开云体育

I have the Superantennas MP-1 with the FT-817 mounting bracket and
all the other accessories.

The MP-1 is probably the most versatile, and efficient whip antenna I
have ever used for multi-band HF Pedestrian Mobile operation. Using
the stainless steel tip and assembled for base-loading, the
combination makes a very durable backpacking or shoulder-strap walking
whip. With the telescopic tip and aluminum mast extensions it is
perfect for compact travel carry-on packages and fixed portable
setups or rental car mobile.

I have recently been using the MP-1 as a vehicle mobile antenna, and
have found it to be favorably comparable in efficiency to my High
Sierra 1500 at 14MHz~29MHz.

The MP-1 antenna is in the right place at the right time for HF
Portable popularity and the FT-817.

Bonnie KQ6XA

The MP-1 is probably the most versatile, and efficient whip antenna I
have ever used for multi-band HF Pedestrian Mobile operation. Using
the stainless steel tip and assembled for base-loading, the
combination makes a very durable backpacking or shoulder-strap walking
whip. With the telescopic tip and aluminum mast extensions it is
perfect for compact travel carry-on packages and fixed portable
setups or rental car mobile.

I met Vern at Dayton, and got a MP-1 plus mobile setup. I am excited about
bicycle mobile with it.

He left the booth he was showing the antennas at to join our informal
get-together. Lots of fun meeting a dozen or more faces from the list

Pres Waterman W2PW
c/o Patchogue Motors, Inc.
Long Island Ford and Kia dealer

GO BILLS!

I would expect the MP-1 to work quite well in a mobile set-up if it
is provided with a decent ground to the vehicle body. All the
problems I have experienced suggest that they are caused by
inadequate ground coupling which cannot be provided by four bits of
insulated wire. A product that is designed for portable use should
work in that situation out of the box. I'm afraid my experience
contradicts your glowing testimonial. Sorry.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In FT817@y..., "KQ6XA" <xtalradio@a...> wrote:

I have the Superantennas MP-1 with the FT-817 mounting bracket and
all the other accessories.

The MP-1 is probably the most versatile, and efficient whip antenna

I

have ever used for multi-band HF Pedestrian Mobile operation. Using
the stainless steel tip and assembled for base-loading, the
combination makes a very durable backpacking or shoulder-strap

walking

whip. With the telescopic tip and aluminum mast extensions it is
perfect for compact travel carry-on packages and fixed portable
setups or rental car mobile.

I have recently been using the MP-1 as a vehicle mobile antenna,

and

have found it to be favorably comparable in efficiency to my High
Sierra 1500 at 14MHz~29MHz.

The MP-1 antenna is in the right place at the right time for HF
Portable popularity and the FT-817.

Bonnie KQ6XA

Julian,

My MP-1 tuned up fine on 6 through 40 meters, with just those 4 little
bits of wire and my backpack frame for counterpoise. Radiated quite
well -- I received plenty of good reports at 5 watts.

Of course I managed to break it on top of Pikes Peak, but tuning was
never a problem before the fall.

Perhaps we should be examining the exact procedures that successful
MP-1 operators used versus the unsuccessful MP-1 operators. I've
never been more pleased with a ham radio product. I wish it was here
now....
--
Brian N0KZ

Julian, G4ILO wrote:

All the problems I have experienced suggest that
they are caused by inadequate ground coupling

I have been trying, Julian, to figure out from your posts what your
objective is, or what frequencies you are testing with. I recommend
that you look at the HFpack searchable message archive, and enter
keyword "counterpoise". You will find quite a wealth of helpful info.
HFpack is probably a better forum for discussion about your portable
antenna stuff, since it may be going off-topic on the FT-817 group.


I suspect that unfamiliarity with the use of a very high-Q whip
antenna (like the MP-1) in a portable or /PM setting may be the issue.
High Q antennas sometimes need a stabile matched situation to provide
the continuous low SWR you may desire. Loaded whips can have low
impedances, depending upon height and frequency. This can cause the 50
ohm low SWR point to be a narrow frequency band... making the
counterpoise touchy.

A continuously variable coil is an optimum-radiation solution to
tuning a portable whip. The use of a high Q coil provides the best
efficiency.

I have 2 versions of the ATX Walkabout. I also have the Superantennas
PW-1 (predecessor to the MP-1). The ATX is very convenient and
somewhat lower Q, so it simply can't have the high efficiency of the
MP-1.

A more lossy antenna like the ATX is not quite so touchy to movement
and counterpoise adjustment because it has more resistive losses (less
efficient). The ATX coil's RF resistive loss causes the impedance to
rise, making it more broadband. That's why it is easier to find and
keep the low SWR point with the ATX. Dummy loads are even easier for
finding and keeping low SWRs!
:-)

By coupling a counterpoise to ground, or using a ground stake, a
portable whip antenna system becomes more lossy, and is easier to
tune. This is because the earth ground is resistive and lossy for RF.
Like a dummy load...
:-)

Currently, there are many hams who have been using the MP-1 with
various counterpoises to make repeatable Portable, Pedestrian, and
Mobile local and DX contacts around the world using the FT-817
barefoot. Also, two MP-1 antennas can form a very efficient multi-band
dipole, lazy dipole, or rabbit ears antenna system. There is a photo
of such a system in the HFpack files.

Bonnie KQ6XA

I thought it was clear that what I am trying to do is find the
settings and counterpoise/ground plane that will enable the MP-1 to
be repeatably set up in a portable location without requiring the aid
of antenna analyzers, ATUs or SWR meters. For me, there is no point
in having a small portable radio if you have to carry half the rest
of the shack equipment around with you.

I am not convinced that the higher Q of the MP-1 makes it more
efficient. All it seems to do is make the shield of the feeder and
hence the radio itself "hot" with RF. If this does improve the
radiated signal, presumably through radiation from the feeder and
counterpoise, then I would contend that it is by accident not design.

In any case, I have become tired and fed up with fruitless
experimentation for the moment so I am going to give up for a while.
Next time I use the MP-1 I am going to try adjusting it for maximum
noise, as suggested last night, and forget about the SWR, and see how
it goes.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In FT817@y..., "KQ6XA" <xtalradio@a...> wrote:

I have been trying, Julian, to figure out from your posts what your
objective is, or what frequencies you are testing with. I recommend
that you look at the HFpack searchable message archive, and enter
keyword "counterpoise". You will find quite a wealth of helpful

info.

HFpack is probably a better forum for discussion about your

portable

antenna stuff, since it may be going off-topic on the FT-817 group.

--- In FT817@y..., julian@t... wrote:

I thought it was clear that what I am trying to do is find the
settings and counterpoise/ground plane that will enable the MP-1 to
be repeatably set up in a portable location without requiring the

aid

of antenna analyzers, ATUs or SWR meters. For me, there is no point
in having a small portable radio if you have to carry half the rest
of the shack equipment around with you.

Julian - I have never used ANYTHING other than the internal SWR
indicator - if it is one bar or less, I don't worry - if it is 2
bars - I try to get it better, but I don't worry if I can't improve
it.

I am not convinced that the higher Q of the MP-1 makes it more
efficient.

Well - I think you are discounting the laws of physics, and
EVERYTHING that has EVER been written about loaded antennas that I am
aware of - and as I stated before - I have read a lot of antenna
books - particularly on the subject of shortened antennas. For an
antenna of the same physical length - less bandwidth = higher circut
Q = more efficency. If you haven't yet - read something like the ARRL
Antenna Handbook or the RSGB's equal, and then get a copy of Moxon's
HF Antennas for All Locations and read that. As far as I can tell, if
there is one definative book dealing with reduced size HF antennas,
that is it. I first read it about 18 years ago, and keep it on the
night stand when I get to pondering something at 02:00 and can't get
it out of my mind.

Next time I use the MP-1 I am going to try adjusting it for maximum
noise, as suggested last night, and forget about the SWR, and see

how

it goes.

There you go - Bonnie hit it on the head with the SWR and thanks to
Chip for the noise tip - I been doing that without thinking about it
for so long I didn't realize it until Chip said it.

You can't have it perfect. It is ALWAYS going to be a bit different,
and it is ALWAYS going to be a compromise.

You have a lot of people here who are some of the top (portable)
operators on the planet (I will exclude myself from that group) -
with what I am sure is well over a century of combined experience -
telling you that THEIR experience with the antenna is completly
satisfactory and much different than yours. It is a little hard to
fathom why.

I also aggree with Bonnie that the HF Pack group may be more helpful
to you, as this is more of an issue for that group then the 817
specifically - but watch out Bonnie - Pres is going to accuse you of
trying to steal members - ;)

Don
W6ZO

Julian G4ILO wrote:

All it seems to do is make the shield of the feeder and
hence the radio itself "hot" with RF. If this does improve the
radiated signal, presumably through radiation from the feeder and
counterpoise......

Yes. A proper portable or pedestrian counterpoise contributes equally
to the radiation of a whip. Therefore, it is "hot".
This is good.

However, if you don't like current delivered to your counterpoise, you
can replace the antenna with a 50 ohm resistor :-)

Bonnie KQ6XA

Don W6ZO writes:

I also aggree with Bonnie that the HF Pack group may be
more helpful to you, as this is more of an issue for
that group then the 817
specifically - but watch out Bonnie - Pres is going to accuse you of
trying to steal members - ;)

Hah! I missed this little tidbit the first time around!

Well, Don, I don't think either moderator Pres W2PW or co-moderator
Barry W4WB would mind it a bit if we put this thread somewhere else...
:-)
As far as stealing members from FT817 to HFPack goes... there seems
to be little risk of that... the two groups have a big percentage of
members in common already. In fact, the moderators of each group are
"frequent flyers" on each others groups...

Bonnie KQ6XA
(just another FT817 op here)

Awwwww shucks, ma'am! Jus' doin' our jobs ya know

Thanks

Pres Waterman W2PW
c/o Patchogue Motors, Inc.
Long Island Ford and Kia dealer

GO BILLS!

Don W6ZO writes:

I also aggree with Bonnie that the HF Pack group may be
more helpful to you, as this is more of an issue for
that group then the 817
specifically - but watch out Bonnie - Pres is going to accuse you of
trying to steal members - ;)

Well, Don, I don't think either moderator Pres W2PW or co-moderator
Barry W4WB would mind it a bit if we put this thread somewhere else...
:-)
As far as stealing members from FT817 to HFPack goes... there seems
to be little risk of that... the two groups have a big percentage of
members in common already. In fact, the moderators of each group are
"frequent flyers" on each others groups...

Bonnie KQ6XA
(just another FT817 op here)

But this goes completely against the accepted advice for installing a
vertical in a home or mobile situation. You should always use the
best possible ground. A couple of people on the Elecraft list have
both said they got much better results coupling the antenna ground to
some corrugated iron or similar. Not very portable, admittedly, but
it does demonstrate that to get good results from a high Q antenna
you need a good ground system, not a poor one.

The system you are describing sounds to me like you are using the MP-
1 and its counterpoise like two halves of a dipole, with one half
trailing on the ground. That may be the compromise you have to adopt
if you insist on being able to move along while operating but I have
no desire to do that. I would much prefer to be able to have an
effective ground plane system so that all the RF energy goes into the
vertical element. Unfortunately, it seems that more than 4 10ft
radials are necessary to achieve that. Nevertheless, when I bought
the MP-1 I thought I was buying a vertical, not half a wonky dipole.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In FT817@y..., "KQ6XA" <xtalradio@a...> wrote:

Yes. A proper portable or pedestrian counterpoise contributes

equally

to the radiation of a whip. Therefore, it is "hot".
This is good.

However, if you don't like current delivered to your counterpoise,

you

can replace the antenna with a 50 ohm resistor :-)

Bonnie KQ6XA

ground plane system so that all the RF energy goes into the
vertical element. Unfortunately, it seems that more than 4 10ft
radials are necessary to achieve that.

Julian, I don't think you're achieving that with an
"effective ground." I think all you're doing is dumping a
large part of the RF into the electrical ground. Unless
you've got a few mW to spare, it isn't going to help. (I am
not a Ant.D., so happy to accept corrections here, but this
is my understanding.)

Nevertheless, when I bought
the MP-1 I thought I was buying a vertical,
not half a wonky dipole.

Read the article I mentioned (was here or HFPack? %-) ) --
or read the Moxon book. There may be less difference than
commonly supposed.

73
John Newell
KB1FPM

Julian G4ILO wrote:

But this goes completely against the accepted advice
for installing a vertical in a home or mobile situation.

Julian, you may find that old "accepted advice" for
grounding originated with low frequencies and Mr. Marconi... before HF
verticals were well understood. The old "accepted advice" has been
perpetuated through lack of understanding and superstition.

... to get good results from a high Q antenna
you need a good ground system, not a poor one.

An elevated quarterwave resonant counterpoise is the best "ground" you
can use with a quarterwave whip. A "poor ground" system for an HF
quarterwave vertical would be: an earth stake, wires laying on or
buried in the ground, or other lossy conductive materials.

The system you are describing sounds to me like you are
using the MP-1 and its counterpoise like two halves
of a dipole, with one half trailing on the ground.

