is not a word. and i aint going to stop using it either! Real Hams use ladder line!
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB5FJJ on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I live on a 6 acre place here in New Mexico.
I built a simple 35ft tall tower using three 20-ft 2x4s.
I used a PVC elbow to make a very sturdy center conductor
and put up a 265ft balanced dipole using some scrapped wire I found. I located some cast-off 300-ohm TV-type twinlead and used that to connect the dipole to my old
MFJ-941D tuner.
I am a QRP operator mostly.
But I occasionally use an old Ten-Tec Omni V to feed this antenna with about 50watts.
But usually it is one of the following little rigs that is feeding the dipole.
Rockmites for 40,30,20
Norcal 40A
OHR 20 and 40
HiMite 20
IC-703 at 5w level with 10v in
SW+ 40 and 30
I get great results even at 400mw output with the rockmites.
I work 160mtr sideband well on quiet nights with the 703... although one operator in Phoenix quipped "Hey!
5 watts? That's illegal on 160!" :-)
Using the Omni V at 50 watts out (my little 12v supply
can only cough up 12 amps) I work mostly anyone I can hear on 160-10 meters and get great signal reports.
So... I think this article speaks the truth... I am very happy with my antenna and I have about 0 dollars
tied up in it. It is a joy to make your own antenna from scrounged 'junk' and see it work.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a QRP operator mostly.
-----------
Well that explains everything.
QRP'ers are experts in the area of squeezing out every ounce of RF and maximizing antenna efficiency.
Now apply those same principles QRP'ers use to your regular station and I will be the first to turn my RF gain control to preserve my hearing.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N0AH on May 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Once again, another dipole article ignoring the requirements of height to make the antenna effective. And if you did have a high enough tower for your suggestion, a G5RV, as awful as they perform, would do as worse as your's. If you to really DX using a multiband antenna, go with a vertical with ground radials like the Hustler series anf ignore this whacko stuff. If you are a newbie, you have already been called an idiot in this article (red flag) and if you have been around for awhile, you can see the theory behind this has no real practicle application in real world installations. This is a nice cloud warmer-
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by VK2GWK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most of the negative comments on this article demonstrate absolute ignorance about antenna theory. Amazing.... how did you guys get your license? Licensing tests in the US (as the majority of the posters originate from that continent) must be pretty sloppy....
But... there is hope as the majority recognises the value of this article: KISS antenna's are the best.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by G3LBS on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
50 year's experince made me allergic to -
Coax
Baluns
Twin-tube amps
I use open wire line for everything - dipoles, G5RV's and boomless spider quads.
There are no short cuts to DX
Buffalo Gil W2/G3LBS
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by NJ6F on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a few comments to counter the old timers theory on higher and bigger is better notion.
Yes I agree a G5RV is a nice general purpose antenna offering all bands with one install using a tuner and I have one for a general purpose reference antenna.
But think outside the box and make yourself a home brew Isotron without making a false analysis before you examine the goods. Look up my comments under isotron.
1500 watts into a 40 meter unit about 1 foot tall. Pictures on QRZ under my call. The 75 meter one is a little over 2 feet tall all using 4 inch PVC and 12 gauge wire solid or stranded. They really hear well and get out very well maybe being an S unit down or so from the G5RV on xmit, but FULL POWER and small size disguised as a bird feeder with superior low noise, none of that broad band noise the full size antennas exhibit and both up only 20 feet or less. I got good reports with them leaning up beside my house on the wall before putting them up. What could be better. Worked a UA0 on the 75 meter home brew isotron. No, your wrong again, it is tunable across the entire phone band and one coax to both 40 and 75 homebrew isotrons does the trick. I have a 160 version only 9 feet tall and performs excellant at 3 feet above a metal fence...sorry again, more height results in less performance for this one band.
Another last comment- AEA Isoloop standing (vertical) just 3 or 4 feet off the ground is as good as a full sized dipole at 30 feet or so. NO, height does not make a difference with that 3 foot 10-30 meter tunable loop and less noise than all these full sized wire antennas vertical or horizontal. I have the room but like the smaller antennas and get a kick out of the comments after I get a wonderful signal report, telling them it is a 1 foot tall antenna they go UH....because most are conditioned to higher and bigger is better. Or another precondioned response...you poor guy, you must not have any land, I have no problem with land.
I would go for a full size loop with lots of space probably due again to lower noise and nice gain. They are easier to point than a beam and do not require the height. How can that be....you must have height they say...bull. Time to load up that fence.
Another crazy assumption is that you have to be in front of the radio to have fun instead of enjoying the sun out at the pool. I use a Kenwood phone patch and a cheap Radio Shack 900 Mhz hands free headset phone with dual head phone/boom mike,with FT100D / amp, and had a nice chat with a group of my friends and a guy in France in VOX mode. Hey, another boring roll call or net... lock the rig on frequency and enjoy the outdoors. If it is always crappy outside, move.
I just wanted to help by passing on some info you can use to make an educated decision if in close quarters or you would like to keep your neighbors happy by not turning your available land into some overly ugly antenna mess.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
--I did credit www.w7fg.com (who sells excellent open-wire feedline and complete antennas at a price at which he could not be making much of a profit) for the photo in the original draft of the article but the text somehow got lost in the upload of the manuscript
------------
Then fix it.
And while you're at it, get another photo. The one you show IS DANGEROUS to NEWBIES, because it advocates running ladder line in virtual contact with the upper section of a metal tower. That poses a real danger for electrocution and/or fire.
SWITCH TO SAFETY.
Switch to coax.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Most of the negative comments on this article demonstrate absolute ignorance about antenna theory. Amazing.... how did you guys get your license? Licensing tests in the US (as the majority of the posters originate from that continent) must be pretty sloppy.... VK2GWK
----------------------------------------
Kindly show how my comments are indicative of an "absolute ignorance of antenna theory".
FYI, I got my license by working hard and becoming something better than I was. My son's school--which has a great ham station BTW--has a motto that resonates with that: 'our best today, a better tomorrow'.
Hey, in fact that's how I ended up getting a Ph.D.; creating a new antenna technology; living the American dream; and helping others in the process.
Among other things.
But, I digress: I see you are not an American and these values may be unknown to you.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip either got his license in a Cracker Jack box or he's a troll.
-------------------------------------------
Sorry that your limited perspective forces you to see things in binary terms--each of which are wrong.
Pity.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
But... there is hope as the majority recognises the value of this article: KISS antenna's are the best.
=======================================
Do you also advocate attaching ladder line in virtual contact with a metal tower?
Well, from a KISS standpoint, one may certainly agree on the 'stupid' part....
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC5CQD on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kindly show how my comments are indicative of an "absolute ignorance of antenna theory".
"FYI, I got my license by working hard and becoming something better than I was. My son's school--which has a great ham station BTW--has a motto that resonates with that: 'our best today, a better tomorrow'.
Hey, in fact that's how I ended up getting a Ph.D.; creating a new antenna technology; living the American dream; and helping others in the process.
Among other things.
But, I digress: I see you are not an American and these values may be unknown to you.
73,
Chip W1YW"
Whoah!! Now THAT was a zinger! hihi!
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Congrats Skippy, you finally got someone to bite!
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
>each of which are wrong
While we're criticizing just for the sake of criticizing (see the fourth comment in this thread):
"Each" is singular. "Are" is plural.
Perhaps you meant "both of which are wrong?"
Or maybe "each of which is wrong?"
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9XY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I somtimes wonder if all the ranting and raving when it comes to the subject of antennas isn't really just a case of sour grapes?
Those who have spent lots of $$$ and time on towers, beams, expensive hardline coax, linear amplifiers, "phased vertical" arrays covering acres of real estate, etc. freak out when the rest of us insist that we can work anywhere in the world with just 100 watts (or less) and a cheap antenna coupler and ladder line fed wire in the trees.
73
Michael
N9XY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WB4TJH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Great article! I have been using this antenna system for most of the 38 years I have been on the air. The only difference in my system now is that I use an Alpha Delta 80-40 shortened dipole that I feed with 300 ohm windownline instead of 450. The balun is a 1:1 balun made by DX Engineering and there is a 6 foot piece of coax thru the wall of the house to my tuner. It works very well on all bands from 80-10. I have NO complaints.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"it was made from 1/2 inch ridged copper water pipe. It was some 100 feet long, most of which ran up the side of a telephone pole to his extended zepp. The spreaders were made from soft pine, and paraffin soaked. It took him about 6 months to build."
Impressive! But IMHO somewhat poorly engineered.
The improvement gained by the use of half-inch rigid copper pipe over, say, #12 copper wire, for 100 feet of HF open line, is so small as to not be worth all the work. IMHO, much more would have been gained by
using better insulators.
"The question remains, why don't amateur do this sort of thing today?"
Some amateurs do! The ladder line in the picture is home-made. Google my call and see another example of
what can be done at home. My antennas are all homebrew, too.
"Well, its because everyone seemingly is into instant gratification nowadays. So, it's why build what you can buy."
That's true in some cases. But there are other factors.
One is that the inflation-adjusted cost of amateur radio today is lower than it was in the bad old days.
Another is that the total cost savings of DIY aren't
always that great, unless you count your time as free and can get parts and supplies at a big discount.
There's also the fact that we have choices today that
did not exist in the past.
"We are (and have) diminished."
Well, I don't feel diminished at all.
But consider this:
There was a time when, if someone wanted to be a ham,
they needed a considerable amount of technical know-how. Not just to pass the test, but to get a station on the air.
Improvements in technology have changed what a ham
needs to know in order to get a station on the air.
For example, in the bad old days, a ham who used coax feedline had to either learn how to solder connectors on it, or had to get somebody else nearby to do it for him/her.
Nowadays, we can buy complete coax assemblies with the connectors already attached, and/or crimp-on connectors and tools. For some hams, it's easier, faster and *cheaper* to go ready-made - so they do.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Don't use ladder line. Ever."
Why not?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good article, with one BIG caveat: the balun issue.
For certain combinations of antenna and feeder length, the impedance presented at the shack-end of the ladder line can be very high, very low, and/or very reactive.
But most baluns, be they "current baluns" or "voltage baluns", are designed for a relatively narrow range
of impedances. Outside that range, they can exhibit all kinds of odd behaviors.
"Smoke and flames" is a worst-case scenario, and is not a foolproof indicator. For example, if you run QRP, your balun can be very lossy, yet there just
isn't enough power to fry the balun even if it dissipates 99% of the RF.
Or, the balun may not be doing the balanced-to-unbalanced job, and you can actually be feeding
the system as a sort of vertical worked against ground.
The fact that it "works great" isn't always a clear indicator. Hams work the world with QRP, so if the tuner/balun combo dissipates, say, 90% of your rig's 100W output, you're still radiating 10 watts.
It's also possible that your particular choice of feedline and antenna lengths do not present really wild impedances to the tuner.
Best bet IMHO is to use modeling software and be sure.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You have:
1)ladder line for QRO...
running parallel and virtually in contact with..
2)metal tower in the ground.
Now either the practical issues of avoiding electrocution and/or fire should be thrown out the window, or we need to get the author to amend this article, so as to prevent accidents from non-'old timers'.
If you think that's trolling then think. Period.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Best bet IMHO is to use modeling software and be sure.
73 de Jim, N2EY
--------------------------
If you feel that you can model the mutual coupling between ladder line and (order) millimeter separation from a metal tower--then please do so! You will see exactly how dangerous it is to have ladder line routed as shown in this article's picture.
Do anything that convinces others of the hazard of said situation. Don't care how others also reach that conclusion, as long as they get there.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
>each of which are wrong
While we're criticizing just for the sake of criticizing (see the fourth comment in this thread):
"Each" is singular. "Are" is plural.
Perhaps you meant "both of which are wrong?"
Or maybe "each of which is wrong?"
-------------------------------------
You obviously fail to appreciate the subtlety of my humor...
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AK2B on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don, this is a very nice article both for its intended audience and the rest of us who found it entertaining. Thanks.
To the new hams that might be reading the negative comments here, be aware that there are plenty of angry hams among us who don’t hesitate to dump their empty thoughts without the slightest regard for the truth or their impact on our community. Fortunately, there are several others who are more than willing to add something to the hobby by sharing their knowledge and wisdom.
Building antennas is one of the easiest ways to start experimenting without a great deal of money or experience. I would suggest everyone try making their own simple wire antennas to start. You will be surprised how easy it is to duplicate, with excellent results, antennas made up of very simple components. I’ve made several antennas using Radio Shack twin lead, a few insulators and some wire. As mentioned, W4RNL (I refer to him as St. Cebik) has several interesting antennas to try. Take a look at http://www.cebik.com/fdim/fdim9.pdf for an article called “My Top Five Backyard Multi-Band Wire HF Antennas”. Another favorite of mine is http://www.cebik.com/edz/aledz.html “Suppose I could have only One Wire Antenna…” These articles may be too technical for some, but the information is there to enable construction of any of the antennas mentioned. Eventually, you may find the subject as fascinating as many of your fellow amateurs and investigate further into the theory behind them.
Tom, AK2B
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Tom,
I do feel that your advocation of this article is inappropriate as advice to newbies. There are several reasons, but here are the two overriding ones:
First, the photo so shown indicates a virtual touching of ladder line to a metal tower. This poses a safety hazard for electrocution and/or fire.
Second there is NO discussion at ALL about lightning protection. This is a major problem with ladder line, and although home-brew 'lightning breaks' are possible, few take the time to make them, and to make them low-loss. (Lightning arrestors for coax are on off-the shelf-item).
Perhaps when ladder line enthusiasts admit and convey these admonishments to 'newbies' we can then continue the value, or lack of it, of ladder line overall.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW seems aghast at: "1)ladder line for QRO...
running parallel and virtually in contact with..
2)metal tower in the ground. "
Chip, I think you need to get some perspective... I mean, quite literally, a reread of visual perspective in that photo. According to w7fg.net that's a 75 foot tower.
Where do you get that the ladder line comes near that tower on the order of 1mm? I bet it's order(2 inches) up near the top of the tower...
Similarly, the ground isn't even in the photo...
To quote: "If you feel that you can model the mutual coupling between ladder line and (order) millimeter separation from a metal tower--then please do so! You will see exactly how dangerous it is to have ladder line routed as shown in this article's picture. "
Order (1mm) seperation could arc like an SOB. You'll get a few kilovolts going up there on some bands... big deal. Take the spacing out to a couple of inches (like it is) and you're done.
You talk about fire hazard when you imagine ladderline with sparse plastic spacers run very close to galvanized steel. Neither copper wire nor galvanized steel are particularly likely to be ignited by an arc. If you've got a spacer right there, it'll go up. Big deal. They're too far apart for the fire to spread.
Let's look at another scenario, one far more stupid and dangerous. You've got your random doublet at the top of your tower. You've got your whiz-bang tuner that can handle 1500W into anything in a 5000 ohm radius circle in the complex plane... and instead of using open wire line, you use RG-8X coax...
Not only do you use RG-8X coax, but you used RG-8X coax because "it was easy to route through the walls".
I do believe a sustained RF arc carrying 1500W through polyethylene foam will start a real fire... and in my concocted example, it will be one in the walls of your house, not one 75 feet up on your tower that doesn't have anywhere to go.
- - - - - -
The point is, we need to have a healthy respect for 1500W of radio frequency energy no matter what line is carrying it. I think inexperienced hams are *scared* of ladderline, rather than appropriately cautious. They're also not experts in feedline systems.
It's far more dangerous to put up a random dipole fed with RG-8X and then to decide that since no one can hear you, you'll buy an amp.
Much safer to run 100W into open wire and make lots of good contacts.
If smart guys like you would be more willing to share your knowledge with the newbies instead of tersely voicing weird objections to others' advice, this would be a positive step toward better, safer antenna systems for the inexperienced ham.
What did open wire line do to you?
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Second there is NO discussion at ALL about lightning protection."
A legitimate concern... but one equally true of casual antenna installations with coaxial feedline.
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip, I think you need to get some perspective... I mean, quite literally, a reread of visual perspective in that photo. According to w7fg.net that's a 75 foot tower.
Where do you get that the ladder line comes near that tower on the order of 1mm? I bet it's order(2 inches) up near the top of the tower...
Similarly, the ground isn't even in the photo...
To quote: "If you feel that you can model the mutual coupling between ladder line and (order) millimeter separation from a metal tower--then please do so! You will see exactly how dangerous it is to have ladder line routed as shown in this article's picture. "
Order (1mm) seperation could arc like an SOB. You'll get a few kilovolts going up there on some bands... big deal. Take the spacing out to a couple of inches (like it is) and you're done.
You talk about fire hazard when you imagine ladderline with sparse plastic spacers run very close to galvanized steel. Neither copper wire nor galvanized steel are particularly likely to be ignited by an arc. If you've got a spacer right there, it'll go up. Big deal. They're too far apart for the fire to spread.
Let's look at another scenario, one far more stupid and dangerous. You've got your random doublet at the top of your tower. You've got your whiz-bang tuner that can handle 1500W into anything in a 5000 ohm radius circle in the complex plane... and instead of using open wire line, you use RG-8X coax...
Not only do you use RG-8X coax, but you used RG-8X coax because "it was easy to route through the walls".
I do believe a sustained RF arc carrying 1500W through polyethylene foam will start a real fire... and in my concocted example, it will be one in the walls of your house, not one 75 feet up on your tower that doesn't have anywhere to go
-------------------------------------
Finally some real beef...
First, order means order of magnitude. The picture certainly has the ladder line virtually touching the metal tower at the top. Do you dispute this? Do you dispute this is dangerous?
Second, I am aware that there is a '2 inch' rule of thumb floating amongst hams. I am here to tell you right now that it is frequency dependent and that I have actually seen arcing at 2 inches (35 years ago). So if you're asking a practical separation away from the tower, six inches at HF/MF is reasonable. Two inches is not. NO SPACER's used in SEPARATION is damn damgerous. And that's what the picture shows.
So why isn't this in the article? Saftey issue should be up front and OBVIOUS in ANY article about ladder line--especially to those who haven't used it.
Finally, who the heck said that the fire hazard was to galvanized steel?! Newbies have to be told that generating ANY ARC is dangerous and poses a fire hazard. Get real.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Second there is NO discussion at ALL about lightning protection."
A legitimate concern... but one equally true of casual antenna installations with coaxial feedline.
Dan
-----------------
Well Dan, there's a reason why coaxial lightning arrestors are an off-the shelf item. You'll find them on the shelf right next to the shiny coils of coax at the store.
GL finding lightning breaks for ladder line. Or making ones with consistently low-loss.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What did open wire line do to you?
--------------------------------------
Dan, that's just plain goofy.
Why is it that when someone legitimately criticizes the advice from an ARTICLE that the attack is levied on the MESSENGER?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am here to tell you right now that it is frequency dependent and that I have actually seen arcing at 2 inches (35 years ago)"
I'll buy that. I don't have the breakdown voltage of outside air across MF/HF or the maximum possible voltage present on ladderline for all possible antenna and line length combinations memorized... let's run it out to 6 inches. Of course, 2 inches was 50x your guess, and we've only added a safety factor of three...
"NO SPACER's used in SEPARATION is damn damgerous"
I gather from that picture that the feedline is hanging between the feedpoint and a far distant point from the tower. Two inches was my guess for the feedpoint closest approach. It *looks* like it's coming straight down because of the perspective, but I bet it's three feet away or more at the rotor bracket there.
Some positive steps to keep the ladderline spaced from the tower is good advice, but the real danger is to your amplifier, not a fire danger, which brings us to:
"Newbies have to be told that generating ANY ARC is dangerous and poses a fire hazard. Get real. "
People need to be able to do realistic risk assessments on a day to day basis to avoid being paralyzed by fear.
An arc between a bare copper wire and a tower up at 75 feet is not a legitimate risk. What's going to happen? Maybe you get a little plasma ring vortex that manages to hold on to enough heat during it's 75 foot fall to ignite your shingl... oh wait... hot plasma... sounds like something that's probably less dense than the surrounding air.
