AG3EK
| Joined: | Fri, Dec 12th 2008, 10:05 | Roles: | N/A | Moderates: | N/A |
Latest Topics
| Topic | Created | Posts | Views | Last Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random wire along fence top | Aug 16th 2012, 13:59 | 6 | 12,150 | on 24/11/13 |
Latest Posts
| Topic | Author | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| Digital QST Survey | bruce.chadbourne@gmail.com | on 6/9/12 |
| While I can understand why you might feel that the ARRL isn't listening to its members because they don't put the digital QST out in a format that can be freely copied, it seems to me that using that as a factor in choosing whether or not to be a member is a good example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. If they had not produced QST in any kind of digital format would you still be leaving? If not, then you're saying that you're leaving because they made your membership better, but just not better enough, at no additional cost to you. I've toured ARRL HQ. I really don't think they have the staff to do a digital magazine in house. Given a choice between doing it on their own or farming the job out to another company, it really made sense for them to let someone else handle it. Now the question is down to which company and in what format. We have no idea of what all the expenses (both actual cash outlay to the vendor and additional overhead expenses) are or what all the options required in time and effort. If it were me producing a paid subscription magazine (which QST really is) I seriously doubt that I'd just put it out in an unprotected format. And I'm pretty big on things being open and free. Personally, I think the digital QST could be better but I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth. I read mine both ways- in print and online. They each have their advantages. I can't click on a link in the printed edition, but it's easier to read it that way. I say we should all be thankful that the ARRL is doing this for us. If you don't like it, you don't have to read the digital version and you're no worse off than you were before. |
||
| Random wire along fence top | AG3EK | on 28/8/12 |
| We do have one other factor to consider... our home backs up against a tennis park. There's a good couple of hundred of feet of trees between our back fence and the actual tennis court area. I thought about just running a wire up a tree and making a vertical antenna, but that's uncontrolled area. The park crews keep the trees and bushes a good 3' or so from touching the fences, but I've seen deer go walking through that pathway and I'm pretty sure there are people that use it fairly regularly as a shortcut. I'm not so keen about putting live RF on a wire that someone might grab on to. Beside the fact that I would run the risk of the HOA and/or the city parks department having a problem with my doing it. Plenty of nice tall trees just past the fence, though. It's awfully tempting... |
||
| Random wire along fence top | AG3EK | on 16/8/12 |
| I'm another sucker with antenna-unfriendly CC&R's where I live. At least I can say I lived here before I became a ham, so I have that excuse. Anyway, I'm planning on putting up a random wire antenna. Because of restrictions, this is about the best I could come up with. The plan is to run a total of 148' of wire along three sides of my yard (roughly 28' then a 90 degree turn to the left for another 50' and then another left turn for another 70') along the top of a 6' high fence. I'm planning on running an identical wire as a counterpoise along the bottom of the fence. These would be connected to a 1:1 current balun (MFJ) with coax from there into the house. I wasn't planning on using any kind of grounding, just the counterpoise. However, where the balun is going I do have the ability to drive a ground rod and attach to it. It's on pretty much the exact opposite side of the house from where the house wiring ground rod is located, though. I have an LDG AT200Pro-II auto antenna tuner at the radio. Does anyone see anything inherently wrong with this picture? Maybe just something I could do to get better results. I've got all the materials, but I probably won't get around to actually installing it for a few more days so maybe someone will make a suggestion before I run it. I plan on using this for 160m-10m, or whatever subset of that I can get to tune up well enough to use. I think it will work just fine for NVIS work, maybe not so much for DX, but I'll take what I can get. I've got plans for an attic antenna in the future that should do better for DX, but that's down the road. I'd appreciate any and all suggestions. I'll let everyone know how it works out when I'm done. Marty, AG3EK |
||
| Longwire Antenna | WB8ZTP | on 13/8/12 |
| I'm glad I found this thread. I'm just about to put up a random wire antenna. Because of restrictions, this is about the best I could come up with. The plan is to run 148' along three sides of my yard (roughly 28' then a 90 degree turn to the left for another 50' and then another left turn for another 70') along the top of a 6' high fence. I'm planning on running an identical wire as a counterpoise along the bottom of the fence. These would be connected to a 1:1 current balun (MFJ) with coax from there into the house. I wasn't planning on using any kind of grounding, just the counterpoise. Does anyone see anything inherently wrong with this picture? I've got all the materials, but I probably won't get around to actually installing it for a few more days so maybe someone will make a suggestion before I run it. I'll let everyone know how it works out when I'm done. Marty, AG3EK |
||
