|
Only advantage of the vertical would be to give operation on WARC bands with low SWR. Would not expect too much trouble with interaction between the ants. If you really like 10mHz then a 10mHz monopole (loaded or not) using the C-4 as a ground plane might be worth trying if modelling looks OK. 73 Barry end Barry Kirkwood PhD ZL1DD Signal Hill Homestay 66 Cory Road Palm Beach Waiheke Island 1240 NEW ZEALAND ph/fax 64-9-372-5161 www.waiheke.co.nz/signal.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Brannigan" <jbrannig@optonline.net> To: "Jim Smith" <jimsmith@shaw.ca>; <force12talk@qth.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [Force 12 Talk] R5 mounted above C4SXL - good idea or bad? > I think that you will be so happy with the C4SXL that the R-5 will get > little use. If you must tempt the radiation pattern fates, use the space > for a VHF antenna. > > Jim > > > With the advent of decent weather I'm working on getting my C4SXL up in > > the air. However, I would also like to have a non-directional antenna > > which would mostly be used for listening (including while I'm > > transmitting). I was thinking of putting an R5 on the garage roof but > > don't like the location as neighbour's power and tel lines would be only > > a few feet away. (I will probably transmit on it from time to time.) > > Then it occurred to me that I could mount it to the chunk of mast > > sticking out above the C4. > > > > The advantages I see are: > > 1. The base of the R5 would be at about 50 ft instead of 15. > > 2. The R5 would be totally in the clear > > 3. The R5 would be in the (perhaps incorrectly assumed) vertical null of > > the C4 and would pick up less energy from the C4 there than anywhere > > else on my small city lot. > > 5. The vertical polarization would also result in less pick up from the > C4. > > > > 5 and 6 together should make looking for mults or simply monitoring other > > bands on a 2nd Rx easier than with any other simple arrangement that I > > can think of. > > > > Disadvantages? > > > > 1. The only one I can think of, and don't know if it is real, is the > > possibility of one antenna detuning the other. > > > > I just started the EZNEC tutorial in hopes that, at some point, I could > > model this arrangement. However, I would like to actually have it up > > before winter comes! > > > > My questions > > > > 1. Does anyone have models of the R5 and/or the C4SXL which they would > > be willing to share with me? > > > > 2. Do you have any comments on the validity of this proposal? If so, I > > sure would like to hear them. > > > > 73 de Jim Smith VE7FO > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > Force12Talk mailing list provided as a service by Force 12 Antennas, Inc. > > Force12 Web Site: http://www.force12inc.com > > > > To Submit Message to the List: Force12Talk@qth.com > > To unsubscribe and view the Message Archive: see > http://qth.com/force12/list > > For problems with the list: contact n4zr@qth.com > > > > > > -------------------------------------------- > Force12Talk mailing list provided as a service by Force 12 Antennas, Inc. > Force12 Web Site: http://www.force12inc.com > > To Submit Message to the List: Force12Talk@qth.com > To unsubscribe and view the Message Archive: see http://qth.com/force12/list > For problems with the list: contact n4zr@qth.com > > > -------------------------------------------- Force12Talk mailing list provided as a service by Force 12 Antennas, Inc. Force12 Web Site: http://www.force12inc.com To Submit Message to the List: Force12Talk@qth.com To unsubscribe and view the Message Archive: see http://qth.com/force12/list For problems with the list: contact n4zr@qth.com |