Ok... molten copper? Maybe, but you'd have to load your amplifier into the arc and leave the key down for that to happen. The SWR-obsessed new ham is going to notice when the SWR needle spikes all the way up on voice peaks, and is going to try to figure out the problem.
Drawing a few arcs from your feedline because something went wrong is not the end of the world, unless it's to you, your house, or your kids.
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4VNZ on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RG8X at 1500 watts is going to melt and possibly ignite. RG8U will take more abuse, but even then it will fail if heated sufficiently.
Newbies, 8X is suitable for mobile installations at low power levels and for home use at power levels up to a few hundred watts or so, maybe more IF the SWR is kept within a reasonable range. Places like Copper Electronics will say that 8X is good up to a KW, but I would not rely on that advice. QRO operation requires good quality RG8U or hardline AND some attention to the SWR that the line will see, especially if you intend to run high duty cycle modes. If you are burning up the centers of pl 259 connectors regularly then you might consider switching to open wire feeders. Fire hazard is a real concern, and nothing is more inconvienient than having to interupt a QSO to go put out a grass fire. (insert obligatory smiley here). I have seen it happen!
I think that people that have not had great experience with high RF voltages may tend to ignore or minimize the danger of this type of energy. I gained a heathy respect back a few years ago for high voltage through a nylon screwdriver whilst neutralizing a set of tubes in an FT 101. Yes, RF will travel right up that nylon screwdriver. Unfortunately, RF will getcha even if you are not in direct contact with the conductor. I remember getting a nasty RF burn from accidentally holding a pl 259 on the end of a piece of coax connected to an antenna that was not being used at the time but was in close proximity to another antenna being used on a HF packet forwarding station running a KW.
QRO is fun, but beware the Hammer of Thor...
73,
N4VNZ
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article Don ! Having lived in the South and off the air for the past 7 years, I understand your point of view and appreciate your humor. Having moved back up North, I am again becoming active, and the antenna system is of course the PRIMARY concern, because I sill have all my other goo (tranceivers, amplifiers, speakers and microphones, cup holders).
I have become interested in parallel transmission line to overcome the anticipated losses in 300 to 400 feet of feedline to where she says I may install antennas. Having spent a large gob of money on amplifiers, I dont want to waste my precious watts. My latest experiment with the 2 conductor stuff was to use the barn, a steel building with a metal roof. I connected one conductor to the walls of the barn, and the other conductor to the roof. I think I have unbalanced the line, because the goats seem figity when I transmit qro very wide mode (cw doesnt seem to bother them, probably because I am so slow), and the lights flicker. Any suggestions on how to cheap and easy determine line balance ?
Thanks,
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AK2B on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
It seems impossible to tell from this photograph that the ladder line is touching the tower for two reasons.
1. It’s a photograph! From the angle which it is taken it is not possible to judge the distance of the ladder line from the tower. Photographs greatly exaggerate perspective by bringing the foreground and the background to the same plain – particularly at that distance.
2. I can’t imagine that the ham who constructed this antenna would be so shallow as to let the ladder line short against the tower.
I don’t think the article was meant to cover every imaginable aspect of antennas but simply to explain to the newcomer other possibilities than coax fed antennas. Lightening protection is complex enough that it could be the subject of another article all by itself. Geez, back off and give Don some credit.
Tom, AK2B
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Dan, that's just plain goofy.
Why is it that when someone legitimately criticizes the advice from an ARTICLE that the attack is levied on the MESSENGER? "
Could be that you came in being goofy as well:
You said: "Don't use ladder line. Ever.
If you operate in a way that REQUIRES ladder line, then consider giving up ham radio and playing character roles at Medeival festivals. "
You've certainly tempered and focused your objections into the technical since then, so let's keep going that way... much more productive for everyone.
"Well Dan, there's a reason why coaxial lightning arrestors are an off-the shelf item. You'll find them on the shelf right next to the shiny coils of coax at the store. "
Coaxial lightning arrestors are only as good at protecting your house from a lightning strike as your ground system is. Grounding your coax shield well at the entrance to the house and grounding any tall metallic supports properly is far more important than the arrestors.
I think that new hams should be concerned with their families, the neighbor kids, their pets, their houses... and way down on the list somewhere should be their radio gear.
So, lightning arrestors are a red herring, but grounding your coax shield is very important (and required by many localities who adopt NEC language into their electrical codes, I'm sure). You can't do that with ladder line.
I would personally recommend a remote tuner in an outdoor enclosure with the case grounded to a really good earth ground. Put a nice fence around it to keep the neighbor kids away from the HV.
However, lightning protection was hardly your original objection... and also, lightning protection is hardly something that is well executed at the average ham station, so I might claim that it's really beyond the scope of this article.
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SAFETY should not be an aside for the advanced only. It should be upfront for the newbie.
The fact is that, among other things, ladder line is dangerous unless these two safety issues are addressed.
Your trivilization of that concern goes against the very code of the Radio Amateur,IMO.
Stop worrying about who said it and worry about the fact that it remained unsaid--if someone else had said it I certainly would not.
Frankly, given that this article is 'lessons learned from OLD TIMERS', one should WELCOME another OT pointing out these compelling concerns.
Or do you dispute that I am an OT?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You said: "Don't use ladder line. Ever.
If you operate in a way that REQUIRES ladder line, then consider giving up ham radio and playing character roles at Medeival festivals"
--------------------------------
I did. I mean it, too.
Ladder line is an antiquated feed system. No concern that ladder line supposedly addresses is not long-since solved by coaxial- based antenna systems.
If someone put on their resume that they have ladder line (required) antennas I would not hire them.
FYI.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
I dont dispute your status as an OT. I suspect there may even be some dust in your spark gap.
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sure there would be if I had one. But I don't.
The point? Not all OT's are ossified (look that up).
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ossified ? You have health problems also ? Sorry to here that. I think ladder line has it's place, and I am enjoying playing with it (guess I wont be working for you). However, I am looking work a "simple" method to measure line balance. I have tried wetting my fingers and running them up and down the feedline while transmitting, and the one side does seem to tingle more than the other, but that may be due to a callous on my thumb. It is interesting that you can tell when you approach a 1/4 wavelength spot though.
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Or do you dispute that I am an OT?"
From QRZ: "WN1HBX 1966" - nope, that's a fine tenure as a ham. OT status confirmed. I, of course, am not an OT.
And
"No concern that ladder line supposedly addresses is not long-since solved by coaxial- based antenna systems. "
Well, you're less antiquated than coaxial cable...
My point in a post that didn't seem to trip your radar was that from a total cost perspective, are not necessarily the most economical and attractive proposition for today's ham attempting to radiate an effective signal on 9 MF/HF bands.
Let's assume we're trying to feed the same radiator to with the same radiation efficiency. We can pick either coaxial cable and a remote matching unit or an indoor matching unit and ladder line. For a given radiator and efficiency, I'm sure that the total cost in time plus money is less for the latter solution. Additionally, we shouldn't pretend that matching networks at the antenna to allow the efficient use of coaxial cable on a nonresonant, non-50 ohm radiator are shiny new technology. WWII, dude.
I *personally* favor that approach, but it's hardly forward-looking. It's also generally either complicated or expensive.
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"from a total cost perspective, are not necessarily the most economical and attractive proposition"
Should have a "coaxial-based antenna systems" in it somewhere.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lightning protection is obviously worthwhile, but the discussion has once again gone way off the deep end and deviated into a separate subject.
It would seem that some of us are not satisfied with the topic at hand and must rip the guts out of it so we can find something to be self-righteous about.
Why oh why Sigmund does this happen??
....WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also :
"If someone put on their resume that they have ladder line (required) antennas I would not hire them."
Seems sensible. Someone who puts that level of detail about their hobby into their resume is probably trying to pad it a bit ;-)
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Okay, back on target : Short of buying an rf ampmeter, anyone have a practical cheap n' dirty way to determine if the lines are in balance ? couple scope probes near the feedline ? Calibration seems worrisome. Neon bulb ? Even I, at my tender age, will agree that seems antiquated.
Maybe assume line balance by determining minimal feedline radiation ?
Scope the voltage drop across resistors in the line ?
Ideas ?
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Or do you dispute that I am an OT?"
From QRZ: "WN1HBX 1966" - nope, that's a fine tenure as a ham. OT status confirmed. I, of course, am not an OT. --N3OX
-------------------------------
Hi Dan,
I know that the notion of 'time' is a confusing one, but in English we have a convention. That convention relates to present TENSE to represent PRESENT; past TENSE to indicate in the PAST; and so on.
I am 100% certain that at some PAST TIME I would not have been considered an OLD TIMER.
I asked you if YOU DISPUTE --as in the PRESENT--that with my 41st year in ham radio I am (that's present tense, now) an OT.
I do not dispute that I am an OT.
Don't get goofy. Or, as Herman Hesse said in 'Demian':"Don't talk sh*t, young man".
Who am I to argue?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB0LPI on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB8ELK,
Don't know if it qualifies as cheap, but this would be an easy way to determine line balance:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-835
KB0LPI
Eric
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's assume we're trying to feed the same radiator to with the same radiation efficiency. We can pick either coaxial cable and a remote matching unit or an indoor matching unit and ladder line. For a given radiator and efficiency, I'm sure that the total cost in time plus money is less for the latter solution. Additionally, we shouldn't pretend that matching networks at the antenna to allow the efficient use of coaxial cable on a nonresonant, non-50 ohm radiator are shiny new technology. WWII, dude.
--------------------------------
Why are you so sure? And why do you need some stupid switching unit?
I also wouldn't hire anyone who made assumptions like that. Too hard to re-educate them.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why oh why Sigmund does this happen?? "
Freudian analysis is outmoded. Let's....
Oh, right.. ham radio forum ;-)
You can't stop the freight train. Like Don said, straight up, this is one of the most contentious topics out there.
The general reason would appear to be that line loss and resonance issues are not really a matter of opinion, and yet many have a strong opinion on the matter.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB0LPI
Thanks ! I did not even think to check MFJ, guess I was stuck in homebrew mode. The MFJ-835 looks like the ideal solution if it performs well. There are no eham reviews on it (yet), does anyone have any experience with it ?
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, in that case, here is a piece of great wisdom.
Wait for it...
It's that important.
Here it is...
The second you think someone can't do something, watch out for those who quietly make money from proving you are wrong.
Live by that and you will flourish in the (otherwise) 'den of iniquity' known as the antenna world...
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And why do you need some stupid switching unit? "
You don't, but you're not going to tell us your particular easily implementable and clever ideas, so that's also a red herring. Many hams start from little to no techical background. Even those with major technical background have little in the way of analog electronics experience.
By the way, if you're talking in particular about my networks, I couldn't possibly have done that more stupidly or inefficiently in terms of resource usage and mechanical design. I wanted a simple decoupled system so that I could do what I wanted to do and also have an easily reproducible system for hams who might want to build part of it.
I mean, what kind of backwards idiot uses an ALL ANALOG proportional controller to turn a CERAMIC WAFER SWITCH?
... except that lots of hams have ceramic wafer switches that need turning from 150 feet away and will back down from any but the simplest homebrew electronics projects.
"I also wouldn't hire anyone who made assumptions like that"
Don't know why you keep mentioning who you won't hire. I doubt there are many in here who would be looking to work for you.
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W7COM on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks for the wonderful (and I mean full of wonder of what I can build) article. I'm new to HF and have lived the coax route for over a decade on V/UHF. Now you've got me wandering around the lot looking up! Also thanks to the kind responders for the links. They will keep me busy for many happy hours wondering what I'll first build. And isn't that at least half the fun of ham radio?
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm, dont know about that, but I have an answer to my question and I'm satisfied.
If you have an interest in homilies, here's one of my favorites (from The Princess Bride) :
"Life is pain. Anyone who tells you different is either lying or trying to sell you something."
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You don't, but you're not going to tell us your particular easily implementable and clever ideas, so that's also a red herring.
---------------------------------
No; it's reality.
So, young man, find me a way to convey this to hams only and you're on.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I also wouldn't hire anyone who made assumptions like that"
Don't know why you keep mentioning who you won't hire. I doubt there are many in here who would be looking to work for you.
Dan
-------------------------------------
Seems to me that it would be easy to ignore if you didn't find it of interest....
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks for a nice article Don. I love my W7FG 600 ohm open wire fed doublet and will continue to use and enjoy it on 6-80 mtrs. Some folks have heads like bricks and refuse to accept the fact that a non res antenna system can work but thats fine with me. Let them sweat in the hot sun cutting and trimming while I work DX in the nice cool AC.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
How many ways can you be wrong ?
I was ASKING (ie seeking) for a solution. I have one now, before I had none.
I recited a line from a movie, dont argue with me, I got the line correct. Argue with the movie.
You refer to me as young man ? Younger than you ? With your mere 41 years in ham radio, licensed in 1967 at age 11 ? Perhaps math is not your best subject. My first call was WA8DRB, 1962, age 12 (slacker I know).
Sending my resume to Dan.
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The second you think someone can't do something, watch out for those who quietly make money from proving you are wrong. "
Are you talking to me or just in general? If the former, are you assuming that I'm assuming that a particular matching task can't be done?
I'm sure that you have all manner of clever solutions to all manner of antenna design problems. I also know they will never see the light of day in hams' backyards because of the statement above.
Every time I look at Fractal Antenna Systems' homepage, it looks like the company is enjoying continued success, congratulations. I doubt it's any more likely that you'll start building ham antennas or providing ham antenna information than it is likely that I'll build a synthetic aperature HF antenna in my rental backyard.
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB7XU on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For the author: Thank you, Don, for taking the time to write a most interesting, well-written article. Good writing looks like a simple thing to do but only skillful wordsmiths can do it.
As for the content, I suspect "Kurt N. Sturba" of World Radio Magazine would approve. And so do I.
Max, KB7XU
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4VNZ on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Don,
Dreamland has the best barbecue in Alabama.
As far as football goes, does either Auburn or Alabama pursue that pastime anymore?
I worked in North Alabama (Huntsville) for about 10 years way back so I have heard it all.
73, Boog
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JBH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh i love it when Chip preaches. Lets have a show of hands who really gives a sh!t what he has to say however. You go Dan.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
"Don't use ladder line. Ever."
Why not?
"If you operate in a way that REQUIRES ladder line, then consider giving up ham radio and playing character roles at Medeival festivals"
Why?
--------------------------------
"I did. I mean it, too.
Ladder line is an antiquated feed system."
So what? Old doesn't mean bad.
How old is the three-wire 120/240 volt electrical system most Americans use in homes and small businesses?
How old is the Otto-cycle internal combustion engine?
Is SSB antiquated? It was first used on radio in the 1920s, and first used by hams in the 1930s.
"No concern that ladder line supposedly addresses is not long-since solved by coaxial- based antenna systems."
Here's a concern:
A residence near me consists of a lot that's 150 feet square, with the house near the center and trees near the border. The trees are nice big maples and oaks, and it would be a simple matter to use two of them to hold a classic 80 meter center fed dipole 50 to 70 feet in the air, with the feedline hanging straight down.
With a little thought, the feedline could be routed vertically along the back wall of the house to a basement window and into the basement hamshack.
Consisting of just a simple dipole, ladder-line feed, a good *balanced* tuner, and judicious choice of dipole and feedline lengths, such an antenna system would be capable of excellent results *and* 1:1 SWR to the rig on all ham bands 80 through 10, and probably 160 as well. It would also be good on MARS frequencies and for SWLing.
It could be quite inexpensive if the tuner, antenna and feedline were homebrewed.
No tower, no masts, no guy wires, no extensive radial system, not very visible if the ladder line is made with some thought, no building permits, no variances, no climbing, very little maintenance. Done right, the neighbors wouldn't even know it was there unless you pointed it out.
btw, this isn't a one-of-a-kind residence. There are lots of them around here.
What coax-fed antenna of comparable performance, price and simplicity could be installed at that QTH which would have all those features?
Let's see:
Multi-parallel dipole? Mechanically complex and a lot of adjustment. Plus the SWR varies across the band unless a tuner is used.
Trap dipole? Electrically complex and a lot of adjustments if all HF bands are to be covered. Plus the SWR varies across the band unless a tuner is used.
T2FD? Mechanically complex and electrically inefficient over much of the range.
G5RV? Doesn't cover all HF bands without a tuner, and it has some ladder line anyway. Plus the SWR varies across the band unless a tuner is used.
OCF dipole? Not fed in the center, lots of adjustments, and electrically complex if all bands are to be covered. Plus the SWR varies, etc.
Loop skywire? Requires 4 supports instead of 2, and the feedpoint is at the edge, not the center. Plus it usually needs a tuner.
Lattin stub-decoupled dipole? Similar problems to a trap dipole.
W9INN dipole? Not made anymore, and in any event it's a cross between a parallel dipole and a trap dipole.
"If someone put on their resume that they have ladder line (required) antennas I would not hire them."
Why not? Is there absolutely *no* imaginable scenario where a ladder-line-fed antenna could be a better overall solution than a coax-fed antenna?
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Some folks have heads like bricks and refuse to accept the fact that a non res antenna system can work but thats fine with me."
But your system (W7FG ladder-line fed dipole w/tuner) *is* resonant! Maybe the antenna wire itself isn't resonant on all bands all by itself, but the entire *system* (dipole, feedline, tuner) *is* resonant at the operating frequency.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm, is this a true statement : Most ham antennas are operated in a non-resonant manner.
I think mine are. Never really on that one spot where Xc and Xl are equal. Never had a 50 ohm feedpoint either.
Food for thought.
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So, young man, find me a way to convey this to hams only and you're on. "
You can't keep it under wraps if you sell it as a ham product or disseminate the information. I understand your position as an innovator with a great deal of intellectual property to protect. However, it's silly to claim that ham approaches are outdated compared to your approaches when you and I both know that you must keep that information secret for the health of your business.
What would you do if I published construction details of a particular self-similar copper wire object that, when placed in the middle of a wire doublet, effected an impedance transformation to 50 ohms over a large continuous swath of HF? What if I publicized an independently developed algorithm to generically design such an object? I'm not saying that I can figure it out, but even if I thought I could, I would be concerned for my legal position.
The open wire fed doublet: antiquated, maybe. Effective? Effective enough. In the public domain? Surely.
- - - - - -
As far as desire to be in your employ:
"Seems to me that it would be easy to ignore if you didn't find it of interest...."
I simply find it of interest that you bring it up out of nowhere as a valid measure of intelligence and engineering skill.
I also figure, in for a penny, in for a pound... might as well hit all the points I want to hit at this stage in the game. Generally, I'm happy to let others worry about your comments. I've got my reasons for responding this time. That's just the way teh intarweb works, d00d.
73,
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As far as desire to be in your employ:
"Seems to me that it would be easy to ignore if you didn't find it of interest...."
I simply find it of interest that you bring it up out of nowhere as a valid measure of intelligence and engineering skill.
I also figure, in for a penny, in for a pound... might as well hit all the points I want to hit at this stage in the game. Generally, I'm happy to let others worry about your comments. I've got my reasons for responding this time. That's just the way teh intarweb works, d00d.
73,
Dan
----------------------------------
Again,seems to me that it would be easy to ignore if you didn't find it of interest...
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB2HSH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have used 450-ohm ladder line on all of my antennae since 1997...and I wouldn't ever go back to coax. I don't want to cause any trouble, but I have had better success with a ladder-line fed 300 foot loop than with any other antenna I have ever used. And to top it all off, my tuner is NOTHING more than an MFJ-941E (not the best tuner, but it has worked flawlessly since 1993).
To each his or her own...I always say.
Have a Great Holiday Everyone!
73 de KB2HSH
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB2HSH,
Have you ever been concerned about the balance of the line, or had reason to suspect it was unbalanced ?
My lack of experience here shows, am I obsessing ?
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers Reply
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
KB2HSH,
Have you ever been concerned about the balance of the line, or had reason to suspect it was unbalanced ?<
::My line has been unbalanced for years and I've taken it for psychiatric help. So far, so good: It's off the pills.
