Пікірлер

• 
  @Kinetic79Күн бұрын

  Ham radio Olympics 😄

• 
  @zoeyzhang98667 күн бұрын

  If any custom PCBs may help for upcoming repair or diy work? We're open to sponsor! (PCBWay zoey)

• 
  @CrazyChekov7 күн бұрын

  thank you!

• 
  @oldsplendor9 күн бұрын

  Could you tell us something about your Dipol? OE3EBK

• 
  @CrazyChekov7 күн бұрын

  you mean the shortened dipole?

• 
  @oldsplendor7 күн бұрын

  Yes, special the coil and length

• 
  @Steve-GM0HUU10 күн бұрын

  👍Thanks for doing the test and sharing. Though, I did wonder what the results would be with the same number of ground and elevated radials.

• 
  @CrazyChekov9 күн бұрын

  good idea...maybe I will try that.

• 
  @Larry-yk5nh10 күн бұрын

  Experimentation is a great feature of ham radio. In this case I think you might find that the one elevated radial signal was helped by the ground radials even though they were not connected to the system. There has been some experimentation that shows that a ground screen formed by radials that are not connected to the antenna system still improve the signal for a vertical with am elevated system. Nice video!

• 
  @CrazyChekov9 күн бұрын

  that could be. do you have a link for that experimentation? thank you.

• 
  @Larry-yk5nh4 күн бұрын

  @@CrazyChekov Check Out ON4UN's Low Band DXing Section 2.2.13 Elevated Radials combined with Radial Screen On the Ground. The book is out of print but it shouldn't be too hard to find a copy perhaps online. Larry

• 
  @yclept910 күн бұрын

  The radials don't radiate far field owing to symmetry. So they're a pure loss into the ground, not storing unradiated energy and offering it again the next cycle. The point of multiple radials is to reduce the current in each, which after I squared losses results in 1/N less radiation into the ground with N radials. Elevated radials avoid loss into the ground instead just by not being near the ground. Hence you need lots of radials on the ground vs much fewer if they're elevated.

• 
  @CrazyChekov9 күн бұрын

  yes the more the better. but for a portable operation I wouldn't carry a lot...so thats why I dont want to make the comparison with more than 12 (alread a lot). for a stationary antenna I would for sure go with more.

• 
  @michaelb76110 күн бұрын

  Can you post a parts list?

• 
  @CrazyChekov10 күн бұрын

  www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-zero-2-w/ or www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-3-model-a-plus/ SanDisk Extreme PRO microSDHC Memory Card Plus SD Adapter up to 100 MB/s, Class 10, U3, V30, A1 - 32GB SDSQXCG-032G a.co/d/f3Rkv0x 5V step down converter de.aliexpress.com/i/1005001483117768.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2deu digipi image www.digipi.org gps module (should work with 3.3V) de.aliexpress.com/item/1005006099194136.html

• 
  @danielhorvat434011 күн бұрын

  Why one radial? if you add a second one you will cancel/reduce radial radiation and probably get different results. And, it would help if you had a common mode choke on both antennas to eliminate the coaxial cable impact on final results. 73 Danny E73M

• 
  @CrazyChekov11 күн бұрын

  thx for your thoughts, I will keep that in mind for future tests. 73!

• 
  @danielzdanowicz689911 күн бұрын

  Thank you for sharing your test results. Enough samples were taken to make your data and conclusions reliable and conclusive. In addition... the elevated counterpoise will provide a small amount of gain in the direction of the wire. A vertical with a raised counterpoise is essentially a bent vertical dipole. The best results for this type of antenna is with the vertical high enough to drop the radials at a 45 degree to the vertical. It should be kept in mind, that this type of antenna is susceptible to common mode currents on the coax, which in deed will and can affect performance and SWR. So it is recommended that some kind of coax choke be installed at the feed point of the antenna to keep the coax from radiating. In essense, the coax without a choke or 1:1 balun is just another counterpoise whose length can affect tuning. A choke (hopefully) takes the coax out of the equation. Best 73s Dan K1YPB - On the air since 1962

• 
  @CrazyChekov11 күн бұрын

  thank you. I will add a choke on the antenna feedpoint for a future test. there was one at the transceiver but none at the antenna feedpoint. 73!

• 
  @ekkiplicht728311 күн бұрын

  Excellent test, this is how it should be done. Nice base plate for the antenna!

• 
  @363will11 күн бұрын

  I have the exact same base !

• 
  @CrazyChekov11 күн бұрын

  Thank you very much!

• 
  @Kinetic7912 күн бұрын

  What ratio transformer and for what do you usually use this one? Asymmetrical multiband dipole, end fed random wire? Or in the case that it’s a 1:1, do you have two of the four wires connected together on each side, to effectively have 2 conductors in a bifilar winding pattern (creating a 1:1 balun without any expected impedence transformation)? The number of colored wires is throwing me off :)

• 
  @CrazyChekov11 күн бұрын

  i used this wiring schema images.app.goo.gl/aJ8PcZJzPGxSn2Ph9

• 
  @Kinetic7912 күн бұрын

  Hey Cc. Sorry if I missed it but curious as to which way your radial was pointing relative to the stations you were receiving at? There’s asymmetry from 1 radial, but not huge. Greg from CA (a big POTA guy-forgetting his call rn unfortunately) has a lot of success running 2 elevated radials at 90° from each other to get additional gain between the span of those 2 radials. If they’re 180° from each other it is supposed to tame the asymmetry quite a bit. … overall I think your conclusion is a good one, that the single radial is a nice contender. There are potentially additional benefits from raising the radiator, since you’re able to clear obstacles in the near field better like cars and things. I got a clamp for camera equipment which I attach to the roof rails on my SUV vehicle and screw the whip that way and attach a tuned radial since my sunroof is massive and there isn’t much metal up there. That is of course when I have the car, which is not always. But it can forego the extra support structure, and becomes just as easy as the ground stake. … btw your machining skills look cool. Nice homemade base unit

• 
  @CrazyChekov12 күн бұрын

  thank you for the comment! the radial is pointing to the receiving station. i think that should generate the maximum gain for the targeted station from what I know.

• 
  @jesi161912 күн бұрын

  Really like your real life tests. Well done👍👍

• 
  @CrazyChekov12 күн бұрын

  Thank you!

• 
  @dbailey302414 күн бұрын

  hi love then content i have one too ptefere it to my 705 now ive looked everywhare for the screen protector with no luck could you provide a link for them please Dylan m0dsy

• 
  @CrazyChekov11 күн бұрын

  please send me a mail to [email protected] but currently Im on holiday till end of August.

• 
  @jmlredtail108117 күн бұрын

  This is some good stuff man, thank you for the videos!

• 
  @CrazyChekov17 күн бұрын

  thx a lot!

• 
  @user-ro3mn5eb9d18 күн бұрын

  Hi, nice vids! I was wondering if you had any tests with ground on the transceiver and not on the ant. ground element on a balanced dipole coaxal feed? I have done better results with ground on the transceiver but with ground dependent systems, unlike a dipole which does not require a ground. though keep in note that your ground in this vid might of been with a higher flux on the results if you had added a 1.5l bottle of water to the ground at the ground rods. we must take into consideration the actual ground soil levels of conductance (moisture, rain, dryness of soil, etc.) to myself, out of experience the ground looks somewhat arid and poor for good ground conductance in your video. Most importantly, on a balanced system like a dipole ground is not much an issue, but a system using UNUNS like end-fed random wires such as a 9:1 unun or 4:1 system you will see great differences with the ground, unlike with end-fed half waves and 1;1BALUN fed dipole system. the subterrain type of soil, bedrock, etc. where antenna is placed also plays a great factor in antennas in the field , not surprisingly, is never the same value even in the same location during different seasons. lastly, on a non-ground dependent antenna system like a dipole, grounding the braid of the coaxial feed right after the 50Ω exit of the transceiver will result in signal degradation. Your choice of transceiver being a Russian made SDR holds superior technology in reception of signals and its extremely low voltage power requirement for both rx and tx to generate signal and rf is so advanced that its hard to tell with such a superior piece of kit, such kind of tests, unlike let's say a xeigu x-6100 or an ic-705 or even a FT-891(qrp levels) so take that into strong consideration as well. Nevertheless, awaiting your next vids. and results, 73s

• 
  @CrazyChekov17 күн бұрын

  thx for your thoughts and comments! the endfed antenne will be next on my list for testing and comparing. 73

• 
  @user-zk2yd6xm8s18 күн бұрын

  One of my favorite backpacking antennas is a upright V Terminated at the radio, no feed line. Worked very well lite wight. I used the radios internal antenna tuner two 42 foot wires

• 
  @CrazyChekov17 күн бұрын

  interesting, thx for the info!

