| Author |
Message |
    
Foxhunter
Junior Member
Username: Foxhunter
Post Number: 43
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 2:07 am: | 
|
I like alot of what the manufacturer has to say and the facts they seem to present about the vertical antenna industry itself, and the antennas they themselves make. Does anyone own (or previously have owned) one of these antennas? I recently got a Kenwood TS940S which covers 160M-10M. I see the Butternut HF9V covers 9 bands so would those of you who know consider this a good choice in antenna when I finally go to make a purchase for my first base station set-up? I've done MANY mobile installs in the 11-Meter arena---but am brand-new to getting a base-station together and don't want to waste time and money on an installation that would leave me disappointed. I'd like to be using a vertical and I've considered many antennas before getting down to maybe settling on this one. Anyone please give me any prior experiences with this antenna? I'd appreciate it. |
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 23
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 10:00 am: |
|
I love my vertical. I have a hustler btv5, which is very inexpensive compared to some of the others. With any vertical your ground system is key to performance. If you elevate the antenna(like a typical a99 setup) you'll need between 2 and 4 tuned radials for each band. (5 bands mean 10-20 wires cut to length hanging down, (my wife said no)or ground mounting with buried radials, I chose the latter. When you ground mount you do not have to tune each radial because of the effect the ground has, but you will need to insulate the wire(even the tip)The wire should be as long as possible, and you should use as many as possible. I believe 110 wires slightly better than a quarter wavelength for the lowest band is optimum. I only had room to put 4 70 foot radials (for 75 meters)and the rest I made 40 foot(60 of them)40 meters is my most effective band. I can usually communicate ground wave at distances of 70 miles on the upper bands, (cannot detect a break in distance on the lower bands)and its super low angle of radiation allows global DX nicely. MY Icom on the btv5 will hear stuff I cannot even detect with my A99 and 2950...my A99 is up 32 feet. I used it for field day one year(my best score) and CQWW phone. I wouldn't trade the antenna for a beam. I think I paid $150 for it plus shipping, and DX engineering's support is 2nd to none. If you need more info, lemme know I'd be happy to save you some research. Oh and there is a trick to burying all those radials, took about 30 min to bury all 60+ of mine. I also run a 275 foot random wire which seems to work real well on 17m and allows me play time on 160, the vertical is much quieter though on the other bands and easier to use. |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1031
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 10:32 am: |
|
I left my HF9V back in Australia )(damn suitvcase was too small and full) and I have never been able to afford to replace it. Will I? You bet ASAP.
I used it ground mounted on the post of a weldmesh fence. I jumpered every panel to the next with ground strap and worked over 90 countries in around 6 months before moving here. THat was using a 706.
Yes I'd recommend it as a good compromise antenna, which all HF verticals must be due to size constraints. Use as many ground radials as possible along with a ground rod and you will have a good antenna system.
Simon
Tech237
N7AUS
|
Foxhunter
Junior Member
Username: Foxhunter
Post Number: 45
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 2:56 pm: |
|
I'm really unsure what to do with the home base-station antenna situation. Although I will be getting at least a Tech license (trying for General Class) I will also still have an interest in 11-M as that is where I started. With passing my test(s) I will naturally have an entire world of other possibilites on the other bands/frequencies so I'm trying to consider a decent all-around vertical. I was considering a Titan DX from Gap Products (10M-80M) but then really have been leaning toward the Butternut HF9VAs----I want something better than an A-99 or an Imax-2000 although many seem to recommend them but I guess that would mainly be for CB Some have told me to go with a Maco V5000 but once again mainly 10M-11M.
Haven't really looked at the Hustler base verticals (I have one of their mobile whips). I have been really looking towards the Butternut with the ground-radials kit because I'd like to mount it higher than powerlines on the side-street beside me.
I am a big believer in ground plane and counterpoise and doing more than the minimum required----but with my current financial status I will be trying to do this with a realistic budget that isn't extreme as I just suffered a fairly significant loss. So I'd like to use a ground radial kit at the base of the actual antenna as well as radials at the base of the pole or tower where it ties into earth.