:-)
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K5ML on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I guess I'm an Old Timer. This summer I will complete 50 years as a licensed ham.
First, I think Don's article is great. I practice a lot of what he preaches. Living in a CC&R community, I have 3 stealth antennas fed with window line. One is a 410' loop, another is a 125' centerfed long wire and the third is a 105' inverted with three 66' radials. All antennas are at an average height of well under 20 feet. I have each one hooked up to separate, Johnson 250 w. Matchboxes. Using an Icom 756 Pro III and a 30L-1, working the world is no problem whatsoever. I don't have a balun in the feedlines, and I break all the rules about keeping the feedlines isolated. They all just come into the shack through a plastic pipe next to each other. Nevertheless, all three antennas load fine from 80-10 meters. There is no RF in the shack and it isn't because I have a great ground. I live in the Arizona desert.
My point is simply this: Wire antennas, fed with balanced lines through balanced tuners can be a great antenna system for those who don't want to or cannot put up towers and beams. Putting them up and experimenting with them is cheap, easy and a lot of fun.
Two final thoughts come to mind after reading the comments on Don's article:
1. An expert is just a guy who knows all the reasons why you can't do something.
2. As we get older, we can choose to become bitter or better. Some might call that "binary thinking."
73,
Mick, K5ML
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KG6QHP on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great article. I do not understand the negative comments. The twinlead is used as a feed line in this antenna because it has significantly lower line loss than coax.
This antenna works well. I use it daily. Another reference is http://www.cebik.com/fdim/fdim9.pdf
73 de KG6R formerly KG6QHP,
Jim
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K5ML on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Typo in my post above: The third antenna is a 105' inverted L with three '66' radials.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K5ML,
Thanks ! Sharing your practical experience is great.
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK,
Hmmm, reminds me of an article about care and feeding of your transmission lines. Maybe if the line feels better about itself, self esteem and all, the losses will be lower.
Also, I was kidding about using my 2 fingers to look for imbalance and hot spots. I make my wife do it.
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N0AH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The negative responses seem to be that this is a lot of work for an antenna design that will give average performance compared to other antennas in the same space, restrictions, etc......
I can design a car to go top speed at 20MPH fueled by lawn clippings but what's the big deal compared to an average car. And spare me the oil crises comments for at least this century....
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB8ELK on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I guess different strokes and all, but my interest is (this time around) for one antenna, mainly for 80 and 40 meters, because more than one number left of the decimal point gives me vertigo. I enjoy long winded rag chews, hours on end. NVIS is good for me because that's where the people are I enjoy talking to.
300 to 400 feet of feedline depresses me, I want to minimize losses and cost. Cables that start with LDF and LMR need not apply here (not hiring).
Given those goals, a 135 foot doublet at tree height and parallel feedline seems like a good idea to me. Or a fan dipole and the same parallel feedline. Or a loop.
Perhaps not for everyone, but what if it works and Im real loud ?
Ron
KB8ELK
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I forget who said this...
" To cut to the chase, when talking about antenna systems, we call them “resonant” when the capacitive reactance present in the system is equal to the inductive reactance, and the two cancel each other out, leaving the impedance at the load point at its design value—typically 50 ohms. In that magic alignment by the gods of RF, the antenna is able to radiate into space most of the radio frequency energy that is sent to it from the transmitter via a feed line. "
What he is saying is somewhat true, but when I speak of resonant, I am talking about the length of the antenna being some equal multiple of 1/2wave of the frequency it is radiating. Yes, the I-reactance & the C-Reactance equal and cancel, but there is much more going on here. When the antenna is NOT resonant, there is a reflected wave, known as SWR. If this is high enough the I-reactance goes off scale and this reflected energy turns to HEAT! This is why antenna components are rated for the amount of power they can handle,l and what burnes up these components. When the antenna is resonant, the MAXIMUM amount of energy
is transfered from the antenna into space. I don't care what book says what, or how it is presented, this is a FACT of physics! Now is it enough to make a difference, Who knows? However the MAXIMUM amount of energy is transfered at resonance! Shortened antennas can be made to look longer by adding inductance (load coil), at the ANTENNA, but the effect is still the same, the antenna length looks resonant. Effecien0cy is lost to the capture ratio of the antenna, but electrically it still looks resonant!
When you use an antenna tuner in your shack, if your antenna is NOT resonant, it will continue to be non-resonant, but the entire antenna system will look to be resonant at the BACK of your transmitter, and NOT at the antenna!! Again, is it enough loss to affect you? Could be if it is way off. Usually a 135' wire will work out to have multi-wave lengths of 80-10 meters, BUT again...it is NOT-RESONANT on all of these frequencies, but close enough to do a fair job.
Think of it this way, a BELL rings at its RESONANT frequency. A tank circuit is like a bell, and the antenna is also like a bell. Just like the bell, it is the loudest on its resonant frequency!!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If someone put on their resume that they have ladder line (required) antennas I would not hire them."
Why not? Is there absolutely *no* imaginable scenario where a ladder-line-fed antenna could be a better overall solution than a coax-fed antenna?
73 de Jim, N2EY
-----------------------
Yes. That is correct. There is no imaginable scenario where a ladder-line antenna is a better overall solution than a coax fed antenna.
And SDR is better at waveforms than spark.
See? sometimes definitives are easy.
But let's chalk it up as a difference of opinion for the moment: You guys STILL HAVE NOT CONVEYED THE MESSAGE that ladder line has inherent safety dangers that coax systems almost always avoid.
GET THE NEWBIES the message.
OK?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it is really amazing that 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, you almost never saw articles on 'glow bugs' and 'ladder line' or 'AM'. They were obscure niches that didn't represent the objective of Part 97, which, by definition is a forward-looking service.
Now, instead of interesting little pieces on software defined radio; new modes; new ways of getting your radio to work better; we see articles that really showcase the antiquation of a different era.
What's next guys...galena crystals?
I have a theory about this. My theory is that the vast majority of newbies are CB'ers, who, for most intents, are basically of the CB culture, and have not acculturated. Such folks are, apparently, fairly technology-adverse. As such, things that revert to earlier eras in ham radio appeal to them. And they flock to it.
Is that OK? It depends on what you see ham radio as being. For decades, hams were successful at acculturating newbies into the ham world, without appealing to some distorted niches that neither represent the intent of Part 97, nor the majority of ham activity.
Now, we see exactly the opposite: we see the ham culture morphing to a modified CB culture, with a weird emphasis on old stuff. We see weird things like 'strange antenna' special events where hams make antennas out of lawn furniture and trampolines. Some hams mind you--not all.
Ladder line was the only method of feeding HF/MF antennas for a very long time. But we got past it--50 years ago-- and coax is cheap, plentiful,and practical.
Does ladder line have a niche? That's like asking if a Harvey Wells T-150 has a niche. Sure, it functions, but has inherent limitations that can hardly claim to be 'advancing the radio art'.
Do you LEARN annything from ladder line discussions? I imagine you could, but I haven't seen it here.
Ladder line is a technology that had it's day and dried up. If you want to take some pride in saying it has morphed to microstrip-like feed systems at microwave, that's fine. But really, it's dead.
Sorry to remind you of the corps.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW: "I think it is really amazing that 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, you almost never saw articles on 'glow bugs' and 'ladder line' or 'AM'. They were obscure niches that didn't represent the objective of Part 97, which, by definition is a forward-looking service."
"Now, instead of interesting little pieces on software defined radio; new modes; new ways of getting your radio to work better; we see articles that really showcase the antiquation of a different era."
Well, I could make a case for 600 Ohm open-wire line...provided hams can run 15 to 40 KW RF output. That's the way it was done when I first operated on HF back in 1954. It helps greatly to have a square mile of flat island next to a salt-water bay...not to mention about 100 guys with power equipment to dig and raise all the 30- to 50-foot telephone poles that supported all them. :-)
On the other hand, the discone antenna was first described in the early 1950s and I just put one up for 2m and the Scanner receiver. :-)
Yes, I generally agree with you and you have a very good point on the regressive thinking going on in literature and nostalgia-oriented places on the Internet. Once upon a time I thought an R-388 (a Collins 51J-3 with a military nameplate) was the best thing since sliced bread for true comfort in tuning in a signal anywhere on HF. Then I had to calibrate R-391s (R-390 with Autotune added) at work for a special project. Those kept my muscles toned up is about all. What was ONCE "new and exciting" can't always remain that way, but constant reference to "early days" is easy to write about and nostalgia buffs can relive their long-ago youth. <shrug> Thanks, but I will keep my everything-in-one IC-746Pro for a while.
BTW, modeling one of those off-center-fed antennas will show some very strange radiation patterns in some unexpected directions. It isn't the implied panacea for "all bands."
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I previously wrote:
"Is there absolutely *no* imaginable scenario where a ladder-line-fed antenna could be a better overall solution than a coax-fed antenna?"
W1YW replied:
"Yes. That is correct. There is no imaginable scenario where a ladder-line antenna is a better overall solution than a coax fed antenna."
What about the scenario I described in the previous post with the house in the center of a lot with trees around the periphery?
What coax-fed antenna would be a better overall solution in that scenario than a simple dipole fed with ladder line and a good balanced tuner?
If you cannot come up with a coax-fed antenna that is a better solution, then your claim has been disproved.
"And SDR is better at waveforms than spark."
Agreed. Hams stopped using spark before 1927 - more than 80 years ago. They stopped using spark because the demonstrated advantages of other methods were so clear and obvious that spark was simply abandoned.
"See? sometimes definitives are easy."
Sometimes, definitives are also wrong.
"But let's chalk it up as a difference of opinion for the moment: You guys STILL HAVE NOT CONVEYED THE MESSAGE that ladder line has inherent safety dangers that coax systems almost always avoid."
Who are "you guys"? I'm just one guy. I say ladder line is just one tool in the antenna toolbox. There are scenarios where it is to be preferred over coax - and other scenarios where coax is to be preferred.
The "inherent safety dangers" of ladder-line are not really any different than those of a simple dipole or inverted-V antenna - high voltage at certain points. They are easily avoided by simple common sense and good engineering practice.
"GET THE NEWBIES the message. OK?"
I just did. Here it is again:
Ladder line can have high voltage at certain points, same as a dipole antenna, and the same precautions taken.
But the main issue I addressed, and which you are avoiding, is that there *are* scenarios where ladder line is to be preferred over coax, because it is the best overall solution.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC7APQ on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really don't have anything constructive to add. When that's the case on these forums it seems I should have something negative or harassing to say but I decided not to do that either.
Jim
N7KFD
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K5ML on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A timeless but wise saying:
This way is my way.
Which way is your way?
THE way doesn't exist.
73,
Mick, K5ML
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JBH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW replied:
"Yes. That is correct. There is no imaginable scenario where a ladder-line antenna is a better overall solution than a coax fed antenna."
Ok Chip or shall i say Dr.Chip.Phd What makes Coax such a preffered feed line of choice.
And what is the advantages of coax over ladder line?
And what is the disadvantages of ladder line over coax?
Being you are so smart in this area. Please tell me and the many readers of this forum.
So we shall all benefit from your wisdom.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W7COM on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And Chip: While I may be new to Amateur HF, I did cut my teeth in AM broadcast. Let's see if I remember the formula: 5kV * 1A / cow field @ .98MHz = 1 medium market C&W station.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3JBH says..."And what is the advantages of coax over ladder line? And what is the disadvantages of ladder line over coax?"
Aren't these 2 questions the same? A little redundant?
Coax over ladder line...hmmmmm... its already 50ohms and doesn't need a matching device to connect to the radio. Being sheilded, coax can run along side any metal object without changing its impedance Coax can be directly burried underground. Some of the newer coaxes with a resonant antenna have very low loss, approaching that of balanced line. Coax is easier to run thru walls, and requires a much smaller hole to enter the shack. You have a much less chance of having a hot-spot on coax. Coax is less affected by adverse weather, such as ice and snow. Coax is certainly a better choice for mobile operation! Coax can handle higher frequencies much better.
Is this enough for now?
73 de W4LGH - Alan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9TA on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To W1YW....If we asked you real politely....would you just stop BREATHING....Please???
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9TA on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Re previous message....strike "Breathing" and insert "typing". Asking him to stop Breathing was a bit harsh....for which I appologize.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2EY [previously]: "Is there absolutely *no* imaginable scenario where a
ladder-line-fed antenna could be a better overall solution than a coax-fed
antenna?"
W1YW: "Yes. That is correct. There is no imaginable scenario where a
ladder-line antenna is a better overall solution than a coax fed antenna."
"What about the scenario I described in the previous post with the house
in the center of a lot with trees around the periphery?"
"What coax-fed antenna would be a better overall solution in that scenario
than a simple dipole fed with ladder line and a good balanced tuner?"
First of all, a vertical antenna is easier to install and has the fewest parts.
If the dipole (with at least two support masts at the ends) is the desired
one, then a wideband balun at dipole center and coaxial cable feedline
from that insures a number of things:
1. Less wind-loading during storms.
2. Coaxial cable jacket protects the interior from corrossion while ladder
line is continuously exposed, can accumulate dirt which could act to
arc-over during water from rains.
3. Coaxial cable has a more uniform impedance in the event of physical
malformation. Conventional open ladder line can easily change its
characteristic impedance, usually due to twisting.
4. Several companies make combination center-insulator and balun
available as one unit.
5. Lightning/static-discharge devices are simpler with coaxial cable than
with ladder-line; the outer conductor of coaxial cable can be made to
earth ground, not possible with ladder-line.
6. Coaxial cable at the ground end can be buried or elevated without
changing its characteristic impedance or other characteristics.
7. Coaxial cable can pass through outside building walls to the interior
through a single pass-through aperture without any change in
characteristic impedance; not at all so with wire balanced lines.
8. If one winds up with RF on the outside conductor of coaxial cable, just wind the coax over a large diameter former to make an RF choke; the change to the characteristic impedance of the coaxial cable from such winding is minimal, on the order of 2%. That can't be done with balanced open-wire line.
In fairness, balanced 450 Ohm line weighs slightly less than small
(RG-8X) coaxial cable but, in reality, few amateur radio dipoles are up
higher than a half wavelength below the 20m band. The amount of
extra tension on the end support masts from using coaxial cable
feed from the middle rather than open-wire lines can be calculated
from simple mechanical engineering equations, is not excessive.
"If you cannot come up with a coax-fed antenna that is a better solution,
then your claim has been disproved."
So far you have come up with NOTHING that indicates the superiority of
ladder-line...except that you probably use that at your QTH. :-)
An off-center fed dipole is inherently UNbalanced over most of its frequency
range regardless of what kind of feed is connected to it. Using a "balanced"
ladder-line feed is NOT going to "balance" that condition. The impedance
characteristics aren't going to be close to a dipole. Coaxial cable can stand
considerably more peak voltage than manufacturer's specifications state,
even the smaller outer diameter RG-8X; hi-pot any short section of coax to
see for yourself. Coaxial cable can easily handle 10:1 SWR at 100 W.
The major reason for using open-wire balanced feedlines with high-power
transmitters was RF current. Those powers are way in excess of what US
radio amateurs are allocated. BTW, open-wire feeds in old days was 600
Ohms, not 450 Ohm as with most ham ladder-line. Nowadays the high-
power RF radio services all use large unbalanced coaxial cable, pressurized
and dried air preferred, sometimes even with nitrogen. The lower-power radio
services use coaxial cable because it is much easier to install and
maintain, has less line loss per unit length than balanced line at higher
characteristic impedance.
"The "inherent safety dangers" of ladder-line are not really any different
than those of a simple dipole or inverted-V antenna - high voltage at
certain points. They are easily avoided by simple common sense and
good engineering practice."
'Easily?!?' Go model the impedance over frequency of a typical off-center
fed dipole (the one that Don Keith used in his article opening). Report back
on the magnitudes of voltage and current over the HF ham bands. Better
yet, tell us WHY a balanced-line feed to an off-center-fed dipole is "better"
than a coaxial feed through an unbal. Use some of your vast experience
with radios at Conrail.
"But the main issue I addressed, and which you are avoiding, is that there
*are* scenarios where ladder line is to be preferred over coax, because it is
the best overall solution."
WHAT are those 'scenarios?' You haven't presented your case yet. Try
to limit these unproven Pronouncements.
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KW6H on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the article.
When first licensed a couple of years ago, I put up a GAP Titan (coax-fed multiband vertical) mostly for the higher bands: I worked a fair amount of DX, but it was useless for our 2-county emergency net on 75 phone (nights), and 40M (days), which really requires NVIS operation. My elmer suggested (and helped me put up) a 130-foot doublet fed with 450-ohm window line, with a transmatch, or antenna tuner, or whatever you want to call it. The dipole is about 30 feet up, optimized for 75M NVIS use and much too low to be optimal for DX use, of course.
Well, guess what? About 1/3rd of the time, that low dipole gives me better DX on 20 through 15 than the Titan does. I guess the lobes at 2 or 3 wavelengths
just happen to line up with where I want to work often enough to make it worth trying both antennas on a high-band DX attempt.
Will I put up a tower and beam for 20M and up when funds permit? Of course! However, in the mean time, that 80M dipole + window line + matcher system lets me have a lot of fun on the bands, including working Australia and China, and as I said, it *sometimes* works better for DX than the Titan does.
73 DE KW6H, Chris
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think it is really amazing that 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, you almost never saw articles on 'glow bugs' and 'ladder line' or 'AM'. They were obscure niches that didn't represent the objective of Part 97, which, by definition is a forward-looking service. "
Good, finally we come to the crux of the matter. You imagine that ham radio is turning into a weird nostalgic reenactment activity.
"I have a theory about this. My theory is that the vast majority of newbies are CB'ers, who, for most intents, are basically of the CB culture, and have not acculturated."
Chip, you're the one who hasn't acculturated. Not everyone in ham radio is rapidly advancing the radio art by making significant contributions to the technology. It's likely not been since the days of spark that each and every ham was rapidly advancing the radio art, and then it was just lucky accident that there was no radio art, so everything new was a great leap forward.
The 1942 issue of QST that the ARRL has been sending out free with publication purchases has the announcement suspending radio operations for the duration of wartime... In it there is how hams may get back on the air for legitmate defense-related communications, and a careful admonishment that applying to get back on the air for rag-chewing will not be tolerated. This, of course, was a matter of emergency, but it shows that there were a bunch of people who just wanted to get on and talk in 1942, and yet, the FCC saw fit to reactivate ham radio after the war and let it keep going at least till the present.
If the FCC were to interpret its own rules the way you seem to, ham radio would have ben shut down long ago: waste of spectrum, all that.
Ham radio is still sufficiently valuable to the FCC to continue administering it. That suggests to me that we're not collectively far off base with regard to Part 97.
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by MACKAY3031A on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
open wire line is wonderful,except no sharp turns are allowed and icing can be a penalty.I would use it but my xyl does not for some reason like antennas for their obvious to me aesthetic appeal.Coax can be buried to the antenna,something open wire line cannot easily do!The longwire, made of magnetwire for stealth can run to a window and be worked against a good ground for excellent effect.Not for the qro type however!(RF IN THE SHACK)I wonder why the dipole is so exalted when you can get actual gain from a mere piece of wire?Probably space requirements.....Even so if you can use it, open wire line is excellent for hf.KI4WCA
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KG6QHP on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
OM this is a multi band dipole doublet.
You said:
<<W1YW: "Yes. That is correct. There is no imaginable scenario where a ladder-line antenna is a better overall solution than a coax fed antenna." >>
Well the antenna in this article has a scenario where feeding with ladder line is far superior to coax.
In the following article by Cebik at
http://www.cebik.com/wire/abd.html
Under heading 4 he notes that on 10 meters, this antenna fed with 100 feet of rg8x coax would result in a loss of 10.8 db
If you used 450 ohm ladder line, the loss is a mere .4 db.
In the Cebik article, the table notes that on every band 80-10 the line loss is much less with ladder line than coax.
This antenna may be too simple and effective for experts. Remember experts built the Titanic, amateurs built Noah's ark.
