[Milsurplus] Re: AS-2259 - Manual?

[EUGENE SMAR]

Phil:

     Thanks for the info.  I found a manual for the -2259 in a couple of
other sources, too, but none of them shows the kind of detail I was asking
about.  I suppose that that info was not necessary for the proper
installation and operation of the antenna.

     I did receive one reply from another member of this list who told me
his -2259 is wired as we would expect - one long and one short to each
connector.  So I'm coming to a (tentative) conclusion that the antenna we
were using this weekend is FUBAR, and that the correct configuration is the
normal dipole.  I'm waiting for a reply from the owner to see if he got the
antenna directly from a gummint source or from another Ham.

     Thanks again es 73 de
     Gene Smar  AD3F


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Barnes-Roberts WA6DZS" <wa6dzs at charter.net>
To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 3:01 AM
Subject: [Milsurplus] Re: AS-2259 - Manual?


> milsurplus-request at mailman.qth.net wrote:
>   ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 22:46:12 +0000
> > From: ersmar at comcast.net
> > Subject: [Milsurplus] AS-2259 Conundrum
> > To: milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
> > Message-ID:
> >
<092520052246.15801.433728B4000A9AD700003DB922070016419D0E039C9D0A at comcast.n
et>
> >
> >
> > Gents:
> >
> >      This weekend I helped assemble and operate an AS-2259 NVIS antenna
system.  It is puzzlement.   Can someone explain it to me?  Here's my
problem with it.
> >
> >      Before seeing this unit, I had always thought that the two dipole
wire sets were connected one short leg and one long leg to the center of the
coax support pipe and one short leg and one long leg to the shield.  You
know- just the way we Hams would connect two crossed dipole inverted V's for
40 and 80 to a single coax feed line/balun.
> >
> >      But Nooooooo.   On the unit we had, the two short wires were BOTH
connected to the center conductor and the two long wires were BOTH connected
to the shield.  I concluded that we could correct this obvious error by
relocating one short and one long wire to opposite connectors.  However, all
four wire ends had small brass collars crimped to them where the tips
emerged from the opposite side of the connector.  (See
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/acs/radios/AS-2259%20antenna.htm , third photo
down.)  We couldn't remove the wires from their connectors at the top of the
mast.
> >
> >      Did we erect a -2259 that was hosed up by the last Ham who owned
it, or did it come that way from the Government surplus source?  I can't
help but think that the reports of poor operation on the Ham bands are due
in some part to this counter-intuitive configuration.
> >
> >      Thanks for any insight or inuendo.
> >
> > 73 de
> > Gene Smar  AD3F
> > P.S.  We made zero Q's on either 80 AM or 40 CW with our GRC-9 and this
beast.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
>
> Poking around looking, actually, for ALE info (PC-ALE supports the Yaesu
> FT-757, but not my 767GX) I came across the following, you may already
> have it - or not;
> < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/armyradios/files/ >(and about 99% full)
>   about #19 of 25 is - AS-2259GR.pdf , 1398KB.  Hope it can help;
> doesn't make much sense to me either, unless there's some magic in the
> mast...  Or it's a case of "good enough for government work!"
>
> -- 
> 73, Phil Barnes-Roberts WA6DZS mailto:wa6dzs at arrl dot net
> All else aside, RF to the other fellow's antenna is what counts.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Milsurplus mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net