=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The weekend was beautiful, so I was able to do some outside work.

I measured the antenna's impedance over 40m, then shortened the 40m
legs by two feet each. I then measured the antenna's impedance again,
and came up with numbers more closely resembling what I'd expect:

Frequency Resistance Reactance Impedance
7.00 14 6 15.2
7.05 18 15 23.4
7.10 18 21 27.7
7.15 21 20 29.0
7.20 24 27 36.1
7.25 28 36 45.6
7.30 28 43 51.3

These measurements were done using a slightly different method. This
time, I set the noise bridge for R=3D50 X=3D0 with the power off, then
tuned the drive on my receiver for maximum noise before powering on
the noise bridge and finding the null. The noise bridge manual is not
as detailed as I would like, and it's not clear what the "proper"
method is, but this produces reasonable results.

The impedance is well within a 2:1 match throughout the voice segment,
and a 3:1 match across the entire band.

In other news, I happened to tune across 20m for the last five minutes
of the Virginia QSO Party, and I made two contacts (NC4S and N4NW).
I feel better about the performance of my antenna on that band, but I
really hope that it's because the tuning somehow helped, and not that
contesters are the only ones willing to dig into the noise.

So it seems like I'm on the right track. I am going to try
lengthening the antenna by six inches and doing another round of
testing before moving on to the second set of legs, unless someone
=2D From the newsgroup pipes up with a correction to my methodology.

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAXtAfGPFSfAB/ezgRAgeFAJ4mwb8Xk5Z0QuPAD3FyooEvhc8t5gCgnEMx
gqrpyBBX4Y0FzaR1VPcnAXI=3D
=3D+myT
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Your antenna is resonant a little BELOW 7.000 MHz.

Is that what you expect?

W1MCE

Jack Twilley wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The weekend was beautiful, so I was able to do some outside work.

I measured the antenna's impedance over 40m, then shortened the 40m
legs by two feet each. I then measured the antenna's impedance again,
and came up with numbers more closely resembling what I'd expect:

Frequency Resistance Reactance Impedance
7.00 14 6 15.2
7.05 18 15 23.4
7.10 18 21 27.7
7.15 21 20 29.0
7.20 24 27 36.1
7.25 28 36 45.6
7.30 28 43 51.3

These measurements were done using a slightly different method. This
time, I set the noise bridge for R=50 X=0 with the power off, then
tuned the drive on my receiver for maximum noise before powering on
the noise bridge and finding the null. The noise bridge manual is not
as detailed as I would like, and it's not clear what the "proper"
method is, but this produces reasonable results.

The impedance is well within a 2:1 match throughout the voice segment,
and a 3:1 match across the entire band.

In other news, I happened to tune across 20m for the last five minutes
of the Virginia QSO Party, and I made two contacts (NC4S and N4NW).
I feel better about the performance of my antenna on that band, but I
really hope that it's because the tuning somehow helped, and not that
contesters are the only ones willing to dig into the noise.

So it seems like I'm on the right track. I am going to try
lengthening the antenna by six inches and doing another round of
testing before moving on to the second set of legs, unless someone
- From the newsgroup pipes up with a correction to my methodology.

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAXtAfGPFSfAB/ezgRAgeFAJ4mwb8Xk5Z0QuPAD3FyooEvhc8t5gCgnEMx
gqrpyBBX4Y0FzaR1VPcnAXI=
=+myT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jack,
Don't really see anything wrong with your methodology. I
hope
the 'fun' is in the 'getting there', 'cuz with more than one set
of 'legs' on the antenna, you'll get to do the testing/tuning
at least twice for each set, after doing each set. At least
that's
been my experience (never lucky enough to get it 'right' the
first
several times LOL!)...
'Doc

It looks like if we extrapolate the reactance will go to zero below 7 MHz
and change sign. So it's still too long!
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The weekend was beautiful, so I was able to do some outside work.

I measured the antenna's impedance over 40m, then shortened the 40m
legs by two feet each. I then measured the antenna's impedance again,
and came up with numbers more closely resembling what I'd expect:

Frequency Resistance Reactance Impedance
7.00 14 6 15.2
7.05 18 15 23.4
7.10 18 21 27.7
7.15 21 20 29.0
7.20 24 27 36.1
7.25 28 36 45.6
7.30 28 43 51.3

These measurements were done using a slightly different method. This
time, I set the noise bridge for R=50 X=0 with the power off, then
tuned the drive on my receiver for maximum noise before powering on
the noise bridge and finding the null. The noise bridge manual is not
as detailed as I would like, and it's not clear what the "proper"
method is, but this produces reasonable results.