A question also relating to radials is: is it possible to use many random length radials? What I was considering the possibility of was using a ton of old surplus iron rebar that I have access to. What do any of you guys think of that? Do the radials really have to be eminating outward from the base of the antenna pole/tower or may I bury them ever-so-slightly in a grid-type fashion?? The antenna pole will be mounted beside the house I think so that would eliminate almost half the radials if they are done in a true "radiating" pattern. So basically can I just "load-up the ground" with as much metal-mass as possible to see reflectivity? Any ideas that might work are more than welcome please.
I thank you gentleman so far for your help it's appreciated more than you know. Thanks---Foxhunter |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1033
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Well I do know of one Aussie ham that used an old cast iron bath as part of his ground, and that seemed to work.
Radials are the ideal in a perfect world (which is not where any of us really live), so yes get as much laid in in whatever pattern you can fit and go for it. That fence I mentions earlier was not a perfect layout but it did work.
Simon
Tech237
N7AUS
|
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 24
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 8:14 pm: |
|
ya man, load up fence, rods etc, the more the better. The radial wires ensure a more even pattern. Heck Ive even heard of people salting the ground....goes away after a few rains though. I bought 3 spools of wire from home depot, 14awg stranded and used it for my radials. Cost $110 ( I used a bit of surplus wire I had for the long runs).
From My understanding using insulated wire works best-actually using insulated strap would work best. but anything you can do to increase ground conductivity is going to help.
Oh and with the software I used, the difference from 60-100 radials was less than 3 db..so again like mentioned above compromise. But my vertical outperforms many of my friends verticals with a lesser ground system.... |
Foxhunter
Junior Member
Username: Foxhunter
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 9:37 pm: |
|
You guys are great. I will be sorting through more antenna literature/sheets to decide which omni/vertical to purchase. There's nothing like "buyer's regret"----so I'm hoping to come to some sort of conclusion soon. Knowing me---in the next couple of years I will have "an antenna farm" outside with an array of various types. Without getting "carried away" I will have difficulty with just one antenna, I can see already.
Although nothing really special, today I just received a Shakespeare "Super Big Stick 76-SU" from someone. Know anything about it? I posted about this antenna, asking about any info on it, on another thread here on the Forum. I will probably hook it up on the roof, but am sticking to the goal of a decent, multi-band, omni-directional vertical.
This same woman is offering me two more antennas which I will be trying to get down hopefully in the next couple of weeks. The 40-FT "towers" they are on are a bit junky-looking but the antennas seem decent looking at them from the roof.
One has a vertical shaft about 6-FT joined to a 6-FT horizontal shaft forming a "T" shape. At both ends of the horizontal shaft are two large "diamond" shaped elements. Unsure what type that is, I know I've seen pictures somewhere of a similar antenna. Any ideas?
The other is about a 6-FT vertical shaft, with 3x horizontal shafts coming from the center shaft. At the end of each of the 3 horizontal shafts is a vertical element. Any ideas also as to what either of these types might be?
As far as counterpoise: I will go ahead with plans for embedding the ground with a large amount of metal, done with somewhat of an organized pattern if at all possible. Is there such a thing as "too much groundplane"? Maybe I'm thinking too much but was wondering if I shouldn't just bury large sections of sheet-metal roofing sections which would give me the most square-footage? Bad idea? Good idea?
Anything anyone is willing to post would be eagerly read. Thank you guys------Foxhunter |
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 7:46 pm: |
|
There is no such thing as too much ground, although you will reach a point of diminishing returns. If done correctly you may also discover something that will change the way you think of SWR's and antenna matching. When your ground becomes very good you may notice your bandwith (area where swr's are really good) will become narrower. You may also find that transmitting on this setup with a 2:1 swr may yield better results than your used to getting with an antenna with a 1.2:1 swr. This is because a poor ground system can tend to flatten your swr's giving it the appearance of a good match over a wide frequency range. This may also explain why the average A99 setup shows a good swr over a wide frequency range but typically every antenna you see put up against it beats it in TX and RX. This is because the 5-10% of power loss in the swr mismatch is nothing compared to the 80% loss you may get in the average poor ground setup. You may find out its easier to create a lossy antenna that looks good on a meter rather than a good antenna that actually transmits well. |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 11:31 am: |
|
DrZuo - hey don't knock the A-99 that antenna has given me over 100 countries on 5bands (15 upto 6m) and in most cases running less than 10w.
Simon
Tech237
N7AUS
|
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 12:56 am: |
|
Hey tech I run one too, for the money they work. But notice I said "average A99 setup" referring to not only the antenna but the way most are setup, with a poor ground and/or no radials. (not sure if the gpk-1 really counts as a radial system) But I will say this the A99 hears no where near as well as the hustler btv5. Also if you put it in perspective, as said in many posts, the Maco v58, for example, typically tx'd and rx'x about 1-2 s units better than the A99. 1 s unit should equal about 6 db,2 s units=12db. Now lets say the meter isn't calibrated (etc) and we have a 3 db loss in the A99 compared to the Maco...that 3db loss is half the power!!! At 100 watts in you lose 50 watts in comparison. And that is being very optimistic ! Comparing it to my Hustler, I have to put 10 watts in the A99 for every watt I put into the Hustler.....So is the A99 really great or just really simple to use? I too have worked the world on my A99. I also have worked the world on a piece of speaker wire taped to a wall, and have even DX'd on a light bulb.I'm just saying that if he does use a high quality antenna with a great ground system, he will be very happy. |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4755
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 9:01 am: |
|
Here is a 12 avq with a GPK-1 kit for 10 meters radials and HAMSTICKS for 15 and 20 meters.
Moderator Note!
Picture Reduced 70% and posted below.
On 6 since 66
|
Tech808
Moderator
Username: Tech808
Post Number: 15922
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Lon~Tech808
CEF#0808/HAM#001/CVC#0002
Tech808@copperelectronics.com
|
Foxhunter
Member
Username: Foxhunter
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 6:14 pm: |
|
I love antennas......all shapes and sizes.
DrZuo your reply regarding "too much groundplane" seems to make sense. It raises a good question though that I've been wanting to ask though. I'd appreciate if anyone would consider why I'm confused by this and have questions and maybe answer back...
Well, although I don't believe everything I read, I'd read "in my online travels", that too much reflect in conjunction with the use of a monopole could be a problem. Why?
The point was that a "monopole" is 1/2 an antenna (which is true) and the "missing other 1/2" is completed by "an equally measured amount of radials (or reflect)". Often radials are cut to specific lengths.
The example was---that if you were to erect, say for instance, a center-fed dipole----each of the two wires should be of (or trimmed to) equal lengths. The fact that they should be both opposite and equal----seemed to make sense.
If this "example" dipole were to have the radiating half trimmed ro length/frequency, would there be any ill effect by not having the other reflective half not tuned-to-length? Would that then be unbalanced?
Just maybe to be helpful, there is a good: "Amateur Quarter Wave Ground Plane Antenna Calculator", found at the following address or link:
http://www.csgnetwork.com/antennagpcalc.html
I however see DrZuo's point and maybe "you can't ever have enough" counterpoise. Not sure....(?)
The A99---I have a guy down the road from me a little ways that will sell me what I believe is an A99 that was from his brother (who died). It has a GPK where the radials are really tiny/short and slope downwards at what looks like a 45-degree angle. If you subscribe to the ground radial "ideal length" idea, the GPK really isn't much then.
And why would an antenna like the A99 need a GPK if it's a vertically suspended dipole---it should be complete in it's design already, right (?).