Bingo! Now you know the secret successful HF pedestrian mobile and
portable operators use to get power into the air!

Nevertheless, when I bought the MP-1 I thought I was
buying a vertical, not half a wonky dipole.

Julian, the MP-1 is one of the most efficient and versatile antenna
systems that has been devised so far for the FT-817 as an HF
pedestian/portable/mobile system. Before you criticise it any more,
may I suggest that you research it further? Several others here have
suggested excellent material for understanding.

Last night, I had an hour-long rag chew with Max ZL1BK over 10,000km
using my MP-1 on 18MHz. Perfect Q5 during the whole QSO. Some of the
longest Pedestrian Mobile distance records have been set or equaled
using the MP-1 and an FT-817. Excellent performance like this rarely
happens by accident.

Bonnie KQ6XA

How many times has it been written in antenna books "A vertical
antenna is one half of a dipole with the mirror image of the other
half in the groundplane"? So why is it so surprising that when the
other half of the vertical is one half of a dipole, that it works
best??? What does it matter that it is a "wonky dipole".

In fact - the MP1 is a vastly superior design, but electrically
similar to, one of the most commercially popular HF mobile antennas
over the last 30+ years, the Hustler series - the only difference is
that you change the inductance of the coil rather than change the
coil to change the inductance. Thousands of hams have used these
antennas mobile for years (albeit with 100 watts or more) when it is
clear it is inferior to other designs.

One key to the Hustler success was/is the coil islow Q and that is
easy to match.

By simply using a 15 meter coil with (as I remember) a 39" whip made
all the difference in the world for 20 meter performance vs. the
stock 20 meter "resonator" - but the bandwidth was narrower than the
20 meter coil. WHY? BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS MORE EFFICENT.

The diameter is larger, therefore the "Q" of the MP1 is HIGHER than
the Hustler or ATX, therefore - lets all say it together now - MORE
EFFICENT!

Over the same groundplane/conterpoise, unless the coil is wound with
some really resistive wire that others and I have been unable to
detect - it will work better than the ATX. Given the same LOWER mast
length, it WILL work better than the Hustler. I'll bet the farm on it!

Julian - we have a saying in my store - (among others) - "Just
because you want it, doesn't mean it exist" - there is NO SUCH THING
as an efficent HF antenna that will work the same with the same
loading/groundplane/counterpoise etc, etc, etc.... under ALL
conditions.

I have seen perfectly good working antennas on cars suddenly seem to
stop working and indicate high SWR. Why? Because the local
envirionment changed in some way - a metal building was near, the
trunk lid (boot) was open, the doors were open, somebody was standing
near it. It WILL NOT BE PERFECT under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. The 2 meter
rubber duck on your handheld is worse than the MP1 - you just don't
know it as you probably have never looked at it.

When Kenwood came out with the first mini-HTs about 15+ years ago, it
didn't take me long to figure out why the 70CM version worked SO much
better than the 2M - I was Q5 over a 50+ mile simplex path on 70CM
but barely readable on 2M. The antenna was a "PHYSICAL" 1/4 wave long
on 70CM - as opposed to a "electrical" (but physically shortened) 1/4
wave on 2M, and the metal of the radio was closer to presenting a
good groundplane (dipole) on 70CM than 2M - DUH!!! THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS DON'T CHANGE WITH FREQUENCY!!!

The reason such a good ground was needed on LF that Bonnie speaks of
is that it was the relative groundplane size for such a low frequency
was so large.

Maybe we're all missing the point, but I don't think so. I hate to
make these assumptions, but Julian - get a clue here - I don't know
what your radio experience or resume is. I don't know Bonnie
personally, but I know of her "pedestrian moble" accomplishments -
same goes for Demitri.

I do know Chip - and he has probably worked more "rare" DX, more
countries and made more Q's than you will probably EVER dream of!!!
They KNOW what they are speaking of.... and the further you dig
yourself into this hole, the harder it is going to be to get yourself
out.

So seriously - my MP1 and ATX doesn't work as well as my 2 element 40
METER yagi - do you think I wasted my money on the MP1 or ATX? I
don't, and I don't think you do either, and that is the whole point -
it never will be as good, just like you cannot expect the MP-1 to
load the same with the same ground system and the same tuning
settings in different locations - you have to have reasonalble
expectations of what you can acheive within the laws of physics, and
until they change those laws (not likely - but good luck trying), I
think you are expecting WAY too much.

