Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Tree]

Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
difference.  If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.

Tree N6TR

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:

>  I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
> will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115'
> - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
> I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
> research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
> the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
> perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
> inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short
> ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ron WV4P
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Joe]

Myself I like longer,

Yes gotta use a cap, But not too big a deal, I find more variable caps 
at hamfests than roller inductors.


PLUS, longer raises the natural impedance too closer to 50 ohms. Of 
course NOT 50 but higher than 1/4 wave resistance.


Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/15/2020 10:18 AM, Tree wrote:

Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
difference.  If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.

Tree N6TR

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:


  I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115'
- 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short
? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)

Thanks in advance,
Ron WV4P
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[donovanf]

Hi Ron, 



A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax 
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband. 


How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR? 


A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for 
resonance around 1820 kHz 

If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the 
vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet 
of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz. 



Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 





- Original Message -

From: "Tree"  
To: "Ron WV4P"  
Cc: "160"  
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical 

Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the 
difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor - 
but it's typically more trouble than the inductor. 

Tree N6TR 

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote: 

> I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna 
> will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115' 
> - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'. 
> I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my 
> research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But 
> the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band, 
> perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized 
> inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short 
> ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o) 
> 
> Thanks in advance, 
> Ron WV4P 
> _ 
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector 
> 
_ 
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Tree]

One approach for the inductor that I have used when doing parasitic element
tuning is to put two SO239's in series and either put a shorted plug in for
no added inductance - or a PL259 fashioned with a few turns of heavy gauge
wire.  You can label them for the frequency you are wanting.

I used that technique to go from a director to a reflector back when I was
playing with a vertical parasitic array on 160.

Tree N6TR

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM  wrote:

>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.
>
>
> How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?
>
>
> A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for
> resonance around 1820 kHz
>
> If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the
> vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet
> of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.
>
>
>
> Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Tree" 
> To: "Ron WV4P" 
> Cc: "160" 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical
>
> Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
> difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
> but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.
>
> Tree N6TR
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:
>
> > I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
> > will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from
> 115'
> > - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
> > I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
> > research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
> > the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
> > perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
> > inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or
> Short
> > ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Ron WV4P
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> > Reflector
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Ken Claerbout]

I would favor using an inductor.  Tune it for the lowest part of the
band.  Then using a relay or two, you can short out turns if you want
to move higher in the band.  Although I think you will find using Rohn
25, it will be pretty broad.

73
Ken K4ZW


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:28 AM  wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
>
>
> A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.
>
>
> How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?
>
>
> A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for
> resonance around 1820 kHz
>
> If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the
> vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet
> of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.
>
>
>
> Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -----
>
> From: "Tree" 
> To: "Ron WV4P" 
> Cc: "160" 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical
>
> Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
> difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
> but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.
>
> Tree N6TR
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:
>
> > I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
> > will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115'
> > - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
> > I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
> > research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
> > the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
> > perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
> > inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short
> > ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Ron WV4P
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> > Reflector
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Joe]

Speaking of broadbandedness.

OK, what differences would it be bandwidth wise?

Where does it matter to get the wider bandwidth/

At the feedpoint?

At the far end?

In other words, you get broader bandwidth using Rohn 25 than using say a 
4" irrigation pipe.


Now how about if you have a broad base like a self supporting tower 
where the base is like 6 feet apart legs and then it tapers down to only 
a foot at the top.  Would that be broader than the Rohn 25?


Or take it the other way, take that same tower but put it up-side-down..

It is 12" across at the base at the feedpoint, but it is 6 feet wide at 
the top.


what would the bandwidth be like with that?

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 5/15/2020 10:52 AM, Ken Claerbout wrote:

I would favor using an inductor.  Tune it for the lowest part of the
band.  Then using a relay or two, you can short out turns if you want
to move higher in the band.  Although I think you will find using Rohn
25, it will be pretty broad.

73
Ken K4ZW


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:28 AM  wrote:


Hi Ron,



A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.


How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?


A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for
resonance around 1820 kHz

If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the
vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet
of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.



Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band.


73
Frank
W3LPL





- Original Message -

From: "Tree" 
To: "Ron WV4P" 
Cc: "160" 
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.

