BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Date:
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 18:57:03 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
Yeah Butch, that seems to be the consensus on the Tower Talk listserve. 
It's a relatively good performing antenna but because of its inherently 
off balance design, usually generates large common mode currents and 
that creates unwanted RF into the shack. You can help to mitigate this 
with a properly design multi-core choke and because of the large 
impedeance required by that choke, they will saturate at high power and 
burn up so that antenna is best suited for low power applications.

Rob  K6DQ

On 3/1/2015 6:33 PM, Butch Bussen wrote:
> I've used these off and on over the years.  They are more suseptablde to
> rf in the shack. At least in my experience.  I had one up for 160 through
> ten fried the ballon last summer with my alpha, but I could never get the
> swr down on 160, no matter what I did.  It worked fine on 75, but on 40,
> same high swr problem.  It was resonant at around 1700 kc and nothing I
> did, shortening both ends didn't change much.  It is worth a try and a
> good compromise antenna for all bands.
> 73
> Butch
> WA0VJR
> Node 3148
> Wallace, ks.
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2