You are thinking the antenna is the fault, when it really DOESN'T
matter - given the same physical and electrical characteristics - ANY
antenna is going to have the same issues.


I don't know any way around it (if I did, I would be writing this
from some South Sea Island in retirement), and apparently neither
does anyone else on here. If you can figure it out - great! Let us
know when you do!

Given the right propogation, and operating skills - you can acheive
AMAZING results with a comprimised antenna system! But every time you
move the antenna, things are going to change, sometimes not much,
other times a lot - live with it - don't keep trying to fight nature.
Try to see the forest thru the trees and don't worry about the
details that don't matter.

PLEASE - I SUGGEST, AS I AND OTHERS ALREADY HAVE, THAT YOU READ
SOME "MODERN" ANTENNA BOOKS, DO SOME VALID ON-THE-AIR TEST (TRY CW -
IT WORKS SO MUCH BETTER FOR QRP THAN SSB), HOME-BREW SOME SHORTENED
MONO-BAND ANTENNAS, EXPERIMENT, AND THEN LET'S RE-VIST THE SUBJECT
DOWN THE ROAD WITH SOME PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AND WHEN YOU HAVE MADE A
BREAK-THROUGH. MEANWHILE - GIVE IT A REST!!!

73
Don
W6ZO



--- In FT817@y..., "KQ6XA" <xtalradio@a...> wrote:

Julian G4ILO wrote:

But this goes completely against the accepted advice
for installing a vertical in a home or mobile situation.

Julian, you may find that old "accepted advice" for
grounding originated with low frequencies and Mr. Marconi... before

HF

verticals were well understood. The old "accepted advice" has been
perpetuated through lack of understanding and superstition.

... to get good results from a high Q antenna
you need a good ground system, not a poor one.

An elevated quarterwave resonant counterpoise is the best "ground"

you

can use with a quarterwave whip. A "poor ground" system for an HF
quarterwave vertical would be: an earth stake, wires laying on or
buried in the ground, or other lossy conductive materials.

The system you are describing sounds to me like you are
using the MP-1 and its counterpoise like two halves
of a dipole, with one half trailing on the ground.

Bingo! Now you know the secret successful HF pedestrian mobile and
portable operators use to get power into the air!

Nevertheless, when I bought the MP-1 I thought I was
buying a vertical, not half a wonky dipole.

Julian, the MP-1 is one of the most efficient and versatile antenna
systems that has been devised so far for the FT-817 as an HF
pedestian/portable/mobile system. Before you criticise it any more,
may I suggest that you research it further? Several others here

have

suggested excellent material for understanding.

Last night, I had an hour-long rag chew with Max ZL1BK over

10,000km

using my MP-1 on 18MHz. Perfect Q5 during the whole QSO. Some of

the

longest Pedestrian Mobile distance records have been set or equaled
using the MP-1 and an FT-817. Excellent performance like this

rarely

happens by accident.

Bonnie KQ6XA

Hi Julian and group,

I must tell you to buy the book HF ANTENNAS FOR ALL LOCATIONS by Les
Moxon, G6XN, which is printed by your RSGB. This is considered by
many the bible in Antennas. Les will definately make you change your
views about ground systems for vertical antennas.

Also there is a fantastic American site talking about antennas as
well. This is and L.B.Cebik W4RNL, the owner of
this site, knows very well what he is talking about.

Both these antenna GURUS will enlighten you about ground systems for
vertical antennas.

Finally there is a nice article that was printed in QEX and it was
posted somewhere in these YAHOO groups by someone else, whose name I
cannot recall now.
This nice article is at

I hope these references will help you make up your mind about
vertical antennas which really are asymetrical dipoles.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

I don't understand why. I am not very technical, so I can only
understand things if they are explained in layman's terms. Surely, in
an ideal situation, with a perfect ground, the ground acts as a
constant reference point and all the RF energy will go into the
vertical radiating element? With a less than perfect ground, there
will be some loss, because some of the RF is trying to energise the
ground as a radiator. If the ground is in the form of a counterpoise
there may well be radiation from it, which may even increase the
signal. But this is an accidental effect of a badly designed system.
Improving the RF ground should increase the proportion of the energy
radiated by the vertical element, giving among other things a less
distorted radiation pattern. At least, that's how I see it.

Julian, G4ILO

Well, you have just rubbished the advice given by manufacturers like
Cushcraft, HyGain and others for erecting their verticals, not to
mention vertical wires, end fed wires and others read in books. It is
no good my trying to understand the technical explanations for these
things, it is all way over my head. I just tend to follow the advice
I have seen constantly repeated, and find it hard to accept when
someone tells me that was all wrong...

