Out of desperation, I thought I'd post SOMETHING (ANYTHING) with the
word "antenna" in it.

I am preparing to set up a 2nd wire antenna at approx 90 degrees from my
G5RV. This antenna is a purchased folded dipole from DX
Engineering. It'll be connected to 400 ohm twin lead to a 4:1 Balun (DX
Engineering again) and then RG8/U into the shack.

Is it better to place it 90 degrees from the center or from one of the
ends? The ARRL Antenna Book shows both methods.

Thanks to ANYONE that answers "en forme"

John
AB8O

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:56:04 -0500, jawod wrote:

I am preparing to set up a 2nd wire antenna at approx 90 degrees from my
G5RV. This antenna is a purchased folded dipole from DX
Engineering. It'll be connected to 400 ohm twin lead to a 4:1 Balun (DX
Engineering again) and then RG8/U into the shack.

Is it better to place it 90 degrees from the center or from one of the
ends? The ARRL Antenna Book shows both methods.

Hi John,

Why all the care for technical description, and then form a question
appealing to aesthetics? Better?

"Better" is the parent to all answers both planned and ill-conceived.
I am forced to fill in the rhetorical blank left there as to you
meaning "would there be any impact that exceeds 1dB on way or the
other if the antenna were placed, say, diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably not.

However, this direct answer returns us to the semantic word-chase of
just what is meant by "better" and to what degree it is measured.

Another fill in the rhetorical blank: "would it affect the tune of
both/either to more than 10KHz? if the antenna were placed, say,
diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably, but "better" is relative to the distance in terms of
wavelength, and as the G5RV is a multiband antenna, and the new one
comes without pedigree, then that relativity is strained.

However, you do not express any inclination for the diagonal, but it
comes by association with center placement vs. end placement. The
crossed antennas of dipoles find each in the other's null; however,
what of dipoles crossed not like an X but rather like a T, or an L?

Interesting question that could be easily examined in 10 minutes by
the free version of EZNEC. My aesthetics demand a 1db variation or a
10Khz shift. They are met on the one, but not the other - this says
nothing of your sense of "better." The T and the X lead, whereas the
L and especially the diagonal push the envelope.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Way to go Richard... That'll teach im to post anything about
antennas...

John, my immediate inclination without giving it any hard thought would
be to have them cross near the center lines as opposed to ends...
Now, I don't know about this using a balun as a transmatch... I
personally would not do that, but you may be perfectly happy with it -
especially if you only operate on one portion of the band and get the
antenna or feedline tuned so you have minimal reactance... BTW, you
will love the folded dipoles, they are just happy antennas...

denny / k8do

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:56:04 -0500, jawod wrote:


I am preparing to set up a 2nd wire antenna at approx 90 degrees from my
G5RV. This antenna is a purchased folded dipole from DX
Engineering. It'll be connected to 400 ohm twin lead to a 4:1 Balun (DX
Engineering again) and then RG8/U into the shack.

Is it better to place it 90 degrees from the center or from one of the
ends? The ARRL Antenna Book shows both methods.


Hi John,

Why all the care for technical description, and then form a question
appealing to aesthetics? Better?

"Better" is the parent to all answers both planned and ill-conceived.
I am forced to fill in the rhetorical blank left there as to you
meaning "would there be any impact that exceeds 1dB on way or the
other if the antenna were placed, say, diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably not.

However, this direct answer returns us to the semantic word-chase of
just what is meant by "better" and to what degree it is measured.

Another fill in the rhetorical blank: "would it affect the tune of
both/either to more than 10KHz? if the antenna were placed, say,
diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably, but "better" is relative to the distance in terms of
wavelength, and as the G5RV is a multiband antenna, and the new one
comes without pedigree, then that relativity is strained.

However, you do not express any inclination for the diagonal, but it
comes by association with center placement vs. end placement. The
crossed antennas of dipoles find each in the other's null; however,
what of dipoles crossed not like an X but rather like a T, or an L?

Interesting question that could be easily examined in 10 minutes by
the free version of EZNEC. My aesthetics demand a 1db variation or a
10Khz shift. They are met on the one, but not the other - this says
nothing of your sense of "better." The T and the X lead, whereas the
L and especially the diagonal push the envelope.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Richard

"You shore do talk pretty"

I meant "better" as in which arrangement looks best strung with
Christmas lights, of course.

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis, I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one). I use an iMac. It won't do EZNEC (unfortunately).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?

and by "work" I mean ...

John
AB8O

Denny wrote:
Way to go Richard... That'll teach im to post anything about
antennas...

John, my immediate inclination without giving it any hard thought would
be to have them cross near the center lines as opposed to ends...
Now, I don't know about this using a balun as a transmatch... I
personally would not do that, but you may be perfectly happy with it -
especially if you only operate on one portion of the band and get the
antenna or feedline tuned so you have minimal reactance... BTW, you
will love the folded dipoles, they are just happy antennas...

denny / k8do

Thanks, Denny

You know, I used the folded dipole first, but I think the G5RV
outperforms it, but not on 30M and not on 17M, two bands I have interest
in. Frankly my own interest in placement, while not trivial, is not
that important...I just missed antenna threads in the group.

John
AB8O

jawod wrote:
You know, I used the folded dipole first, but I think the G5RV
outperforms it, but not on 30M and not on 17M, ...

http://www.vk1od.net/G5RV/

shows why the standard G5RV doesn't work well on 30m, 17m,
and 10m. If you want 30m operation, shorten the matching
section to about 20.5 feet. If you want 17m operation,
lengthen the matching section to about 37 feet. EZNEC
says that will give you a 50 ohm SWR of ~3:1 on 30m and
~2:1 on 17m. When I was running a G5RV, I had pluggable
lengths of ladder-line so I could vary the length of the
matching section from 20 feet to 36 feet for good
performance on all HF bands. Somebody (I forget who) used
remote controlled relays to accomplish the "tuning".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,

It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.

I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one).

Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?

This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo. I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).

As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion). As a spoiler, I will
offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.

You still haven't offered us what the qualified term "better" means to
YOU.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:


Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,


It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.


I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one).


Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).


BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?


This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo. I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).

As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion).


As a spoiler, I will
offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB.

darn, I guess forming my initials is out of the question.

Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.

You still haven't offered us what the qualified term "better" means to
YOU.
yes, I did.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Rave on, OM, rave on. Meanwhile, I've got an antenna to put up.

Thanks for all the "help"

and by "help" I mean ...

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:27:03 -0500, jawod wrote:
You still haven't offered us what the qualified term "better" means to
YOU.
yes, I did.
I meant "better" as in which arrangement looks best strung with
Christmas lights, of course.

You were right, initially, to pose this as a thread of desperation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,

It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.

I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one).

Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?

This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo.

For everyone's notes: EZnec runs quite nicely on an Intel based iMac.


I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).

I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS OS is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice, but
every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry - unforgivable
in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done with a minimum of..
what is the technical term? Oh yeah - with a minimum of peckering
around, I'll use OSX any day.

And my G5 Mac is cool to look at too - inside and out.




As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion).

Of course one can get the answer from a modeling program. Of course,
the modeling program won't tell *why*.

Here is a video of me trying to get a modeling program to tell me why my
antenna design worked like it said...

http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html



As a spoiler, I will
offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.


Now that's better!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -