Re: [IRCA] Split SuperLoop variant

[Neil Kazaross <neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx>]

I find that there's room to get two cable ties thru the opening of these
windsock masts. I don't tighten them up so that the loops are about 2"
diameter. This is a technique learned from Bill Whitacre.  73 KAZ

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Chuck Hutton <charlesh3@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Neil -
>
>
> Not clear to me how the cable ties are done.
>
> My masts have small eyelets that are not big enough for 2 cable ties.
> Yours are big enough?
>
> And if the cable ties are tight, wouldn't the wires be flat against the
> very narrow top of the mast rather than being an inch or two apart?
>
>
> Lost!
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: IRCA <irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Neil Kazaross <
> neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 8:58 AM
> To: Mark Durenberger
> Cc: am@xxxxxxxxxxx; CapeDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Shafer Mike; Mark Connelly;
> Baumgartner Fred-ARRL; irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [IRCA] Split SuperLoop variant
>
> My center down runs are perpendicular. I use the same type of windsock pole
> with the small center ring at the top. Two large cable ties each create a
> loop to run the two wires thru and when tight they are an inch or two apart
> and come down the sides of the mast. Maybe something can be done in
> practice to improve performance with down run spacing? But it models fine..
>
> My only other experience with // down runs was when I built a Split Delta
> Flag years ago and down runs were on each side of the supporting tree's
> truck about 4 to 5" apart.
>
> 73 and GL ..KAZ
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Mark Durenberger <Mark4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > It should be pretty square; the insulators at top/bottom of the center
> > pole are only about 2 inches long so the center âdown runsâ should stay
> > pretty perpendicular.  (HmmmmâI wonder what happens if theyâre completely
> > perpendicular?)
> >
> >
> >
> > Conversion should be aided by the fact that the two end poles are already
> > in place, as the supports for the D-Kaz.  Hopefully itâs a matter of
> adding
> > the center pole and restringing wires.  Of course thatâs without the
> Murphy
> > Factor <g>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Durenberger
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Neil Kazaross [mailto:neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 06, 2017 10:15 AM
> > *To:* Mark Durenberger
> >
> > *Cc:* am@xxxxxxxxxxx; irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; CapeDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Shafer Mike; Baumgartner Fred-ARRL; Mark Connelly
> > *Subject:* Re: [IRCA] Split SuperLoop variant
> >
> >
> >
> > The 140 x 20 DKAZ has about 3 dB more signal than the Double Flag with
> 35'
> > loops.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you can replace that DKAZ with the Double Flag in less than an hour,
> > you're a much faster builder than I. Hopefully the Double Flag or
> whatever
> > we end up calling this antenna type (assuming it works well) with also
> > provide you with 30 dB F/B. Please be sure to dimension it as closed to
> > perfect as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73 KAZ
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Mark Durenberger <Mark4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Kaz, thanks for the info on expectations.  As to signal levels, is it a
> > fair test to compare the 35/35 rectangular loop to the 140 x 22 D-Kaz?
> >
> >
> >
> > The plan at the moment is to SDR-record, measuring daytime signals, F/B
> > and noise with the D-Kaz; then within the hour move to the Dualoop and
> > re-measure. With a large group of signals from all directions it may also
> > be possible to get some vague sense of the side-lobe performance.
> >
> >
> >
> > As a follow-on, it may be useful to compare the differential info on
> âsagâ
> > vs. âstraight,â using Mark Câs precise catenary info.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Durenberger
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Neil Kazaross [mailto:neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:26 PM
> > *To:* Mark Mobile
> > *Cc:* am@xxxxxxxxxxx; irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; CapeDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > Shafer Mike; Baumgartner Fred-ARRL; Mark Connelly
> > *Subject:* Re: [IRCA] Split SuperLoop variant
> >
> >
> >
> > Good to see you working on these as well, Mark. To me the most important
> > goal is to see what is needed to achieve the same type of 30 dB F/B often
> > available from the DKAZ. If that can be had, then two things are good,
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) More signal (7 dB for same footprint using rectangular loops rather
> > than triangular) which will help those critical low end low signal DU's
> on
> > DKAZ and similar low band stations.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2) An acceptable antenna that can fit into an 80 ft or so space which
> > opens up Dual-Loop type antennas to DXers with less space.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73 KAZ
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Mark Mobile <Mark4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark; you and I are traveling the same road again.  Later this week I
> > expect to field a dual-loop similar to yours in dimensions but I'll add a
> > middle support pole with an adjustable "height" so I can create a sag of
> > varying depths as well as keeping it a straight run.  The goal is to see
> if
> > the "sag" has any impact on performance versus "no-sag."  (I suppose the
> > next step would be to create an array that was the same size as the
> 140-ft
> > D-Kaz.)
> >
> > (I'll measure F/B to compare D-Kaz with Dualoop.)
> >
> > I hope we can compare notes.
> >
> > Attached is the draft plan; if it doesn't make it through the reflector
> > servers it can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.durenberger.com/documents/DUALOOP.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Mark Durenberger, mobile
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Mark Connelly via IRCA
> > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 11:38 PM
> > To: neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx ; am@xxxxxxxxxxx ; irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
> > badx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; CapeDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Mark Connelly
> > Subject: [IRCA] Split SuperLoop variant
