1/4-wavelength of wire from the SGC tuner ground bolt, just laying on the floor, under the rug, etc. will work well for a frequency where it is a tuned 1/4-wave.  Unfortunately, you'll pretty much need one for each band used, with the possible exception of a 40m radial working on 15m (where it is 3/4-wavelength and will still be effective).

You might try a heavy-duty (very broad) copper or aluminum flashing connection from the SGC ground bolt to a cold water pipe under a sink, etc.  There's no guarantee this will represent "earth," especially up twelve floors, but it _might_ work, and if so, might be easier than all those pesky radial wires.

The situation you describe is 45' long overall, and as such might not load up on 30m, where it is just about 1/2-wavelength.  (1/2-wave, end-fed, is a very difficult thing to match, since its theoretical feedpoint impedance is thousands of Ohms.) It has a good chance of working okay on all the other bands, using the SGC tuner.  How much the siding on your building effects the antenna performance and efficiency will depend on what the building materials actually are, and what is immediately beneath them (flashing, wiring, pipes, etc).  Surely, almost any wire "outside" will work better than the same wire "inside."

73 & good DX!

Steve WB2WIK/6

For what band??

There already are adhesive foil antennas like this for 2m, 70cm and the cellular telephone bands; they are sold all over.

Steve, WB2WIK/6

I have not.  But I have tried something similar: Feeding an aluminum downspout!

This was easier, for me, since I had a temporary ham shack in the garage of a town house (condo), with an aluminum downspout running right down alongside the garage door.  The downspout was about 35' tall, as this was a 3-story high building.

I made sure the bottom end of the downspout was not connected to ground (it wasn't, and ended a few inches above ground, where the drain water spilled onto a small concrete pad), and drilled a small hole near the bottom of the gutter, scraped away the paint from around the hole to expose the aluminum, and installed a #8-32 stainless steel machine screw, held in place by a toothed lockwasher and nut.  To that point, I attached the center conductor of a piece of RG58/U.  The braid of the RG58/U was split out and clamped to an aluminum tent spike (camping supply stores -- about 50 cents each) simply pushed about a foot into the earth nearby the bottom end of the spout.

It loaded up!  To improve efficiency, I eventually added some ground radials, random lengths, about six of them, run out in various directions as possible, under bushes and shrubs, just laying along the ground.  I used dark colored insulated wire, nearly invisible to passersby.

That darned downspout vertical worked the world on 40m CW!  It's probably one of the best antennas I've ever owned for 40.  From suburban Los Angeles, I worked into the middle east on 40 CW numerous times, stacking up contacts with 4S, VU, HZ, 4X, etc.  Tons of fun.  Never even tried to explain the antenna system, it was just a "vertical."

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

Daunt away!  As I stated earlier, there's no law against having a chirp.

I have built many one-tube transmitters (not lately!) and every one was a very fun project...every one made contacts...and every one got donated to a local school or club, to help start new hams out in the wonderful world of radio.  Wouldn't trade those experiences for anything.

Having two effective tubes in a single bottle (envelope) makes no real difference, they still work like two tubes.  The PA stage will act as a bit of a buffer for the oscillator, and likely improve stability.  But if the two plates share the same power supply, the current drain of the PA stage will likely cause some voltage drop that will influence the oscillator, too.  How much, and what effect that will have, is unknown until you try it!  Homebrewing is great fun and I won't try to talk you out of it!

73 & hope to work you on CW,

Steve WB2WIK/6

Hi Tim,

Wow, what a long-delayed reply!  Reminds me of reading about "LDE's" (long-delayed echoes) in Sci-Fi magazines...

Anyway, I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm "affluent," because that surely isn't the case.  As for owning 12 homes, that has nothing to do with affluence, it has to do with relocating, or in some cases, simply "buying up," having profited from the sale of a previous property.  The only way to make any money in real estate is to get on the train anywhere you can.  In my case, with $3000 down I purchased my first home right out of college at age 22, in 1973.  I had no other money, but qualified for a 10% down FHA loan on a $30,000 home and struggled like hell to make payments.  But one must get on the train, and that was my way to jump on.

Two years later, the R/E market improved and I was able to sell that same home for $50,000.  And I was making a little bit more money, so I qualified for a mortgage on a $65,000 home, and once again, struggled with payments.  And so on, and so on, and so on.  It's not difficult to "move up," once you're accustomed to moving.  

This isn't my sad tale, it's almost _everyone's_ sad tale of how they became homeowners.  And it's the way people are still doing it, today.

Now, once in the R/E market, it is quite easy to find homes without zoning restrictions or CC&R's that prohibit outdoor antennas.  Not just quite easy, but very easy.  I don't buy that "around here, everything has CC&R's."  Baloney.  Move away from "around here," there's always "over there."  I changed jobs several times simply to follow where the good housing was.  So can you.

I've done area-wide searches using CRIS, real estate information service data base available to paid subscribers in the real estate field, by simply visiting a local R/E agent's office and sitting at their work station for a few hours.  I searched in all 50 states, in all the most populated counties, over a period of several visits.  I looked at the photograph listings, so I could not only read about the homes for sale, but actually see them, inside and out.

Know what I found?  There are "ham friendly" neighborhoods everywhere.  Hardly a place that doesn't have at least one listing from a ham, showing the tower and antennas in place, glistening in the sunshine.

So, you can lobby for the League or any organized body to help reform antenna restrictions; or, you can start your own organization to do so; or, you can sit home and complain about how unfair it is that you can't erect effective, outdoor antennas from your apartment or condo; or, you can actually do something -- like do the same kind of R/E search I described above, and find an affordable home without restrictions.  Scrape up the 10% down, somewhere, somehow, even if it means selling cars, trucks and ham equipment to put the down payment together, and buy a home.  Get on the train.  It doesn't stop for anyone, you must take the initiative to jump on while it's moving.

73, Steve WB2WIK/6

Congrats on passing the exam, and we're looking for you on CW.

Beware one-tube transmitters that put out 10W...although I think it's fun to use one, and fun to hear them on the air, it's almost impossible to make one sound good; reason is, changing in PA loading and plate current influence the oscillator stage and pull the frequency.  Most all "one tube" transmitters have a "chirp."  However, as I said, it is fun to hear them, and a chirp is not illegal!

73 & keep up the good work!

Steve WB2WIK/6

Yes, I was referring to "unzipped," with the conductors very close and held in place by their original insulation.

On 40m, the difference, if you're feeding a resonant loop, between "unzipped" (70 Ohms) vs. "zipped apart" (450-600 Ohms) should be essentially nothing, because the line loss will be extremely low either way.  However, if you need to feed the 40m loop on other bands where its impedance might swing wildly, e.g., 20m where its impedance can get very high, the "zipped apart" (open wire type) construction will work better.

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

Of course you can.  It's not "open wire," but it is "balanced," and much lower impedance (typically) than open wire or ladder line would be, due to the close conductor spacing.

I've used "zip cord" (lamp cord, typically #18 gauge stranded copper with plastic insulation) lots of time as a transmission line on 40 meters, even on 10 meters, and it's pretty good stuff...around 70 Ohms impedance or so, not much loss -- probably about as good as RG58/U coax on those frequencies.

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

I just don't think the stuff would sell well enough to cover the investment of setting up any manufacturing.

I know Denny Had, K8KXK -- as you probably know, he used to own & run "Dentron" back in the 1970's.  And I think he found out that even that roller-coaster ride, which probably peaked in success back in about 1974, bottomed out quickly and went belly-up.

To run a small business as a sideline venture, or a hobby, is one thing; but to make a real business out of it is quite something else.  I wish I had time for the "hobby business" thing...it would really be a lot of fun.  Sigh.  Maybe in retirement!

73 Steve WB2WIK/6

Interesting idea, but I don't think there'd be much market for it.  The market for high-end vacuum tube audio equipment is miniscule, which is why the prices are so high -- and there are millions more "audiophiles" in the world than there are hams.

Also, "new" circuit design based on tubes is nonexistent; thus, performance of a brand-new design for 2001 would be about the same as the older tube stuff from Collins, Drake, Heathkit, et al. 30 years ago.  Where would improved performance come from?  It cannot.

Since a new design would not be superior to those existing in the 1970's, it would be far less expensive to simply buy, restore and use the old gear, much of which was incredibly well designed.  How would I make an AM transmitter today that could perform better (that is, sound better on the air) than a Johnson Ranger or Valiant, or Heath Apache, or Collins 32V?  I couldn't -- it would take financing a transformer shop to manufacture high-powered modulation transformers that haven't been made in decades...

However, if there are venture capitalists nutty enough to finance a new amateur radio manufacturing venture based on vacuum tube designs, I'd happily offer consulting services for circuit design work.  I was pretty good at it back in 1970, and still have my old vacuum tube handbooks...!!

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

If cost were no object, I'd say the ACOM 2000A.  It's slick, fast, easy and extremely reliable by both design and reputation.

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

I agree the CW decoders are practically useless in contests...too much close-packed QRM, often within a few Hz...and the contest exchange is so short that any bonehead can copy what is required for the contest log (a callsign and zone, for example -- the "59" or "599" is filled in by the contest logging software!).  

I own, and have used, the MFJ keyboard keyer.  It works great (not contesting, just general purpose operation, ragchewing, etc), is RFI-free and has zero problems.  But it's just not fun!  I think a lot of the fun of CW operating is sitting back and listening to what the other station is sending, and then sitting up to send with a paddle...the fun is diminished by too much automation.  At first, I liked the MFJ because it allowed me to reply immediately to comments or questions posed by the other station...such as, if the other guy said, "WX here is very cold, we had two feet of snow today..." I could immediately send into the MFJ buffer memory, "Oh, too bad abt ur WX, here it's sunny and warm..." and do this while I was still listening to the rest of his transmission.  I'm a fast typist (about 120wpm), so keying in quick comments like this only takes a few seconds and doesn't distract me from the QSO.

Then, all my comments are stored in the MFJ buffer, and when the other station turns it over to me, I just hit "enter," and if the speed is adjusted to 20wpm, the machine will send several sentences without me doing anything.  I could literally walk out of the room for a cup of coffee, and come back, and "I" would still be sending!  That seemed like fun, for a while.

But, after a while, like most anything new, it just wasn't fun.  Not nearly as much fun as using the paddle, making occasional mistakes to prove my humanity, etc.  Automation for contesting is fine and helps improve scores.  Automation in everyday life is, um, boring-?

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

Vacuum tubes don't lend themselves to such an application, as the input and output transformers required for broadband use in the RF spectrum are difficult to design or build without having substantial loss.  A 200W (input power) vacuum-tube transmitter might operate with a plate voltage of 900V and plate current of 222mA.  This represents a plate load impedance of 4054 Ohms.  To use this with a 50 Ohm antenna system requires a transformation ratio of 81:1.  Try to build a broadband (1.5 - 30 MHz) transformer, capable of withstanding this voltage and current, having an impedance ratio of about 80:1.  Let me know how that works out!

This is the problem with vacuum tubes.  They lend themselves to medium and high powered, broadband audio frequency applications (20 Hz - 20,000 Hz) because the appropriate matching transformers can be wound using iron cores, and those devices are commercially available from manufacturers whose specialty is doing exactly this for the past several decades.  No such transformers exist for wideband RF applications in the appropriate ratios.

Solid-state PA's lend themselves much better to wideband, "no tune" applications because the impedance transformation ratios are so much easier to achieve.  A 14V operated, 200W PA will have a collector (or drain) impedance of about 1 Ohm.  The operating voltage is so low that insulation is not a concern, so any kind of wire (of a gauge to support the operating current) can be wound on a large ferrite form to create a low-loss output transformer.  It's just an easier, more appropriate design.

There have been "broadband" vacuum tube PA's of functional design; however, these are normally either:

1.  Conventional pi-network or pi-L network designs using motor-driven components (capacitors, inductors or both) and phase detector/servo motor systems which rapidly tune the PA to resonance after a frequency change.  Not really "broadband," but very user-friendly, and the end result is similar to a broadband amplifier; or,

2.  Conventional network designs using pre-set network components that allow tuning for resonance at the bottom, center and top end of each band, thus creating a "bandpass" network effect.  It may never be completely resonant anywhere useful, and will never be quite as efficient as tuning for resonance at one frequency, but can be made to work pretty well.  The problem with this is, the tuning will be extremely dependant upon excellent antenna matching.

73 de Steve WB2WIK/6

It definitely has some value, but might be of more value to a Yaesu "collector" than to the average ham or SWL.  

You might place a free ad and ask for "best offer," and see what you get!

73 Steve WB2WIK/6

Welcome to the hobby!

The FL/FR101 are really seriously old.  Not as old as your BC348 (!), but old.  Neither the scope nor the phone patch (it's not an autopatch) will help make any contacts, although they are interesting accessories.

Because the scope is a reasonably high-demand item for some reason, this setup probably is worth $450, assuming everything works properly.  Without the scope, I'd say more like $250-$300.  Due to the age of this equipment, it does not cover the WARC bands and it lacks many of the standard features found in today's equipment.

For overall enjoyment of the HF bands, I'd probably recommend forgoing this station and picking up a used but more modern HF transceiver -- one that does not require constant transmitter tuning-up as the FL101 will.  Solid-state rigs with more of the modern features abound in the $450 price range.  Nobody needs the scope, and the phone patch isn't worth much.

As for "working DX," that is all up to the antennas and the operator.  The station equipment has very little to do with DX-worthiness.  The antennas do all the work, the equipment merely facilitates using the antennas.  And the station operator does the rest of the work!  An experienced DX'er can work DX with practically nothing for equipment, whereas a newcomer might take some time to make even that first contact.  But learning how to do it is definitely part of the overall ham radio experience, and it's very much a fun part!

Good luck & have fun!

Steve WB2WIK/6