• 
  @kf5hcr17621 күн бұрын

  Radio-coax choke-coax-1:1 transformer-dipole. Good experiment, thanks, 73

• 
  @jbammi24 күн бұрын

  Add ferrite chokes and try also

• 
  @walteredwards54425 күн бұрын

  Thank you for this information. I do not yet have test equipment so this helps me to narrow my options and focus on the best possible outcomes. 🎉

• 
  @CrazyChekov17 күн бұрын

  Very welcome!

• 
  @jacksonclark358128 күн бұрын

  Banana plug for the win!

• 
  @CrazyChekov28 күн бұрын

  ha its good but 1:1 transformer seems to perform a bit better.

• 
  @zerkalovАй бұрын

  Это противоречит концепции трансивера! Зачем тратить столько усилий?

• 
  @CrazyChekov17 күн бұрын

  not sure what you mean. im sorry.

• 
  @nealbeach4947Ай бұрын

  Rule #1. Never overthink a dipole.

• 
  @Philip-KA4KOEАй бұрын

  AS-2259

• 
  @BusDriverRFIАй бұрын

  Seems like the far field should be better without the ground at the antenna.

• 
  @CrazyChekovАй бұрын

  not sure if this changes with distance. the receiving station was very close, about 20km but without direct line of sight. small hill between.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  Missing infos... The shown values are SNR measured by Js8Call. Blue columns --> received SNR in the field. Red columns --> received SNR from my "data package" at target station. Power about 7W based on what the TX500 showes me.

• 
  @Kinetic792 ай бұрын

  I think the crazy in your name is well earned. 😅

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  strongest, smallest, most portable QRP device....and only I have it ha 😁

• 
  @Kinetic792 ай бұрын

  That’s a great looking protector. I don’t have a tx599, otherwise I’d definitely be interested

• 
  @Kinetic792 ай бұрын

  Not sure how far you are from your receiving station in Wien and what type of antenna you have there…. But I think you can assume that you would get some type of vertical radiation (along with the dipole’s characteristic horizontal radiation) from the coax in the absence of a choke, and mostly horizontal only from a choked dipole. There are cases where the radiation from the coax could help your SNR, but not with high levels of reliability or predictability. When you’re relying more on ground-wave propagation, you probably would want more vertical polarization. And you’d want both antennas (transmitting and receiving) to be matched in terms of their polarization.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  thx for your thoughts. distance wasnt far... about 20km but about 150m hill in between. the station at home has a vertical antenna. not sure about the vertical radiation from the cable...could be. I could test that theory by changing the coax cable from hanging down to going horizontal/perpendicular away from the feed point...or even better reduce the cable length to 1m or something like that.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  afterthought...the SNR were higher with the choke at the feedpoint than without. that would contradict your theory imho. also keep in mind there was a second choke at the transceiver connected.

• 
  @Kinetic792 ай бұрын

  @@CrazyChekov maybe, but not necessarily. I think the point is that the radiation pattern will be modified from the textbook dipole pattern (even more than it already is by virtue of being in a low, real-world environment). The extent to which NVIS (on a low dipole) and ground wave are more effective will also vary by frequency and time of day. If your coax alters your radiation pattern by having the coax dangling from a horizontal dipole, it will almost certainly increase the proportion of vertical polarization. Whether that’s beneficial or not will vary based on the circumstances of both stations. You’ll get more radiation from the coax if your feed point is off-center. And if you’re going for NVIS, which sounds like maybe is your case given the hill/mountain between you and Wien, you’d probably rather want to keep as much of your radiation on the dipole elements as possible. Ultimately, you’d expect the same amount of total power radiated from either choked or unchoked, only with a modified pattern. But if your unchoked coax runs on the ground, you’d probably expect some ground loss. Having the chokes may also make the receiver quieter, in some cases. But perhaps less so when out in the field. You might be curious to look at the New Carolina Windom coax-fed off-center-fed OCFD antenna (which purposefully avoids choking at the feed point and rather chokes the coax a specific length away from the feedpoint). On its fundamental frequency, in particular, it adds that vertical radiation quite a bit. It’s not exactly your experiment, but it’s an interesting implementation.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  will add a test to my list with nearly no feedline at all that should clarify it. we need more accurate real world tests to verify all these theories....systematically.

• 
  @Kinetic792 ай бұрын

  I didn’t realize that the feedpoint is low enough that you’re able to eliminate the coax completely. The length that’s dangling will make a difference, and will also be band dependent. There is a reason people like Dave Cassler (sp?) will say “with antennas, everything affects everything.” If you’ve got really consistent signal paths that you want to work reliably/consistently, then the systematic tests are quite viable. But I’m afraid you’d almost need an unviable number of empirical tests in order to generalize greatly beyond that, and would have to fall back on more of a ‘systematic review’ of many published results and/or modeling. But I think it’s great that you’re publishing your findings, and will be interesting to hear about where you think theory and practical measurements seem to differ. Nice chatting with you a bit and 73!

• 
  @BusDriverRFI2 ай бұрын

  1:1's and chokes really don't help at all.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  for a dipole thats what I try to figure out. other antenna types can be a pain in the ass without them.

• 
  @Kinetic792 ай бұрын

  If you have a greater imbalance on your dipole (due to either environmental or design/execution factors), you’ll probably see more benefit. The benefit will probably arise from less than ideal/textbook setups for a horizontal dipole, but could be useful for a dipole in other orientations etc.

• 
  @nealbeach49472 ай бұрын

  I just doesn't pay to over think a dipole.

• 
  @mewrongway2 ай бұрын

  Pretty kool experiment. My 44 years in ham radio has taught me that just as soon ass your sure of something,You find out your wrong!!

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  😊

• 
  @robduncan5992 ай бұрын

  A field strength meter reading would have been a useful gauge as to sig going out ?

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  hmm not sure if you can read that meter precise enough if you are so close to it. just a feeling

• 
  @robduncan5992 ай бұрын

  @@CrazyChekov possible. However the band going up and down ant a /b or in this case balun/ no balun is at best haphazard? Unless you conduct the experiment over a long period?

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  the longer the better for sure. feel free to join testing. the more results we get the better.

• 
  @uploadJ2 ай бұрын

  I prefer isolation transformers. Nothing will provide the kind of isolation a flux-coupled transformer provides at like 475 kHz ... baluns become ungainly at that frequency, and I use one on a 1/2 sized K9AY loop to keep computer noise from swamping real signals picked up by the antenna.

• 
  @Strike_Raid2 ай бұрын

  Bal-Un (BAL)anced-(UN)balanced.

• 
  @Gabaab2 ай бұрын

  bifilar wound chokes are not easy to make efficient. Rg400 coax wound around toroid makes easy effective choke or "1:1: balun"

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  will test a coax choke soon with the same procedure.

• 
  @batica812 ай бұрын

  Interesting. My guess is it would be even more noticeable on higher frequency.

• 
  @reedreamer95182 ай бұрын

  Why do you have a transformer, when all you need it the choke?

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  to me a transformer makes sense but if reality says no I go with reality.....but will make more tests.

• 
  @haraldlonn8982 ай бұрын

  What I wonder should the current choke be at the antenna side or to the radio. As I see it the current choke should be to the radio side. I may be wrong but think about it.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  not sure too. I found both versions in the internet .

• 
  @uploadJ2 ай бұрын

  re: " current choke " I am looking for a "voltage choke" ... un-obtainium? /sarc

• 
  @wildbill12 ай бұрын

  But the losses are so minimal they would hardly be noticeable, if at all to the human ear on the other end

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  thats true but I try to remove everything unnecessary for my field setup. weight is very precious to me.

• 
  @shanerorko80762 ай бұрын

  In my opinion, the only thing a CM choke will do on a dipole in the field is help keep the radiation pattern consistent. Without one the outer shield of the coax makes the antenna into a un-balanced T. If you get 7 beads of 41 mix or similar mixes with a 5mm inside diameter you can make up a lightweight choke cable that has no losses. When you're at home it's more about choking noise from the power lines.

• 
  @BusDriverRFI2 ай бұрын

  If that's worth worrying about with the far field loss being ~2.5dB.