I mounted the Shakespeare Super Big Stick several days ago, and like the A99 or Imax, was told that it too fell into "that same category"----that it doesn't/shouldn't need ground radials.
Despite the "no need" for reflect, I mounted the Big Stick directly above a very large 32-element Yagi-Uda UHF/VHF/TV/FM antenna. I did this in the hopes that it would somehow give me both increased reflect/counterpoise and gain additional height as well.
I guess the Shakespeare is in the same "class" of antenna as the A99 or the Imax 2000 (?). It is only a "starter" antenna so don't laugh....
Oh, after reading the article "The A99 Exposed" it's made me a little "leery" of it's design and construction method----especially with quality issues. However----many, many people swear by them, and claim to have had much success. I know many have read them probably but here's the two links for the:
A99 Exposed Base Antenna: A99 Exposed:
Imax 2000 Exposed Base Antenna : Imax 2000 Exposed:
I'd appreciate any of Copper's members opinions on any of the above questions or statements on this post and some of the questions I'd had. I'm still trying to learn. Thanks---Foxhunter
Everyone seems |
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 27
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Cool fox, I have some answers regarding grounds and counterpoise. When elevated (preferably above a wavelength) A tuned radial system will need to be employed. 4 radials cut to length ( about a quarter wave length at the lowest frequency used) will give an efficiency of 90 some percent. Yes you can add more, but from 90 % adding 4 more may take you to...95% ehh. When using ground radials for an antenna that is mounted close to the ground, say 4 inches, the radials need not be "tuned" but should be at least a quarter wavelength long at lowest freq too... The tuning is not as critical because the earth ground being in close proximity to the wire will detune it. Different types of soil will detune it differently so its almost impossible to guess what the exact length will need to be. So at that point, the goal is conductivity. |
Foxhunter
Member
Username: Foxhunter
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 11:24 am: |
|
I do see what you've written above and I believe that to be true and am sure I've read that in an ARRL manual.
Now that would be true (a radial system needed at or above a wavelength) if the vertical is a true monopole antennna-----but not for a suspended dipole like the Shakespeare / A99 /Imax 2000, correct? |
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4760
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 6:52 am: |
|
Foxhunter
The A-99 if it is a TRUE !/2 wave should not require a groundplane but is it a TRUE 1/2 wave ?
On 6 since 66
|
Foxhunter
Member
Username: Foxhunter
Post Number: 73
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Hey Bruce meant to tell you I like your Avatar. Hope his aim is right on the mark....
I know a guy the next town over who wants to sell me "what I thought/assumed" was an A99------but after seeing pictures of the A99 or Imax-----it isn't either. It looks like an 18-FT long or so, thick hollow tapered fiberglass tube going up with a small "domed" top. Looks like it starts out 3-inches thick and tapers to 2-inches. It also has the small ground plane kit like the A99. Wonder what it is? I guess it could be anything. I just got a digital camera finally and I'd better learn how to use it I guess to post pictures. I know the guy (he died) ran a home heating business and his brother said he also had base-unit business-band radios he wants to sell me. Don't know if they could be put to use somehow.
I'm going up on the roof (AGAIN!!!) to check out the Shakespeare and try draining it if possible and hopefully that was the problem. I hope it's nothing serious.....I like it for 11-M and was enjoying talking from NJ to Nova Scotia last night with it.
Hmmmm Bruce.......I haven't looked too closely at them (the A99). What is the A99 a 1/4 wave then? I'll have to try and read. Now a favorite reference site I visit is "Signal Engineering" at their "Ultimate Guide to 11-Meter Antenna's" section and they list and describe the A99 & Imax as a 1/2 wave, as well as my Shakespeare.
Also they describe the Shakespeare as "end-fed" and it does look like it is----but a couple of members who've had them tell me it's really a center-fed (??).
Anyone ever see what I'm talking about or agree with Signal Engineering's data? I'll post the link but it doesn't highlight sometimes on this site so you may have to type or paste it in.
www.signalengineering.com/ultimate/verticals.html
Another guy (the same guy who threw out his recently deceased 83-year old fathers lifetime collection of radios)just gave be a 4-element (?) beam antenna but of course it's missing a "main" component/piece. It has the thick base/loading point and a tapered mast in five 4-FT sections (20-FT) and four elements but is of course missing the "backbone" where the elements all should join and be evenly spaced along. Junk?
Hey---He also wants to sell me a Shakespeare big stick he just sent me a picture of! For the "cheaper" class/grade of antenna it seems to perform well. Since the Big Stick is "my first base antenna", I'm partial to it already like a guy is "with his first girl" HaHaHa but I do get attached to things especially gear.
The last one was given to me free which was a blessing----***but would anyone please tell me what an old/used Shakespeare Big Stick is worth or what is a FAIR purchase price?***
I know it's not a "collecters item" or anything especially valuable but I'm not looking "to rob" him either. I can't afford to overpay for sure. I could really use an estimate----help.
The antenns it's 130 miles away and he'll be going thru a bit of trouble to get it back here. What is a fair price to both of us? He doesn't know if it is the 16-FT or the 18-FT version.
Another question-----If I do get this Shakespeare I want to co-phase it with the other one (providing the one I already have doesn't give me more trouble).
If it's the 16-FT one it'll be an exact match to mine. But if it's the 18-FT one----do any of you see a problem with pairing (mismatching?) it with the 16-FT one (??)
I'd appreciate anything anyone can add or questions here (I had several above) that you guys would be willing to answer. Thanks----Foxhunter |
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 9:04 am: |
|
1/2 waves do not require and ground plane for impedance matching, but it greatly improves radiating efficiency. |
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 9:27 am: |
|
Addendum: 1/2 verticals I meant....too early in the mornin'. |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 9:49 am: |
|
Bruce - I have never run a groundplane on my A-99 and I think it's results speak for themselves - 80 countries and 49 states (confirmed - just cannot get Ido\aho) on 10m running 10w or less, 50 countries and 37 states on 18m. All with the antenna sitting about 4ft above ground and with about a 20 degree slope from vertical - mounted on an old sat dish mount.
As for using tuned radial wires - in 30 years I have never ever used tuned ones, just got as much out there as I can, and in a close to 360 degrees as possible. Would tuning the lenghts help? Possibly, but a mass of untuned radials will work as well or better than 3 or 4 tuned ones.
Despite some opinions to the contrary - antennas are not, at this time, an exact science, adn the plain fact is what works well at my location, may not work at all 1 mile down the road. This is one of the reasons I love playing with antennas - the suck it and see scenario.
Drzuo - "1/2 waves do not require and ground plane for impedance matching, but it greatly improves radiating efficiency." Now this depends on the antenna. A dipole is a halfwave antenna and doesnt really need a groundplane. Havng one with a dipole, doesnt som much effect the efficiency, but does change the radiation angle, which may give the apperance of a change in efficiency.
Simon
Tech237
N7AUS
|
Bruce
Senior Member
Username: Bruce
Post Number: 4768
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 10:07 am: |
|
Simon ....
The ONLY reason I got rid of the A-99 is I needed to cover more bands.
The 12AVQ is a 1/4 wave and it NEEDS them to work at all Mine is 7 "S" units better than a A-99 on 20 meters and more than ONE "S" unit on 10 with the mass of radials i have on it.
Im going to buy another DONUT for a GPK-1 from the maker to make the radials neater.
As for UNTUNNED if you put enough of them it should work just fine.
On 6 since 66
|
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 31
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2008 - 11:12 pm: |
|
tech 237, good point on radials changing the pattern. And that is good to note. (p.s., I did correct myself on the dipole note stating vertical)
Lets use an antenna with a radiation pattern with say a 45 degree take off angle. You will bury needles at a distance of say, 300 miles, as long as the MUF will support it. You'd have to have a second hop for 600 miles etc... Each hop will lose considerable energy. Now lets say your take off angle were to change to 20 degrees, you'll find better signal reports from stations 700 miles away , and a slightly longer dx window due to the MUF not needing to be so high. But you'll "hop" right over a lot of those 300 mile contacts. So in short where you want your signal to go is as important as how much signal you put out there.
