[MRCA] AT-1011 stuff sought

Sat May 16 16:58:24 EDT 2020

Ray,
No offense taken, just not letting anyone get away with blanket statements.

I am learning to make "I" statements in therapy.  You just made a good one
there.  You said "I know what works for me" just then.  That was better
than "verticals suck".

To make an analogy, if you have a screwdriver and a wrench in your toolbox,
and all you ever run into are slot head screws, you might conclude that
"wrenches suck".  Then you run into a hex head bolt....

I've done a LOT of homework on this stuff.  Reading fundamental texts on
propagation and antennas... and you have to know both to understand the
applications and limitations of different antennas.
Kraus, Terman, hell even ARRL handbooks.  Done modelling with EZNEC and
code I wrote myself.  Creating and studying thousands of antenna patterns
in 2 and 3 dimensions.  Thousands of A/B comparisons between different
antennas at the same location.  You can sometimes learn from my antenna X
beats your antenna Y but often differences in location and propagation
confound things. You can learn more from my antenna X beats a whole lot of
peoples antenna Y consistently on this particular propagation path.
Nothing beats my antenna X beats my antenna Y but I better pay attention to
when.

This is science.  Personal preference has little to do with it unless you
are going to say "I can only have one antenna so I am going to choose this
one because it does the thing that I prefer".

A full toolbox is always a good thing.  If you can afford to have multiple
antennas per band you will be able to work more different paths more of the
time and will learn a lot in the process.  One of the best tools is a
2-position coax switch.

As awesome as our vertical antennas have been on 160, 80, and occasionally
40, having a dipole or horizontal loop to provide high angle radiation has
always been part of the toolbox.

I think you had it backwards.  At 40 meters and above dipoles start to rule
even for DX because mortals can put up dipoles or other horizontal antennas
at enough wavelengths high to get low angle radiation.  I designed an
ultimate 160 meter contest station antenna that would beat our vertical
array but I lost access to the 600 foot tower that was required.  Anyone
that has done a lot of DXing knows that a yagi at 100 feet beats a 4-square
on 40 meters almost all the time. Not many know that a yagi at 25 feet
beats a yagi at 80 or more feet on 10 meters into the South Pacific most of
the time.  You don't learn these things without 2 antennas and a 2-position
coax switch and an obsessive drive to find what works best.

73 DE K2WI

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 4:31 PM Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu> wrote:

> Sorry I offend so many, I only know what works for me and your results may
> be different. Just for fun after my last round on M&S today I switched to
> the vertical on the mutt and stations that I was able to copy well on the V
> were down in the noise or not there at all.
>
> Have run the vertical a couple time and it has worked but not as well as
> the V, will say that when running on twenty or above always use the
> vertical and perhaps I am not doing it right because I don’t run ground
> radials and just the ground rod and when doing local close in stuff on 3885
> will use the vertical for ground wave opps but at the end of the day if I
> want to have everyone hear me and hear everyone the vertical just don’t cut
> it on forty meters or below.
>
> Have often been told that I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed and
> perhaps if I did understand how to properly deploy a vertical results may
> be different, after all Joe proved that this morning along with several
> other stations who were running verticals and inverted L antennas but a
> simple resonate V dose the job for me.
>
> Maybe at the end of the day its just personal preference, something like
> running QRP were others may have great success with verticals and the like
> but for me I like running wire.
>
> I do apologies if anyone takes offense, my thing is lets get out and get
> on the air. And I am no one to tell anyone else what they should be doing
> or using.
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mark K3MSB <mark.k3msb at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 2:24 PM
> *To:* Rob Flory <farmer.rob.flory at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>; mrca <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [MRCA] AT-1011 stuff sought
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Salisbury University. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender's
> address and know the content is safe.
>
> As to weather an antenna “sucks”,  the question to be asked is  “sucks at
> what?”
>
> Rob is pretty much spot on in his post.    I run only vertical antennas on
> 160 and 80M and have the DX results to show they work, and work VERY well.
>   And, as Rob pointed out,  you need a good ground system.
>
> Rob made an interesting comment “When there is no skywave, verticals rule
> also.”.    I think this is where things get a bit murky on 40M.     You
> can't have horizontally polarized ground wave propagation;  you need
> vertical polarization.    However, around 5 MHz ground wave propagation
> becomes ineffective.   On 40M a low dipole (NVIS) may very well beat a
> verticaly polarized ground wave signal.
>
> I lost my Center Fed Zepp (CFZ) last year and have yet to put it up.  I've
> tried checking into the Saturday nets on 40 and 80M but my vertical will
> not cut it.   Stations in the local region can't hear me but I have no
> trouble working VK and ZL.   Not surprising.   Verticals provide low angle
> emissions;  low dipoles provide high angle emissions.  I need the low
> dipole.
>
> If you think you're antenna "sucks",  it may not -- you may be using it
> for the wrong intended purpose.
>
> 73 Mark K3MSB
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:43 PM Rob Flory <farmer.rob.flory at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sorry Ray you didn't say what veticals suck for so not only I am going to
> beat this old dead horse again I am going to shoot it with a bazooka.
> Dipole-Wins when significantly below MUF(NVIS) or for chip shot paths of
> 100 miles.
>
> Close to MUF and distances over 1000 miles my vertical antennas kick your
> dipoles ass every day of the week and I have multiple national and world
> championships in the ARRL and CQ 160 DX contests to prove it.
>
> When there is no skywave, verticals rule also.
>
> Vertical performance meets expectations better when you put the effort
> into a good ground system.
>
> RF
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Don’t care what the rest of the world says, below forty meters verticals
> suck. No substitutes for good long wire or V, at least that’s been my
> experience.  Somehow Joe WA4VAG somehow always gets out just like today
> running a 20 watt signal into a vertical and I had sold copy on him all
> morning on 7.296
>
> But so much for talking about radio, noon is coming up and I intend to be
> on M&S Net with the mutt and a inverted V
>
> Time for less talk and more radio!
>
>
>
> Ray F/KA3EKH
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> on
> behalf of B. Smith <smithab11 at comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:01 AM
> *To:* Military Radio Collectors Association <mrca at mailman.qth.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [MRCA] AT-1011 stuff sought
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Salisbury University. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender's
> address and know the content is safe.
>
>  Its a great antenna system. The poles are easy to modify .
> Z
>
>
> On 5/15/2020 5:34 PM, W2HX wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Picked up a nice AT-1011 to mount on my land rover Tithonus. I am in need
> of the tilt-over section,
>
> https://www.prc68.com/I/Images/AT1101TWAw.jpg (thank you, Brooke)
>
>
>
> I am also looking for a canvas bag for this. Please contact me with your
> prices.
>
>
>
> TU es 73 Eugene W2HX
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net <MRCA at mailman.qth.net>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20200516/ac9f0592/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ammmhihcagnehlja.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 242931 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20200516/ac9f0592/attachment-0001.jpg>