Julian, G4ILO

--- In FT817@y..., "KQ6XA" <xtalradio@a...> wrote:

An elevated quarterwave resonant counterpoise is the best "ground"

you

can use with a quarterwave whip. A "poor ground" system for an HF
quarterwave vertical would be: an earth stake, wires laying on or
buried in the ground, or other lossy conductive materials.

Thanks, Demetre.

I did download the W4RNL article but it was a bit much to get my head
round. It is a very long time since I did school physics and learnt
about fields and stuff. All I actually wanted to do was find a way to
tune the MP-1 so it presented a good SWR and I could use it with the
817 without a tuner.

Due to the intemperate diatribe directed at me by another member of
this list I no longer wish to contribute, so I shall unsubscribe now
and let you carry on discussing computer software and opening up
receive coverage and similar matters in peace. Perhaps in a few
months I will once again be able to go up in the mountains and use my
817 as I intended, and perhaps one day, Demetre, I shall have the
pleasure of a QSO with you.

Until then, 73.

Julian, G4ILO

--- In FT817@y..., "Demetre Valaris - SV1UY" <sv1uy@s...> wrote:

Hi Julian and group,

I must tell you to buy the book HF ANTENNAS FOR ALL LOCATIONS by

Les

Moxon, G6XN, which is printed by your RSGB. This is considered by
many the bible in Antennas. Les will definately make you change

your

views about ground systems for vertical antennas.

Also there is a fantastic American site talking about antennas as
well. This is and L.B.Cebik W4RNL, the owner

of

this site, knows very well what he is talking about.

Both these antenna GURUS will enlighten you about ground systems

for

vertical antennas.

Finally there is a nice article that was printed in QEX and it was
posted somewhere in these YAHOO groups by someone else, whose name

I

cannot recall now.
This nice article is at

I hope these references will help you make up your mind about
vertical antennas which really are asymetrical dipoles.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

--- In FT817@y..., julian@t... wrote:

Thanks, Demetre.

I did download the W4RNL article but it was a bit much to get my

head

round. It is a very long time since I did school physics and learnt
about fields and stuff. All I actually wanted to do was find a way

to

tune the MP-1 so it presented a good SWR and I could use it with

the

817 without a tuner.

Due to the intemperate diatribe directed at me by another member of
this list I no longer wish to contribute, so I shall unsubscribe

now

and let you carry on discussing computer software and opening up
receive coverage and similar matters in peace. Perhaps in a few
months I will once again be able to go up in the mountains and use

my

817 as I intended, and perhaps one day, Demetre, I shall have the
pleasure of a QSO with you.

Until then, 73.

Julian, G4ILO

Hi Julian,

No need to be so radical man. I think everyone is trying to help
here, not to send members of the group away. After all these Groups
are for this reason, where we can all tell our opinion and help each
other. Nobody here is expected to be a rocket scientist and I do not
anyone of us here is.

On the other hand perhaps you could continue this discussion to a
more specialized group such as the HFpack. If you are not already a
member of it, I think it would be a good idea joining it.

As for a QSO with me Julian I am visiting the UK on 20 July and will
stay there for 2 weeks. Please e-mail me privately if you like to
sv1uy@... telling me if you are going to be there.

Also I will be QRV this Sunday at 04.00z on 18,157 KHZ and at 08.00z
on 28,337 KHZ and at 08.15z on 21,437 KHZ on my Sunday trek at Mt.
Ymittos talking to Keith G4MSF and Terry G0EHX. You are welcome to
call me. Feel free to break the QSO.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

I hope that neither this topic nor any of those discussing it exit this
group as a result of any "heat" that anyone feels accompanied the "light" in
the discussion-- I have learned and continue to learn a LOT about antenna
issues & options-- and new ways to look at and understand those issues and
options-- both as to my 817 and more generally. While I've read numerous
books & articles (Moxon, Cebik, Severns....), manufacturers' ads, etc.
espousing one or the other of the perspectives you all are testing,
exchanging and debating, I find this dialogue about what works, in what
conditions, with what technique... far more conducive to developing a better
practical understanding that I can put to use.

In fact, as someone new to both QRP and HF portable, finding out what
options I can try for antennas for my 817-- and the pros and cons of those
options-- was my biggest reason for joining the group.

Trevor
KD1YT