• 
  @youtubeaccount9312 ай бұрын

  is it what is called a guanella balun or is that something else? I have not found the need for a balun with my dipoles but I have also not run over 60 watts or so out of it, perhaps with stronger power I would need to worry about return currents etc

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  not sure about guanella balun. its a current balun and a voltage balun what I used.

• 
  @jesselannigan23002 ай бұрын

  60 watts max? Try it with a kilowatt and tell me what you discover.

• 
  @uploadJ2 ай бұрын

  @@jesselannigan2300 I could light 4 ft fluorescent bulbs leaning against the shack wall at one point running a few hundred watts carrier for AM on 80 meters ...

• 
  @jesselannigan23002 ай бұрын

  I believe it.

• 
  @jesselannigan23002 ай бұрын

  @@uploadJ on 80 meters at anything over about 180 watts keying up will cause one of my battery chargers to reset. 40 meters causes one security cam to distort. 15 meters around 21 275 will trigger the remote control to the LED strip lights my daughter has in her office. That's why there's safe distance RF exposure protocols.

• 
  @VE9ASN2 ай бұрын

  I challenge you to try again with a coax wound 1:1 choke. You definitely still want to keep the common mode current off the feedline. It's likely that the only reason you're not having issues is because of qrp power levels. Hybrid baluns are typically for ocfd anyway.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  will make a comparison next time...coax choke vs nothing

• 
  @jesselannigan23002 ай бұрын

  I have to second this. When you are operating QRP your reflected power is so minimal that even a poorly matched antenna will have a low SWR and will typically not introduce "noticeable" common mode back into the feed line. Now try that same setup but with 700+ watts and see what happens. It's another reason I dislike QRP, besides the obvious futility at trying to accomplish something with a -10 to -20dB hindrance, but it also gives the illusion of a well matched system that truly isn't. No rule says you have to use a balun, but they're there for a reason.

• 
  @Richard-je4lt2 ай бұрын

  @@jesselannigan2300 700+ watts lol , WHY ?.

• 
  @jesselannigan23002 ай бұрын

  @@Richard-je4lt Why? Because I work DX. I'm working stations over 7,000 miles, not 3 blocks away.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  ​@@jesselannigan2300in europe energy prices are too high to power a 700W amplifier. we can only go with QRP here 😁

• 
  @chuckcarter78642 ай бұрын

  Thanks for the comparison. You’re the first one that I’ve seen. Cheers and 73 VK2SS .

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  thx. with digital modes we can make now more precise field tests. ...and a field test beats every lab test imho.

• 
  @m0kov2 ай бұрын

  A very useful demonstration. The balun is there to stop common mode current on the outside of the coax especially on receive where we want to prevent any interference picked up on the coax outer from entering the receiver. Since noise levels when operating portable are low, a balun should not be needed. 73 de Steve

• 
  @F_Tim19612 ай бұрын

  What would be even more interesting would be to use the Hybrid balun with the shield of the Coax grounded to a proper say one mtr in copper coated steel ground rod , or equivalent buried wire in damp soil to simulate what a mains powered transceiver sends to the coax when running. In the case of a low hung antenna which sees a non true differential signal at the feed point but with the coax tied to the ground plane I think you may see better relative performance of the hybrid balun in S/N on transmit. It 's not relevant to your transceiver when run off a battery pack but one day you may want to run it off a 4 A mains DC supply which will likely have the secondary of the transformer earthed to the case and then back to the ground stake of the house supply. The frequency at which you run the test is relevant too, because as the antenna rises up a more significant fraction of the transmitted wavelength, the existence of the ground underneath, in particular with respect to the E field is less significant.

• 
  @F_Tim19612 ай бұрын

  Further comment. I'm not sure why the lower voltage balun has four turns and not three. I'd be interested in any references to the design file - though Ytube comments often stop direct UR_Ls being sent. I notice that the top balun, the current balun of the hybrid seems to have four wires. I wonder why it has not been implemented with a cross over of a single pair similar to the Balun Designs 1171 (nb their design uses well separated Cu so it does not give a 50 ohm internal transmission line - I am not suggesting this is what you want). The cross over at turn number five changes the winding sense half way through the winding and thus the gross circulating flux is zero. This clearly reduces losses over a conventional non cross over current balun design. There is still local ferrite linkage between the individual pairs. It's very cunning and produces an non radiating or minimally radiating parallel transmission line. You may be familiar with this implementation and have rejected it for some reason. TEF

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  hi TEF, I used this wiring layout for the voltage balun/transformer.... images.app.goo.gl/4JuRFtMux5j5NTEM9

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  the current choke design is from DG0SA --> kzread.info/dash/bejne/e4SnwbSClc2ZcsY.htmlsi=jIYh4DAXms9yVhin

• 
  @F_Tim19612 ай бұрын

  I had a look at the DF1BT design and there's a lot unsaid. Firstly on the Strombalun it appears that vinyl insulated figure 8 cable is used - at least in some of the designs . PVC insulation is death to RF above about 10 Mhz. The only reason it can be used on the outer jacket of RG58 is there is an assumption that there is no E - field at the surface of the braid. The PVC molecule is excited electrically not magnetically . The other point is that twin ax is around 80-85 ohms impendance normally. If it is wrapped as you have done it then you get "two coax wires " in parallel. This would drop the input inpedance of the current transformer down to a nominal 50 ohms. It seems gimmicy. The known good way to make the current balun for minimal loss is to use RG188 and provide the cross over so there is no net flux in the main core but there is magnetic coupling between the individual turns if there inbalance from shield to core caused by an differential current in the load. It seems as if a current choke is "required" after a voltage balun because though the VB converts a single ended signal to a differential one, it can't discipline the RF if the load is not electrically symmetrical. That's my take on it.

• 
  @F_Tim19612 ай бұрын

  @@CrazyChekov The five Wire voltage BN/transformer is new to me. It goes schematically Blue Red, Green , blue, Red in parallel with a green wire as a DC short in the centre of the wound set. It seems that there is an attempt to get a better approximation of a non radiating transmission line this way . I have never seen a test comparison between the five wire version and the three wire version of this design. BTW if you look at the Balun Design webpage you will see that wherever they do an impedance conversion they always follow up by a current balun. It therefore seems that voltage baluns cannot cope with driving what might not be a physically symmetrical antenna. I've never seen that explained.

• 
  @oasntet2 ай бұрын

  Yeah, it's easy to forget that baluns introduce their own losses, so they're only useful if they're fixing a worse problem than they are causing. Obviously vital in an antenna a long ways from 50Ω like an EFHW or an OCF dipole, but a normal dipole is close enough regardless of where you put it. Even the 'imbalance' from feeding it a dipole with coax is only a couple percentage points drop in effective radiated power, less than the typical loss in a current transformer...

• 
  @survivalcomms2 ай бұрын

  Thank you for sharing . I stopped using a 1:1 balun on my antennas a couple years ago due to similar results. I do use a self built sleeve choke on my feedine to address common mode but to be honest I personally have not experienced problems with common mode on a center fed balanced antenna unless I loaded the antenna on a frequency below what I cut the antenna for. I feel the 1:1 balun just induces loss FWIW. Thanks again for sharing your data with us.

• 
  @N2YTA2 ай бұрын

  With a resonant antenna you don’t need any type of feed line choke.

• 
  @survivalcomms2 ай бұрын

  @@N2YTA Yes but I use a feedline with a choke because Its what I use as I said. Thanks for sharing your insight.

• 
  @N2YTA2 ай бұрын

  ​@@survivalcomms it's not likely that an antenna will be perfectly resonant everywhere in the band so using a choke is a good idea.

• 
  @VE9ASN2 ай бұрын

  A coax wound balun introduces no losses, yet still stops common mode, it's a win win with no negatives.

• 
  @N2YTA2 ай бұрын

  @@VE9ASN yes, good point

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  Some forgotten infos. The antenna SWR was below 1.2 ( measured with Digirig Stick Pro ) The shown values are SNR in dB Transmit power was about 7W

• 
  @TheSmokinApe2 ай бұрын

  Interesting 👍

• 
  @BusDriverRFI2 ай бұрын

  Gotta love some signal loss.

• 
  @GearZenChannel5 ай бұрын

  As I wait for my BP-500, I have a question. The manual says "limited protection against moisture and dust." Do you have any thoughts on that based on your experience? And I understand your "brick" comment, but considering that there is less need for another battery and cables, I think that should make up for the weight penalty.

• 
  @CrazyChekov2 ай бұрын

  sorry I missed your comment. I think its a great product. for me the moisture/dust protection is fine...i mean we are not operating without rain protection anyway. i wouldn't worry.