[AMRadio] new antenna and matchbox a bust.


Brett gazdzinski brett.gazdzinski at verizonbusiness.com
Mon Jan 29 14:30:11 EST 2007


Good question.
I got very good signal reports on 80, where
I think the performance would be worse then
it would on 40 meters, since its short on 80.

On receive, it seemed to work gangbusters, last night
some signals were 60 over s9 and the only time the s meter
goes up that high is when I transmit!

I did not make any contacts on 40 with the antenna yet.

On receive, I did have a good hash around 3880, sounded
like the horizontal sweep circuit from a TV set, and it changed
with the picture (it sounded like).
I don't remember picking THAT up so bad before.
Would one antenna design be worse then another with that?

While signals were at very high levels last night,
the background noise was around an S3, the noise at
3880 was at an S6.


Given I only have about 100 feet to work with, as that
is where the trees are, and I have power lines and the house
to keep at right angles, and cant even do much with open wire 
line length, this setup might be the best 80 and 40 meter
antenna I can put up for the power level I can run.

Am I right in assuming I can dump 700 watts of carrier
into the antenna, and if the coax does not get warm at any
point, I am not loosing a lot of power there?

On 80, I have always made up for a poor antenna with more power.
On 40 I typically run 300 watts, on 80 a bit more...

At the moment, I am quite happy that I can run the antenna
at full power without melting anything, or arcing anything,
with no RF in the shack.

Perhaps, in the spring, I will take the matchbox outside
and put it on the open wire line, and test things that way.


Brett
N2DTS



 
> 
>    As long as it works - problem over.  HOWEVER: does it work 
> 'well'?  are 
> you getting 600 watts worth of signal out? Is the antenna as 
> 'quiet' as it 
> can be on recieve?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> John
> KB6SCO
> 




More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 11 Dec 2017.