73 de KG6R,
Jim
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KC5CQD on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Don't use ladder line. Ever."
Why not?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Exactly. Why not? I've been using homebrewed open wire feeder for years now and I've had the best results I've ever had with a wire antenna. Although Coax is convenient it blows as a feed line. Open wire feeder takes more effort but it's far superior to "mini 8".
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4EF on May 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For a 1000 foot run at 14 MHz, matched 450 ohm ladder line would result in ~1dB of loss. To get that same loss in a 1000' run of coax, you would need 7/8" heliax (allowing a few tenths of a dB for the 9:1 transformers needed for the ladder line antenna). Coax might be more unforgiving in terms of installation requirements since you could just lay it on the ground, whereas you would need the ladder line suspended from something to keep it off the ground (and twisted occasionally to minimize radiation). This would tend to reduce the roughly 10:1 cost disparity between heliax and ladder line (i.e. ladder line might be more expensive to install than its Heliax counterpart if lots of poles had to be set to hold up the ladder line compared to just laying heliax on the ground).
BTW, this tradeoff has nothing to do with technological state of practice as was suggested by another poster. This tradeoff is simply driven by the inherent physics of a high impedance line versus a low impedance line.
73, Mike W4EF.....................
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This antenna may be too simple and effective for experts."
Not for *real* experts! A real expert looks at all the pertinent factors.
"Remember experts built the Titanic, amateurs built Noah's ark."
I always saw that written as "*Professionals* built Titanic...."
However, note this:
It wasn't Titanic's construction that was the problem (though brittle steel in the hull probably made a difference). The big problem was how the ship was *operated*.
Titanic's sister ship Olympic served so well for 25 years in the transatlantic routes that the ship was nicknamed "Old Reliable". Olympic served as a troopship during WW1, and at one point not only evaded a German torpedo attack, but then chased, rammed and sank the attacking U-boat.
Most of all remember who the designers were.....
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Is there absolutely *no* imaginable scenario where a ladder-line-fed antenna could be a better overall solution than a coax-fed antenna?"
Here's an antenna scenario:
A radio amateur's residence consists of a lot that's 150 feet square, with the house near the center of the lot and a few trees near the border. The trees are mature maples and oaks. It would be a simple matter to use lines in two of the trees to hold a center fed dipole of up to 140 feet in length. Such a dipole would be about 50 feet in the air, with the feedline hanging straight down.
The feedline could be routed vertically along the back wall of the house to a basement window and into the basement hamshack.
The house is only 25 feet high at the highest point, and other than the previoulsy mentioned trees and the house itself there are no useful existing antenna supports.
There's a driveway, a deck, gardens and walkways and a shed, so installing an extensive radial system isn't practical.
The radio amateur wants an effective HF antenna system that will work on any amateur frequency from 3.5 to 29.7 MHz and present an SWR under 1.5 to 1 at 50 ohms.
The antenna system needs to provide good radiation above 30 degrees takeoff angle on the bands below 10 MHz, for local/regional QSOs, and good radiation below 30 degrees takeoff angle on the bands above 10 MHz, for DX. (The amateur likes to ragchew, contest and work DX, using a variety of rigs and modes).
The amateur has an SWR indicator and can build a good balanced or unbalanced manual tuner.
The amateur's antenna budget, in both time and money, is rather limited. A tower/beam/rotator setup is out of the question, and would not cover all the required bands anyway.
While there are no CC&Rs, the antenna system should be as inconspicuous as possible.
I say that the best choice for this scenario is a simple single-wire, center fed dipole with ladder-line feed and a good *balanced* tuner> With judicious choice of dipole and feedline lengths, such an antenna system would be capable of excellent results *and* 1:1 SWR to the rigs on all ham bands 80 through 10, and probably 160 as well. It would also be good on MARS frequencies and for SWLing.
It could be quite inexpensive if the tuner, antenna and feedline were homebrewed.
No tower, no masts, no guy wires, no extensive radial system, not very visible if the ladder line is made with some thought, no building permits, no variances, no climbing, very little maintenance. Done right, the neighbors wouldn't even know it was there unless it was pointed out.
btw, this isn't a one-of-a-kind residence. There are lots of them around here.
What coax-fed antenna of comparable performance, price and simplicity could be installed at that QTH which would have all those features and meet all the requirements, including cost?
I say the ladder-line-fed-dipole system I just described is a better overall solution for the scenario than any coax-fed antenna.
Can the experts prove me wrong by describing a better solution?
I think not.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by G3LBS on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And if you put up two G5RVs at about 30 degrees apart you can often direct a main lobe where you want it. Anybody noticed the gain in the main lobe of a G5RV on 10 meters?
Buffalo Gil W2/G3LBS
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4VNZ on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeez Louise! Put up what you want and operate...
I'm getting a headache...
Goodbye
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K7LRB on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Right on N4VNZ, the best advice so far!
Just observe good safety practices.
Gee, the bands sure are quiet. Where IS everybody? Oh yeah, here on "ham radio". HAWRF!
73,
de Larry
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W0IVJ on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW said:
"There is no imaginable scenario where a ladder-line antenna is a better overall solution than a coax fed antenna."
For field day we are contemplating an extended double zepp for 40 meters. At 65 feet above normal ground the feed point impedance is 127 - J694 and the gain over a dipole at that height is 3 db. If you feed the zepp with 100 feet of RG-11 (RG-8 does worse), and drive it with 100 watts, you get 28 watts to the antenna. If you feed the zepp with 100 feet of 450 ohm ladder line and into an antenna tuner, you get 77 watts to the antenna even if you use 10 feet of ferrite bead loaded coax to keep the high voltage contained. That is a 1 db drop from the almost 100 watts that you can get into the dipole. Subtracting the 1 db loss you get from the feed system of the zepp from the gain of the zepp over the dipole gives a difference of 2 db. The net gain of the zepp over the dipole is 2 db only if you use the 450 ohm ladder line. If you leave the coax out and feed directly into a balanced antenna tuner, the gain is more like 2.5 db. I don't think nearly half the power is insignificant even if it is only 1/2 an S-unit. If the antenna is further away than 100 feet, the difference is even more pronounced. You just cannot make blanket statements. Engineering is taking the particular situation, running the numbers, and deciding on the best compromise.
73 Tom W0IVJ
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KI9A on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wonderful article! Nice job!
73-Chuck KI9A
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"extended double zepp for 40 meters. At 65 feet above normal ground the feed point impedance is 127 - J694 and the gain over a dipole at that height is 3 db. If you feed the zepp with 100 feet of RG-11 (RG-8 does worse), and drive it with 100 watts, you get 28 watts to the antenna. If you feed the zepp with 100 feet of 450 ohm ladder line and into an antenna tuner, you get 77 watts to the antenna even if you use 10 feet of ferrite bead loaded coax to keep the high voltage contained. That is a 1 db drop from the almost 100 watts that you can get into the dipole. Subtracting the 1 db loss you get from the feed system of the zepp from the gain of the zepp over the dipole gives a difference of 2 db. The net gain of the zepp over the dipole is 2 db only if you use the 450 ohm ladder line. If you leave the coax out and feed directly into a balanced antenna tuner, the gain is more like 2.5 db."
And if you intend to use the antenna for 40 meters only, you may be able to eliminate the tuner. Particularly if you are going to use the antenna for only one mode.
Here's the trick:
If you pick the right combination of transmission-line impedance and length, the line can transform the 127-j694 feedpoint Z to 50 ohms resistive. For example, 0.85 wavelengths of 525 ohm line will get you close to 50 ohms at the shack-end of the line with no tuner at all. Then all you need is a 1:1 balun and you're set to go.
Of course 525 ohm line isn't standard - you'd have to make it. 0.85 wavelengths of ladder line at 40 meters is around 110 feet, so if the antenna is up 65 feet and the shack isn't directly under the wire, it works out pretty well.
Of course you may want to use a tuner anyway, particularly if you want the antenna to cover the whole band. You may not want to build custom ladder line.
But if Z of the shack-end of the feedline is already close to 50 ohms, the tuner can be very simple and lowloss.
"Engineering is taking the particular situation, running the numbers, and deciding on the best compromise."
I would add "considering all the factors" in there, too.
---
In any event, you have demonstrated another scenario where ladder line does a better job than coax, simply by applying sound engineering methods.
But I don't think it's really about engineering for some folks. To them, it's really all about new vs. old, in which "new" is always better than "old".
But to me, neither old nor new is a reason to accept or reject something. It should be judged on the merits.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KB6VDO on May 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don Keith, N4KC, really hit the highlights of ham radio for a ham on a limited budget with limited space or any ham for that matter. Some response comments, above, completely missed his point. Don's advice is very good and to the point.
A few years ago, when I was yet a "resonance" band only freak, as the younger folks say, we traveled to Bend Oregon from Santa Clara California, in our old motor home. I had made a telescoping ~ 40 tall vertical antenna, for our motor home, which could easily be popped up and used on most bands, 75/80m, 40m, 20m, and 17m for certain. It is fed by 50 ohm coax and uses an automatic transmission line tuner to match. A top loading Hustler coil makes it a match for the 75m phone band. This works well simply because of the short length of coax from the ATU to the antenna's base is fairly low loss. However, you can see that this was already leading me to Don Keith's antenna loading methodology.
Well during this trip I hooked up, on forty meters, with Ed Smith, W6WRL, who was my boss sixty years ago when we both worked at Dalmo Victor in San Carlos, CA. We were chatting when a ham, whose name and call I, unfortunately, I have forgotten broke in and talked with us. This old timer was located in Marin county, CA.
This Marin ham told us that when he first moved to his present location he put up a very expensive tower with beams driven by coax feed lines, and started working DX. One day for some reason, unknown to me, he decided to put up a long "doublet" antenna, resonant on 160M so that he could work all the ham HF bands above and including 160m. He claimed that he has not, regularly, used his beam/s again because he can make more DX contacts using this super doublet antenna than he can using his beam/s. He was using his doublet on forty meters, that day, and was very good into Dunsmuir CA at the RV park where we were staying. Ed, W6WRL, who had a similar antenna was also very strong into my mobile station. Of course, Ed agreed with this Marin county resident.
The upshot of the above was, when we arrived at home, up went my long doublet, it was not long enough to hit the top band, 160m, but it was long enough to resonate on 80m, fed with ladder line to a home made trifilar choke balun and a Nye Viking 3KW transmission line tuner (I never run power). (My home brew balun is better than Nye Viking's because it has 12ga wire and a high quality ferrite core; its measured loss is less than 0.1 db (another story) It is good on any ham HF frequency.).
I get extremely good signal reports on any band I work 80m through 10m.
So all you resonance freaks out there with your short dipoles, take notice, what Don Keith has told you applies to all kinds of antennae: loops; dipoles; long wire; off-center fed; delta loops; and on and on. Pick one out that will hit the lowest band you wish to work and use ladder feed line to a quality balun and your transmission line match unit. Unfortunately commercial baluns, in my experience, are not very good. Note, the ARRL has some good books on making your own balun; a good investment. The one on Transmission Line Transformers is excellent.
In short, for those of you who do not, yet, understand what Don Keith, N4KC, is telling you, any antenna you have made work well on one band with coax feed line should this coax be changed to ladder/window line balun and transmission line match unit, then it will work very well on most if not all the HF ham bands above its resonance band.
Thank you Don for an excellent article.
Best of 73s, de kb6vdo, Jim
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ladder line does work, and is very low loss, but one must remember that it is affected by all weather conditions, wind, rain, ice and show. Long runs get complicated because of support issues and if not supported properly it will break very easy. It is also more obvious to your neighboors, as it is almost impossible to hide it! Also the use of a tuner is very lossy, and usually what you gain in the low loss
ladder line is more than made up with the loss in the tuner! a GOOD 9913 or LMR400 coax only has about .5db of loss (per 100') in the HF bands. Even the best antenna tuners made have that or more loss. Coax can be burried, lay on the ground, hiden very easy, taped directly to metal structures and supported very easy.
Now you know both sides, make your own choice!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The net gain of the zepp over the dipole is 2 db only if you use the 450 ohm ladder line. If you leave the coax out and feed directly into a balanced antenna tuner, the gain is more like 2.5 db."
Similar to what N2EY suggested but easier:
You can easily feed an EDZ with 50 ohm coax via a 0.144 wavelength section of 450 ohm ladder line and a 1:1 current balun. Accounting for velocity factor of the ladder line, the matching section is 19.25 feet long for 7.0 Mhz. Make it about a foot longer and trim it for best SWR (much easier to trim than add line).
Fed the rest of the way with 9913 coax, or 100'-19.25' = 80.75', the loss in the coaxial line at 7 Mhz is only about 0.36dB, and the loss in the ladder line is so low it isn't worth calculating.
I've used this method of feeding an EDZ on 15 meters and it works excellent.
...WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4KC on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Surely you must know that W1YW and others feel the need to stir the pot by taking a contrarian stance on many of the posts on these forums. Those guys serve a useful purpose, of course. If everyone agreed with everybody, this would be a rather dull exercise. And as bright and knowledgeable folks, they have the opportunity to help us all better understand a complicated subject while we benefit from their expertise and their willingness to share it.
Unfortunately, they often come across as condescending at best and as downright arrogant and rude blowhards at worst. That's too bad.
My hope is that articles like mine will make a few newcomers curious about how antennas work. Then, maybe they’ll get out and string up some wire and make some contacts and have some fun while they learn and apply that new knowledge. Or maybe a young one or two will be bitten by the bug and go on to discover the next great breakthrough in RF transducers or a competing technology to fractal antennas.
A center-fed dipole, fed with ladder line, is a simple, cheap and very effective multi-band antenna. Most anyone can build and experiment with it and have good results with it, even if it is antiquated technology. It works just as well today as it did in 1935, which is still better than most other simple, cheap and effective alternatives. I hear so many new hams trying to work with a Hamstick on a broom handle in the backyard or a twenty-foot-long piece of wire, using a tuner, when, with just a little effort and guidance, they could greatly enhance the experience. I can’t imagine that their initial impressions of our wonderful hobby will be that positive, and especially if we old-timers tell them how stupid they are for not already knowing everything there is to know. None of us was born knowing this stuff. Few of us are engineers. It's been a while since I cracked a trig book and I still go cross-eyed looking at a Smith Chart.
I think it’s we gray-hairs who should politely and positively stoke the fire in those who have an interest. If they choose to let the spark die out, then fine. At least we tried!
73,
Don N4KC
www.n4kc.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think one of the most important things for hams reading these articles and the ensuing personal and technical wars to learn is that the sum total of all the antenna knowledge and information in the world is absolutely useless to you if you don't try *something*. It doesn't matter what some guy on eHam says about a particular antenna system if you never try anything. It doesn't matter if someone's channeling Maxwell's ghost or is Walt Maxwell...
It's good to learn how to tell the factual comments from the emotional ones on an internet forum so that you don't get led astray, but the easiest way to do this is to learn all this stuff by reading about it and building some antennas.
Be scientific about your comparisons, not emotional. Put two antennas up at the same time and compare them.
This is the most straightforward way to make antenna improvements in your shack... the A/B comparison, averaged over a long time of your operating habits.
The weak antennas will die and the strong will thrive when they compete against each other. An open wire fed doublet is a good antenna to pit other antennas against if you can't have a ton of antennas. Find your favorite band, and try another antenna for it. If it doesn't beat your doublet, kill it. If it does, trust me, you'll figure out a way to keep it up and working for you.
73,
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way Don,
I liked your original article a lot. Didn't mean to spend the whole time sparring with Chip without commenting on its worth.
73,
Dan
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KD6HUC on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can I just say this article has been a breath of fresh air? It seems many who cast doubt may very well have purchased stock in companies who sell the so-called multiband reduced size antennas. I have only been licensed since 1992, but agree 100% with most of this article. Perhaps if I had a few hundred acres free then I would have multiple resonant antennas for each band I use mounted at different heights and configurations to provide best possible communications to any location I need to work. Hey does anybody have a free Steppir Big Vertical I can have?
Branden
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It seems many who cast doubt may very well have purchased stock in companies who sell the so-called multiband reduced size antennas"
Some of them started such companies ;-)
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4KC: "Surely you must know that W1YW and others feel the need to stir the pot by taking a contrarian stance on many of the posts on these forums. Those guys serve a useful purpose, of course. If everyone agreed with everybody, this would be a rather dull exercise. And as bright and knowledgeable folks, they have the opportunity to help us all better understand a complicated subject while we benefit from their expertise and their willingness to share it."
"Unfortunately, they often come across as condescending at best and as downright arrogant and rude blowhards at worst. That's too bad."
Ahem...sometimes the article starter does...:-) [Surely, I jest] [and I promise never again to call you 'Surely']
"My hope is that articles like mine will make a few newcomers curious about how antennas work."
First lesson: ANY piece of wire will radiate RF if fed properly.
"Then, maybe they’ll get out and string up some wire and make some contacts and have some fun while they learn and apply that new knowledge."
A couple of (unwritten) provisos: There's space available and trees or other available high structures are available. Not always the case, especially with young newcomers.
"Or maybe a young one or two will be bitten by the bug and go on to discover the next great breakthrough in RF transducers or a competing technology to fractal antennas."
Not if all they read are Tom Swift tales or books on HF wire antennas of the old days (available, shipping extra from youknowwho).
"A center-fed dipole, fed with ladder line, is a simple, cheap and very effective multi-band antenna."
An off-center-feed (a la G5RV) WITH an antenna tuner is favored by most. 'Effective' is subjective. An antenna with two arms is going to have a very blobby horizontal and vertical pattern plus a remarkably wide-ranging feed impedance when fed at a frequency off its 'resonance.' An antenna tuning (matching) unit is almost mandatory to maximise power transfer but you can't do much about the blobby patterns.
Let's face it...e-ham seems to be HF-centric. The upper limit of ham radio is NOT 29.7 MHz.
"Most anyone can build and experiment with it and have good results with it, even if it is antiquated technology."
The discone I have up now was invented a half century ago. Excellent VSWR from 0.1 to 1.0 GHz, requiring no matching to 50 Ohms, omnidirectional horizontal pattern. A vertical antenna has only one thing sticking up (itself) and doesn't need supports for the ends or the feed point (for very long HF dipoles). Omnidirectional pattern with enough buried radials, not the blobs of 'off-resonance' dipoles.
"It works just as well today as it did in 1935, which is still better than most other simple, cheap and effective alternatives."
ANY piece of wire or conductor will radiate RF if fed properly. The US military backpack HF transceiver, AN/PRC-104, operates on the entire HF band with only a long whip antenna. Almost a quarter-century old operationally, it incorporates an automatic antenna tuner (to the right of the main box looking at the front panel) in order to maximize getting its 20 W PEP into that whip. The operator and metal case is its counterpoise.
450 Ohm ladder line, purchased new, is half the cost of new coaxial cable. Ladder line is made the same way as old 300 Ohm TV twinlead plus the punching-out of squares in the plastic webbing separating the two wires. If one can still get it, 300 Ohm twinlead is even cheaper and will work. Or, if some more dollars are available, a combination center insulator-separator with built-in balun for coax output can be obtained. That would greatly lessen any RF pickup or radiation from balanced line and withstand harsh elements a lot better than ladder line. If ladder line doesn't end at the drop bottom, then it needs supports along its horizaontal path...more cost, more work; coax can be buried or, if not buried, is less obtrusive than ladder line. Lighting/static-build-up-suppression is a lot easier with coax than any balanced line.
"I hear so many new hams trying to work with a Hamstick on a broom handle in the backyard or a twenty-foot-long piece of wire, using a tuner, when, with just a little effort and guidance, they could greatly enhance the experience."
'Enhance?' How? Is the purpose of amateur radio to communicate by radio or is it to spend time constructing wire antennas and tuning them up? The only thing physical labor does is to teach the laborer how physical the work is. The only thing "learned" about wire antenna installation is supporting them somehow, finding out how some supports just don't work (when they come unraveled) and some odd carpentry and metal-working skills. Theory? Nada, nyet, nothing while putting them up. Nothing at all about the influence of other, nearby conductors on either feed impedance or radiation patterns. How many have antenna analyzers? How many old-timers have one? If they have one, will they let newbies use it?