Tree N6TR

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:


I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 115'
- 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But
the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or Short
? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)

Thanks in advance,
Ron WV4P
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector



_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Ron WV4P]

Wow,
Incredible responses in just a few min. Thanks !
This antenna will be used 90% for Contesting, but 5 days a week it will be
for casual DX on CW and SSB.
With the switching matrix I'm using at the shack, it would be hard to use a
tuner, and is what I'm trying to avoid.
On my JK 801's the Motorized inductor, controlled by a Green Heron
Controller using band data from N1MM makes it totally automatic (Flat SWR
in ~ 50khz segments)

From my talk with Mike @ Tornado Tuner, the 160m version, that I believe
was made for a short radiator is as follows...

*"The Tornado 160SS will tune from about 17uH to 33uH. It has a single 27.5
turn coil.  The coil is 1/4” diameter aluminum, and the coil is 4 3/8” mean
diameter."*

From the replies, I see that my approach of build it and figure out the
tuning later was the wrong misguided.
Please forgive my ignorance, I don't have the experience or background to
understand what a lot of this means. It seems that IF I wanted to use the
tornado tuner, I would need to figure out a way to model the antenna so
that adding 17uH to 33uHof inductance would allow it to tune across or
close to across the band ? And that them numbers may be way out because it
was designed for s shorter element ?
I want it Automated so I can put any poor soul I can convince to join a
multi op in the seat and just turn them loose.
Thanks again for all the great replies so far, *and Frank... Loved the
presentation of the LPL history yesterday, Incredible. *

Ron, WV4P

*Grant, Going to read your Doc now, If it sends, I have attached a pic of
the base I built. The other next to is is one of 3 I made for the 3
Rotating Towers I am putting up. *

On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 10:34, Tree  wrote:

> One approach for the inductor that I have used when doing parasitic element
> tuning is to put two SO239's in series and either put a shorted plug in for
> no added inductance - or a PL259 fashioned with a few turns of heavy gauge
> wire.  You can label them for the frequency you are wanting.
>
> I used that technique to go from a director to a reflector back when I was
> playing with a vertical parasitic array on 160.
>
> Tree N6TR
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM  wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> >
> >
> > A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> > cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.
> >
> >
> > How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?
> >
> >
> > A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for
> > resonance around 1820 kHz
> >
> > If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the
> > vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet
> > of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.
> >
> >
> >
> > Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band.
> >
> >
> > 73
> > Frank
> > W3LPL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > From: "Tree" 
> > To: "Ron WV4P" 
> > Cc: "160" 
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical
> >
> > Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
> > difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor -
> > but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.
> >
> > Tree N6TR
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:
> >
> > > I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna
> > > will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from
> > 115'
> > > - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
> > > I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
> > > research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting
> But
> > > the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band,
> > > perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized
> > > inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or
> > Short
> > > ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Ron WV4P
> > > _
> > > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> > > Reflector
> > >
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> > Reflector
> >
> > _
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> > Reflector
> >
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[fmoeves]

Tree, Thank you very good idea. One more reason to hang out here. I used the 
Harpin match as Jay mentioned on my inverted L worked great. 73 Fred KB4QZH 
 Original message From: Tree  Date: 5/15/20  
11:34 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: Frank Donovan  Cc: 160 
 Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical One approach for 
the inductor that I have used when doing parasitic elementtuning is to put two 
SO239's in series and either put a shorted plug in forno added inductance - or 
a PL259 fashioned with a few turns of heavy gaugewire.  You can label them for 
the frequency you are wanting.I used that technique to go from a director to a 
reflector back when I wasplaying with a vertical parasitic array on 160.Tree 
N6TROn Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM  wrote:>> Hi 
Ron,>>>> A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax> 
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.>>> How high up the 
band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?>>> A resonant Rohn 25 160M 
vertical will be about 124 feet tall for> resonance around 1820 kHz>> If for 
some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the> vertical, follow 
Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet> of 115 ft if you need to 
tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.>>>> Use a small tapped inductor to tune 
it around the band.>>> 73> Frank> W3LPL>>>>>> - Original Message ->> 
From: "Tree" > To: "Ron WV4P" > Cc: "160" 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM> Subject: Re: 
Topband: 160m Vertical>> Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to 
make up the> difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a 
capacitor -> but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.>> Tree N6TR>> 
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:>> > I have 
built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna> > will be XXX' 
of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from> 115'> > - 130' with a 
pretty high number around 124'.> > I do not know how I am going to match it 
yet, I figure I will do my> > research on that once it's up so I can learn 
while experimenting But> > the height has me second guessing. I want it 
tunable across the band,> > perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have 
with a motorized> > inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the 
antenna Tall or> Short> > ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)> >> > 
Thanks in advance,> > Ron WV4P> > _> > Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband> > Reflector> >> 
_> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - 
Topband> Reflector>> _> Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband> 
Reflector>_Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Kees Nijdam]

If you have a quater wave vertical resonating on 1,9 Mhz, the swr 1:2 bandwith 
will be > 200 kHz.
Even if your feedline has 3 dB attenuation (that is a lot on this band), the 
additional loss will be 0,33 dB.
Nothing to worry about, and not at all a reason to use a tuner at the base of 
the antenna.
If your TX has troubles to give its power correct to the cable, use a tuner in 
the shack.

73, Kees PE5T

Verzonden vanuit Mail voor Windows 10

Van: fmoeves
Verzonden: vrijdag 15 mei 2020 19:20
Aan: topband@contesting.com
Onderwerp: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

Tree, Thank you very good idea. One more reason to hang out here. I used the 
Harpin match as Jay mentioned on my inverted L worked great. 73 Fred KB4QZH 
 Original message From: Tree  Date: 5/15/20  
11:34 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: Frank Donovan  Cc: 160 
 Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical One approach for 
the inductor that I have used when doing parasitic elementtuning is to put two 
SO239's in series and either put a shorted plug in forno added inductance - or 
a PL259 fashioned with a few turns of heavy gaugewire.  You can label them for 
the frequency you are wanting.I used that technique to go from a director to a 
reflector back when I wasplaying with a vertical parasitic array on 160.Tree 
N6TROn Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM  wrote:>> Hi 
Ron,>>>> A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax> 
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.>>> How high up the 
band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?>>> A resonant Rohn 25 160M 
vertical will be about 124 feet tall for> resonance around 1820 kHz>> If for 
some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the> vertical, follow 
Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet> of 115 ft if you need to 
tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.>>>> Use a small tapped inductor to tune 
it around the band.>>> 73> Frank> W3LPL>>>>>> - Original Message ----->> 
From: "Tree" > To: "Ron WV4P" > Cc: "160" 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM> Subject: Re: 
Topband: 160m Vertical>> Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to 
make up the> difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a 
capacitor -> but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.>> Tree N6TR>> 
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:>> > I have 
built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna> > will be XXX' 
of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from> 115'> > - 130' with a 
pretty high number around 124'.> > I do not know how I am going to match it 
yet, I figure I will do my> > research on that once it's up so I can learn 
while experimenting But> > the height has me second guessing. I want it 
tunable across the band,> > perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have 
with a motorized> > inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the 
antenna Tall or> Short> > ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o)> >> > 
Thanks in advance,> > Ron WV4P> > _> > Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband> > Reflector> >> 
_> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - 
Topband> Reflector>> _> Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband> 
Reflector>_Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Dave Cuthbert]

Aloha Ron.

EZNEC ROHN25 model:

128' resonant at 1.796 MHz, 35 +j0 ohms
115' resonant at 2.000 MHz, 35 +j0 ohms

115', 1.800 MHz, 25 -j46 ohms
115' 1.800 MHz, 4.1 uH base series inductor, 25 +j0 ohms

Dave KH6AQ

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:11 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:

