Re: Thanks for Gap Information

---------

From: Dan W. Dooley (dandooley@pipeline.com)
Date: Sun Jun 10 2001 - 20:22:55 CDT


Mike, interesting comments on the HF9V. I too have one, but mine is
elevated to 18 ft at the base.

Your comments on your experience with 17 metres are curious. Though I found
17 a bit tricky to tune, I was able to achieve an SWR of actually under
1.5:1 across the band.

I wonder if you had an antenna analyzer at your disposal? Without that (I
have the MFJ259B), any tuning of the antenna is extremely difficult.

The secret of tuning 17 (and other difficult bands) seems too be in the
ground (radial) system. As my antenna has always been elevated - at various
heights from 10 ft. on up to the current 18 ft., and I have had and tried
several different radial systems, the difference in whether or not this band
would tune depended on my positioning and actually the length of the
radials. Depending on the installation, some experimenting must be done.

I have radials (4 per band) on 40, 30, 20, 17, 12, and 10. To minimize the
number of radial tie off points, some of the radials actually are bundled
with those of other bands. I started out trying to tie them all in bundles
(they are insulated wire) with the goal of having only 4 total tie points.
That did not work, of course. I had to separate some by band and run those
separate and at angles to eliminate interaction. Needless to say, that all
took a lot of time and a heck of a lot of trips to the roof. Yep, ya got to
take it down to tune some of the higher bands, but once tuned, they seem to
stay put.

80 is working without any dedicated radials. Butternut confirmed to me that
this should be the case based on the proximity to ground and the affects of
the other radials. I get the bandwidth expected on this band considering
the length of the antenna and the "efficiency". I can attest that it does
work very, very well on 80.

There are no separate radials needed on 15 of course (uses 40s) and at least
in the current position and with the current radial configuration, I'm
getting away without separate radials on 6 metres.

Based on my results with this antenna, I am completely sold on it. Yes,
I've heard the tirades against some verticals, "even a poor radiator will
yield some contacts". I do not believe that assessment applies to this
antenna at all.

Would I buy another one? In a heartbeat!

Dan W. Dooley WB5TKA Bedford, Texas EM12ku
   e-mail to: dandooley@pipeline.com
   Web site: http://www.qsl.net/wb9tka
SOC #198, FPQRP # -104
May Goddes love blest ye alle
"Ancient Pistol, I do partly understand your meaning."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Mellinger WA0SXV" <wa0sxv@mellinger.com>
To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" <qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Thanks for Gap Information

>
> For 40-15 including WARC, about equal. Hard to tune the HF9V on 17m.
> For 80 and 10, the HF9V does the best. On 80, it is sometimes a lot
better.
>
> HF9V is ground-mounted with 16 16-foot radials. It is a bit of a pain to
> tune for 15, 10, and 6 as you have to take it down.
>
> 73,
> Mike WA0SXV
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John O. Newell" <jnewell@mediaone.net>
> To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" <qrp-l@Lehigh.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 13:45
> Subject: Re: Thanks for Gap Information
>
>
> > Just to muddy the waters a little (maybe), here are two
> > reviews covering the Gap Titan and the Butternut HF9V. This
> > particular operator prefers the HF9V. I've been thinking
> > over adding a vertical antenna and read the posts here with
> > interest -- I'd be interested in any comments on these two
> > reviews.
> >
> > http://www.mellinger.com/wa0sxv/hf9v.html
> > http://www.mellinger.com/wa0sxv/titandx.html
> >
>
>


Search QRP-L Archives

[ QRP-L Archive | ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 ]

---------

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 on Thu Jun 28 2001 - 10:18:01 CDT

kd4ab@kd4ab.org