[Elecraft] Verticals

[David Gilbert]

Well, the toroid in my R5 was anything but "large" (I don't even think 
it was 1.5 inch diameter) and there was no way that network was 
efficient.  I might also point out that, generally speaking, it is often 
extreme overheating (usually voltage overstress) that causes a toroid to 
fracture into several pieces.

As I say, the reality is that simple vertical elements (I made one for 
20m and a separate one for 15m, later replaced with a 40m vertical for 
40m/15m) fed against a haywire collection of ground plane wires 
stretched across the roof significantly outperformed the R5 in the exact 
same location.

73,
Dave   AB7E



On 9/11/2014 9:22 PM, Dave Heil wrote:
> There was nothing really wrong with the R-5.  I used one for almost 
> all of my 12 and 17m operating as 9L1US in the 1990-91 time frame. 
> Maybe all you needed to do would have been to mount it on a steel 
> railing atop a three story building on a 400 ft. hill overlooking the 
> Atlantic. :-)
>
> The large toroid in the matching network in the plastic box fractured 
> into several pieces by the time I was 5H3US.  Cushcraft wanted to sell 
> me the entire box full of components only at a very high price and I 
> got rid of the rest of the thing.
>
> I keep a Hustler 6BTV with 25 radials here in case I lose a wire 
> antenna or have a rotator problem.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave K8MN
>
> On 9/11/2014 21 51, David Gilbert wrote:
>>
>> Not to heap coals on the fire, but I also owned an early R5 and it was a
>> terrible performer.  I had it over a year and when I finally got rid of
>> it and put up a simple 20m vertical in the exact same spot on the roof
>> and fed it against random length wires as a "ground plane", the
>> improvement was astounding.  I don't think the basic concept was so bad,
>> but the implementation was horrible.  I realized what I had as soon as I
>> opened up that little box at the base and saw what some clueless person
>> thought could act like a matching network.
>>
>> In general, though, I think it is a mistake to characterize all
>> verticals a poor performers.  It's all a function of efficiency
>> (avoiding losses) and location.  Check out the ground conductivity
>> charts across the U.S. and you'll see huge differences, with some areas
>> essentially acting as terrestrial dummy loads.  Nearby structures that
>> can absorb energy or distort patterns represent other possible culprits
>> for bad results with verticals.  I used nothing but verticals for most
>> of three decades, but mine were always on a flat roof and well in the
>> clear of anything nearby.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave   AB7E
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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
> Message delivered to xdavid at cis-broadband.com
>