> Wow,
> Incredible responses in just a few min. Thanks !
> This antenna will be used 90% for Contesting, but 5 days a week it will be
> for casual DX on CW and SSB.
> With the switching matrix I'm using at the shack, it would be hard to use a
> tuner, and is what I'm trying to avoid.
> On my JK 801's the Motorized inductor, controlled by a Green Heron
> Controller using band data from N1MM makes it totally automatic (Flat SWR
> in ~ 50khz segments)
>
> From my talk with Mike @ Tornado Tuner, the 160m version, that I believe
> was made for a short radiator is as follows...
>
> *"The Tornado 160SS will tune from about 17uH to 33uH. It has a single 27.5
> turn coil.  The coil is 1/4” diameter aluminum, and the coil is 4 3/8” mean
> diameter."*
>
> From the replies, I see that my approach of build it and figure out the
> tuning later was the wrong misguided.
> Please forgive my ignorance, I don't have the experience or background to
> understand what a lot of this means. It seems that IF I wanted to use the
> tornado tuner, I would need to figure out a way to model the antenna so
> that adding 17uH to 33uHof inductance would allow it to tune across or
> close to across the band ? And that them numbers may be way out because it
> was designed for s shorter element ?
> I want it Automated so I can put any poor soul I can convince to join a
> multi op in the seat and just turn them loose.
> Thanks again for all the great replies so far, *and Frank... Loved the
> presentation of the LPL history yesterday, Incredible. *
>
> Ron, WV4P
>
> *Grant, Going to read your Doc now, If it sends, I have attached a pic of
> the base I built. The other next to is is one of 3 I made for the 3
> Rotating Towers I am putting up. *
>
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 10:34, Tree  wrote:
>
> > One approach for the inductor that I have used when doing parasitic
> element
> > tuning is to put two SO239's in series and either put a shorted plug in
> for
> > no added inductance - or a PL259 fashioned with a few turns of heavy
> gauge
> > wire.  You can label them for the frequency you are wanting.
> >
> > I used that technique to go from a director to a reflector back when I
> was
> > playing with a vertical parasitic array on 160.
> >
> > Tree N6TR
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> > > cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.
> > >
> > >
> > > How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR?
> > >
> > >
> > > A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for
> > > resonance around 1820 kHz
> > >
> > > If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the
> > > vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet
> > > of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band.
> > >
> > >
> > > 73
> > > Frank
> > > W3LPL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > >
> > > From: "Tree" 
> > > To: "Ron WV4P" 
> > > Cc: "160" 
> > > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical
> > >
> > > Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the
> > > difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor
> -
> > > but it's typically more trouble than the inductor.
> > >
> > > Tree N6TR
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The
> antenna
> > > > will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from
> > > 115'
> > > > - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'.
> > > > I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my
> > > > research on that once it's up so I can learn 

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Jim Brown]

On 5/15/2020 8:27 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.


I strongly agree with this.

Another suggestion. Do your best with what you can rig, using as much 
top-loading as practical rather than base loading. Sweep the feedpoint Z 
with a good analyzer, export the data to SimSmith, do a TDR of the 
feedline to find it's electrical length, and compute the match. I 
recently did that for W6GJB's new 630M antenna, and came up with shunt L 
at the base of the antenna and series C in the shack. Every antenna is, 
of course, different.


73, Jim K9YC






_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Dave Cuthbert]

EZNEC Rohn 25 top loading

115' Rohn 25
4 spoke top hat, 66" x 0.500" tubing
SWR in a 30 ohm system (match 30 ohms to 50 ohms)

1.800 MHz, 2.2:1
1.900 MHz, 1.2:1
2.000 MHz, 2.2:1   KH6AQ (formerly WX7G)


On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:13 AM Jim Brown  wrote:

> On 5/15/2020 8:27 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:
> > A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> > cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.
>
> I strongly agree with this.
>
> Another suggestion. Do your best with what you can rig, using as much
> top-loading as practical rather than base loading. Sweep the feedpoint Z
> with a good analyzer, export the data to SimSmith, do a TDR of the
> feedline to find it's electrical length, and compute the match. I
> recently did that for W6GJB's new 630M antenna, and came up with shunt L
> at the base of the antenna and series C in the shack. Every antenna is,
> of course, different.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[List Mail]

-Original Message- 
From: Dave Cuthbert

Aloha Ron.

EZNEC ROHN25 model:

128' resonant at 1.796 MHz, 35 +j0 ohms
115' resonant at 2.000 MHz, 35 +j0 ohms

115', 1.800 MHz, 25 -j46 ohms
115' 1.800 MHz, 4.1 uH base series inductor, 25 +j0 ohms

   Dave KH6AQ
--

Assuming what value of ground loss resistance?

Radiation resistance of 35 ohms plus several ohms of ground loss resistance 
is pretty close to what you want, without matching.


Luke VK3HJ 


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[donovanf]

Thanks for your kind comments Ron, much appreciated. 
Hope to meet you in Dayton in 2021 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 

- Original Message -

From: "Ron WV4P"  
To: "Tree"  
Cc: "Frank Donovan" , "160"  
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 4:10:36 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical 



Wow, 

Incredible responses in just a few min. Thanks ! 

This antenna will be used 90% for Contesting, but 5 days a week it will be for 
casual DX on CW and SSB. 

With the switching matrix I'm using at the shack, it would be hard to use a 
tuner, and is what I'm trying to avoid. 

On my JK 801's the Motorized inductor, controlled by a Green Heron Controller 
using band data from N1MM makes it totally automatic (Flat SWR in ~ 50khz 
segments) 


From my talk with Mike @ Tornado Tuner, the 160m version, that I believe was 
made for a short radiator is as follows... 



"The Tornado 160SS will tune from about 17uH to 33uH. It has a single 27.5 turn 
coil. The coil is 1/4” diameter aluminum, and the coil is 4 3/8” mean 
diameter." 


From the replies, I see that my approach of build it and figure out the tuning 
later was the wrong misguided. 

Please forgive my ignorance, I don't have the experience or background to 
understand what a lot of this means. It seems that IF I wanted to use the 
tornado tuner, I would need to figure out a way to model the antenna so that 
adding 17uH to 33uHof inductance would allow it to tune across or close to 
across the band ? And that them numbers may be way out because it was designed 
for s shorter element ? 

I want it Automated so I can put any poor soul I can convince to join a multi 
op in the seat and just turn them loose. 

Thanks again for all the great replies so far, and Frank... Loved the 
presentation of the LPL history yesterday, Incredible. 



Ron, WV4P 



Grant, Going to read your Doc now, If it sends, I have attached a pic of the 
base I built. The other next to is is one of 3 I made for the 3 Rotating Towers 
I am putting up. 



On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 10:34, Tree < t...@kkn.net > wrote: 


One approach for the inductor that I have used when doing parasitic element 
tuning is to put two SO239's in series and either put a shorted plug in for 
no added inductance - or a PL259 fashioned with a few turns of heavy gauge 
wire. You can label them for the frequency you are wanting. 

I used that technique to go from a director to a reflector back when I was 
playing with a vertical parasitic array on 160. 

Tree N6TR 

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:28 AM < donov...@starpower.net > wrote: 

> 
> Hi Ron, 
> 
> 
> 
> A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax 
> cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband. 
> 
> 
> How high up the band do you want to go and at what maximum VSWR? 
> 
> 
> A resonant Rohn 25 160M vertical will be about 124 feet tall for 
> resonance around 1820 kHz 
> 
> If for some reason you must install a tuner at the feed point of the 
> vertical, follow Tree's advice and make it slightly short: 120 feet 
> of 115 ft if you need to tune for minimum VSWR above 1900 kHz. 
> 
> 
> 
> Use a small tapped inductor to tune it around the band. 
> 
> 
> 73 
> Frank 
> W3LPL 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Tree" < t...@kkn.net > 
> To: "Ron WV4P" < wv4...@gmail.com > 
> Cc: "160" < topband@contesting.com > 
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 3:18:39 PM 
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical 
> 
> Slightly shorter makes it easy to use an inductor to make up the 
> difference. If you make it long - you can do the same with a capacitor - 
> but it's typically more trouble than the inductor. 
> 
> Tree N6TR 
> 
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 8:15 AM Ron WV4P < wv4...@gmail.com > wrote: 
> 
> > I have built an insulated base for a 1/4 wave 160 antenna. The antenna 
> > will be XXX' of Rohn 25. In searching I see people using heights from 
> 115' 
> > - 130' with a pretty high number around 124'. 
> > I do not know how I am going to match it yet, I figure I will do my 
> > research on that once it's up so I can learn while experimenting But 
> > the height has me second guessing. I want it tunable across the band, 
> > perhaps using a Tornado Tuner like my JK 801's have with a motorized 
> > inductor ? But the question at hand is do I want the antenna Tall or 
> Short 
> > ? What is the Method behind the Madness ? :o) 
> > 
> > Thanks in advance, 
> > Ron WV4P 
> > _ 
> > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> > Reflector 
> > 
> _ 
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector 
> 
> _ 
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector 
> 
_ 
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 



_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Rob Atkinson]

On 5/15/2020 8:27 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

""A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.""

We don't really have enough information to make that claim.  First,
you ought to get a copy of Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals
by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr.  It is a standard college textbook for
EE students interested in broadcast engineering and focuses mostly on
medium wave and is easy to understand.

We shouldn't advise you to put a matching network at the transmitter
end of your line until you tell us what sort of feedline you are
using, how long it will be, and what your transmitter power to the
line will be.  The wrong line with too much power over enough fraction
of a wavelength, with a high vswr, could cause a dielectric breakdown.
There's more to this than loss.

73

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 5/16/2020 4:31 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

On 5/15/2020 8:27 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

""A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.""




