[Elecraft] OT:. G5RV's

[Nr4c]

Let's see,  102 + 33 = 135. Isn't that pretty close to the length of an 80 Meter Dipole?  The G5RV looks like two back-to-back inverted "L" antennas. The twin lead is not feed line but part of the radiator. 

Sent from my iPhone
...nr4c. bill


> On Aug 4, 2016, at 4:41 PM, Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws at triconet.org> wrote:
> 
> In my 1999 paper, /"Balanced Transmission Line in Current Amateur Practice"/ (http://k6mhe.com/n7ws/Ladder_Line.pdf), published in the /ARRL Antenna Compendium, Volume 6, /pp 174-178, I have this statement: "A popular multiband wire antenna is the so-called G5RV. This antenna is rarely used as was intended by Varney, but for some reason, the 102-foot length has taken on mystical properties,...."
> 
> It's a pity that too many newcomers, as well as many oldsters, are enamored by this piece of wire.  First, a 102' length is not resonant on 20-meters, so in common jargon, it's *not* a 20-meter antenna, any more than any other random length would be. Second, I understand that the conventional wisdom is that it has "gain" on 20-meters.  Maybe so, but the usual application has the wire strung up between available supports that may, or may not, direct the "gain" in a useful direction.  A coax-fed, rotatable, resonant dipole would run rings around a G5RV.
> 
> (While it's off-topic on this off-topic subject, the fascination with the "magical" 43-foot vertical is equally bewildering to me.)
> 
> In my published paper, space limited any discussion of tuner loss, however, in 1994 (type)written correspondence with editor Dean Straw I gave him examples of the horrific losses that could be incurred even with high quality tuners, when used as proposed the the article* that got me going on this subject.  It's interesting to note that to my knowledge, loss in tuners had never been mentioned in any ARRL publications before this correspondence. Shortly thereafter, "/How to Evaluate Your Antenna Tuner" /was published in 1995.  Coincidence I'm sure.
> 
> BTW, any ARRL publication before 1994 with charts of transmission line loss that include open-wire line is incorrect.  It's easily seen by inspection, but apparenty I was to first to inspect it. Dean and I hashed out a correct attenuation chart.
> 
> Wes  N7WS
> 
> * "/The Lure of the Ladder Line", QST, /December 1993, pp. 70-71
> 
> 
> 
> 
> : On 8/4/2016 11:08 AM, Ken G Kopp wrote:
>> As usual, Jim is correct ...
>> 
>> I have Lou Varney's original article.  The G5RV was designed as a 20M
>> --ONLY-- antenna.  It's now achieved some kind of cult ... read voodoo ...
>> status. (;-)
>> 
>> If one has an antenna that is partially fed with balanced line that's then
>> directly (!) spliced to a specific length of coax and then still requires a
>> tuner, why not run the balanced line directly to the tuner ... assuming it
>> has a balun ... or provide one at the tuner?
>> 
>> This same argument would apply to Varney's design for a 20M only dipole.
>> 
>> Maybe he didn't have a tuner of any kind, and wanted to use coax feed line
>> because there was a coax connector on his rig. (;-)
>> 
>> 73
>> 
>> K0PP
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 nr4c at widomaker.com