"I can’t imagine that their initial impressions of our wonderful hobby will be that positive, and especially if we old-timers tell them how stupid they are for not already knowing everything there is to know."
All those old-timers are busy telling other old-timers how stupid they are. Since most of the e-ham article perusers ARE old-timers, not to mention HF-centric, there don't appear to be too many newcomers in here. :-(
"None of us was born knowing this stuff."
True, but some in here sound like they were...:-(
"I think it’s we gray-hairs who should politely and positively stoke the fire in those who have an interest."
Good words but that's isn't looking at US amateur radio AS IT IS. Todays license statistics show 300 thousand Technician licensees, roughly 2/5ths of all US ham licensees. The vast majority of them HAD to begin operating on VHF and above in ham radio. It was the law. Few of them are "into" the 1935-era of wire antennas although some wire antennas will scale down to VHF. Given that the number of newcomers ARE keeping pace with expirations, there's still some 'spark' left for radio among the newbies. But, that 'spark' isn't of the 1935 era of radio. Newbies are INTO newer technologies and aren't afraid of it like so many of the gray hares. Trying to show them old technologic traits may sound good to other old hares but it's like, man, a big thud to younger folk.
Besides, REAL MEN of old used rhombics on four poles for DX...and with 600 Ohm open-wire lines! :-)
73, Len AF6AY [always older than the FCC]
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You can easily feed an EDZ with 50 ohm coax via a 0.144 wavelength section of 450 ohm ladder line and a 1:1 current balun. Accounting for velocity factor of the ladder line, the matching section is 19.25 feet long for 7.0 Mhz. Make it about a foot longer and trim it for best SWR (much easier to trim than add line).
Fed the rest of the way with 9913 coax, or 100'-19.25' = 80.75', the loss in the coaxial line at 7 Mhz is only about 0.36dB, and the loss in the ladder line is so low it isn't worth calculating."
Yep, you can do it that way too. All depends on the circumstances.
Be sure to remember that a transmission line which is a half-wave long electrically will repeat the input impedance at the other end. So you could add a half-wave of ladder line to the above and save some dollars and a fraction of a dB of loss.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ladder line does work, and is very low loss, but one must remember that it is affected by all weather conditions, wind, rain, ice and show. Long runs get complicated because of support issues and if not supported properly it will break very easy."
Agreed, but those problems can be dealt with.
Most amateur radio antenna work is over 90% mechanical engineering and less than 10% electrical engineering.
"It is also more obvious to your neighboors, as it is almost impossible to hide it!"
I disagree! Properly made ladder line can made very inconspicuous. Particularly compared to, say, half-inch black coax.
"Also the use of a tuner is very lossy, and usually what you gain in the low loss
ladder line is more than made up with the loss in the tuner!"
That's simply not true for all tuners. Tuner loss is affected by many factors, and "very lossy" simply is not the general case.
And a tuner is often used with coax feed anyway, since "modern" rigs require near-unity SWR to work right.
Besides, what really matters is the overall *system* loss.
"a GOOD 9913 or LMR400 coax only has about .5db of loss (per 100') in the HF bands."
The data sheet shows 0.7 dB per 100 feet at 30 MHz. And that's when the cable is brand new and perfectly matched.
And it costs how much?
"Even the best antenna tuners made have that or more loss."
Not necessarily. And as I have demonstrated in other posts, there are applications where no tuner is needed for ladder line.
"Coax can be burried, lay on the ground, hiden very easy, taped directly to metal structures and supported very easy."
Yep, it's very convenient to use. And for a wide variety of applications, it's the transmission line of choice.
But not for *all* amateur uses. That's the point.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KN4LF on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent antenna article Don. I've been using 300-450 ohm open wire line doublets for 20 years and have always had excellent results. The excellent results include doublets hung low in height (<1/2 wave) and via QRP power level. The one thing that I would add would be to use a balanced link coupled antenna tuner like the Johnson Viking Match Box, instead of a typical tee network antenna tuner with 4:1 BALUN.
For all the newbies I say ignore all the flamers, naysayers and trolls, especially the ones that beat their chests while invoking their education levels. LID city.
73,
Thomas Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
http://www.kn4lf.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes very good artical, those who don't use ladder line i don't hear everyday, but as they say i can hear you, your 20 over s9,and they are s9 at best, add in a few lightning crashes and there gone, and also to the new guys coming into the hobby, those who brag the most about there education level are exactly that braggers, those who truly truly know don't have to brag... N9FE
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yep, it's very convenient to use. And for a wide variety of applications, it's the transmission line of choice.
But not for *all* amateur uses. That's the point.
73 de Jim, N2EY
--------------
No; the point is there is no scenario where you HAVE to use it. Not properly alerted?-- it is inherent dangerous.
And the author CONTINUES not to correct the article and WARN ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES inherent to hardline.
Since when is a concern for safety in ham radio a 'contrarian' attitude??
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To W1YW....If we asked you real politely....would you just stop BREATHING....Please???
---------------------------------------
SO, you want me dead?
REALLY?
I am sorry to disappoint you, but at 52, with no medical conditions; no 'scrips as medicine; and a compliment as recently as yesterday that I look 38 (from a 38 year old who didn't know my age), I venture to say that I will breath for quite some time thanks; and will make an especial point to do so for the very same that may wish otherwise:-)
Isn't your reaction a bit extreme to defend ladder line?
Get a grip OM.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way Don,
I liked your original article a lot. Didn't mean to spend the whole time sparring with Chip without commenting on its worth.
73,
Dan
------------------
You didn't spar with me; don't elevate yourself beyond your height OM. Or should I say young man?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I said..."Also the use of a tuner is very lossy, and usually what you gain in the low loss
ladder line is more than made up with the loss in the tuner!"
N2ey said...
"That's simply not true for all tuners. Tuner loss is affected by many factors, and "very lossy" simply is not the general case."
You know, I never said "DON'T" use ladder line, I only pointed out the drawbacks to using it. Also I would really like to know if anyone who supports LOW TUNER LOSS as ever put watt meters on both sides of the tuner and compaired the input power to the output power, and actually measured the loss in the tuner? You might be surprised at what you see. The basic design of a tuner is basically the same for just about every tuner out there. Granted a better roller inductor with a higher Q will have a little less loss, but the overall design is pretty much the same. For the price of a really good tuner, one could really buy a nice antenna system. The ARRL did a lot of testing with tuners and printed the results in QST. For what it was worth, I believe they said the BEST tuner they tested had 11% loss and some went as high as 35%!! Also there are a lot of people out there who do NOT truely understand how to tune their tuner properly. Ever seen a burned wafer swich in one, arced air caps? Wonder how that happened? Another thing I have seen done over and over is feed ladder line with a 4:1 balun just outside the shack to make it easier to work with. Well 4:1 on 50 ohm line is only 200ohms into a 450ohm line or higher if the antenna is way off, and that in itself is a major loss! Better than 3db right there. Anytime you feed a high with a low there is a loss. If one really wanted to feed it that way, they would need a 9:1 balun to keep the match the same.
So all is NOT as rosey as some people would make it out to be, and are forgetting a lot of other factors in the overall LOSS in their antenna system.
I know that when 1000watts leaves my shack thru LMR-400 cable, it loses about .5db and shows 891 watts at the antenna. I also know that a cut to resonant freq. 1/2wave dipole, 1/2wave above the ground, will also show about 2.1db of gain in its main lobes or an ERP of 1445.4 watts. Not to shabby, I would say.
And the last question, how much does this LMR-400 cable cost? A lot less than a really nice low loss 1500watt antenna tuner!! $650 compaired to about $65 worth of wire, or a 10th! This leaves a bunch of money left over to build all kinds of antennas!
So...again if ladder line is what you want to use, so be it! Just doesn't work for me! Not cost effective.
======================================================
Notes for reference: the price of the tuner used was the Ten-Tec 238-B 2000watt tuner, which tested the lowest loss tuner on the market, around 11% loss.
======================================================
So lets compair apples to apples. Anyone can change the numbers around, but these were actual measured figures. And @ 11% loss in the tuner at 1000watts is 110watts lost.. or gee... .5db, the same as my $65 cable.
Use whatever works for you. The difference at the far end from 100watts to 1500watts is about 2 s-units, doesn't sound like a lot, but it could make a difference from being heard or not heard. And I want as many of my watts to be radiated into space and not turned into heat! We don't need the heat in Florida!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You didn't spar with me; don't elevate yourself beyond your height OM. Or should I say young man?"
QRU.
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9FE: "Yes very good artical, those who don't use ladder line i don't hear everyday, but as they say i can hear you, your 20 over s9,and they are s9 at best, add in a few lightning crashes and there gone, and also to the new guys coming into the hobby, those who brag the most about there education level are exactly that braggers, those who truly truly know don't have to brag..."
Is it bragging if one admits to graduating high school? :-)
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Len: have you read chippy's bio, say no more, the guy's so full of crap his eyes are brown, have a good memorial day, N9FE
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N1ONE on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great Article!
I learned this lesson first hand several months ago. I too was under the impression that a resonant antenna was the best way to go.
Don't get me wrong, if you intend to work only one band and cut the antenna for the middle of the sub-band you intend to work, then the resonant dipole feed with coax works just fine.
However, if you intend to work multiple bands with one antenna, then this article really speaks the truth.
I was using a 40 meter dipole feed with coax to a tuner. It worked well enough on 40 meters, but terrible every where else...even 15 meters was not that good.
I may not be the smartest HAM on the planet, but I am smart enough to ask for help when I need it. I asked one of the most experienced HAMS in the local club that I belong to. He told me to put up the longest dipole that I could fit in my yard, don't worry about the exact length, but make sure both legs are the same length. Ditch the coax and get some 300 ohm twinlead or 450 ohm ladder line. Feed that antenna system directly to the balanced line input on the tuner.
When I asked him why, he commented that a low SWR isn't always the most important thing. It is important, but it will be far less important if you have a low loss antenna system to begin with.
He was right! What a difference this new (and simple)antenna system made. I have been able work bands that were impossible for me to work the coax feed dipole. The signal reports I get are far better than before and I can work stations with far less power than I needed before.
This is an important lesson that all new General class HAMs should learn. Try it, it is the best way to learn something new!.
Thanks for posting this article!
73
de N1ONE
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not aware of any inaccuracies in my bio, but I trust you will forward me corrections if I missed something.
In the meantime, the thrust of your comment is to attempt (unsuccessfully of course) to discredit my viability as someone who disagrees with the use of ladder line .
And, in the meantime, you have newbies who know NOTHING ABOUT THE SAFETY HAZARDS OF LADDER LINE based upon this article--which has YET TO BE CORRECTED despite the author's awareness of the issue.
That makes me 'full of crap'?
Well, I guess if I was basically a CB'er, I would be so threatened....I would use the aggressive and goofy antics of the CB 'hood.
But I am not.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...inherent to hardline"
--------------------------------------
No; correction to text: inherent to LADDER LINE.
See N4KC? It's EASY to correct text. So go do it on your article and WARN ABOUT THE SAFETY HAZARDS OF LADDER LINE.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QRU.--N3OX
-----------------------------
That's the first intelligent thing I've seen you say in a while.
Understanding one's limitations is the first step to transcending them. Best of luck in your endeavors.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And Chip: While I may be new to Amateur HF, I did cut my teeth in AM broadcast. Let's see if I remember the formula: 5kV * 1A / cow field @ .98MHz = 1 medium market C&W station
---------------------------------
Spreading the high lonesome. Boy, howdee!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You didn't spar with me; don't elevate yourself beyond your height OM. Or should I say young man?
73,
Chip W1YW
>> Chip, your pomposity is a tad off the chart. Ordinarily, I blow-off people who make these sort of comments as they usually emanate from people who have something to prove and aren't comfortable in their own skin.
Considering your background - yes, I've seen your bio and web site - I'm rather surprised. Most academics or scientists don't have time for this sort of thing. They are humbled by people who have an interest in their area of expertise and look up to them for assistance.
Something you may want to give some serious thought to......
WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You will find it worthwhile to discover, in life, that you have no right to define how others live, and they have no obligation to live up to some simplistic view of what you think they should be.
I didn't ask you to look at my bio. My suggestion is that if you find it offensive; false; over the top; and so on, then you make a formal complaint for it's removal. Personally, I couldn't care less if you read it or not.
Why should I?
I need to also add that your sense of vanity seems to be, IMO, Christian in origin, and not being a Christian, I do not feel the same compunctions: I didn't ask for your attention to my bio, but be damned if I will remove it to satisfy your mindset.
In any case, despite efforts to falsely discredit the messenger,I will continue to stress that the article at hand contains no information REGARDING THE HAZARDS TO SAFETY POSED BY ladder line, and that, IMO, the failure to correct it is a major disservice to the 'newbies'.
I hope this helps.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AD5TD on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers Reply
by NB9D on May 24, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I have an old book entitled something like "Dipole and Longwire Antennas" that was published by 73 Magazine many years ago (in the 1970's I think) that is probably one of the best overall sources for simple antenna design you will find. I don't know where that book is available because I am sure it is out of print, but I find it a very good source for really down-to-earth data for wire antennas.
You didn't miss it by much. It was published in 1969 by Editors and Engineers Ltd. New Augusta Indiana.
I have the third priniting dated 1975. Great book
It's called: Dipole and Long-Wire Anennas by Edward M. Noll, W3FQJ
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You will find it worthwhile to discover, in life, that you have no right to define how others live, and they have no obligation to live up to some simplistic view of what you think they should be."
Take your own advice, Chip.
By your own arguments:
You have no right to define what technologies other hams use or don't use.
You have no right to define what is safe and what isn't.
You have no right to define what other hams should post and not post.
When you say that hams shouldn't use tubes, or ladder line, or anything else that is legal but not new technology, you are definining how others should live, and saying that they have an obligation to live up to your simplistic view of what they should be.
Play by your own rules, Chip. Or is it "do what Chip says, not what Chip does"?
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I claim no such right(s).
I exercise **privilege** in the context of this articles TITLE---Antenna Lessons from Old Timers-- to convey the reality: ladder line is a small niche of all ham antenna users; is not advantageous over coaxial feed systems; is inherently hazardous; safety cautions needed in initiating the newbie. And so on.
To reinforce this, I have just dug out a wonderful picture from the book DON WALLACE W6AM, showing a ham lighting a cigar from the arc drawn from the grounded portion of 9ZT's (W6AM's earlier station)ladder line. He was using less power than contemporary QRO stations BTW.
SWITCH TO SAFETY . Switch to coax.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the Cebik article, the table notes that on every band 80-10 the line loss is much less with ladder line than coax.
-------------------------------------
Hi Jim,
L.B. Cebik is a retired professor of aesthetics and art that has done, for the most part, (and unrelated to his profession) a fine job of preserving knowledge on ancient antenna designs, IMO. I think it's a fine past-time for one in their retirement. I also think that many have learned some important antenna basics from his voluminous writings.
However, IF he is telling you that coax has significantly higher insertion loss at HF and MF than ladder line, the measured results are contrary to that statement. The typical insertion loss for a 100 feet of good coax at MF is of order less than a dB. I know, because I measure insertion loss all the time on vector network analyzers. I measure the insertion loss of every piece of coax I use. I have consistently found the actual insertion losses to be better than spec.
So please: can we dispel this myth that coax is "lossy"? Crap coax is lossy. Good coax, and great coax is not.
So don't use crap coax.
End of story.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I use ladder line. It works. I make contacts. Its my decision. I am of voting age (plus some).
As long as I don't infringe upon someone else's space or safety, who cares?
PAN
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi 'PAN',
Good attitude, reasonable comment.
I do hope you agree that anyone doing as you say have some prior knowledge about keeping ladder line away from metal, and proper grounding and breaking for lightning. These are just common sense safety warnings that every neophyte should know; don't you agree?
Wouldn't you also agree that some intro article for the neophyte include such warnings, and that any reasonable author should add such text if brought to their attention?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AB7E on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a silly, totally subjective, horribly verbose article. Almost five thousand words to say virtually nothing.
Of course there is no inherent benefit to having a resonant antenna, except that there are strong pattern benefits to making it an appropriate length for the band being operated. But neither is there any compelling reason to "do it like the old timers did", and there are few good reasons for trying to avoid a resonant antenna. There are loss advantages to controlling feedpoint impedances, even with ladder line, and even well built tuners can create a lot of loss trying to drive the wrong loads.
This kind of simplistic posting and most of the replies it spawned create way more misconceptions than our hobby needs. It perpetuates the mentality of following vague and inappropriate rules of thumb versus simple (and mostly free) analytical analysis of the particular situation at hand.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9FE: "Len: have you read chippy's bio, say no more, the guy's so full of crap his eyes are brown, have a good memorial day, N9FE"
If you meant me (AF6AY), yes I have. Am I impressed with W1YW's biography on QRZ? Yes. Now what, you want to FIGHT on Memorial Day over some very personal feedline choice used in amateur radio HF ham antenna derring-do?!?
You want to "fight?" Okay, you grab the hardest, toughest 450 ladder-line (TV twinlead on steroids) and I will face you with some Andrew 1 5/8" coaxial hardline (with or without the "bullets"). Think you will win? I don't think so.
Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who fell in the service of their country. I am a veteran of the US Army. I don't have "good" or "bad" Memorial Days. I mentally salute all my comrades in arms whether they served before or after me. I don't take any snit from some who want to "enlist me" in some idotic personal vendetta over computer-modem communications and their poor feelings being so hurt.
I lucked out on my Army assignment. It turned out to change my working career choice. To see why, you are welcome to download a photo essay of my three years of Army service in HF communications at a Big HF Station over a half century ago: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory/uploads/My3Years.pdf
Approximately 6 MB file size, 20 pages. It has lots of nice pictures in it if the text gets too technical for you. It has been vetted by N2JTV who served with me at the same station at the same time I did (but on a different operating team) and a civilian engineer (now retired) who worked for the Army there. That was a long time ago and the Era of the Tube. Times have changed and technology has changed by several orders of magnitude in the last half century. Learn with it or die the Darwinian Way.
Now, I happen to agree with Chip on his choice of coaxial cable versus TV twinlead on steroids ("ladder line"). Try to remember what the subject of the article, forget your petty spats. My eyes are blue. My blood is red. My race is "white." This is Memorial Day in the USA. My stars and stripes are flying in front of my house today in honor of those who never came back. Is yours?
Len AF6AY [ex-RA16408336]
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow! Absoultely amazing! Next they will be fighting about which is better, Upper Sideband or Lower Sideband.
Have a Happy Memorial Day, and don't forget our Troops
fighting, so we can enjoy this nice day off!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Wow! Absoultely amazing! Next they will be fighting about which is better, Upper Sideband or Lower Sideband."
Listen up, "Alan" (if that is your real name), my brother was KILLED by Lower Sideband so if there ever was a reason to hate LSB, this is enough for me.
How come nobody posts about the horrible dangers of Lower Sideband? Huh?
Got it?!?
Oh, and "73!"
Steve N4SL
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Memorial Day is a day of remembrance for those who fell in the service of their country. I am a veteran of the US Army. I don't have "good" or "bad" Memorial Days. I mentally salute all my comrades in arms whether they served before or after me. I don't take any snit from some who want to "enlist me" in some idotic personal vendetta over computer-modem communications and their poor feelings being so hurt.
--------------------------------------------
Thank you for protecting our country.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This kind of simplistic posting and most of the replies it spawned create way more misconceptions than our hobby needs. It perpetuates the mentality of following vague and inappropriate rules of thumb versus simple (and mostly free) analytical analysis of the particular situation at hand.
-------------------
Exactly.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Len: have you read chippy's bio, say no more, the guy's so full of crap his eyes are brown.."
------------------------
My eyes are green.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KG6QHP on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Nathan,
According to you, Mr. Cebik a renown antenna expert and the editors of the ARRL antenna book are wrong to point out that a good choice for a feedline for a multiband dipole doublet is twinlead.
So what?
Empirical evidence proves that this is a useful antenna for some folks. It has been used for decades. It is still being sold by reputable antenna manufacturers.
Why would I want to purchase comparable loss coax at a greater expense than twinlead which costs considerably less? For this particular antenna, twinlead works better as a feedline than comparably priced coax. Safety is always an issue that has to be taken into account for any design. I have and as a result never had a safety issue with twinlead.
You are willing to pay more to use coax. That is fine with me. After all, this is still America, or is it?
73 de KG6R,
Jim
YOU WROTE.....
So please: can we dispel this myth that coax is "lossy"? Crap coax is lossy. Good coax, and great coax is not.
So don't use crap coax.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes my flag is flying, my son is still in iraq for two years now, his dad is sitting here in a wheelchair, you all have a good day.. N9FE
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love it!
AF6AY says....
"First lesson: ANY piece of wire will radiate RF if fed properly."
This is 100% correct, just like 50 turns of wire glued on any piece of paper and held ove a PM magnet will make audio...of some kind, but do you want to use it?
The military is NOT a good example to use for coming up with a way to use HF radio effeciently! There was nothing good about any of the PRC radios and/or their antennas! At best they had about a 10 mile range when used with the attached antenna. Has something to do with that oxymoron "Military Intelligence" and their newest..a real classic.. an "Army of One!"
One day someone will come up with a better way to effectively couple/de-couple RF energy to/from our atmosphere. As for now the antenna is still pretty much the same as it was 100years ago. Wow, imagine what it would be like if EVERYTHING stayed the same over the past 100years. There will be a break thru one day, then maybe they will come up with a replacement for a gas engine..another 100 year old technology.
73 es Hope everyone had a great Holiday weekend, and thanked a soldier!
Now its 10pm eastern...do you know where your kids are?
de W4LGH - Alan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W7ETA on May 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
IF we all asked politely, would eHam make a section where these experts can all go to pee on each other legs so that someone who might want to learn more about the subject matter does not have to wade through excrement?
Bob
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by K5MVP on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It really is very simple. Open wire line equals very low loss resulting in over 95% of your power to the antenna. However, the big secret is using a true balanced antenna tuner like the Johnson Matchbox and NOT using baluns anywhere in the antenna system. For starters cut yourself a G5RV antenna which is 51 feet on each leg. Connect it to 450 ohm balanced line and connect the other end of the balance line to the Johnson Matchbox. Put the antenna up as high as possible. You will work the world with one antenna on all bands. You will work DX in large pileups. You will have no RF in the shack and you will have spent very little for an antenna which performs beautifully and is a dream to maintain.
“What goes around comes around”. Yes, we can all learn if we have an open mind.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by G3LBS on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After 50 years ham radio I would wholeheartedly agree with the last post from K5MVP, and it is so clearly expressed.
After using all types of antenna, 100 ft towers, rotators, Yagis and Quads, I have reached the same conclusions.
I wondered how to celebrate 50 years on ham radio and on my Anniversary I worked Peter 1 Island using exactly the system K5MVP advocates.
In fact I have two G5RVs 30 degrees apart so I can choose one which has a main lobe where I want to work, but usually I only use the one antenna.
The 100ft twin 300 ohm feeder from RadioShack is the best bargain known.
No baluns, no coax. Sleep during night-time hurricanes.
The Matchbox is the best thing I ever bought.
Buffalo Gil Dr Gil W2/G3LBS
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You guys still don't get it. SO let me spell it out for you:
1) the insertion loss of good coax is low, even very low, so claims that ladder line is truly superior in this regard are false;
2) MISMATCH loss can obviously be higher with 50 ohm coax on a 'non resonant', because coax was made to be fed at the CURRENT MAX of a real-world 1/2 wave dipole (which is about 50 ohms) and...
3) These so-called 'non resonant' antennas are not fed at the CURRENT MAX (at least in the ham bands), so the feed impedance is far from 50 ohms real;
4) the feed impedance goes UP away from the position of the current max on the antenna, so anything that that has a characteristic impedance of a few hundred ohms for a feed will have less mismatch loss at the FEED POINT;
5) you still need to transform and, presumably, conjugate, the impedance of the ladder line at the exciter, which is designed to see a 50 ohm real load in modern transceivers.
6)I can make 50 ohm ladder line, and it will inherently suck against coax on ALL counts: I can also BUY--although not common-- coax with a higher characteristic impedance that will have less mismatch loss on this 'non resonant' antenna. In any case LADDER LINE WILL ALWAYS BE WORSE for a given cost per foot.
There is nothing magic or superior about LADDER LINE--
**** THE ISSUE IS THE CHARACTERISTIC IMPEDANCE OF THE FEEDLINE VERSUS THE IMPEDANCE OF THE FEEDPOINT OF THE ANTENNA.***
OK?
Stop ACTING like amateurs...
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It really is very simple. Open wire line equals very low loss resulting in over 95% of your power to the antenna. --K5MVP
----------------------
Can we PLEASE stop promulgating myths? There is nothing about ladder line (open wire) feeds that makes them inherently less lossy.
Insertion loss depends on the materials, separations, conductor width and material,and so on.
I can have crap ladder line, and I can have great coax.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
G3LBS: you are exactly right, balanced line systems are great, the best thing is 80 percent of your power is NOT coming back down the coax shield as loss, but don't tell everyone, then maybe someone just might hear them,
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by KA4NMA on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Concerning ladder line safety, a few years ago QST ran a series of articles on grounding (written by a Mr. Block, whose brother founded PolyPhaser) on grounds and safety. The article tells how to use gas discharge units on ladderline. Reprints are available from the ARRL website.
Also, the wireman sells a lighting arrestor for ladder line.
Also, check the tables for coax and ladder line and compare the loss per 100 ft. Ladder line has lower loss.
Guess the "experts" are not so well read.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guess the "experts" are not so well read.
-----------------------------------------------
No OM; it is you who has not "read".
Please review my comments on coaxial cable loss.
As an expert (I apologize if that offends you) I would be happy to articulate, in detail, how to MEASURE the insertion loss of a length of coax. Using a vector network analyzer.
If you "read" you will see that all coax I have measured, that is not used and hence 'crap',is low loss at MF/HF and is better than specs--i.e. your 'table'.
I hope that helps.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Concerning ladder line safety, a few years ago QST ran a series of articles on grounding (written by a Mr. Block, whose brother founded PolyPhaser) on grounds and safety. The article tells how to use gas discharge units on ladderline. Reprints are available from the ARRL website...
-----------------------------------
That's great...now: don't you think NEWBIES should be given the SAFETY CONCERNS AND OPTIONS in any and ALL **intro** articles on ladder line?
Why is it NOT in this article?
Why has the author NOT REVISED to include?
Is SAFETY such a MINOR CONCERN FOR our newbies that we wish them to TAKE RISKS we wouldn't?
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW wrote:
"1) the insertion loss of good coax is low, even very low, so claims that ladder line is truly superior in this regard are false;"
The loss of an equal length of good ladder line (not window line, not TV twinlead) is even lower. So good ladder line *is* truly superior in this regard.
"2) MISMATCH loss can obviously be higher with 50 ohm coax on a 'non resonant',"
That's true because, with any transmission line, the added loss due to SWR is dependent on the loss when matched.
"because coax was made to be fed at the CURRENT MAX of a real-world 1/2 wave dipole (which is about 50 ohms)"
No, that's not why coax is 50 ohms.
The reason coax is 50 ohms dates back to when flexible, polyethylene-dielectric coax cables were first developed. Turns out that, for a given amount of copper and poly, the loss-per-unit-length of such coax goes through a broad minimum around 50 ohms. For air-insulated coax, the minimum is around 77 ohms. For foam-insulated coax, it's in between those values.
Look it up. There's a reason you don't see 300 ohm solid-poly coax - it's called loss.
That a center-fed half-wave HF dipole erected at certain heights above ground has a feedpoint impedance around 50 ohms is pure coincidence.
"3) These so-called 'non resonant' antennas are not fed at the CURRENT MAX (at least in the ham bands), so the feed impedance is far from 50 ohms real;"
That's true - but it doesn't tell the whole story.
We amateurs are fortunate to have access to a 9 HF/MF bands, plus some channels near 5 MHz. And all US amateurs have access to at least 4 of those bands. An increasing number have access to all 9 bands.
But many of us do not have the resources to put up
separate antennas for each band, or even for a couple of the bands. Many do not have the space to put up full-sized half-wave antennas for the lower HF bands.
So we're forced to come up with compromise antennas. The trick is to find the best compromise for a given situation.
For example, I once lived in a house that was at the front of a narrow-but-deep lot (46 feet wide, 275 feet deep.). There was a huge tree in the back yard. So I ran an end-fed wire (well insulated) out the basement window, up the side of the house to the attic window, and out across the yard to the tree. End-fed the wire against ground using a simple L network tuner. Did a really good job on all HF bands.
What coax-fed antenna should I have used instead?
Earlier in this thread, I have twice described a scenario where an amateur would have the resources to put up a center-fed dipole 100 to 130 feet long between existing trees. I suggested feeding it with good ladder line and a good balanced tuner, so that all HF bands could be covered with a single antenna. And I challenged you and anyone else to describe a better setup for the given location that used only coax feed.
So far, no takers.
"4) the feed impedance goes UP away from the position of the current max on the antenna, so anything that that has a characteristic impedance of a few hundred ohms for a feed will have less mismatch loss at the FEED POINT;"
That's true. But it's not the whole story. Feedpoint Z also goes up on harmonics, and varies with antenna height above ground.
"5) you still need to transform and, presumably, conjugate, the impedance of the ladder line at the exciter, which is designed to see a 50 ohm real load in modern transceivers."
And that's the job of a transmatch, aka tuner. So what? Simply feeding a halfwave dipole with coax will not eliminate the need for a matching device on bands such as 160, 80/75 and 40 meters.
"6)I can make 50 ohm ladder line, and it will inherently suck against coax on ALL counts:"
Then don't make it.
" I can also BUY--although not common-- coax with a higher characteristic impedance that will have less mismatch loss on this 'non resonant' antenna. In any case LADDER LINE WILL ALWAYS BE WORSE for a given cost per foot."
Sorry, that's simply not the case. Check out W5DXP's all-HF-band no-tuner antenna for an example.
"There is nothing magic or superior about LADDER LINE--
**** THE ISSUE IS THE CHARACTERISTIC IMPEDANCE OF THE FEEDLINE VERSUS THE IMPEDANCE OF THE FEEDPOINT OF THE ANTENNA.***
OK?"
Nope.
Ladder line, coax, tuners, matching sections, baluns, ununs, and many other things are simply tools in the amateur's antenna system toolbox. Some are old tools, some are new tools. All are useful. All have their good points and bad points, their uses and abuses.
The trick is finding the best tools for a given scenario.
Now, Chip, if you're the "expert", please scroll up this thread to where I described the scenario of the ham whose house is in the middle of the lot with trees near the edges. Read that scenario and tell me what sort of simple, coax-fed antenna could be put up at that ham's QTH that would do a better job than the ladder-line-fed dipole I described. Remember that it would have to do a better job on all amateur HF bands from 80 through 10 meters *and* meet all the requirements and conditions described.
All other "experts" are invited to solve the same problem.
Anyone?
"Stop ACTING like amateurs..."
Well, if the behavior of some here is supposed to be PROFESSIONAL, I rather prefer those who act like amateurs.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I rather prefer those who act like amateurs.
73 de Jim, N2EY
----------------------------------------
I can see that. You definitely shouldn't prefer me. Please keep me off your QSO list-just turn the dial if you hear me.
And you are wrong about 50 ohms: for decades it has been possible (and done) to make cheap, low loss coax that is far from 50 ohms. The 50 ohm 'standard' was adopted because of the antenna drive impedance-not coaxial dielectric.
And hey! You are wrong about lots of other stuff too, as far as I can see.
But thanks for turning my words around to make them address something different.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Gentlemen, we have a winner by default.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
even on a resonant cut dipole what is the shield side of the coax doing chippy,,,, thats right nothing,, if anything the energy is be wasted "loss" and coming back down the coax and grounding out on the back of the radio, or tuner, the grounded out "shield" side of the coax does nothing, a balanced line system the energy flows both ways, hence a better signal, a smart guy like you should know that, also a truly balanced system, the feedline does NOT radiate, NOT one bit, hence no TVI, and a better signal for all to hear you with, these are not myths, these are facts, well proven facts, N9FE
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You will find it worthwhile to discover, in life, that you have no right to define how others live, and they have no obligation to live up to some simplistic view of what you think they should be."
>>> You need to take a good look at most of your posts – and in the mirror as you seem to have a very convoluted sense of entitlement. On one hand, you don't mind telling others what is or what isn't correct but should someone even insinuate providing the same advice you, they’re overly simplistic. Sooner or later, I think you will find in life that such double standards come back to bite one in the a- -.
"I didn't ask you to look at my bio. My suggestion is that if you find it offensive; false; over the top; and so on, then you make a formal complaint for it's removal. Personally, I couldn't care less if you read it or not. Why should I?"
>>> That’s right, you didn’t; I checked you out - so what? Why would I ask to have your bio removed? I never said there was anything wrong with it –or is there?? Other than a distasteful amount of rodomontading, I wouldn’t have any reason to complain.
"I need to also add that your sense of vanity seems to be, IMO, Christian in origin, and not being a Christian, I do not feel the same compunctions: I didn't ask for your attention to my bio, but be damned if I will remove it to satisfy your mindset."
>>> Being a Christian, I’ll take that as a compliment, thanks. Once again, you may not have asked for my attention to your bio, but your acutely ostentatious style brings out the best in me. In all honesty, I could really give two craps about what you do with your “bio”. As to whether or not YOU, Nathan Cohen feel the compunction to be vain; gee going by your other posts, I think you've already let the cat out of the bag, don't you?
"In any case, despite efforts to falsely discredit the messenger, I will continue to stress that the article at hand contains no information REGARDING THE HAZARDS TO SAFETY POSED BY ladder line, and that, IMO, the failure to correct it is a major disservice to the "newbies". I hope this helps."
>>> Really Chip, is “help” the right choice of words here? If you really wanted to help, we’d find your postings all over the Elmer’s forum, which of course we don’t. As your bio seems to indicate you are a tough act to follow, and by your recent responses here, a real piece of work.
....WA1RNE
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, OM, if I BOTHER you oh so much, then why not just ignore me?
Why do you feel that you have to prove something?
Being a Christian, as you say, then ask the truly gracious question--no sarcasm meant in any way: What would Jesus do?
You are poor student of the New testament, IMO.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
even on a resonant cut dipole what is the shield side of the coax doing chippy,,,, thats right nothing,, if anything the energy is be wasted "loss" and coming back down the coax and grounding out on the back of the radio, or tuner, the grounded out "shield" side of the coax does nothing, a balanced line system the energy flows both ways, hence a better signal, a smart guy like you should know that, also a truly balanced system, the feedline does NOT radiate, NOT one bit, hence no TVI, and a better signal for all to hear you with, these are not myths, these are facts, well proven facts, N9FE
-----------------------------------
I have no idea what this gibberish is trying to convey. It's typing, not writing.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"rodomontading"
What a word! $16.50 at least.
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by WB4TJH on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
From the way some of the silly old fools on this site are going at each other, I would suspect the Prozac has run out or the Geritol bottle is empty. Give me a break.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's that 'CB-morphing' of ham radio--in action.
Damn shame.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9FE: "even on a resonant cut dipole what is the shield side of the coax doing chippy,,,, thats right nothing,, if anything the energy is be wasted "loss" and coming back down the coax and grounding out on the back of the radio, or tuner, the grounded out "shield" side of the coax does nothing, a balanced line system the energy flows both ways, hence a better signal, a smart guy like you should know that, also a truly balanced system, the feedline does NOT radiate, NOT one bit, hence no TVI, and a better signal for all to hear you with, these are not myths, these are facts, well proven facts, N9FE"
Proven fact: A dipole is a balanced system.
Proven fact: Coaxial cable is an unblanced system.
Proven fact: You cannot connect balanced systems directly to unbalanced systems and expect them to work perfectly together.
To cure Proven Fact 3, there is the very simple broadband RF transformer called a Balun. After the balanced to unbalanced transformation is done, there is no RF radiation from the outer conductor of the coaxial cable. Depending on the insulation resistance of the Balun internal structure, there will be no bleeding over of electrical storm static electricity build-ups to the ground.
Proven fact: A broadband RF transformer Balun will transform the complex impedance of the balanced dipole to the unbalanced coaxial cable system directly in accord with its transformation ratio.
Proven fact: Classic/legacy dipoles have resistive-only impedances only at their 'resonant' frequency. Away from such 'resonance' frequency, both resistive and reactive values vary considerably.
Proven fact: Classic/legacy dipoles will radiate RF at ALL frequencies...but the radiation pattern will vary from the 'resonant' frequency shape, both horizontally and vertically.
Proven facts 4 and 5 can be solved for a resistive-only impedance transformation over a wide frequency range using an unbalanced input/output "antenna tuning unit" (either manual or automatic). Proven fact 6 can't be solved by using balanced or unbalanced feedlines or antenna tuning units.
Proven fact: RF sources (such as transmitters) are designed for and tested with unblanced resistive-only loads. Nearly all such RF sources will refuse to deliver resistive-only-load RF power output to loads with unmatched impedances (i.e., resistive part of impedance not close to design resistance and/or reactive part of impedance is non-zero).
Proven fact 7 can be cured in a variety of ways, by using an "antenna tuner" (impedance transformation device) or "tuned feedlines" (cut to a specific wavelength). The latter is very narrowband, the former can be very broadband.
Those facts should be well known but, in some insane need to be competitive while fighting some Word War 3, there is failure to cite ALL the facts. Let's use ALL the "proven facts," okay?
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AF6AY: "First lesson: ANY piece of wire will radiate RF if fed properly."
W4LGH: "This is 100% correct, just like 50 turns of wire glued on any piece of paper and held ove a PM magnet will make audio...of some kind, but do you want to use it?
I don't know about the number of turns, but it seems I've listened to paper cone speakers with their coils of wire in an air gap in a magnetic field all my life. [I've always been older than the FCC]
W4LGH: "The military is NOT a good example to use for coming up with a way to use HF radio effeciently!
Just what is your definition of "efficiently?" Do you think the militaries of the world operate according to amateur radio use specifications?!? Is there a UN QSL "buro?" Does the ITU-R sanction radio contests? I don't think so.
I cited the current US military manpack HF radio transceiver, the AN/PRC-104. Completly portable, it will work "QRP" anywhere in the HF spectrum, in environments that far exceed what ham radio users care to tolerate. The Receiver-Transmitter of the PRC-104 is the very same one used with a vehicular system and with a field fixed radio set, maximum PEP output of 450 Watts into a choice of antennas.
The PRC-104 is almost a quarter-century old, operationally. The US Army is currently looking for a replacement. If you wait a few years, maybe you could get a nice little QRP transceiver of 20 W PEP with attached automatic antenna tuning unit, all portable from rechargeable LiON batteries. Surplus, of course...write your elected Representative or Senator to remind tham that all no-longer-used HF radios should be sold below-cost to the "deserving" citizens who love slamming/hating the Army.
W4LGH: "There was nothing good about any of the PRC radios and/or their antennas!"
:-) Up your feedline too, fella. I wore an AN/PRC-8 a few times, high-HF/low-VHF, all tubes, dry battery pack only, whip antenna, audio output enough to be heard through the earphone of the handset clipped to the pack straps. It was VFO-tuned, just like the WW2 predecessor SCR-300 (first manpack "walkie talkie"). Worked just fine for its intended purpose. Of course I didn't know that anyone was expecting QSLs or holding "contests" on how many other PRCs they could contact...:-)
The AN/PRC-6 handheld transceiver was also good but only VHF and tuned to a single R/T frequency with a crystal. First time I'd seen a tape-measure-metal-material used as an antenna. 13 tubes, all but one a subminiature. Good for a mile range in any terrain. Much better operationaly than the old WW2 HF handie-talkie. It also had a little "repeater kit" that let one connect two of them for unattended reapeater operation! [in 1952 no less :-) ]
During the Vietnam War there were the AN/PRC-25 and PRC-77 "channelized" VHF transceivers, much despised by true HF hams who absolutely hated VHF, Vietnam, the draft, and nearly everything else. The PRC-77 was all solid state, the PRC-25 had one tube for the Tx PA, both the same specs otherwise. Wasn't good for moonbounce or DX and I never heard of "Charlie" sending QSLs. An eighth of a million of those two transceivers were built worldwide (several militaries built them on license).
By 1989 the first of the SINCGARS were operational. 30 to 88 MHz, digitized voice and/or data, capable of frequency-hopping 10 carrier frequencies a second, in-clear or on-line-encrypted (encryption built in on later models). The AN/PRC-119 (manpack version) was eventually made in half the size and weight, the R/T used in higher-RF-power vehicular, airborne, and fixed radio sets. One of the first field radio sets to use rechargeable batteries. Not a chance to QSL those transmissions. Absolutely NOT a "real [HF] radio" since it didn't even have a frequency-control knob or switch! [it's got an LCD touch-panel for entering the "hopset" as well as diagnostic indicators]
For that matter, the US military doesn't even come close to using HF tactically as it did right after WW2's end. Military land forces had migrated to VHF for the majority of small-forces communications on land during WW2.
W4LGH: "At best they had about a 10 mile range when used with the attached antenna."
No problem. Takes at least three hours to traverse 10 miles with a 70-pound load of sidearm, ammo, pack, field rations...while unfriendlies might be waiting to kill you all along the way. The "attached antenna" can reach out at lot faster, contact nearby units, aircraft. Is that how US ham radio is practiced? I don't think so.
W4LGH: "Has something to do with that oxymoron "Military Intelligence" and their newest..a real classic.. an "Army of One!"
The US military hasn't taught morse code for tactical radio use for decades. The very last place for military morse code training IS the Military Intellignece school at Fort Huachuca, AZ. All the service branches use that school for their military intelligence specialists, even the US government. Fort Huachuca also has the UAV school with a field outside the Fort. M.I. duties are NOT the ones practiced by our politicians who are the ones sending our troops everywhich way for whatever whim.
There hasn't been ANY military draft since the end of the Vietnam War, over 33 years of time. If you don't like the recruiting methods or sales slogans, go into your nearest recruiting center and beat up one of those "Army of One" guys. Good luck on your recovery. Let's stick to ANTENNA subjects for this article, okay?
W4LGH: "One day someone will come up with a better way to effectively couple/de-couple RF energy to/from our atmosphere."
News flash: Antennas work just fine in space, in total vacuum, no 'atmosphere' needed.
W4LGH: "As for now the antenna is still pretty much the same as it was 100years ago."
Really? Ever see the JPL Deep Space Network at Goldstone? There were parabolic reflectors in 1907? Messrs Yagi and Uda didn't come up with the parasitic-element beam antenna until the late 1930s in Japan. I'm not sure when the log-periodic broadband (no matching needed) antenna was invented but I saw a USN military log-periodic rotatable beam in eastern PA in 1971. The same for the "slot" antenna used in lightweight microwave antennas such as civil avionics weather radar...which RCA Commercial Aviation subdivision was making in 1974. The Discone is a widely-used broadband VHF-UHF omnidirectional antenna and it was first written up around 1953. Maybe you've never heard of the DDRR (Directional Discontinuity Ring Radiator) once touted by a Northrup division (?) in the late 1950s, a much smaller HF antenna of very low height...kind of fell out of favor, maybe because it was as narrowband as a conventional dipole...or maybe because it didn't look like an HF antenna? How about the RCA Turnstile antenna for TV and FM broadcasting? [not HF, therefore not a "real" antenna] How about the "leaky wave" antennas used in tunnels for passive rebroadcasting or cell phone use?
Okay, how about the Folded Dipole? Yields some broadbandedness over conventional dipole (it can be made from 300 Ohm twinlead or twinlead-on-steroids called "ladder-line"). How about the Loop Antenna? [I don't know who was the first to characterize that one but I can't remember it being used in 1907] How about the "Loopstick" in table-model radios? [there wasn't any such thing as a 5-tube "table model radio" in 1907] How about the Square-Corner Reflector or the Ground Plane vertical (the one with the "droopy" ground radials)? How about the millions of broadband TV receiving antennas made and sold in the USA? How about the REAL MAN'S DX Antenna, the Rhombic? Maybe the two-wire Vee antenna? Kind of hard to envision anyone working up an appetite for Vees in 1907 when the common wavelengths were so long it took a LOT of copper wire to make one longwire back then.
If it were up to me, I'd rate the SteppIR as one of the first absolutely great INNOVATIONS in antennas of this new century. Imagine a 1907 antenna whose length could be sized to fit a frequency...by a stepper motor controlled by a microprocessor...slavable automatically to some modern transceivers' frequency control...and inside a protective fiberglass tube. A SteppIR yagi only needs to rotate 180 degrees; the director and reflector elements can change to reverse a beam direction. Brilliant!
W4LGH: "Wow, imagine what it would be like if EVERYTHING stayed the same over the past 100years."
I don't have to imagine. I just have to come in here and see "back to the past triumphant." :-(
W4LGH: "There will be a break thru one day, then maybe they will come up with a replacement for a gas engine..another 100 year old technology."
Another news flash: A German fella name of Diesel already did. But it doesn't work on 40m any better than the gasoline engine did. How about we stick close to antennas in this article? Or is everyone wanting to combust internally in here?
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA4NMA: "Concerning ladder line safety, a few years ago QST ran a series of articles on grounding (written by a Mr. Block, whose brother founded PolyPhaser) on grounds and safety. The article tells how to use gas discharge units on ladderline. Reprints are available from the ARRL website."
It's double the gas discharge units inside those. Coax "arresters" use only one. Check the replacement part costs for those gas discharge units.
"Also, the wireman sells a lighting arrestor for ladder line."
No sweat...if a lightning strike hits a wire antenna direct, balanced polyethylene feedline will readily show where it blew apart...
"Also, check the tables for coax and ladder line and compare the loss per 100 ft. Ladder line has lower loss."
By HOW MUCH?
"Guess the "experts" are not so well read."
Ya know, I spent some time today looking specifically for ladder-line loss figures. Ya know what, the ONLY thing I found on ladder-line was in a paper that Wes Stewart wrote up, him using a VNA to get those figures. Chip uses a VNA to get his loss figures.
I even looked for TV twinlead specs and couldn't find any loss figures for that, either.
Where are all the "expert" tables from MAKERS?
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1YW: "Stop ACTING like amateurs..."
N2EY: "Well, if the behavior of some here is supposed to be PROFESSIONAL, I rather prefer those who act like amateurs."
News flash: Electrons, fields and waves work by Their rules...not by whether one is a "professional" or an "amateur."
Don't get so honked up by "professionals" even if you are one in the railway signalling works. :-(
Electrons, fields, and waves all work the same regardless of how many degrees one has, how many ham radio contests one wins, ones license class, or whether or not one has been licensed since the year dot. The FCC defines AMATEUR radio service as a licensed radio activity NOT involving pecuniary interest.
Some of us DO or HAVE DONE radio-related work, like for money. If you want to brat on us and refuse to accept insights or advice on matters radio, then YOU are acting like an amateur amateur.
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ya know, I spent some time today looking specifically for ladder-line loss figures. Ya know what, the ONLY thing I found on ladder-line was in a paper that Wes Stewart wrote up, him using a VNA to get those figures. Chip uses a VNA to get his loss figures.
I even looked for TV twinlead specs and couldn't find any loss figures for that, either.
Where are all the "expert" tables from MAKERS?"
--------------------------------------------------------
Len, the ARRL handbook has tables of matched loss vs. frequency for a lot of different transmission lines. It also lets you calculate VSWR loss, which is where the comparisons get much more interesting.
Also this is fun:
http://www.ocarc.ca/coax.htm
Plus a lot of coax sites will publish the data in comparison tables.
I have exactly one antenna that is fed w/ coax, a 15m Lazy-H that is located where running real open wire feedline wouldn't work. I use Bury-Flex, I actually do bury it and it works great. Since the feedpoint Z is something crazy like 3000-J1000, I use a 1/4-wave matching stub made from homebrew 600 Ohm open wire line to get down to 50 Ohms.
For everything else, I use home made open wire line, 600 Ohm, w/ 14AWG 7-strand wire and 3/8" OD spreaders made from gardening irrigation tubing (very UV resistant). My multi-element phased wire arrays are strung out on long ropes hung from tall trees and running real QRO coax (I contest w/ 1500W) to their feedpoints is too heavy, causes too much sag. Especially the 500' long end-fed (33' short stub) zepp at 90' on 80 & 160m, that puppy boosted by Sweepstakes QSOs on 80m by triple.
So, it works perfectly for me and many other hams sans expensive, heavy coax (because good coax is both heavy and expensive and cheap coax is crap). The feedline isn't hard to make but is tedious to produce... and the neighbors always come over and ask some goofy questions which is fun.
For QRP field events, I use an 88' CF doublet fed with the same feedline only made from smaller, lighter copper-clad steel wire. The whole thing spools up on a plastic Christmas tree light spool and tosses into my backpack. This antenna is OK on 80, great on 40 and 20 and good but w/ a fragmented pattern on 15 and 10, all with one feedline and antenna.... and I can kink the feedline without damage, something that really matters in the field.
For FD, I have some commercial 450 Ohm 'ladder line' with the insulation and spacer tabs. This works well since it's lightweight, strong, doesn't kink and doesn't get wet in late June. I use RG8-X for coax-fed antennas on FD, seems to be the best price/weight/loss tradeoff.
I changed over to real open wire line because it doesn't change between wet and dry (it does change with SNOW, but nothing a good firm SHAKE won't help).
For convenience of course, coax can't be beat, especially when feeding rotating antennas and for burying the feedline. At VHF/UHF I use coax, but I have used open wire line on 6m with good results, just had to wind a different balun than my 160-10m one.
No geeks have been harmed in the making or using of my open wire line, but I think I scared the crap out of a hummingbird once.
N4SL
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As much as I disagree with N4SL's approach, I found his post information-rich and helpful to those unfamiliar with ladder line.
Unlike, IMO, the article itself.
Perhaps he might have some additional suggestions for the newbies on protection against arcing; spark plug vs gas discharge ligtning protectors; etc.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N7YA on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chip,
Given the circumstances and the audience you have gathered, wouldnt it have been an equally wise statement to say "I dont approve of ladder line, there are safety issues to consider, but if you must, then do so with caution", then offer up some ideas for the populace regarding good measures of safety? granted, i wont disagree that you have offered ideas here, but it seems your very presence has ignited a brushfire, why is that?
I dont doubt your intelligence, I dont discredit your years in ham radio, I dont dispute your DXCC standings (which were not brought up, unless i missed it), I wont sling mud, or call names, or attempt to lessen anything you have done. Im simply trying to grasp your approach here in regards to everyone reading your entries on the forum.
What is your psychological strategy for teaching old and especially new in a manner that will be well received about the subject of antenna safety and efficiency, both of which are VERY important issues that we should all be a part of. Is there a better way to reach the people with your message? what is the game plan? why did this discussion get out of hand? Thanks.
73...Adam, N7YA
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by G3LBS on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What are the dangers of using ladder-line please - have I been missing something?
It doesn't radiate if it is truly balanced - for example by a truly-balanced no-balun tuner like a Matchbox.
Gil
|
|   |
|
Don't use ladder line. Ever.
|
|
|
by N0EW on May 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Don't use ladder line. Ever.
That is crazy talk. Ladder line or open wire works very well. It is like anything else, you have to understand both the pros and cons and how to apply the concept to your needs.
An "antenna" is just some wire (or pipe) laying in a box somewhere. An "antenna system" is what we use to communicate around the world! It certainly includes an antenna, but it also includes far more than just an "antenna". This point is always worth making because it is too easily overlooked.
As was mentioned in the article, read what W2DU ("Reflections II" by Walter Maxwell, W2DU, if you can find it) has to say, and read Cebik's web page. They are both very good sources of information, and Cebik's web page is loaded with "numbers" that our unlicensed friend was seeking.
My only wish would have been to see the phrase "impedance matching" in the article, but I assume he didn't want to open another can of worms.
All in all, a good article. Limited in scope. After all, entire books are written on this topic, so be fair when being critical of what is left out of short articles. This carried a somewhat amuzing tone, was easy to read, and a provided decent overview of a very practical and useful approach. Some may call it too simple, but it isn't to someone new to the concepts. We all have to learn somewhere, and this article does a good job of pointing his intended audience (our new Generals and Techs) in the right direction.
Thanks for the article. I enjoyed reading it.
73-Erik n0ew
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Adam,
It has nothing to do with intelligence, save that trivializing the safety issues with ladder line is far from intelligent.
Once again, with feeling:
Don't use ladder line. Ever.
If you don't like 50 ohm coax then use a different characteristic impedance.
BTW, my rigs--all 3 of them--have 50 ohm ports. Unbalanced. No 300 ohm ladder line or 450 ohm ladder line connections in sight. I have a number of antennas that are from from 50 ohms real at the current max. I don't have any problems with coax or insertion loss.
Take a look at your rig. What is the port? What does it want to see? Why is there a convention of 50 or 52 ohms for it?
Now the SX-100 receiver--the one that hangs out as a conversation piece in the foyer--THAT has screw connections for ladder line. Of course, that's almost 60 years old, has a horrible noise figure--and is tubed.
If you are stumped as to how to make a multiband single wire antenna, coax-fed, well,maybe that's a good reason to exercise the mission of Part 97.
Don't you think?
Of course, we can all light our cigars off the arc of ladder line. Ooops...forgot: cancer risk too high.
It pays to be intelligent!
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Adam--
You assert that this topic has gone out of hand...
Actually, I never went out of hand, but have meted my comments skillfully to get them across and to expose the muddled thinking about this subject. AF6AY and others did a pretty good job also.
Why did the topic take such an over the top flavor?
It probably has to do with a few things, that made me force many of you to re-think, and confront, your attitudes:
1) telling someone publicly and archivally they should die (in this case me) because I don't support this ladder line fetish;
2) telling someone that they are crazy; braggart; "full of crap"; and other tasty superlatives when in fact all they have done is provide factual responses to elaborate;
3)the absolute lack of comments in the article regarding SAFETY ISSUES with ladder line--and the trivialization of said SAFETY ISSUES in the follow-up comments.
Hope that helps. I'm feeling great about it.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Don't use ladder line. Ever."
Why not?
Why take a useful tool out of the toolbox?
"BTW, my rigs--all 3 of them--have 50 ohm ports. Unbalanced. No 300 ohm ladder line or 450 ohm ladder line connections in sight. I have a number of antennas that are from from 50 ohms real at the current max. I don't have any problems with coax or insertion loss."
That's nice.
Should hams not use BNC or N connectors, since most ham rigs don't have those connectors on them?
"Take a look at your rig. What is the port?"
My rigs don't have "ports". They do have antenna connections.
"What does it want to see? Why is there a convention of 50 or 52 ohms for it?"
Because it's easier and cheaper to build a rig to match a single, unbalanced impedance.
"If you are stumped as to how to make a multiband single wire antenna, coax-fed, well,maybe that's a good reason to exercise the mission of Part 97."
I'm not stumped on how to make a simple, effective, all-HF-band, single-wire center fed dipole. Or an end-fed wire, for that matter. I think *you* are stumped about how to do it with coax-only feed, but you don't want to admit that ladder line is better for that application.
You can prove me wrong, of course. You could describe a way to make a simple, effective, all-HF-band, single-wire center fed dipole that uses coax feed and is better than a similar ladder-line-fed antenna. But I don't think you or anybody else will - because you can't.
"Of course, we can all light our cigars off the arc of ladder line. Ooops...forgot: cancer risk too high."
So we should never ever use ladder line because there can be high voltages on it? Gee, what about things like insulation and preventing physical contact?
I guess we should ban lots of other antennas, too. For example, there can be high voltages on parts of most manufactured HF vertical antennas, so I gues we hams should never, ever use them. And there can be high voltages at the ends of long-wire, dipole and inverted V HF antennas, so we hams should never ever use them either, right?
"It pays to be intelligent!"
Yep - and statements like
"Don't use ladder line. Ever."
are simply not intelligent.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What's lacking in intelligence here is the ability to read answers already provided.
And, since you prefer to be with those who ACT like amateurs, N2EY, I have removed myself from your scope of pals. Please honor my request.
To others: I have been very patient and forthcoming in leading you folks down the path of where the real issue lies--which is the MISMATCH loss, and the impedance of 'non resonants' versus the characteristic impedance of the feedline used.
Ladder line is inherently dangerous; requires extra safety precautions; requires an interface to match to the rig ports; and is not less lossy than good coax--despite the continued assertion of that myth on this thread.
So there are several reasons why one should never use ladder line. And, in fact, almost all hams DON'T use it-- and I have yet to see it used in the telecom and wireless arenas. At least in recent generations.
For those who do not view this as 'intelligent', then I again invoke the 'CB-morphing syndrome' observation: Classic case of ham radio becoming more and more like the aggressive, nasty, ignorant world of CB, that so many of us 'old timers' find distatsteful and so utterly 'un-ham'.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I have been thru this arguement several times before. Nothing wrong with using ladder line as long as you know its good and bad points. When using ladder line to a matched tuner in your shack your antenna system starts at the tuner. Coax was developed to move your antenna system out of the shack
and your antenna system starts at the end of the coax at the antenna. To properly use a tuner with coax, the tuner needs to be AT the ANTENNA!! This will reduce the loss, keep the antenna imp. matched to the 50ohm coax, keep common mode currents off the coax and out of the shack!
I know there will be post contrary to what I have said, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
I personally like keeping my antenna systems away from the house and shack. Good coax is NOT lossy at HF frequencies. The difference in loss between a 100' run of good coax and ladder line would never be noticed. The convience of using good coax more than out weighs the downfalls of ladder line, and the loss of good coax is probably less than the loss in your high dollar tuner. Costs less too!
If you like using ladder line, and it works for you, then so be it. It is balanced in theory, but it IS part of your antenna system, and it does start at the tuner/match in your shack. If you use Coax, your antenna system is moved out of the shack, and starts at the feed of the antenna, therefore making a tuner at the shack end useless as far as tuning the antenna system, it will match the losses to the radio, but all the losses of the antenn system will still exsist,
but your radio will be happy.
This is how I see it, based on 40+ years of experience. These are my opions but are based of factual findings of my own practial experience, both professionally and with amateur radio
73 es I hope some of this has helped you make your decision.
de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"why did this discussion get out of hand? Thanks.
73...Adam, N7YA"
... hmm...
From the original article:
"Don't think these are hot topics? Then you have not been listening or reading! I'll leave the first two alone for now so I can foolishly—and at risk of “flaming,” personal attacks, and questions about my heritage—take on the third topic."
Dan
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unless this is just an internet pissing match, I'm stumped as to all the negative comments about 'ladder line'.
Remember, I have specific reasons for using it:
1) It's much lighter than QRO coax and in my special situation of large wire arrays hanging from long ropes stretched between tall trees, I can't afford the sag from heavy coax.
2) I have some unfriendly impedance antennas I need to multi-band, such as my 500' end-fed Zepp. This thing really rocks on 80 and 160m and no, I have no idea how to feed with this coax without putting a matching device up at the feedpoint... can't afford the weight.
3) My feedlines come up to a 2nd story window and pass through w/ a wooden insert and ceramic feedthru insulators to large knife switches. Nobody can touch them from inside or outside the house. I live in the country so I have no RFI/TVI issues to worry about, not even my own TV on an antenna has a problem except when I transmit 6m with... coax... which has nothing to do with it of course.