The impedance is well within a 2:1 match throughout the voice segment,
and a 3:1 match across the entire band.

In other news, I happened to tune across 20m for the last five minutes
of the Virginia QSO Party, and I made two contacts (NC4S and N4NW).
I feel better about the performance of my antenna on that band, but I
really hope that it's because the tuning somehow helped, and not that
contesters are the only ones willing to dig into the noise.

So it seems like I'm on the right track. I am going to try
lengthening the antenna by six inches and doing another round of
testing before moving on to the second set of legs, unless someone
- From the newsgroup pipes up with a correction to my methodology.

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAXtAfGPFSfAB/ezgRAgeFAJ4mwb8Xk5Z0QuPAD3FyooEvhc8t5gCgnEMx
gqrpyBBX4Y0FzaR1VPcnAXI=
=+myT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jack,
For what its worth, I ran EZNEC on a 40m dipole at 17 feet. I think you said
yours was less than 20 feet up. For a flat top dipole, I got a resonant
impedance of 23 Ohms. When I dropped the ends 15 degrees, the impedance
dropped to 17 Ohms. Sort of in line with what you are getting. Also, with
multiple dipoles the impedance will be less, because you can not completely
ignore the other radiators. Maximum gain was in the straight up direction.
Gain was about 6db down at 25 degrees elevation. On 15 meters, you have 4
lobes offset about 45 degrees from ends/broadside. Gain was about 3db down
at 30 degrees elevation.

Why don't you post your complete configuration. Height at feedpoint, and
length and end point height for the three radiators.

Tam/WB2TT
"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The weekend was beautiful, so I was able to do some outside work.

I measured the antenna's impedance over 40m, then shortened the 40m
legs by two feet each. I then measured the antenna's impedance again,
and came up with numbers more closely resembling what I'd expect:

Frequency Resistance Reactance Impedance
7.00 14 6 15.2
7.05 18 15 23.4
7.10 18 21 27.7
7.15 21 20 29.0
7.20 24 27 36.1
7.25 28 36 45.6
7.30 28 43 51.3

These measurements were done using a slightly different method. This
time, I set the noise bridge for R=50 X=0 with the power off, then
tuned the drive on my receiver for maximum noise before powering on
the noise bridge and finding the null. The noise bridge manual is not
as detailed as I would like, and it's not clear what the "proper"
method is, but this produces reasonable results.

The impedance is well within a 2:1 match throughout the voice segment,
and a 3:1 match across the entire band.

In other news, I happened to tune across 20m for the last five minutes
of the Virginia QSO Party, and I made two contacts (NC4S and N4NW).
I feel better about the performance of my antenna on that band, but I
really hope that it's because the tuning somehow helped, and not that
contesters are the only ones willing to dig into the noise.

So it seems like I'm on the right track. I am going to try
lengthening the antenna by six inches and doing another round of
testing before moving on to the second set of legs, unless someone
- From the newsgroup pipes up with a correction to my methodology.

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAXtAfGPFSfAB/ezgRAgeFAJ4mwb8Xk5Z0QuPAD3FyooEvhc8t5gCgnEMx
gqrpyBBX4Y0FzaR1VPcnAXI=
=+myT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Dave" == Dave Shrader writes:

Dave Your antenna is resonant a little BELOW 7.000 MHz. Is that what
Dave you expect?

Actually, my goal is for the antenna to be resonant at 7.150. If it's
resonant too low, then I need to shorten the wires even more, right?

Dave W1MCE

Jack.
(higher frequency is shorter wavelength)
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAX45wGPFSfAB/ezgRAo4lAKCgcj3oVMYNxuesHR+dWX/RijVd6ACfUY2a
X/44ZVxZispMQOrqW0eGgcU=
=RyMs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Unfortunately my wife doesn't have as much fun with that part as I do.

Looks like I'm in for a month or so of iterations.

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAX46pGPFSfAB/ezgRAgVvAKC9qIfAYWT5+5ZXYwhYfK7rbBaDfACfXxKp
mRbLo0U3ZcPGcDMcuDi+EB8=
=LOnQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Tam" == t-tammaru Tam writes:

Tam Jack, For what its worth, I ran EZNEC on a 40m dipole at 17
Tam feet. I think you said yours was less than 20 feet up. For a flat
Tam top dipole, I got a resonant impedance of 23 Ohms. When I dropped
Tam the ends 15 degrees, the impedance dropped to 17 Ohms. Sort of in
Tam line with what you are getting. Also, with multiple dipoles the
Tam impedance will be less, because you can not completely ignore the
Tam other radiators. Maximum gain was in the straight up direction.
Tam Gain was about 6db down at 25 degrees elevation. On 15 meters,
Tam you have 4 lobes offset about 45 degrees from
Tam ends/broadside. Gain was about 3db down at 30 degrees elevation.

That doesn't look so bad at all.

Tam Why don't you post your complete configuration. Height at
Tam feedpoint, and length and end point height for the three
Tam radiators.

Over the next couple of days, I'll take some careful measurements of
the antenna, its supports, and the distance of everything from the
back of the house. The house was built in the 1940s and was
constructed with wood and concrete with a stucco finish.

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAX4+LGPFSfAB/ezgRAtjlAJ4wxt16eFbsHlxu+C7OvsfHqoX4MwCg+UEd
NkhKArjbg1fF1h2YeURz7Sc=
=bKgV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:10:02 -0800, Jack Twilley
wrote:
Actually, my goal is for the antenna to be resonant at 7.150. If it's
resonant too low, then I need to shorten the wires even more, right?

Hi Jack,

Resonance is not all that it is cracked up to be. Be careful of
seeking something that yields little return on your effort.

For instance, the numbers you've offered show a very low Z for that
anticipated goal. This means you will still need to transform that
value to reduce SWR, which in its own pursuit is an equally low yield
return.

You will need a tuner any way you look at it, and the higher R values
at the higher frequencies are probably more due in part to the loss of
nearby ground, rather than the miracle of a neighboring resonance.

My guess is that you have already obtained an optimal situation = it
don't get any better than this even with all the trimming you may
accomplish. Worse, you could double its height and contacts may never
notice the improvement in "efficiency." Basically all your work is to
achieve bragging rights, and you could cheat and start bragging right
now to no one's challenge.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Richard" == Richard Clark writes:

Jack Actually, my goal is for the antenna to be resonant at 7.150.
Jack If it's resonant too low, then I need to shorten the wires even
Jack more, right?

Richard Hi Jack,

Richard Resonance is not all that it is cracked up to be. Be careful
Richard of seeking something that yields little return on your
Richard effort.

This is a very good point.

Richard For instance, the numbers you've offered show a very low Z
Richard for that anticipated goal. This means you will still need to
Richard transform that value to reduce SWR, which in its own pursuit
Richard is an equally low yield return.

Yes, but pursuing a match close to 1:1 and an impedance close to 50
ohms seems to be a reasonable pursuit, if I understand correctly.

Richard You will need a tuner any way you look at it, and the higher
Richard R values at the higher frequencies are probably more due in
Richard part to the loss of nearby ground, rather than the miracle of
Richard a neighboring resonance.

Possibly. I hope a accurate description of my antenna's geometry and
surrounding structures will assist in resolving this question.

Richard My guess is that you have already obtained an optimal
Richard situation = it don't get any better than this even with all
Richard the trimming you may accomplish. Worse, you could double its
Richard height and contacts may never notice the improvement in
Richard "efficiency." Basically all your work is to achieve bragging
Richard rights, and you could cheat and start bragging right now to
Richard no one's challenge.

That's a reasonable guess. However, I think I've got a bit more
experimenting to do before I can reach that conclusion. I disagree
with the assertion that "bragging rights" is the goal here, though. I
don't see any point in bragging -- there's nothing terribly unusual or
special about what I'm doing. I'm not going after DXCC with a
magnetic loop the size of a ream of paper, or WAS from a radio in an
Altoids can. I'm just trying to have the best antenna my environment
and budget can support.

Richard 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAX/V8GPFSfAB/ezgRAt50AKCq7zoLl5a5QFvJXYhAqDDvynP32QCbBm+I
inV/OPyW2pLenSTK/jppimE=
=m5xy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----