As for un-tuned elevated radials, it's a •••• shoot. Sure I guess anything is better than no radials but you will change the tuning of the antenna. Reactance should be as close to zero on your desired TX frequency, leaving the antenna purely (as close as possible) resistive. The lower the resistance, the more power will radiate, and if all else equal, the narrower the bandwith.
Will an antenna made from 8 inch copper pipe radiate better than the same model made from 12 gauge speaker wire, yes. Will it be worth the extra $400 in copper, probably not.
As for antennas being a perfect Science or not, actually, Ya they are. I've spent thousands of hours designing, building and testing antennas and well its a perfected science on the antenna end. What isn't perfected is stabilizing the atmosphere. At any given time the f2 layer can change elevation by many many miles and the intensity of solar activity can change rapidly as well. One condition may allow high angle antennas to really shine, other times your 5/8 wave will talk out of continent easily, I think this is where you can get a lot of misconception on what the antenna is doing.
With my first setup I worked 1100+ contacts in 3 months with a stock cobra 2000. Barefoot. I used a Radio Shack Baby Blue 15 feet off the ground at 26 feet above sea level. All 50 states, and 35 countries-That antenna sucked. Conditions were great. |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 7:10 pm: |
|
DrZuo,
your right you did correct yoursefl on the 1/2 bit and I missed that. Your are wrong tho on antennas being an exact science.
If antennas were an exact science any antenna would work exactly the same in all locations, and even if tyou discount effects of changing propogation this just doesnt happen.
An example of tjhis was a prototype 2m vertical 5 1/4 vertical fed 1/4 from lowest end. A dismal flop at my location, but its mate used at a friends only two mile up the road worked better than his 3 element yagi. That is with it at the same height as the yagi, he could work more repeaters (over 80miles away) with a stronger signal. Oh yes I actually had a 100ft height advantage too. We figure propogations wasnt too much of a problem since these testw ere run simutaneously..
Simon
Tech237
N7AUS
|
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 43
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 8:12 pm: |
|
Fair enough Simon, gotta love a good debate. My reasoning for saying exact science is this:
we know how to :
a)Make an antenna radiate any any direction or at any angle we'd like-be it stacking several arrays or a dish or raising/lower it etc...In some way shape and form we can get the signal to leave the antenna where ever we'd like.
b) we can make it efficient. We can silver plate it make it 1 foot in diameter, what ever it takes, even cooling it with liquid nitrogen.
c) we can even measure the soil and compensate with ground reinforcing techniques.
d) we can load them to make them smaller, we can stack them and make them bigger.
It is really more of a question of how much time and money versus the end result. Compromise is the name of the game with antennas, not because we dont know how, but because of limited funds, space, and patience on the xyl's part.
I didn't mean we had the technology to make a 1inch cube handle 30kw and have a flat match from 1.8-30mhz, but we understand the physics involved and can create an antenna to radiate 99% of that signal.
Yes I can be a stickler on procedure, but people here want to learn, they can decide where they are going to compromise. Maybe for one guy using 100 radials is nothing, another guy can use a 100 foot tower. My philosophy is to start with ideal and then compromise where you have to. |
Tech237
Moderator
Username: Tech237
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 10:42 am: |
|
Agreed, and debates like this has been help them learn too. No problems and no offense ever taken when someone disagrees with me. If one I have learnt over the last 30 odd years, it's that I always have something else to learn..
BTW the antenna mentioned above, although lousey for the intended terrestrial communications worked great for MIR using a 1w ht..
Simon
Tech237
N7AUS
|
Drzuo
Junior Member
Username: Drzuo
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 7:42 pm: |
|
(high fives Simon) |