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IRCA mailing list
> > IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
> >
> > Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> > original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
> > IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
> >
> > For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
> >
> > To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Mark Connelly <markwa1ion@xxxxxxx>
> > To: neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx, am@xxxxxxxxxxx, irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > badx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, CapeDX@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc:
> > Bcc:
> > Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 00:38:36 -0400
> > Subject: Split SuperLoop variant
> > The following is a variation on the Split SuperLoop design that I may
> > actually be able to install and test here soon.  I have attached a
> > drawing.  If it can't be accessed directly from the email, please see:
> > http://www.qsl.net/wa1ion/pictures1/split_superloop_201709.gif
> >
> > This differs from the conventional layout in that it is designed for two
> > available supports (one on each side) so some allowance needs to be made
> > for droop in the center.
> >
> > Each top wire drops in height (referenced to base) from 8m / 26 ft. at
> the
> > side supports to approximately 6m / 20 ft. at the center.
> >
> > At the crossing point of the near-center drop wires, a wooden garden
> stake
> > cut to 0.4m / 16" with holes drilled 2" from each end (one for each wire)
> > is used to keep the wires separated.
> >
> > As in the notes on the drawing:
> > Wire used = #14 AWG insulated stranded THHN from Home Depot.
> > Height of bottom wires above ground is approximately 1m / 3.3 ft.
> >
> > Looking at the antenna drawing as I would actually view the antenna from
> > my back deck, the left (Side 1) is west and the right (Side 2) is east,
> > approximately.
> >
> > I am soliciting Neil (and/or others proficient in EZNEC) to model this
> > layout and see if it has merit for good F/B ratio and reasonable pest
> > reduction at bearings +/- 45 deg. off max null, e.g. at least 10 dB down
> > (relative to forward pick-up) at all bearings between southwest and
> > northwest if the main null axis is west.
> >
> > How finicky is termination resistance and would a high band station need
> a
> > different setting from a low band one on the same axis?
> >
> > If I do install the antenna, there will be several different stages of
> > testing.
> >
> > Stage 1:
> > 9:1 transformer each side with speaker wire or CAT-5 runs back to
> > operating position.  Feedline lengths approximately 27m / 90 ft.
> >
> > 4PDT rotary switch sends one feedline to 500 ohm pot (in-shack
> termination
> > adjustment), other feedline to 2:1 transformer to coaxial cable that
> either
> > goes straight to the receiver or through a DX Engineering RPA-1 amplifier
> > (or similar) en route to the receiver.
> >
> > Switch can be reset to flip the connections of the two feedlines to allow
> > nulling in the opposite direction.
> >
> > Stage 2:
> > The Stage 1 set-up except that common-mode choke boxes are inserted in
> the
> > feedlines a short distance (under 3m / 10 ft.) from connections to each
> 9:1
> > transformer.
> > Choke assemblies per page 1 of:
> > https://www.okdxf.eu/lankford/Half%20Size%20Dual%20Active%
> > 20Delta%20Flag%20Arrays.pdf
> > or similar.
> >
> > Stage 3:
> > The east side of the antenna gets an at-antenna amp (Clifton Labs,
> > Wellbrook, or homebrew).  West side either stays with 9:1 transformer /
> > speaker wire / in-shack pot or goes over to a Vactrol (or motorized pot)
> > scheme.  This, of course, takes away the reversibility feature and would
> > only be retained if the Stage 1 and 2 set-ups did not provide
> satisfactory
> > results.
> >
> > The location where this will be installed has just had an upgraded TA
> > SuperLoop (width: 20m / 66 ft., height base-top: 9m / 30 ft., base above
> > ground 0.3m / 1 ft.) installed.  It is presently set up per the Stage 1
> > connection method above so it is reversible.
> >
> > Day and night tests (Perseus spectrum captures) will be done with that
> > antenna first to establish performance baselines and then the Split
> > SuperLoop variant will be dropped into the same space using existing
> > support ropes into the adjacent black locust trees.
> >
> > Mark Connelly, WA1ION
> > South Yarmouth, MA
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Neil Kazaross <neilkaz58@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > > My new Double Corner Fed Flag antenna is up but needs some more and
> very
> > > careful dimensioning I think. A huge willow tree isn't making this
> easy..
> > It
> > > has more signal (EZNEC says 7 dB) than a DKAZ requiring the same space
> > and
> > > height since the two loops are rectangles rather than triangles and
> > > therefore have more area underneath them. However, I am not getting as
> > good
> > > F/B as I'd like or as I could get from the DKAZ, but it seems adequate
> > for
> > > sunrise work to the west.
> > >
> > > LSR here was 11:20 today so I started DXing just a few minutes prior to
> > > 1100 in hopes of Tonga but little trace and bad slop from NM. Over to
> > 1098
> > > and V7AB had audio and did so much of the time til about 1131:30 when
> it
> > > seemed it was cut. Music, mostly island mx and ancr in island lang at
> > > times. Bothered by slop from KKLL on early and even KEXS running day
> rig
> > at
> > > night clobbering KAAY 1090.
> > >
> > > I had weak audio at times from 4QR 612 and 2NR 738 but 702 was more
> > > interesting usually with 2BL which is just a bit low of 702 sometimes
> > > audible but often mixed with NZ which is almost on 702 and had mx and a
> > > different ancr. NZ rose atop around 1125 for a bit. A third
> considerably
> > > weaker carrier is a bit above 702.
> > >
> > > My apologies for sending the again, but Gary hasn't learned to keep off
> > the
> > > keyboard.
> > > http://www.universal-radio.com/catdir/cuscb333.html
> > >
> > > 73 KAZ Barrington IL Perseus and DCFF aimed west.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > IRCA mailing list
> > > IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
> IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRCA mailing list
> IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
> Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
> original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
> IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
> For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
> To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx