[600MRG] WE2XGR/1 513.5 CW On Ground Dipole ***New Balun ****

[Frank Lotito]

Warren - Your initial balun warming up 16 F over ambient does not seem bad, at least not to me.  However, inferring a better balun by using some else's experimental result which relied on "sky in the pie" guestimates of overall antenna efficiency is way to far out regarding a particular component's efficiency.  Or am I missing something?

73 Frank  K3DZ / WH2XHA

________________________________________
From: Warren K2ORS <k2ors at verizon.net>
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 4:28 PM
To: Frank Lotito
Subject: Re: [600MRG] WE2XGR/1 513.5 CW On Ground Dipole ***New Balun ****

Frank,

     1st balun warmed up by 16F after transmitting for a few hours (this
was in open air with no enclosure and an average of 25W [actually 50W
and 50% duty cycle]). New balun was custom made for Marshall W1HK and
tested by him, his on-ground dipole gave an efficiency of 2.5% (60 W
from transmitter resulted in 1.5W ERP.

73 Warren


On 10/9/2015 4:24 PM, Frank Lotito wrote:
> Warren - When you say "more efficient" balun for your on-the-ground antenna experiments, what do you mean?  The prior balun got red hot and burnt out, while the new design balun only gets slightly warm?
>
> 73 Frank K3DZ / WH2XHA
> _______________________________________
> From: 600MRG <600mrg-bounces at w7ekb.com> on behalf of Warren K2ORS <k2ors at verizon.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 4:15 PM
> To: Discussion of the Lowfer (US, European, & UK) and MedFer bands; 600MRG
> Subject: [600MRG] WE2XGR/1 513.5 CW On Ground Dipole ***New Balun ****
>
> Trying the on-ground dipole again, this time with a new and more
> efficient balun.  CW on 513.5, hopefully far enough away in freq from
> NDB YWA.
>
>    Reports welcome!
>
> 73 Warren K2ORS
>
>
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus