[KYHAM] Advice About HF

[Cecil E Ferguson]

Steve, I apologize for sending this to you more than once, but since you
sent it via kyham, then I too, wish to respond in that manner.  On my
first response to you, the "mailman" sent it back to me as "failed
because it was in a HTML format."  Don't know how or why, but I am
repeating the process to make another attempt.
**************
My response was:

Steve, 

It is truly strange how different people get such differing results.  To
regress, I never said the B&W was the world's best antenna.  I said that
it was one of two that I know which requires no tuner.  These other
antennae that are being mentioned have serious shortcomings, if used
without a tuner.  If comparisons 
are to be made, they should use the same format.  If a beginner is to
have one simple to use antenna, I stick with my recommendation - the B&W.
 Do I use one?  No.  Have I owned and used one?  Yes, and I had over 30
years of operating time behind me when I used it.  I never had a moment's
problem with it.  Also, at the same time, I had a couple of dipoles cut
for the proper frequency strung in the same plane and I had great success
with all.  There was very little difference in the signal reports between
these dipoles and the B&W and on occasions, the B&W received a better
report than the "cut for frequency" dipole.  Is it a better antenna than
a dipole cut for the frequency?  No way!  A dipole is about as good as
one gets, unless directivity is a factor.

I, too, am using a modified loop and with a tuner.  It is a good
arrangement.  Without a tuner, it will look just as bad as the B&W
reports I hear and see.  One should compare apples and oranges.  If one
compares a B&W without a tuner, the other antennas's data should be
without a tuner as well.

I knew when I first wrote this, I was opening up a can of worms, but I am
able to draw on over 50 years experience, most as a private company
engineer, often on military contracts.  I have been there, done that and
I am still learning.  Fun isn't it?  I should add that I am in no way,
nor have I ever been, associated with any manufacturer of ham antenna
equipment.  

If your antenna works, stick with it.  As I have repeatedly told my
students (I have also had years of instructing basic and advanced), the
word "works" can be spelled with all lower case, all upper case, or a
mixture and it has just as many, if not more, meanings.  If one is
satisfied with the way his equipment "WORKS," it is his greatest, and I
suppose that is the way it should be.  

73 to all and enjoy ham radio.  It is a great hobby.

Gene, W4FWG
************  
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:50:58 -0400 "n4lq" <n4lq at iglou.com> writes:
> I have to bite my tongue when someone recommends the BW antenna. 
> Never 
> has there been a more inefficient and overpriced "antenna". 
> Basically 
> it's just a resistor at the end of a feedline. Radiations happens 
> due to 
> wide spacing of the feedline. I bought one in 1995 just to compare 
> against a G5RV. The BW was 20db down on 80 meters! I managed to get 
> a 
> refund after the test. 
> You might consider the modern version of the Windom or loop 
> antennas. 
> These are easy for internal antenna tuners to match and are fairly 
> efficient. I use an 80 meter horizontal loop fed on the corner with 
> a 
> 4:1 balun. My swr is 1:1 on all but the warc bands. WARC bands 
> require 
> the use of the rigs internal tuner, an easy match. This loop is a 
> triangle and is fairly omnidirectional on all bands, having many 
> lobes. 
> Total cost, about $50 for balun, wire and pulleys.
> 
> Steve N4LQ
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fuqua <wlfuqu00 at uky.edu>
> To: kyham at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:41:29 -0400
> Subject: Re: [KYHAM] Advice About HF
> 
> > Before you get real serious about the B&W broadband dipole (T2FD) 
> you
> > may 
> > want to look at an analysis of it.
> > http://www.cebik.com/wire/t2fd.html
> > 
> > Note the losses in the load resistor at lower frequencies and at 
> all
> > other 
> > frequencies.
> > Generally, on the ham bands half of the power is lost in heating 
> the 
> > resistor, at best, except for 10 meters.
> > Between most ham bands it is 3/4 lost or more. And at lower 
> frequencies
> > only 10th to 16th of the transmitter output is radiated.
> > 
> > This would not affect receive at all due to the high atmospheric
> > background 
> > noise floor. Which increases at lower frequencies. Apparent low 
> noise 
> > behavior is probably due to the antennas attenuation factors.
> > 
> > Now saying that, I will have to admit that it is easy to match and 
> most
> > people will not really notice the loss of 3/4 of radiated power 
> and
> > it's 
> > impedance is not affected much by nearby objects and how it is 
> strung 
> > up.  Also, these losses would not be noticed at all on receive.  
> At all
> > frequencies that it is designed for you are still atmospheric 
> noise
> > limited 
> > on receive.
> > 
> > 73
> > Bill wa4lav
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Kenwood TM-G707A Giveaway
> > http://www.kyham.net/support.html
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kenwood TM-G707A Giveaway
> http://www.kyham.net/support.html
> 
>