4) My transmatches are homebrew from high quality components. I can transmit 1500W continuous duty RTTY for 15 minutes, then place my hand on the components and the only thing not at ambient is the balun (6 core, 10AWG Thermalize wire) which is 'warm'. What's that, 20 Watts out of 1500? Very low loss.
Personally, I like the look of open wire transmission line in the air and it has far less wind resistance and catches your eye way less than the commercial 'windowed ladder line'.
If I had a tower, I'd have coax, but I kind of enjoyed winning the NW Division plaque for SSB Sweepstakes (QRP, 2006) with my own home-modeled and built antennas hanging from trees.
N4SL
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Personally, I like the look of open wire transmission line in the air
--------------------
As much as I am trying to understand this, it is exactly the issue I mention: you have a generation of newbies who want to differentiate ham radio from CB , Wifi, and freeband. To them, reverting to the ancient and outmoded methods of 1930's ham radio is something to be desired, because they don't have to think (hard) about it, and it melds them into a fantasy world of old time 'radio'. Kind of a virtual internet world, like Warcraft. Oddly, almost all of them avoid CW like the plague, so you obviously have THAT contradiction: 95% of QSO's in the 1930's were CW, because phone rigs were very expensive to homebrew..and it was all homebrew. No one had the money to be on phone, to speak of (pun intended).
IOW, to this new generation that is doing 'CB Morphing' of ham radio , ladder line IS 'radio'.
And I think that is a vast failure of acculturation into 2007 ham radio and Part 97's mission. Yes, I see that as major problem.
Is there an issue with using ladder line in your station? There is if one projects this as a typical 2007 ham station--which you haven't.
I think you've been very resourceful, but I still see no reason to use ladder line.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Chippy the only person morphing this thread into something that it is not is you, you are a complete waste of time and space on this thread, the perfect example of a troll with nothing else better to do with himself..
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have explained my reasons for using open wire transmission line very clearly and sincerely and stand by not only the theory of it but the practice: I put out a great signal and win contests every year with it (both CW and SSB, QRO & QRP).
Your arguments don't make sense to me, what is the better solution to my somewhat unique situation?
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chippy the only person morphing this thread into something that it is not is you, you are a complete waste of time and space on this thread, the perfect example of a troll with nothing else better to do with himself..
-----------------------------------------
Being a nice fellow, who is aware of your circumstances, I shall decline to comment on your 'example' OM. Now be nice and find something positive in the day to day.
Best wishes,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by G3LBS on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another reason for using ladder line is that you don't have to spend time putting on those redundant plugs and sockets and you don't have to spray your connections with black rubbish
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your arguments don't make sense to me, what is the better solution to my somewhat unique situation?
-------------------------------------------
The problem is that you started with a premise of ladder line and them built a solution around it. The very fact that you use knife switches for antennas in QRP contests says a lot about 'need' versus 'want'.
I certainly can think of low loss coax, for example, that is thin, usable for QRP, and weighs less per foot than your ladder line.
If you had started with the premise of: I have THIS budget and THESE trees and need THIS performance coverage, you would not have automatically excluded coaxial solutions from your antenna farm. IMO you are glowing in the hoariness of it all. That's OK. I find it charming, albeit outdated.
It's a nice antenna farm; as I said I think you have been very resourceful. Take the compliment. No backhanded insult here at all.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I use the exact same setup of radios and antennas systems for QRO and QRP, so naturally for QRP my station is wildly overbuilt... but not for 1500W.
The knife switches provide both disconnect and switching to multiple transmatches (SO2R station).
And yes, at this point it's a matter of pride that I beat people who have spent a lot more money on purchased antennas and towers than I.
I still don't understand what I should be doing differently for my situation.
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Problems are solved by options--not by assumptions. Read my previous post please.
Your antenna farm is a throw back to an antiquated era. Nice, but not modern in the better solutution that technology of the last 60 years offers.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, tell me where it could/should be improved.
I'm not asking for detailed analysis or design, just something concrete to think about. I have been known to change.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Answer the man chippy, the world wants to know
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, tell me where it could/should be improved.
I'm not asking for detailed analysis or design, just something concrete to think about. I have been known to change.
-----------------------------------
But that is EXACTLY the problem: to ** SOLVE ** a problem, you need to DEFINE it. When I plan out an antenna farm, I start with the plot plan; do a height analysis;topography analysis; propagation modeling; budget; sensitivity analysis of performance tradeoffs, and so on. Only when you get all the issues TOGETHER is it clear exactly WHAT PROBLEM is being attacked.
You didn't start from that perspective. And you didn't execute based upon it. Provide me with the twenty plus page white paper needed for background, and I will be glad to spend an afternoon giving you my thoughts.
Otherwise, your question lacks sincerity and is, well, amateurish.
In fact, let me suggest that you pull it together as a web page so all can see it.
Drop me a line when you have a first draft and I'll tell you what's missing in defining the PROBLEM.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Just as i said about five posts ago,BULLSHOOTER, and nothing but a BULLSHOOTER,
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is how antenna farms are properly devised OM.
Your denial of that approach definitely fits into the 'CB-Morphing Syndrome'.
Please tell us when and how long you were a CB'er; how long you have ben anti-technology; and whether you have ever read the Radio Amateur's Code..
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Otherwise, your question lacks sincerity and is, well, amateurish."
Why are you geting personal and insulting to someone asking a sincere question?
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've made my offer.
Time for your execution.
73,
Chip W1YW
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JBH on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Nathan W1YW
With all the critiquing you do here of other’s and you obvious immense personal knowledge. Why don’t you publish some articles here in the forum for all us God fearing and not so righteous to read? You could begin with one all about proper feed line fundamentals and then move on to proper techniques of installing antenna systems.
Of course that leads into antenna fundamentals. God Yes God knows according to you we all need that. I am sure you can be a huge help to the many cb’ers that you liken to calling many of us to be true professional Amateurs. But I but you decline on this statement to provide us with your self induced all mightiness. Because you’re either to great of a person to enlighten the rest of us to your worldly vision’s or maybe because that fact you were born in bean town make you just that full of beans.
In closing this post I ask you Nathan. With 22 patents and who knows how many other fantastic claims to fame. How many folks had given you the where with all to make it where you have? Or maybe to put it in another text. How many great folks did you shaft to get where you are? Jeff N3JBH
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Already paid my 'Union Ham dues' with articles in QST; 73; Communications Quarterly; DX Magazine, among others. First ham article was in 1969. I was 14.
These days my knowledge tends to be targetted towards solving problems tied in with world events. I trust you will excuse me if I pass the ham-writing torch to others.
If I felt there was a way of reaching a ham-only audience without being open source, I wold consider it. For example: if eham went sub only--to hams only.
Don't like that? Too bad bunky!
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How many great folks did you shaft ...?
--------------------------------------
None. Talent finds it's own level.
But just to give you some insight, being talented; correct; working hard (that is using the talent that's God-given); and having a strong personality make for a dynamic combination!
Luck (more accurately bad luck) is the excuse we give our mistakes.
Or perhaps you came tell us bout some of your own fantstic success?
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a new question for you 'non-resonant' folks.
Exactly what problem are you trying to solve?
Is it REALLY to have a single antenna that works 9 ham bands?
If so, then why do you seek out an antenna that lobes like crazy on 17,15,12, and 10M?
Your antenna, if it is intended to have reasonable electrical length on, say 75m, is going to have multiple current maxima at the higher HF bands, and this will produce substantial 4-leaf clover--and worse--power patterns at the upper bands. There is certainy no scenario where one wants, for example, a figure 8 on 75M and 8-leafed 'clovers' on 10M....
WARN THE newbies!
|
|   |
|
Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W1YW on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Odd choice of words.
----------------------------------------------
C'mon. That's execution as in 'get it done'.
Watch Star Trek and 'execute prime directive'.
Get it?
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N9FE on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Quit it now chippy, you have shown your true bull crap colors, go lay down by your dish, or better yet go back to your "lab" and create some more patents, everyone has had enough of you now..
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
"I wager 15 quatloos that he is untrainable"
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I wager 15 quatloos that he is untrainable"
"20 quatloos, 100 feet of ladder line, and a homebrew balanced tuner!"
--
google "quatloos" for a hilarious site about dealing with the nigerian scam...
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JBH on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Or perhaps you came tell us bout some of your own fantstic success?"
Sure what ones would you like to know about?
See Nathan you talk of self supremacy. But most of us don’t believe it.
Myself I never admitted to even being educated. Matter fact I have admitted the very lack of it. Yet I to hold only 2 patents but I never bragged about them. All though one of mine is involved in mechanical engineering and the other is ready Chip in the physics field. And with a device that is presently being used by Boeing in Washington.
Again I admit it was luck and just fait that has allowed me to be in the right place and around the right engineers at the right time to been able to have done it. But really struck me as odd was the facts that while your one field of endeavor are an applied physicist.
You never have met Steve Hawking now I realize he is a theoretical physicist instead. And that you never had the wonderful time to hear his lectures. It just amazes me you some how can be so pontificating and condescending on here.
Further more being you have chosen not to embellish us in an open forum.
To increase the better understanding of the plebeians. It only further reinstates the fact your full of beans. See Nathan many of us would be much more receptive of you if you were to assist and educate rather then to belittle them.
But as you have proven here many a times you simply take great joy in blowing large and obnoxious amounts of smoke up your posterior opening of the alimentary canal.
Well I am sure I said plenty here. So to all the good readers of this forum I say good evening, and to you Chippy I say kiss my well you know. I am sure you’ll kiss many more then mine before long.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4SK on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Time for that Boston Butt receipe again.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N3JBH on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I know where there is some well smoked butt :)
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, now I'm mad and I'm sending my Pirate Llama to kick your ass:
http://www.quatloos.com/images_new/tony-small-gray.jpg
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W4LGH on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like this thread has become a personal war between N4SL & W1YW. I thinking...hmmmm a marketing idea... rent a boxing ring and put both of them in it.
15 rounds, get it on HBO or better yet "pay per view"
, bill it as the "Fight of the 21st Century" and I could get RICH!!!
In this corner, wearing the RED trunks, we have N4SL, and in this corner, wearing the BLUE trunks, we have W1YW...get a couple of girls wearing some small bikinis to show the round cards and I think it would FLY! Maybe even get it in Vegas, so all could wager on it, take a small % of the bets...yea!
Wadda yall say? Will give the winner 20% of the proceeds and the loser get 10%.
My paypal acct is: w4lgh@arrl.net start putting your bets in there NOW!!!
73 de W4LGH - ALan
http://www.w4lgh.com
(I'm seeing a YAESU FT-DX-9000D and the BIG StepIr in my future)
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by W7ETA on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well.
Maybe Don will let the eHam experts here turn his article into The Perfect Article--the article he should have written, for beginners, if his ability was upto the experts here on eHam.
Lets see how long it takes, and if any of the resident experts can, indeed, create the The Perfect Article, and one that encompasses everything.
Bob
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N4SL on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You are confusing me with the many other people who are posting, there is no war between myself and anyone.
However, I get 20%!
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N2EY on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What's lacking in intelligence here is the ability to read answers already provided."
You have not provided any answers to the scenario I provided.
"And, since you prefer to be with those who ACT like amateurs, N2EY, I have removed myself from your scope of pals. Please honor my request."
What does that mean?
Are you saying I should not challenge what you say?
That I should simply bow to statements like 'never use ladder line' even though you haven't explained why it
should *never* be used?
Are you trying to smoke-screen your way out of the bad
advice you've given, and your lack of practical solutions to real-world problems?
Or are you just telling me to shut up?
"To others: I have been very patient and forthcoming in leading you folks down the path of where the real issue lies--which is the MISMATCH loss, and the impedance of 'non resonants' versus the characteristic impedance of the feedline used."
No, you haven't done that at all, Chip.
"Ladder line is inherently dangerous"
No, it isn't.
"requires extra safety precautions"
So does a ground mounted vertical antenna, or an end-fed wire, or an inverted V, or many other types of amateur radio antenna systems. Those precautions are simple, and can easily be implemented with a little common sense.
"requires an interface to match to the rig ports"
So do many other antenna systems. If a coax-fed antenna system presents an SWR of more than 2:1, most "modern" rigs are going to need a tuner anyway.
"and is not less lossy than good coax"
That depends on what you mean by "good coax". If you're talking about stuff priced less than a dollar per foot, and HF, coax simply loses the loss game. Particularly if operated with significant SWR.
"So there are several reasons why one should never use ladder line."
Not from what I can see. If anything, you have proved the superiority of ladder line.
In fact, I think that's what you are really trying to do. By stating absurdities like "never use ladder line", you're encouraging more and more hams to demonstrate just how good ladder line really is!
Fascinating.
"And, in fact, almost all hams DON'T use it-- and I have yet to see it used in the telecom and wireless arenas. At least in recent generations."
So what? They don't use HF, either.
"For those who do not view this as 'intelligent', then I again invoke the 'CB-morphing syndrome' observation: Classic case of ham radio becoming more and more like the aggressive, nasty, ignorant world of CB, that so many of us 'old timers' find distatsteful and so utterly 'un-ham'."
I'm not just an "old-timer". This year I qualify to be an "old old timer" - 40 years a ham in October. And I say that ladder line is a useful tool in the amateur's antenna-system toolbox. So is coax, for that matter.
But I see what you did there. Call those who disagree with you cbers rather than debate the facts.
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by N6AJR on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
2 words
FAN DIPOLE
feed it any way you choose, it still works..
nuff said..
tom N6AJR... the Handsome Fellow
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by CDRSLAN on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Which type speciffically are you referring too?
73
Ron
kd8fth
|
|   |
|
RE: Antenna Lessons from the Old Timers
|
|
|
by AF6AY on May 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted By N4SL
AF6AY: "Ya know, I spent some time today looking specifically for ladder-line loss figures. Ya know what, the ONLY thing I found on ladder-line was in a paper that Wes Stewart wrote up, him using a VNA to get those figures. Chip uses a VNA to get his loss figures."
"I even looked for TV twinlead specs and couldn't find any loss figures for that, either."
"Where are all the "expert" tables from MAKERS?""
N4SL: "Len, the ARRL handbook has tables of matched loss vs. frequency for a lot of different transmission lines. It also lets you calculate VSWR loss, which is where the comparisons get much more interesting."
Thanks for the information and your antenna arrangements are interesting. I was specifically looking for manufacturer's data on insertion loss versus frequency for 450 Ohm ladder-line and/or 300 Ohm twinlead. Still haven't found any manufacturer's data on such balanced transmission line products. I have the Times Wire and Cable catalog (extensive data but only on coaxial cable) and some charts from Andrew Corporation for hardline coax (which I don't expect to use/afford). I'm down to only one wrench for SMA connections (used to have two as a 'real' worker in the RF industry, heh heh) but don't expect to use small rigid coaxial cable anytime soon.
I'm not against either open-wire transmission lines or TV twinlead-on-steroids and, if needed, could calculate my own dimensioning for any size wire for any characteristic impedance. Neither am I against the ARRL (I am a member) but they DO tend to get a bit stodgy in their annual Handbooks (I have only their 1978 edition on paper). For a good text on transmission lines in general I use "Theory and Problems of Transmission Lines" by Robert A. Chipman [Schaum's Outline Series], McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968 [out of print now, mine cost only $4.95 in 1972!], 256 pp large-size softcover. The 165 solved problems are a good guide to use of the basic equations. It does cover HF and VHF applications.
The Chipman book and several inputs from co-workers at RCA Corporation helped formulate some HP-25 and HP-67 calculator programs using a Noise Bridge to find antenna impedance/admittance and to measure the loss and characteristic impedance of coaxial cable over frequency. Ham Radio magazine published that in their May 1978 issue (programs only for the smaller, cheaper HP-25). Worked fine until the homebuilt-and-at-work-calibrated Noise Meter got run over by a Karmann-Ghia (but that's another story). The MFJ-269 antenna analyzer is what I have now (not realizing it does NOT read out the sign of reactance, something I'm not at all happy about after buying it).
N4SL: "For everything else, I use home made open wire line, 600 Ohm, w/ 14AWG 7-strand wire and 3/8" OD spreaders made from gardening irrigation tubing (very UV resistant). My multi-element phased wire arrays are strung out on long ropes hung from tall trees and running real QRO coax (I contest w/ 1500W) to their feedpoints is too heavy, causes too much sag. Especially the 500' long end-fed (33' short stub) zepp at 90' on 80 & 160m, that puppy boosted by Sweepstakes QSOs on 80m by triple."
Good on your contesting. I'm not into amateur radio for contesting or wallpaper collection, I prefer to communicate and experiment with hardware I can pick up without cranes or winches. Neither do I want my residence to look like a radio station; I spent most of 1954 living and working in a two-square-mile former airfield covered with Army wire antennas. MY choice, not my wife's. That means vertical antennas for 6m down to 20m and those fed by buried coaxial cable (inside PVC piping to avoid gnawing by the California Pocket Gopher). For 2m and up a broadband discone works just fine at this northern edge of Los Angeles with backyard 820 feet above mean sea level.
I have a 1/3 acre plot but the flat area plus 2000 square foot house (single story, no basement) leaves just under 1/4 acre. I have two big pine trees in one corner and a row of cypresses on the downhill edge. The cypresses are a bit over 25 feet high in a 105-foot single line but flex too much for stringing; tried that twice for a long wire, worked fine electrically, broke twice due to cypresses NOT swaying together in 30 knot winds. Three jacarandas are tall enough but too flexible for wire antennas...unless there was a low-resistance conductive elastomer available. :-) I'm looking towards a SmallIR or a BiggIR from K4IR's company in Washington state. Radials no problem, downhill neighbor put in metal sprinkler lines rather than PVC and allows me to connect to that for a "radial extension."
Had we decided to keep the northern house (near Burley, WA) I would have been inclined to use balanced line feeder to wire antennas strung over 80 feet high up there. Open-wire transmission lines are lighter in weight than even RG-58 coax. [some of the pines up there over 80 feet high are expected to be harvested, still leaves dozens of mature evergreens] On the other hand, being always older than the FCC, I'd have to hire a tree climber to attach the ends and those aren't cheap. Oddly enough, there's a surfeit of evergreens on the northern property making 100-foot towers/masts a necessity to clear their tops. :-( For me I'd prefer going mobile rather than play radio station up north on that property.
N4SL: "For FD, I have some commercial 450 Ohm 'ladder line' with the insulation and spacer tabs. This works well since it's lightweight, strong, doesn't kink and doesn't get wet in late June. I use RG8-X for coax-fed antennas on FD, seems to be the best price/weight/loss tradeoff."
Since the US Army trained me in Radio Relay, I learned how to erect a 50-foot rotatable mast (with gin pole) for any TRC-1, -3, or -4 antenna. Two guys can do it in less than an hour, including pounding in the four guy-wire stakes. One guy doesn't "walk up" a telescoping 50-foot mast unless they are into weight lifting; that's what the gin pole and small pulley are for. If Field Day were really a "rediness exercise" instead of the Contest it always was, I'd impose a one-hour maximum rule on any ham FD outing-in-the-park complete antenna erection. [we will now hear tales of quick erections - of antennas - during FD, tales which claim all can do it in much less time...:-( ]
"UHF" connectors were in use in military equipment during WW2. Cables for Radio Relay sets had UHF male connectors at each end with "barrels" (female-female) along with tapes in the antenna kit. Unvulcanized rubber tape went over (and past) the joined cables with old "friction tape" (tarry fabric for the youngsters who've only known plastic "electrical tape") over the top of that. It makes a waterproof covering that can be stripped off in a hurry when needed. I've seen where such joinings with tapings have been lying in rooftop puddles for over eight years with no ill effects on VHF performance. Sixty years later the SteppIR, BiggIR, and SmallIR fiberglass protection/support tubes are joined similarly, silicone rubber replacing old black rubber tape, black electrical tape replacing old friction tape.
73, Len AF6AY
|
|   |
| | |