Another disadvantage of a tuner at the shack end is that the match
bandwidth for any given setting of the tuner becomes narrower.
I have over a full wavelength of open wire line to my 160m
vertical.  No problem with power handling, VSWR handling or loss,
but the match bandwidth is very narrow if the OWL is badly
mismatched.  There is a 450 ohm to 50 ohm balun/transformer at
the tower, so I only have to match the antenna to unbalanced
50 ohms.  There is another transformer at the shack end.

I should also point out that the charts showing "Additional loss
due to SWR" were incorrect for decades in various ham publications
and were only recently corrected, in case you hadn't heard.

See:

https://ac6la.com/swrloss.html

Rick N6RK
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Ron WV4P]

Thanks again for all the replies, it kind of jumped around on my end
between on and off list replies. Hopefully I have not missed any.

The Feedline will be ~300' of 7/8 CellFlex.
Legal Limit on power.
About 8000' of Radials, In theory, 64 @ 120' but rough terrain will
necessitate some flexibility.


So far from the replies I have come up with.

   - ~115' Of Rohn 25 resonate high in the band.
   - An Air Core Inductor at the base with 4 taps, switched with relays to
   make it usable across the band.
   - A Shunt Coil for static bleed and to bring the feed-point impedance up
   to ~50 ohms

Ron, WV4P

On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 12:56, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <
rich...@karlquist.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/2020 4:31 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> > On 5/15/2020 8:27 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:
> >
> > ""A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> > cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.""
> >
> >
>
> Another disadvantage of a tuner at the shack end is that the match
> bandwidth for any given setting of the tuner becomes narrower.
> I have over a full wavelength of open wire line to my 160m
> vertical.  No problem with power handling, VSWR handling or loss,
> but the match bandwidth is very narrow if the OWL is badly
> mismatched.  There is a 450 ohm to 50 ohm balun/transformer at
> the tower, so I only have to match the antenna to unbalanced
> 50 ohms.  There is another transformer at the shack end.
>
> I should also point out that the charts showing "Additional loss
> due to SWR" were incorrect for decades in various ham publications
> and were only recently corrected, in case you hadn't heard.
>
> See:
>
> https://ac6la.com/swrloss.html
>
> Rick N6RK
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

[Kees Nijdam]

Such a cable has practical no attenuation on 160 meter. You can simply do all 
the tuning in the shack.

Verzonden vanuit Mail voor Windows 10

Van: Ron WV4P
Verzonden: zaterdag 16 mei 2020 23:46
Aan: Richard (Rick) Karlquist
CC: Rob Atkinson; 160
Onderwerp: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical

Thanks again for all the replies, it kind of jumped around on my end
between on and off list replies. Hopefully I have not missed any.

The Feedline will be ~300' of 7/8 CellFlex.
Legal Limit on power.
About 8000' of Radials, In theory, 64 @ 120' but rough terrain will
necessitate some flexibility.


So far from the replies I have come up with.

   - ~115' Of Rohn 25 resonate high in the band.
   - An Air Core Inductor at the base with 4 taps, switched with relays to
   make it usable across the band.
   - A Shunt Coil for static bleed and to bring the feed-point impedance up
   to ~50 ohms

Ron, WV4P

On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 12:56, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <
rich...@karlquist.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/2020 4:31 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> > On 5/15/2020 8:27 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:
> >
> > ""A more reliable approach is a tuner in your shack. The extra coax
> > cable loss from elevated VSWR is insignificant on topband.""
> >
> >
>
> Another disadvantage of a tuner at the shack end is that the match
> bandwidth for any given setting of the tuner becomes narrower.
> I have over a full wavelength of open wire line to my 160m
> vertical.  No problem with power handling, VSWR handling or loss,
> but the match bandwidth is very narrow if the OWL is badly
> mismatched.  There is a 450 ohm to 50 ohm balun/transformer at
> the tower, so I only have to match the antenna to unbalanced
> 50 ohms.  There is another transformer at the shack end.
>
> I should also point out that the charts showing "Additional loss
> due to SWR" were incorrect for decades in various ham publications
> and were only recently corrected, in case you hadn't heard.
>
> See:
>
> https://ac6la.com/swrloss.html
>
> Rick N6RK
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical Ideas?

[Wes Stewart]

On 10/27/2017 9:26 AM, Ed via Topband wrote:

Greetings!

Trying to figure out my scheme for 160m.  I currently have three crank up 
towers about 35’ apart from one another. One cranks up to 106’, the next to 70’ 
and third, to 89’.

