Radio Preppers

General Category => Antennas => Topic started by: gil on May 07, 2016, 02:01:12 PM

Title: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on May 07, 2016, 02:01:12 PM
Hello :)

I have a challenge being in need of a temporary new antenna... The situation is simple, a two story house and a pine tree in the backyard about 90 feet away. The wire would go from the top of the pine tree to the top corner of the house. I am thinking of something like a W3EDP (http://www.nc4fb.org/wordpress/w3edp-multi-band-antenna/ (http://www.nc4fb.org/wordpress/w3edp-multi-band-antenna/)). The wire would be 84ft. My issue is that I will not have access to the feed point to either change counterpoises or tune a variable capacitor.

I'll attach a photo... The tree is taller than it looks, so the wire should be close to horizontal.

So, I need to find out how to feed it, and maybe attach two counterpoises of 6.5 and 17ft at 45 degrees on the side of the house... I must use coax from the top of the house to the inside... Maybe the EARCHI (http://earchi.org/92011endfedfiles/Endfed6_40.pdf (http://earchi.org/92011endfedfiles/Endfed6_40.pdf)) end-fed tuner would work...

BTW the wire orientation is at about 300deg, feed point on the North side. Height looks like 20ft, maybe a few feet more at the feed point.

I hope to use it on 20/30/40/80m. Other bands later if I can...

Any suggestions about feeding?

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: cockpitbob on May 08, 2016, 12:24:39 AM
Here's an 8-band resonant end-fed]Here's an 8-band resonant end-fed. 
http://myantennas.com/wp/product/efhw-8010/
No tuner or capacitor to adjust.  Plug and play with the feed point at the end of 130' of wire.  If I ever fix my house's noise problem (S8 to S9), I'm getting this.  They say 1KW but reports I read suggest the transformer cores start to saturate at 300W.  Still, a great 100W antenna.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on May 11, 2016, 08:58:15 AM
I thought about that one Bob, and might yet get it. I could string up a 256ft wire, one end at around 20ft and the other at six feet off the ground.. That's getting close to a half wave on 160m! Question is... Would I want to? The 80-10 might be just the easy way...

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on May 17, 2016, 05:11:53 PM
So, I need to find out how to feed it, and maybe attach two counterpoises of 6.5 and 17ft at 45 degrees on the side of the house... I must use coax from the top of the house to the inside... Maybe the EARCHI (http://earchi.org/92011endfedfiles/Endfed6_40.pdf) end-fed tuner would work... <snip>

Just for your information, the "EARCHI" is not a tuner, its nothing more than a 9:1 unun feeding an end fed wire and the unun is fed with coax leading to the shack and a tuner in the shack to provide the match.  While it will work, there will almost never be a good match without a tuner except for maybe a few rare frequencies.  The idea behind it is to just keep the swr within a range that most auto tuners can handle it, but its not an optimum setup by a long shot.

I have a similar setup. I have an 88' sloper but my feedpoint is at 7' with a 4:1 unun that also has a 1:1 choke behind it to keep RF off the coax shield and the far end at 70'.  The ground side of the unun is actually connected through a ground wire going to my ground rods and I get great signal reports on 40 through 160 meters with it (using a tuner in the shack to provide the match).  It currently has no counterpoise wires at all - just the ground connection.  I mainly put it up to use as an end fed half wave for 60 meters and had a mactching circuit on it for that band but wanted to work 160 with it too, so I replaced that with the 4:1/1:1 combo.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on May 20, 2016, 06:23:16 AM
Yep, I know the EARCHI is a 9:1 UNUN. I emailed the designer of the antenna and he told me 60ft was the absolute maximum wire length, though I have seen posts from people using up to a 66ft wire successfully. A 71ft "random" length would be ideal to include 80m operations. I will try some time just out of curiosity. I have ordered five T130-2 toroids to make one.

I also figured I could use one of those T130-2 to make a 4:1 BALUN for a Windom half wave on 80m with one side being 44ft and the other one 89ft. The wire from SotaBeams is too thin to support itself on such a horizontal length so I bought 50m of polypropylene clothe-line. It's a bit stretchy so I will have to account for that. Build photos upcoming..

Half of the long side will be sloping down. I hope it won't affect SWR too much. The antenna should be resonant on 80, 40, 20, 17, 12, 10 and 6m, 15 and 30m with a tuner.

http://www.hamradioqrp.com/2015/11/the-amazing-80m-multi-band-windom.html (http://www.hamradioqrp.com/2015/11/the-amazing-80m-multi-band-windom.html)

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on May 26, 2016, 04:08:30 PM
Quote from: gil on May 20, 2016, 06:23:16 AM
Yep, I know the EARCHI is a 9:1 UNUN. I emailed the designer of the antenna and he told me 60ft was the absolute maximum wire length, though I have seen posts from people using up to a 66ft wire successfully. A 71ft "random" length would be ideal to include 80m operations. I will try some time just out of curiosity. I have ordered five T130-2 toroids to make one.

I also figured I could use one of those T130-2 to make a 4:1 BALUN for a Windom half wave on 80m with one side being 44ft and the other one 89ft. The wire from SotaBeams is too thin to support itself on such a horizontal length so I bought 50m of polypropylene clothe-line. It's a bit stretchy so I will have to account for that. Build photos upcoming..

Half of the long side will be sloping down. I hope it won't affect SWR too much. The antenna should be resonant on 80, 40, 20, 17, 12, 10 and 6m, 15 and 30m with a tuner.

http://www.hamradioqrp.com/2015/11/the-amazing-80m-multi-band-windom.html (http://www.hamradioqrp.com/2015/11/the-amazing-80m-multi-band-windom.html)

Gil.

I would not use the mix 2 core for a balun feeding an off center fed dipole - little to no choking effect with a powdred iron core which equates to enormous common mode currents getting back to the shack on the coax shield.  Better to use something like the ferrite cores like the FT140-43 or FT140-61 cores wound in a dual core current balun.  If you do use the T130-2 for the 4:1, then put a 1:1 choke right under it in the same enclosure to choke off the CMC.  Build the choke with 18 turns bifilar insulated wire on an FT140-43 - that's about 6000 to 8000 ohms @ 3.5mhz of choking impedance.  But you would be much better off using the dual core 4:1 Guanella balun wound on the ferrite cores to begin with.

BTW:  I have used wires up to 124 feet successfully with a 9:1 balun, but I wind my 9:1 balun on FT240-61 cores.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on May 27, 2016, 11:46:41 AM
QuoteBetter to use something like the ferrite cores like the FT140-43

Darn, I'm going to gave to wait! Thanks for the info though! The T130-2s aren't here yet.. Those are for the 9:1 ununs.

Now I need to go on Ebay and get a FT140-43. Would it be better for the 9:1 EARCHI unun as well?

I found a schematic for an end-fed transformer on Ebay too...

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on May 27, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: gil on May 27, 2016, 11:46:41 AM
QuoteBetter to use something like the ferrite cores like the FT140-43

Darn, I'm going to gave to wait! Thanks for the info though! The T130-2s aren't here yet.. Those are for the 9:1 ununs.

Now I need to go on Ebay and get a FT140-43. Would it be better for the 9:1 EARCHI unun as well?

I found a schematic for an end-fed transformer on Ebay too...

Gil.

I've made a lot of baluns and ununs, and for flatter bandwidth I prefer the mix 61 cores for winding baluns and ununs, and mix 43 more for 1:1 chokes.  The mix 61 cores work well for 9:1 ununs and have a flatter bandwidth than the mix 2 powdered iron and use less turns than the mix 2.  The mix 2 take about 18 turns while the 61's take about 12 turns for 10 thru 80 meters.  If you want a super good setup for an off center fed dipole, get 2 FT140-61 cores and wind them with 12 bifilar turns each in a 4:1 Guanella balun and then feed that with a 1:1 choke that is wound with 18 turns bifilar on an FT140-43.  Actually, you can add the choke to any balun or unun if you want to keep RF off the coax shield but when feeding an end fed wire, use a good ground or counterpoise with it too.  The mix 2 powdered iron cores will work also, but all they basically do is give an impedance transformation but without much choking effect at all.

KC8AON
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on May 27, 2016, 07:24:21 PM
Thanks Richard. I was going to make a one core Guanella balun.. I can use two cores? Is that better? So, adding the choke would make a three-core system? My only concern then would be the weight on the wire, since I have no central support.. Maybe I could use smaller cores since the power would never exceed 30W. Enlight me please, I have never looked into balun until now..

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on May 31, 2016, 08:04:04 AM
Quote from: gil on May 27, 2016, 07:24:21 PM
Thanks Richard. I was going to make a one core Guanella balun.. I can use two cores? Is that better? So, adding the choke would make a three-core system? My only concern then would be the weight on the wire, since I have no central support.. Maybe I could use smaller cores since the power would never exceed 30W. Enlight me please, I have never looked into balun until now..

Gil

A 2 core guanella current balun is the only "true" guanella balun and far exceeds the performance of a single core.  A single core is alright for something like a loop but works pretty poorly on a Windom type antenna.  And yes, you can use smaller cores like the FT114-61 and FT114-43 to save weight.  Feed it with the tiny RG316 coax to save even more weight.  Take a look at the Arial 51 antenna at this site to get a better idea: http://www.aerial-51.com/model-404-ul/

KC8AON
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on May 31, 2016, 08:48:56 AM
Thanks. I ordered the FT-140-61 cores.. I just have to wait now...

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on June 08, 2016, 07:51:12 AM
Quote from: gil on May 31, 2016, 08:48:56 AM
Thanks. I ordered the FT-140-61 cores.. I just have to wait now...

Gil.

Those will handle about 400 watts !
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on June 09, 2016, 03:58:28 AM
Got'em! I guess I'll be making a balun soon :-)

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on June 10, 2016, 04:07:26 PM
Quote from: gil on June 09, 2016, 03:58:28 AM
Got'em! I guess I'll be making a balun soon :-)

Gil

Here is a link to some good instructions: http://www.korpi.biz/balun%201%20to%204%20dual.pdf
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: cockpitbob on June 10, 2016, 06:41:51 PM
Elecraft sells balun kits, but you can clone their design.  They are simple.  As usual, all you need is a core and wire.

The BL1 is either a 1:1 or 4:1 depending on how it's wired.  You can put a switch on it.  It is wound on a binocular core instead of 2 toroids.  The core is an Amidon BN-43-7051.  They claim 150W but I have my doubts.  I personally wouldn't use it at or below 3.5MHz with 100W with FM or digital modes(might get warm).  100W CW at 3.5MHz and above would be OK so long as you don't put a brick on the key.

Look on elecraft's manuals page for the BL1 in 1:1 and 4:1:  http://www.elecraft.com/K2_Manual_Download_Page.htm (http://www.elecraft.com/K2_Manual_Download_Page.htm)

I'm kind of surprised they didn't put a switch on the board, but they did with the 250W (uses 2 binocular cores) BL2.  It can be switched between 1:1 and 4:1. 8)





Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on June 12, 2016, 05:42:57 AM
Well Bob, I got a balun kit from Sotabeams. However I found out that single core baluns are not good at reducing common mode current. The full core Guanella is supposedly much better...

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on June 12, 2016, 05:44:15 AM
Thanks LameWolf.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on June 18, 2016, 11:10:49 AM
Quote from: gil on June 12, 2016, 05:44:15 AM
Thanks LameWolf.

No problem !
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on June 24, 2016, 03:14:32 PM
Do not cross the beams!
I hope I wired this thing right..
I don't even have a 200 Ohm resistor to test it, my junk box was on the boat..

Oh yeah, and I've been busy:
I'm back!

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: cockpitbob on June 24, 2016, 03:46:36 PM
It's good to see you sniffing flux fumes again.  Nice looking work.
For the 9:1 ununs, are you going to let the feedline be the counterpoise?  I usually put a banana binding post beside the BNC so I can attach a separate wire.  Often my feedline is only 10' or 15' for end feds.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on June 24, 2016, 03:58:48 PM
QuoteFor the 9:1 ununs, are you going to let the feedline be the counterpoise?

Yes, but then I use 10m of RG-174 coax... It's long enough to act as a counterpoise and short enough not to be too lossy on HF. I do have a bunch of small ferrite beads to slip on the coax near the radio, but I'd like to make a choke in a thin PVC tube with a BNC on each end..

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Rescue9 on July 07, 2016, 02:12:00 PM
Any update on this I'm very interested in seeing your choke. I'm going to try the 9:1 unun design myself with the new radio to see performance, but am worried about not having a counterpoise since I only plan on having about 25 ft of rg174 as a feed line.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on July 07, 2016, 04:58:48 PM
Sort of... BTW your 25ft of coax should do fine in my experience. You might benefit from slipping a couple dozen small ferrite beads on the coax near the radio but I would try without first. Whether you get RF on the radio will probably depend on wire length, you might have to experiment a bit.

I have all the parts now, got a small plastic container for the BALUN. I just need a fishing weight and line to shoot the cable over the big pine tree in my backyard. I tried a stone by hand and it worked for my end-fed, but I need to shoot a wire a bit further out for the Windom.

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Rescue9 on July 09, 2016, 10:08:37 PM
Pics of that small container choke balun when you get a chance please.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: cockpitbob on July 10, 2016, 11:10:41 AM
I agree with Gil.  A 25ft counterpoise will be fine.  The coax with some beads near the radio should work well.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on July 10, 2016, 02:32:20 PM
The only time I had trouble with RF was using a random wire and counterpoise directly off my K1; feels like needles on your finger tips, very unpleasant. It also usually messes up with keyer chips...

The Windom is built, not deployed yet but I got to test it outside, albeit only three feet off the ground. I had made the long leg of the antenna a few feet longer than calculated, but I don't remember by how much. I get very low SWR, maybe 1.2:1 1.4:1 on 80 and 40m. 20 and 15m show a high SWR, more than 3:1 anyway. This antenna should work on 20m... I hope I didn't mis-wire the BALUN. I could test it with a 200 Ohm resistor but have yet to find one. Adding a few feet of wire will probably lower the SWR further.

There you go Rescue9  ;)

BTW I think I will fill the two EARCHI UNUNs with epoxy resin...

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Rescue9 on July 19, 2016, 12:26:23 AM
Thanks gil. Pics look great¡
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on July 30, 2016, 08:32:40 AM
Quote from: gil on June 24, 2016, 03:14:32 PM
Do not cross the beams!
I hope I wired this thing right..
I don't even have a 200 Ohm resistor to test it, my junk box was on the boat..

Oh yeah, and I've been busy:

  • Two EARCHI 9:1 UNUNs.
  • One Sotabeams 4:1 BALUN kit.
  • Guanella 4:1 BALUN.
I'm back!

Gil.

Gil,

After re reading this thread I decided to make one of the "EARCHI" 9:1 ununs to try on my 88' sloper.  Remember I had a 4:1 unun on it that also had a 1:1 choke on it.  The 9:1 unun with the 88' end fed sloper has a much lower swr on all bands than the 4:1/1:1 combo did so I will be leaving it in place for a while to see how it works on the air.  Its only 2:1 on 160 meters !

kc8aon
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on July 30, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
Great! The EARCHI guy told me yhe maximum length of wire was 60ft, but I think he was just quoting their documentation. One great wire length is 71ft, then 84ft, like the W3EDP which has a 17ft counterpoise, directly into the tuner..

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on July 30, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: gil on July 30, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
Great! The EARCHI guy told me yhe maximum length of wire was 60ft, but I think he was just quoting their documentation. One great wire length is 71ft, then 84ft, like the W3EDP which has a 17ft counterpoise, directly into the tuner..

Gil

Don't know why they would limit it to 60' as there are several lengths recommended for use with a 9:1 unun.  Take a look at the chart here: http://www.thedxshop.com/media/wysiwyg/Wire_Lengths_for_9-1_ununs_1.pdf
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on July 30, 2016, 03:05:06 PM
Indeed, seemed strange to me.. No explanation was provided...
Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: cockpitbob on July 30, 2016, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: Lamewolf on July 30, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
Quote from: gil on July 30, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
Great! The EARCHI guy told me yhe maximum length of wire was 60ft, but I think he was just quoting their documentation. One great wire length is 71ft, then 84ft, like the W3EDP which has a 17ft counterpoise, directly into the tuner..

Gil

Don't know why they would limit it to 60' as there are several lengths recommended for use with a 9:1 unun.  Take a look at the chart here: http://www.thedxshop.com/media/wysiwyg/Wire_Lengths_for_9-1_ununs_1.pdf
Nice chart!  It's impressive, almost hard to believe, the low SWRs across all Ham bands they achieve.  I wish they put more specific counterpoise information in it.  My first guess is it's not measured data but calculated from EZNEC.  Still, it has me considering this kind of antenna instead of an EFHW which is confined to only the bands it is resonant on.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on July 30, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
QuoteIt's impressive, almost hard to believe, the low SWRs across all Ham bands they achieve.

I would be very surprised if it turned out to be true.

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on August 01, 2016, 07:12:15 AM
Quote from: gil on July 30, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
QuoteIt's impressive, almost hard to believe, the low SWRs across all Ham bands they achieve.

I would be very surprised if it turned out to be true.

Gil.

I've experimented with type of antenna on several occasions and found it not to be totally true.  But if you play with the length of the wire you can fins a length that will get you close enough on most bands that an internal auto tuner will handle it on all bands.  The only rig I have with an internal tuner is my Icom 703, but I have found several combinations that gets me multiband coverage with just one or two lengths of wire.  The first successful combo was with a 4:1 unun and a 23' wire for 10 thru 40 meter coverage  and a 50' wire for 10 thru 80 meter coverage.  That was several years back and the info can be found here: http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/qrp/unun.html

kc8aon
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: KK0G on August 01, 2016, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: gil on July 30, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
QuoteIt's impressive, almost hard to believe, the low SWRs across all Ham bands they achieve.

I would be very surprised if it turned out to be true.

Gil.


I wouldn't be the least bit surprised........ remember, a dummy load also has a low SWR across all ham bands.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on August 01, 2016, 12:13:15 PM
Quote from: KK0G on August 01, 2016, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: gil on July 30, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
QuoteIt's impressive, almost hard to believe, the low SWRs across all Ham bands they achieve.

I would be very surprised if it turned out to be true.

Gil.


I wouldn't be the least bit surprised........ remember, a dummy load also has a low SWR across all ham bands.

I saw a ham once that thought he had no swr on all bands on his G5RV, I told him that was impossible and he said that the swr meter in his tuner shows no swr anywhere and he just kept the tuner in bypass all the time.  I went over to check it out and sure enough, the swr meter didn't move !  Pulled the top off the old MFJ-989 tuner and there was no bridge circuit in it - just the meter and someone had removed the bridge circuit and soldered the connections straight through.  He had bought it cheap at a hamfest and I don't think he really understood how they worked.  He ordered a new MFJ 300 watt tuner and I bought the 989 and built a new bridge circuit to put in it.  The tuner worked great, but I later traded it for an Icom AH-4 auto tuner.

kc8aon
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on September 07, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
My 135ft Windom with dual core Guanella BALUN is up! Now I can use 80m, albeit only up to 3.8mHz. No need for a tuner on 80/40/20/10m.

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: RadioRay on September 07, 2016, 03:30:07 PM
Oh , that's great, Gil!  It will be good to be able to get on the air whenever you feel like it, and with an antenna that is also very effective on the lower bands, maybe you can do a little NVIS conversational CW across the channel with the U.K. and up into Northern Europe where there is better chance of non-contest COMMUNICATION, rather than "599 TU" nonsense.

De RadioRay ...-  .-
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on September 07, 2016, 04:55:48 PM
Indeed, actually my first contact with the antenna was with the UK on 80m!

Gil
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: Lamewolf on September 07, 2016, 05:01:38 PM
I really like my off center fed, it works super on 80, 40, 20, 17, 12, 10, and 6 meters and I have even used it on 15, 30, and 60 meters via the tuner.  It will even work on 2 meters without a tuner !  My homebrew guanella balun is wound on 2 FT240-61 cores and then I have 24 ferrite mix 43 cores on the feedline right below the balun to help choke of any CMC.  I like working DX on 40 meters the most with it and even worked Australia many times with it on 40 - about 10000 miles !
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on January 13, 2017, 06:47:55 AM
My Windom antenna broke!  :(

We had a wind storm last night and the thin wire from SotaBeams broke. I am surprised it lasted that long, not being made for permanent installations. The wire is pretty fragile. I need to make a new one, this time using thicker wire from The Wireman, probably #532 or #511. I also need to make a new dual Guanella BALUN, this time with 31 material ferrites, not 61 as I did. 61 is for the higher HF bands while 31 works great on 80m. I usually don't use bands above 20m and mostly stick to 80 and 40; no need to use 43 material either.

This time I won't use a support wire and will use proper insulators. I should look into supporting the BALUN however to use thicker coax than RG-174.

One interesting issue I had was using an RF choke on the coax. The BALUN was fed with 10m of RG-174 which was just long enough to make it through a window frame. From there I would either plug in another 5m or 10m of coax. Using 5m (total 15m) was fine on 40 upwards but not on 80m. I had to use 10m or even 20m (total 20 or 30m) of extra coax to get a low SWR on 80. When using my 10m RG-174 coax cable with ferrite beads on one end, the cable would only work with the ferrites at the radio end, not in the middle of the feedline. That told me I obviously had common mode currents on the coax outer shield. Changing the size of the Windom might solve the problem. I need to do some research on that. The dual-core Guanella was supposed to do a good job of insulating the antenna from the feedline, but it isn't a choke BALUN. I need to rethink my installation and try to avoid common mode currents and the use of a tuner. I could dispense with a tuner but had to play with coax lengths, not ideal.

This time I will build a stronger antenna which i can take with me when I move and won't break in high winds. My concern is the weight... Ah, decisions...

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on January 15, 2017, 01:12:29 PM
Back to the drawing board...

This time I ordered 136ft of #511 wire from The Wireman. It's 14 AWG antenna wire with 7 strands of copper-clad steel, 349 lbs break strength. For the dual Guanella 4:1 BALUN I have FT114D-31 ferrites coming from an Ebay seller. These are the cheapest 31 material ferrites I could find. Also on the way are ceramic insulators for the ends and center of the new Windom.

I think I will go either with an 80/20% feed-point, 27ft (8.23m) from one end, or the classic 33% 44.5ft (13.5m). The antenna total length should end up being 135ft.

Good reading: http://www.buxcomm.com/windom.htm (http://www.buxcomm.com/windom.htm)
BALUN: http://www.kn9b.us/guanella-balun (http://www.kn9b.us/guanella-balun)

Stay tuned for photos and a possible video!

Gil.
Title: Re: My New Antenna Situation.
Post by: gil on February 08, 2017, 03:51:41 PM
(http://radiopreppers.com/images/Guanella-Choke.jpg)
(http://radiopreppers.com/images/New_Guanella.jpg)
(http://radiopreppers.com/images/Windom_Parts.jpg)
(http://radiopreppers.com/images/New_Windom.jpg)