<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for AA8IA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aa8ia.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aa8ia.org</link>
	<description>Amateur Radio</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:49:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HF Vertical Antenna Considerations by Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.aa8ia.org/2010/04/06/hf-vertical-antenna-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:49:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aa8ia.org/?p=14#comment-8</guid>
		<description>David,

I&#039;m no expert.  But, I know that a 1/4w vertical is going to require a radial system.   If you are going to ground-mount a 1/4w vertical, then the radials do not have to be tuned [cut for band] but should be high in number (32-64 a 1/4w in length for the lowest bands you&#039;ll be operating).   And if I were to raise the vertical more than a foot off the ground, I&#039;d have to have tuned radials [cut specifically for 1/4w on EACH band that I plan to operate].   So raising a quarter wave is more trouble than it is worth for most people, including myself.

You can do a 1/2w vertical, but I believe the pattern and take-off angles are completely different on 1/2w verticals.   I believe, from my reading, that a 1/4w vertical is the better DX antenna.   So that leaves the choice of ground mounting with a ton of radials as long as possible and as numerous as possible (up to a 1/4w in length for the lowest bands you are going to operate) or a raised 1/4w vertical with tuned radials for EACH band that you are going to operate.

For those wanting a single band, it&#039;s a little easier.   For those wanting multiband performance, then a raised 1/4w vertical is going to require a lot of tuned radials, sloping down at proper angles.

For me -- a raised 1/4w vertical isn&#039;t going to cut it because I&#039;d have to find anchor points for the sloping tuned radials of each and every band that I was going to operate the multiband vertical on.   I don&#039;t want to put up a single-band vertical.   I need all-band performance.

Like I said, I&#039;m not claiming to be an expert.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m no expert.  But, I know that a 1/4w vertical is going to require a radial system.   If you are going to ground-mount a 1/4w vertical, then the radials do not have to be tuned [cut for band] but should be high in number (32-64 a 1/4w in length for the lowest bands you&#8217;ll be operating).   And if I were to raise the vertical more than a foot off the ground, I&#8217;d have to have tuned radials [cut specifically for 1/4w on EACH band that I plan to operate].   So raising a quarter wave is more trouble than it is worth for most people, including myself.</p>
<p>You can do a 1/2w vertical, but I believe the pattern and take-off angles are completely different on 1/2w verticals.   I believe, from my reading, that a 1/4w vertical is the better DX antenna.   So that leaves the choice of ground mounting with a ton of radials as long as possible and as numerous as possible (up to a 1/4w in length for the lowest bands you are going to operate) or a raised 1/4w vertical with tuned radials for EACH band that you are going to operate.</p>
<p>For those wanting a single band, it&#8217;s a little easier.   For those wanting multiband performance, then a raised 1/4w vertical is going to require a lot of tuned radials, sloping down at proper angles.</p>
<p>For me &#8212; a raised 1/4w vertical isn&#8217;t going to cut it because I&#8217;d have to find anchor points for the sloping tuned radials of each and every band that I was going to operate the multiband vertical on.   I don&#8217;t want to put up a single-band vertical.   I need all-band performance.</p>
<p>Like I said, I&#8217;m not claiming to be an expert.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on HF Vertical Antenna Considerations by david b lafleur sr.</title>
		<link>http://www.aa8ia.org/2010/04/06/hf-vertical-antenna-considerations/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>david b lafleur sr.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aa8ia.org/?p=14#comment-7</guid>
		<description>You mention that elevated verticals using no radials will work but not great. Now your yard space is limited how can you put down radials  1/4-1/2 wave lengths long at ground level and why dig up a nice yard to do it? Now on the other hand a no ground plain antenna must up at least a 1/2 wave length high to work. I think may be if you put up a vertical above ground level and using a good system you may get a way with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mention that elevated verticals using no radials will work but not great. Now your yard space is limited how can you put down radials  1/4-1/2 wave lengths long at ground level and why dig up a nice yard to do it? Now on the other hand a no ground plain antenna must up at least a 1/2 wave length high to work. I think may be if you put up a vertical above ground level and using a good system you may get a way with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on CQ WW WPX (CW) by Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.aa8ia.org/2010/05/30/cq-ww-wpx-cw/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 03:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aa8ia.org/?p=123#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Claimed Score:   102080
QSOs:  286
Mults:  176

I&#039;m sure there are some errors in my logs, so my score is most likely a bit less.

I made 288 actual QSOs though.  I believe that is the most # of QSOs in a single contest ever for me.   So I&#039;m quite happy, even if I end up as the last person on the scores for my category.

I also learned that I&#039;m not what I used to be ten years ago.   I tire a lot quicker; my eyesight is poorer; I can&#039;t sit on my rear end for as long; I need to take more breaks; I need my sleep.

All in all I think a very valiant effort with a wire up 20 feet that covers 40m through 10m (shortened on 40).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Claimed Score:   102080<br />
QSOs:  286<br />
Mults:  176</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure there are some errors in my logs, so my score is most likely a bit less.</p>
<p>I made 288 actual QSOs though.  I believe that is the most # of QSOs in a single contest ever for me.   So I&#8217;m quite happy, even if I end up as the last person on the scores for my category.</p>
<p>I also learned that I&#8217;m not what I used to be ten years ago.   I tire a lot quicker; my eyesight is poorer; I can&#8217;t sit on my rear end for as long; I need to take more breaks; I need my sleep.</p>
<p>All in all I think a very valiant effort with a wire up 20 feet that covers 40m through 10m (shortened on 40).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ordered some antenna stuff by Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.aa8ia.org/2010/05/14/ordered-some-antenna-stuff/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 19:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aa8ia.org/?p=96#comment-2</guid>
		<description>The Alpha Delta DX-EE and the Max Gain Systems MK-6-HD both arrived intact today.   I won&#039;t even be thinking about what to do with either one of them until at least this weekend.  I&#039;m too busy.  I did open up the packaging for the dipole though.  Looks like i&#039;ll have to stretch out the antenna completely on the ground in order to route the various legs through the standoffs (which keep the various wires separated by a minimum distance).   This looks straightforward.

Of course there is the issue of tuning it for what I prefer.   I prefer areas within the first 100 khz of the bands (to cover CW and digital modes) and would just use a tuner to go up into the SSB portions.

I know that once I have the DX-CC, it will definitely be an inverted V oriented N/S (broadside E/W).   But I&#039;m undecided about how the DX-EE will be oriented.   As it turns out, I think the location I had in mind won&#039;t allow me to stretch out a flattop 40 foot long antenna.  If that turns out to be the case, I may orient the DX-EE E/W (broadside N/S) as an inverted V as well.   This would mean both dipoles would be supported by the fiberglass mast, with the DX-CC at the top and the DX-EE beneath it in the opposite direction.

One benefit to having both dipoles on the mast is that I&#039;d use the dipoles themselves as rudimentary guy wires.   This mast is 35 feet long pushed all the way up, but it&#039;s light.   Having it guyed at two levels using the dipoles as guys plus two additional dacron rope guys at each level should do the trick.   Coaxes would run down the ouside of the mast and secured to the mast at intervals with wire ties most likely.

The tax data (including GIS info) for this plot say it is 100 feet wide and that the house is 70 feet wide.  But it sure doesn&#039;t look like it to my necked eye.  I hope what I&quot;m reading tells the truth, because I will need a minimum of 59 feet of ground distance for the DX-CC and a minimum of 28 feet of ground distance for the DX-EE.   And I&#039;ll need the full height of the mast to support the DX-CC high enough that the legs are adequately off the ground to be out of the way of people / animals.

My calculations show the following for the DX-CC
length: 82 feet (each leg 41 feet)
apex: minimum 29 feet from top to bottom assuming 90 degree inverted V
ground distance:   minimum 59 feet

My calculations show the following for the DX-EE
length:  40 feet (each leg 20 feet)
apex:  minimum 14 feet from top to bottom assuming 90 degree inverted V
ground distance:  minimum 28 feet

So the plan is for the apex of the DX-CC to be at 35 feet and the apex of the DX-EE to be at least five feet lower.   And regardless of where the apex of the DX-EE ends up, the second guying point for the dacron rope guys will be at 21 feet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Alpha Delta DX-EE and the Max Gain Systems MK-6-HD both arrived intact today.   I won&#8217;t even be thinking about what to do with either one of them until at least this weekend.  I&#8217;m too busy.  I did open up the packaging for the dipole though.  Looks like i&#8217;ll have to stretch out the antenna completely on the ground in order to route the various legs through the standoffs (which keep the various wires separated by a minimum distance).   This looks straightforward.</p>
<p>Of course there is the issue of tuning it for what I prefer.   I prefer areas within the first 100 khz of the bands (to cover CW and digital modes) and would just use a tuner to go up into the SSB portions.</p>
<p>I know that once I have the DX-CC, it will definitely be an inverted V oriented N/S (broadside E/W).   But I&#8217;m undecided about how the DX-EE will be oriented.   As it turns out, I think the location I had in mind won&#8217;t allow me to stretch out a flattop 40 foot long antenna.  If that turns out to be the case, I may orient the DX-EE E/W (broadside N/S) as an inverted V as well.   This would mean both dipoles would be supported by the fiberglass mast, with the DX-CC at the top and the DX-EE beneath it in the opposite direction.</p>
<p>One benefit to having both dipoles on the mast is that I&#8217;d use the dipoles themselves as rudimentary guy wires.   This mast is 35 feet long pushed all the way up, but it&#8217;s light.   Having it guyed at two levels using the dipoles as guys plus two additional dacron rope guys at each level should do the trick.   Coaxes would run down the ouside of the mast and secured to the mast at intervals with wire ties most likely.</p>
<p>The tax data (including GIS info) for this plot say it is 100 feet wide and that the house is 70 feet wide.  But it sure doesn&#8217;t look like it to my necked eye.  I hope what I&#8221;m reading tells the truth, because I will need a minimum of 59 feet of ground distance for the DX-CC and a minimum of 28 feet of ground distance for the DX-EE.   And I&#8217;ll need the full height of the mast to support the DX-CC high enough that the legs are adequately off the ground to be out of the way of people / animals.</p>
<p>My calculations show the following for the DX-CC<br />
length: 82 feet (each leg 41 feet)<br />
apex: minimum 29 feet from top to bottom assuming 90 degree inverted V<br />
ground distance:   minimum 59 feet</p>
<p>My calculations show the following for the DX-EE<br />
length:  40 feet (each leg 20 feet)<br />
apex:  minimum 14 feet from top to bottom assuming 90 degree inverted V<br />
ground distance:  minimum 28 feet</p>
<p>So the plan is for the apex of the DX-CC to be at 35 feet and the apex of the DX-EE to be at least five feet lower.   And regardless of where the apex of the DX-EE ends up, the second guying point for the dacron rope guys will be at 21 feet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
