Callsign
ad: exactcontrol
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Wa2nan - True-talk 102' G5rv Antenna

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-rl
ad: l-gcopper
ad: l-innov
ad: l-tentec
  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by w3jn View Post
    Outstanding advice. Why the so called "G5RV" antennas are so popular is beyond me.
    Would you believe that a 102 foot dipole fed with 300 ohm twinlead all the way to the tuner has more feedline loss on 80m than a G5RV fed with RG-213? The reason is the 20:1 SWR on the twinlead vs the 4:1 SWR on the coax.
    73, Cecil, www.w5dxp.com
    Can CO2 emissions save us from the coming ice age?

  2. #22

    Default true-talk antenna

    i hung kerrys true-talk 102 ft as inverted v about 3 mos ago. i have talked all over the world with no more than 100 watts. the metal mast will not affect the performance. it has to be the best made antenna in its class. pay more or pay less but you cant beat it for performance. kerrys product is number one in my opinion. fred

  3. #23

    Default

    Why go round and round about this?
    Those who answered on a technical basis are more correct.
    Those who list their contact acomplishments and think it supports something are missing the technical side of the issues. As stated, contacts can often be made as well at 20 watts as at 100 watts, in many cases so what do contacts prove?
    How would you know that you could or could not do better on a more correct antenna setup unless you see the technical side and make the changes and do the long term comparisons?
    Why not try and understand that on different bands the impedence changes at the antenna terminals and is reflected at the radio termination by the changes in transmission line physics AND that radiation angle changes per band for an antenna at a fixed height.
    As for the auto tuner, it depend on the tuner's range. If it sees an impedence within it's range, a match will be found. Dosn't make it correct or really fix anything just a transformation. It dosn't change losses in the system.
    Changing the antenna length even by the few inches may be enough to "reflect" an impedence within the tuners range that the antenna would not at it's previous length.
    Let me throw somthing else into this mix. I see on the use of my AT and looking at total output power into a matched condition with and without the AT inline, even into a dummy load that the AT may be responsible for as much as a 10 watt loss when in the circuit.
    I can match the radio through an external tuner and it's watt meter will always show a 10 watt loss with the AT inline when all is flat matched.
    Unless I am missing something, I see this as a lose in the AT.
    So add this to an antenna that is not resonant and you lose even more.
    The overall impedence the radio sees is a very complex summation of all the points in the system such that one can't just say with any ease, certainty or simplicity what is better or worse and why, unless you look at all the part and see where the largest issues occurr and reduce them with the best compromises.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Mt. Airy, MD
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W5DXP View Post
    Would you believe that a 102 foot dipole fed with 300 ohm twinlead all the way to the tuner has more feedline loss on 80m than a G5RV fed with RG-213? The reason is the 20:1 SWR on the twinlead vs the 4:1 SWR on the coax.
    Great, but I never used 300 ohm twinlead nor would I recommend it. I use 600 ohm open wire. ANd I have yet to see the G5RV made with RG-213

    According to the coax calculator here: http://www.qsl.net/co8tw/Coax%20Calculator.htm the 600 ohm open wire has 1/2 the loss at 20:1 as RG-213 does at 4:1.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W3JN View Post
    Great, but I never used 300 ohm twinlead nor would I recommend it. I use 600 ohm open wire.
    Excellent! Please note that my earlier statement was about 300 ohm twinlead, not about 600 ohm open-wire feedline.

    Note that simply changing the G5RV's series matching section from 300 ohms to 600 ohms results in a change in coax SWR on 3.8 MHz from 3:1 to 34:1 so that particular modification is not recommended.
    73, Cecil, www.w5dxp.com
    Can CO2 emissions save us from the coming ice age?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Mt. Airy, MD
    Posts
    679

    Default

    Outstanding! That would be of great interest if I ever consider using a G5RV, which is about as likely as me hitting the Powerball jackpot.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    1,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N7SGM View Post
    I have a few questions about the WA2NAN True-Talk 102' G5RV antenna. I have a Kenwood TS-450SAT and am wondering if the radio's built-in antenna tuner will work for this antenna? I would mount it about 40' high as an inverted "V" in a North/South manner. Also, would the steel mast have a bad effect on the antenna? I would like to operate on 80, 40, and 20 meters. Thanks very much!!

    Best 73's
    Bob
    Do not waste your money spending the extra dollars on the "true talk" antenna. I promise you it will not play better than the $35 mfj 450 ohm version. If you use a steel mast, keep the ladder line a few inches away from the mast!
    I use 4' fiberglass mast sections that I found on ebay. They were used by the military to support tents. I have my G5RV supported by these and is 40' up.
    Don't get caught up in the "true talk" hype..PLEASE
    Nothing like sitting around a campfire, working DX

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    1,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ4DKT View Post
    i hung kerrys true-talk 102 ft as inverted v about 3 mos ago. i have talked all over the world with no more than 100 watts. the metal mast will not affect the performance. it has to be the best made antenna in its class. pay more or pay less but you cant beat it for performance. kerrys product is number one in my opinion. fred
    Oh come on! The true talk is junk! cheap construction, no balun! The guy is making money off of the ignorance of others!
    Nothing like sitting around a campfire, working DX

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    1,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W3JN View Post
    Outstanding advice. Why the so called "G5RV" antennas are so popular is beyond me.

    A fan dipole fed with W7FG ladderline and a homebrew balanced tuner was the best investment I ever made to my station.
    haha, the G5RV is popular because it works well and is a decent multiband compromise. The SWR is acceptable on 15, 20, 40, and 80. I feed mine with 70' of 213, 70' of 213 will not act as a dummy load, lol.
    Nothing like sitting around a campfire, working DX

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    21,474

    Default

    Cecil, I read your comments about 300 ohm twinlead, but I cannot imagine that any true ham would use such poor feedline for ANY ham antenna.

    Right now, 400 ohm ladder line is in very scarce supply here in the U.S., and it could be a blessing in disguise ! I can envision many hams building their own open wire feedline to feed their doublet antennas ( I intend to ! ) and I believe we will all be the better for doing so !

    That's JMHO, but I think it bears scrutiny !

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •