[Elecraft] PAR/LNR EFHW antenna

[Bill Johnson]

Fred, I am using the 160 2KWQ version.  The coax is not a counterpoise.  With a 1/2 wave a counterpoise is not used.  You can get 2x the freq from the lowest freq of your wire.  Deviating beyond that adds loss and lack of tuning.  Use an analyzer to determine the intended freq parameters and you can double .  My 160 works great around 1.900 +/- 30 Khz with a tuner, but at the widths I mentioned the efficiency falls off.  Use a ground at the xfrmer.  This is not a counterpoise, just a method to remove static which a 1/2 wave will collect.  As you state, getting a good SWR is not an indication of efficiency.  Height, direction, etc., all matter.

73,
Bill
K9YEQ

-----Original Message-----
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Fred Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 3:26 PM
To: elecraft at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] PAR/LNR EFHW antenna

I use an end-fed wire [1/2 wave on 80] from MyAntennas.com run along the top of a wood fence about 1.8 meters high.  It has a transformer in a sealed box.  The outer surface of the coax seems to serve as the counterpoise.  It enters the house through a steel pipe near the ground into a closet and thence to the K3/100.

It works as good as one could expect on 80, 60, 40, 30, and 20. 40 seems to be it's sweet spot.  It works on 160 ... not great ... but I make Q's.  It's OK on 17 and 15, the SFI has prevented much testing on 12 and
10 although it has SWR minimums [1.3:1 or so] there.  It has 1.2:1 SWR on 6 on which I have made exactly zero contacts when the band was open this last summer and could hear lots of stations.

Apparently low SWR does not guarantee low loss, however any antenna is better than no antenna. [:-)  I'd have to destroy it to see what's inside the box.

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 1/9/2018 1:33 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 1/8/2018 8:19 PM, K9MA wrote:
>> I would be cautious about using a transformer above 40 meters, as the 
>> stray capacitance may be too large.  I haven't tried it, though, so 
>> it might work with some transformers.
>
> For years, we've been winding our transformers wrong. The windings 
> should be on opposite sides of the core, so that capacitive coupling 
> is minimized, NOT laying on top of one another. In a ferrite 
> materialthat is SUITABLE for use as a transformer, the mu is high 
> enough that a VERY high fraction of the flux in  toroid is contained 
> within the core, with very little leakage flux. Windings that lay on 
> top of each other maximize capacitive coupling, and thus maximize 
> common mode current. Windings on opposite sides of the core minimize 
> common mode current.
>
> Ferrites are semiconductors, so they act as a dielectric. When we 
> place windings on opposite sides of a core, we maximize magnetic 
> coupling and minimize capacitive coupling, which is from one winding 
> to the core and from the core to the other winding. That capacitance 
> is VERY small if the windings are widely spaced.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

______________________________________________________________
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 k9yeq at live.com