Terry Ashland wrote:
I'm just the opposite. I'm not lazy, just cheap! What have you used
for open wire feeders for 100 watts or less? Terry, WK0F

You can roll your own. Wire is cheap at Lowe's and Home Depot.
Insulators can be pieces of plastic irrigation tubing, also
cheap.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
Extreme sensitivity to rainwater for one. Don't rely on my word,
take the time to read above mentioned article by Wes Stewart.

Didn't Wes use tap water and Joy detergent laying on a wooden deck?
Or was that Roy? If they had submerged the ladder-line in salt water,
it could have been even worse. :-) If the ladder-line is vertical, rain
water has very little effect according to my measurements (which I have
never published).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

My measurements, posted on this newsgroup some time ago and also
published in QST's Technical Correspondence even longer ago, were for
300 ohm TV twinlead. The line was not lying on a wooden deck, nor did
the measurements involve detergent of any kind.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Edmund H. Ramm wrote:

Extreme sensitivity to rainwater for one. Don't rely on my word,
take the time to read above mentioned article by Wes Stewart.


Didn't Wes use tap water and Joy detergent laying on a wooden deck?
Or was that Roy? If they had submerged the ladder-line in salt water,
it could have been even worse. :-) If the ladder-line is vertical, rain
water has very little effect according to my measurements (which I have
never published).
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Roy Lewallen wrote:
My measurements, posted on this newsgroup some time ago and also
published in QST's Technical Correspondence even longer ago, were for
300 ohm TV twinlead. The line was not lying on a wooden deck, nor did
the measurements involve detergent of any kind.

Who was it who published loss data based on laying the ladder-line
on a wooden deck and/or squirting a wetting agent on it? Did you
use a wetting agent?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

My measurements, posted on this newsgroup some time ago and also
published in QST's Technical Correspondence even longer ago, were for
300 ohm TV twinlead. The line was not lying on a wooden deck, nor did
the measurements involve detergent of any kind.


Who was it who published loss data based on laying the ladder-line
on a wooden deck and/or squirting a wetting agent on it? Did you
use a wetting agent?

So what we're saying is that if it rains really hard (horizontal rain)
and the rain happens to contain detergent, then that experimental result
is valid! 8^)

I've had a ladder line fed antenna up for a couple years, and noted no
difference between rainy and dry operation.

- Mike KB3EIA -

No, I didn't use a wetting agent other than Oregon rain (which was not
squirted, but allowed to fall naturally from the sky). And your
recollection of a line "laying" [sic] on a wooden deck might be because
my line was supported above my wooden deck (several feet above the
ground) by TV standoff insulators. Interesting how we remember what we
want to, rather than what we actually read, isn't it?

Perhaps you should go back and read my posting. If you can't find it
with a groups.google.com search, let me know and I'll post the date and
subject title. Or, if you have back issues of QST, see Technical
Correspondence in the February 1982 issue.

In the 22 years since publishing the test results, I haven't seen any
objective and quantitative test results which contradict my findings.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

My measurements, posted on this newsgroup some time ago and also
published in QST's Technical Correspondence even longer ago, were for
300 ohm TV twinlead. The line was not lying on a wooden deck, nor did
the measurements involve detergent of any kind.


Who was it who published loss data based on laying the ladder-line
on a wooden deck and/or squirting a wetting agent on it? Did you
use a wetting agent?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

My measurements, posted on this newsgroup some time ago and also
published in QST's Technical Correspondence even longer ago, were for
300 ohm TV twinlead. The line was not lying on a wooden deck, nor did
the measurements involve detergent of any kind.


Who was it who published loss data based on laying the ladder-line
on a wooden deck and/or squirting a wetting agent on it? Did you
use a wetting agent?

The N7WS experiment was accomplished by coating the line with a wetting
agent.

The wire was suspended horizontally, 12 feet of it.

The author notes that it was "difficult to maintain uniform wetness"
during the time it took to run the experiment. This would mean that he
likely pooled water on the line.

And finally, I performed a little experiment. I have the ladder line
from that antenna that was up for 2 years. Application of some water
showed that it would bead up very nicely.

I just don't think the test conditions are very realistic. But it does
tell me not to wash my ladder line with soap and water! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
I just don't think the test conditions are very realistic. But it does
tell me not to wash my ladder line with soap and water! ;^)

The way I tune my antenna system is by varying the length of the
ladder-line.
I have never seen rain make more than a two foot change necessary and the
SWR only ever changed by about 0.2. Two feet of feedline on 40m is not much
of a change in impedance and neither is an SWR change from 1.8:1 to 1.6:1.
Of course, I am savvy enough not to have a horizontal run of ladder-line out
in the rain. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Shucks, OM, all us un-savvy ;o) folks do, to make the rain run off, is to
twist an ell-ell a few times, over its length. Works for vertical lengths,
too. It even tends to equalize exposure of the l-l conductors to antenna
fields.

(Segue into cure for warts, dandruff, acid reflux omitted.)

73, Dave, N3HE

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
SNIP
Of course, I am savvy enough not to have a horizontal run of ladder-line
out
in the rain. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:00:24 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:

|Cecil Moore wrote:
|
| Roy Lewallen wrote:
|
| My measurements, posted on this newsgroup some time ago and also
| published in QST's Technical Correspondence even longer ago, were for
| 300 ohm TV twinlead. The line was not lying on a wooden deck, nor did
| the measurements involve detergent of any kind.
|
|
| Who was it who published loss data based on laying the ladder-line
| on a wooden deck and/or squirting a wetting agent on it? Did you
| use a wetting agent?
|
| The N7WS experiment was accomplished by coating the line with a wetting
|agent.

No, the line wasn't "coated" with a wetting agent, a drop of
Microclean was added to a spray bottle of deionized water.

|
| The wire was suspended horizontally, 12 feet of it.
|
| The author notes that it was "difficult to maintain uniform wetness"
|during the time it took to run the experiment. This would mean that he
|likely pooled water on the line.

No, I never said that either. For greater accuracy, 201
point-by-point measurements were made over the frequency range. This
takes some time, during which the moisture layer moved around (i.e.
was not uniform). This had the effect of corrupting the data
somewhat.

|
| And finally, I performed a little experiment. I have the ladder line
|from that antenna that was up for 2 years. Application of some water
|showed that it would bead up very nicely.

Bring your line out here to Arizona and leave it in the sun for two
years and re-run your experiment.

No, on second thought, don't come out here. There are too damn many
people moving here already and polluting the air with plasticizers.
At least Cecil left and went back to Texas.

|
| I just don't think the test conditions are very realistic. But it does
|tell me not to wash my ladder line with soap and water! ;^)

I stated, "The results of this are probably worse case and not
something that would necessarily be encountered in a typical
installation."

Also, if you would look at my "update" on my web site, you would see
the following:

"As an aside, I regret including so much about the wet condition. I
tried to make it clear that this was really worst case and not
something that would be seen in practice, but there has been so much
negative commentary about it, that it detracts from the point I was
trying to make."

I'll add you and Cecil to my list.

N7WS