On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:18:16 -0400, "Rick (W-A-one-R-K-T)"
wrote:

"Probably works better than a dipole" isn't good enough to spend a big one
on. As for being resonant and rotatable, that's not worth a thousand
bucks (to me) either.

Hi Rick,

This is what I mean by meticulous (in any formulation): What "is" good
enough? One could fill a book with what is wrong with a suggestion
and we would be no nearer an answer.

you are beginning to accumulate quite an antenna farm as it is.

That would be true if I had actually put any of them up. So far I have
two inverted vees, one dual-band NVIS dipole, and a 144/220/440 vertical.

OK, I suppose that's another way of saying having four antennas
covering up to 6 bands isn't enough - that is why we have our own
newsgroup, because many share that feeling.

I have more than one need. The general need is to be able to operate on a
list of CAP and MARS frequencies from 2 to 24 MHz. That one doesn't need
any gain or directivity, or any specific level of power (I routinely
participate in CAP and MARS nets with my inverted vee and 5 watts out of
my FT-817). I'm considering the T2FD only because then I can load all the
needed frequencies into the radio and put it on scan, and if someone I
need to talk to shows up on one of the channels I can pick up the mic and
hope for the best. But I'm not about to spend $300 for one (sorry if that
sounds like I'm "hedging away"... whatever that means...).

You have a need, but you are not going to spend $300 to fill it.
Again, you say what is wrong, but not what is right. Will you spend
$299? This threatens to call this portion of the game 300 questions.
So to practice the engineering form of Jeopardy: "in the form of a
question respond to 'I might spend more than $150 but less than
$300'?" (answer: "What is a binary search?" Thank you Don Pardo.)

Spending aside, a lot of performance be can be built for less if you
discount the value of your time (that is why they call it a hobby).
The trouble I have here is that you don't want to spend money (neither
would I), but then you ask about spendy items like the T2FD or
SteppIR. Say What?

I see the 2 to 24 MHz requirement trotted out, and strictly speaking
it is exceedingly obvious you won't buy that solution on the open
market for $300 or less (unless it is a bribe to a Government official
that has the power to surplus gear).

So it stands to reason you would have to build it. That can be done
to the limitations you offer above (and probably exceeding the
performance of the T2FD).

Doubling the dimensions of:
http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante.../Cage/cage.htm
would satisfy 3/4ths of your spectrum requirement and the ambitious
amateur could erect it without too much care for precision or cost. If
you were to come back to me with a negative reply ("it won't....")
what is one to do?

The more specialized need requires higher power and a rotatable,
directional antenna, in the frequency range from something below 20 meters

Tell me that you want to spend less than $300 for this and we can all
have a chuckle. About the only thing that qualifies was described as
having a Gaussian Array (no suggested retail price - and for good
reason).

I have been informed that I probably
won't be able to participate with a wire antenna and 150 watts, so since
it appears that's their story and they're stickin' to it, I'm looking for
some alternatives that don't involve buying a whole separate antenna just
for MARS.

I hope you didn't hear that story here, it qualifies as fiction in the
library. There are wire solutions that are steerable, and certainly
power is not an issue (especially if you were going to pour it into a
T2FD).

You want to try again?

Thanks, but I guess not. I'm doing my best already, to gather information
and make a decision I can afford and will work reasonably efficiently for
me. I'm sorry if you find my questions unclear or "hedging" or whatever
but think I've been pretty clear on my questions up to now, and I've
learned a lot from reading you guys.

Your questions tend toward seeking validation:
"Will X work for Y?"

To which some responses offer
"Um, yes, but why would you want to do that?"

"Because I don't what Z."

"OK, X for Y without Z can be found with model A."

"Model A will do, but it doesn't give me B."

"OK, X for Y without Z but with B."

This can go on for a long time.

The fact is I have more than one question (surprise!), each of which has
been formulated meticulously enough, and each of which serves a different
though related need.

We are up to model XY(/Z)+B+specialC, then.

This latest one is the simple and
meticulously-crafted question that says, simply, "Can a 2-element beam
work efficiently with only 0.07 wl spacing between elements?".

The W8JK works quite well at 0.10 wl spacing between elements and has
been around for more than 50 years. How much can squeezing it to 0.07
spacing hurt? The free version of EZNEC can answer that in less than
a minute (none).

If you build it wrong, then the answer is no, it cannot work
efficiently.

You can even buy one that won't work for the same reason - you as a
builder of the package of bits and pieces that arrives UPS. In this
world of free competition and lead painted toys for children, you can
also buy one that won't work - irrespective of your construction
talents.

Being meticulous about "efficient" would have you expressing what loss
is allowable. By inference to your tendency to select a T2FD (loss in
the ballpark of at least 3dB), then yes (and with proper design and
construction), 0.07 wl spacing between elements is efficient (even if
it loses 1.8dB along the way in getting there). If 1.8dB is too much
loss (another negative reaction), then you weren't very meticulous at
all. On the other hand, it would serve you well to know that doing
better would probably cost beaucoup bucks more than $300 (or even a
grand).

The
related question, which I think is equally clear, was "Any of you guys
have the SteppIR 2-element and if so, what do you think of it?".

I can't think of a way to meticulously craft either of those questions
that will yield a self-contained answer on its own.

Thus this newsgroup has a benefit - at least from my habit of
rhetorical excess. (a tip o' the hat to Myles for flowers.)

Your one-question-at-a-time is easy to respond to and satisfactory in
most respects, but when you combine the separate answers into this
goal of a Grand Unification Theory of MARS/CAP operation, it is like
watching someone on rubber crutches. I cringe, but laughing is one of
those involuntary reflexes.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC