Just a small bit of info here.
First, I get a better SWR curve with rain on the antenna. It's been raining off and on for two days and this is what I'm getting with a wet antenna and wet surroundings:
28.755 ------- 3.5:1
28.305 ------- 1.7:1
27.855 ------- 1.3:1
27.555 ------- 1.1:1
27.405 ------- <1.1:1
27.205 ------- 1.0:1
26.965 ------- 1.2:1
26.515 ------- 1.5:1
26.065 ------- 2.0:1
25.615 ------- 3.5:1
25.165 ------- 4.0:1
Compared to this when dry:
28.755 ---------- 5.2:1
28.305 ---------- 1.8:1
27.855 ---------- 1.2:1
27.555 ---------- <1.1:1
27.405 ---------- 1.1:1
27.205 ---------- 1.2:1
26.965 ---------- 1.5:1
26.515 ---------- 2.5:1
26.065 ---------- 4.0:1
25.615 ---------- 5.2:1
25.165 ---------- 6.0:1
Second, and here's the part that I dislike, I placed a coax choke directly beneath the feedpoint of the antenna before the weather changed while everything was dry as before and the SWR on 27.205 went through the roof (try 10.0:1 for size. Needless to say, I did not key up for SWR anywhere else!). If not for the highlighted part of Marconi's quoted post I would begin to doubt the purity of this antenna's design. Every photo or drawing of these type antennas I've seen do not show the antenna isolated from the mounting mast, and whereas I did just that, I find that my antenna is obviously producing CMC in quantum quantities, utilizing the mast, or the coax, or both as part of the antenna.
Likely I am just the builder of a not yet perfected antenna and that is my problem. On the other hand, in all the efforts at modeling this thing with software did anyone provide for the mast being a counterpoise?
When the weather breaks and I have time I guess I'll try again to get a match on this thing with a choke in line. Were I a drinker, I'd likely get soused before fooling with matching this thing again. Guess I'll just have to grumble and grouse my way through it . . .
