[Elecraft] Is a K3 ATU with balanced outputs possible?

[Eric Buggee]

Hi Don & all,
                        Yes the reason for the length of 285 Ft is based 
on reading Cebick's musings in antennix on long wire anenna's / V beams 
& on to Rhombic antenna's, where Cebick notes that odd multiples of 1/4 
wavelength produce slightly more gain than multiples of 1/2 wavelength.

I think that I stumbled upon some serendipity with the 285Ft length 
cause it sure works!  All noted re the Bi-directionality, I considered 
it not worth the aggrivation & trouble to terminate the wires thats for 
sure.

73 from,

Eric Buggee, VK3AX.



On 9/29/2012 10:22 AM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> Eric,
>
> A "V" beam will be quite directional (bidirectional) and the response 
> depends on frequency. especially at those frequencies where the length 
> is in excess of 1 wavelength.
>
> You must have found a good length if it operates well with the BL2 and 
> the KAT3 combination.
> The wire angle of 70 degrees is good for 40 meters through 20 meters, 
> but is effective for other bands as well.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
> On 9/28/2012 8:04 PM, Eric Buggee wrote:
>> Hi Andrew, Don & all,
>>
>> I have a K3 (4520) and have recently installed a new antenna in the form
>> of a "V" beam with the bisector at about 7 Degrees east of North, with
>> the included angle at about 70 degrees and a leg length of 285Ft, height
>> above ground is 70 to 75 Ft, with ground sloping down away to N & NE for
>> 20Km.
>>
>> I have found that using the KAT3 in the K3 and a BL2 Balun it is useable
>> on all bands from 160 through to 6M with the worst VSWR of 1.5:1 showing
>> up on 160 at 1860KHz.
>>
>> Reports from stations at, 1 to 5000 Km north from Emerald in the ranges
>> 60 KM East of Melbourne in VK3 land give the "V" beam an advantage of 2
>> to 3 Sunits over the main antenna running NE to SW (A full sized 160M
>> dipole at 105Ft, fed with OW line spced 6inches) .
>>
>> Reports run as follows:-  160M, generally 1 S unit down WR to the 160M
>> dipole;
>>
>> 80M, equal to & sometimes 1 S unit better (on average) compared to the
>> 160 M dipole appears to be dependent upon time of day & prop'n 
>> conditions;
>>
>> 40M, definitely better with 1 to 2 S units better most of the time (day
>> or night);
>>
>> 30 M, definitely better by consistent 2 to 3 Sunits better at 3 to 
>> 5000Km;
>>
>> 20 M like 30 M consistently better than the 160 M dipole by 2 to 3 S
>> units at 3 to 5000Km distance.
>>
>> The higher bands, with the V Beam I am hearing DX stations that are not
>> even detectable on the 160 M dipole (8 & 24MHz), but, so far no
>> definitive contacts made using the V beam to give a real evalution as
>> yet.  It has only been operational for about 10 days.
>>
>> Hope the foregoing is of interest,
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>   From Eric VK3AX.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/2012 9:06 AM, Andrew Moore wrote:
>>> Great; thank you for the trivia, very helpful. I figured it had already
>>> been considered and that there was a good reason for the current
>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> The BL2 following the KAT3 was exactly one option I was considering. 
>>> I've
>>> read about several cases in which ops had success, but read others 
>>> in which
>>> the balun was heating perhaps due to excessive reactance on the antenna
>>> side. Reactance is likely dependent on the frequency/band and several
>>> factors in the antenna system which could explain the mixed results.
>>>
>>> I think I will try this approach and enjoy the experimenting.
>>>
>>> All: Not looking to turn this in to an OT antenna theory thread, but 
>>> if you
>>> have specific experience with this configuration, I'd like to hear 
>>> (KAT3 to
>>> BL2 to ladder to simple dipole).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Andrew, NV1B
>>> maineware.net
>>> ..
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Don Wilhelm <w3fpr at embarqmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> A bit of 'trivia' first:
>>>> That was "supposed" to be a solution in the KAT500 tuner. The initial
>>>> design put the balun on the input of the tuner, and attempted to 
>>>> "float"
>>>> the rest of the tuner while trying to maintain balance.
>>>>
>>>> There were problems with maintaining balance through the rest of the
>>>> tuner, while studies indicated there was no efficiency difference 
>>>> between
>>>> the balun at the input vs. the balun at the output, so the design was
>>>> changed to an unbalanced design driving (if required or desired) a 
>>>> balun at
>>>> the output of the tuner.
>>>>
>>>> "trivia off":
>>>>
>>>> So more specific to your question, a balanced output from the K3 
>>>> KAT3 can
>>>> easily be obtained by using an Elecraft BL2 on the output side of 
>>>> the KAT3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
>