I figured I could shunt feed one of the taller towers and call it good but I’m 
concerned about interaction amongst the towers.

Another option is to install an independent vertical about 150’ away..   This 
would minimize any interaction and would allow me to lay more/longer radials.  
I could go up about 65’ in height.

150 feet is only about 0.3 wavelengths.  There could still be interaction.


Inv L is not really an option, as I have no tall trees nearby.

You have three towers nearby.


Thoughts?  Ideas?  I welcome your feedback.
Since the dedicated vertical/L could have a better radial field I would go that 
way and run the horizontal wire/rope to one of the towers.  I have only one 
tower but that's exactly what I'm doing.


Wes  N7WS
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical Ideas?

[Ryszard Tymkiewicz]

Ed I used to have half sloper for more than 10 years and it was working 
quite well  but a few
years ago I tried shunt feed the same tower ( 21m with big yagi on the 
top) and the difference
was 1-2 S favouring shunt fed tower ( I was making tests with far DX 
stations).


  73 Rys
    SP5EWY


W dniu 2017-10-28 o 15:04, Pete Rimmel N8PR pisze:

Why not try a Half Sloper.  Your tall crank up would work well with that...

Take Coax up inside the tower and then run the braid to ground at the top of 
the tower and a 1/4 wave wire +/- off to one side at about 45 degrees.

It will make the whole system work.  You might have to cut or lengthen the 1/4 
wave wire to resonance.




Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical Ideas?
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Greetings!

Trying to figure out my scheme for 160m.  I currently have three crank up 
towers about 35? apart from one another. One cranks up to 106?, the next to 70? 
and third, to 89?.

I figured I could shunt feed one of the taller towers and call it good but I?m 
concerned about interaction amongst the towers.

Another option is to install an independent vertical about 150? away..   This 
would minimize any interaction and would allow me to lay more/longer radials.  
I could go up about 65? in height.

Inv L is not really an option, as I have no tall trees nearby.

Thoughts?  Ideas?  I welcome your feedback.

73,

Ed NI6S

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband




_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Wes Attaway (N5WA)]

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option
would be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at
the top.  You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with
2x 15' +/- drop wires.

   ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't
find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter
where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down
the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T
shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level
and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[MR TREVOR DUNNE]

Hi Wes

Thanks for the reply I can move the point of lowest SWR by moving the tap on 
the coil, I need to lower the SWR I thought using the coil across the feed 
point would do this but its not working for me??

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

- Original Message -
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List" 

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:02:55
Subject: RE: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option
would be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at
the top.  You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with
2x 15' +/- drop wires.

   ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't
find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter
where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down
the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T
shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level
and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

You need +j34 ohms in parallel with your coax coming in.
This is about 3 microhenries.  This would be around 6
turns on your coil if the turns are spaced a wire
diameter.  IOW, tap the coax 6 turns from the grounded end.
Then tap the antenna to whatever tunes to 1.83 MHz.

Rick N6RK

On 11/1/2017 9:54 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a 
low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap 
the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by 
moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Wes Stewart]

Trevor,

You haven't really provided enough information to solve your problem.  If you 
want to use a shunt coil then I suggest that you consider measuring the R-jX at 
your frequency of interest and then designing an L-network using purposeful 
shortening of the antenna to create a capacitive reactance and then shunting the 
feedpoint with an inductance.  For example, if the frequency is 1.82 MHz and R 
remained 18 ohm (it probably won't) then shortening the antenna to make the 
feedpoint 18 -j25, a shunt inductor of 3.3 uH will yield an SWR of 1.05:1


This is in effect an unbalanced version of a hairpin match on a Yagi DE.

Wes  N7WS


On 11/1/2017 9:54 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:

Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a 
low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap 
the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by 
moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Start by disconnecting the feedline.  Connect a jumper to the junction
of the vertical wire and the coil.  Now use a grid dip meter and tap
down the coil until the antenna is resonant (dip occurs) at the desired
frequency.  Now connect the feed line (shield to ground) and tap up the
coil until you find the lowest possible SWR.

If you are not satisfied with the SWR, move the top jumper 1/2 turn one
way or the other and then move the feedline tap for the lowest possible
SWR.  If the lowest SWR is higher than it was before moving the jumper,
move the jumper 1 turn the other way and again adjust the feed line tap
point.  Keep moving the "tuning" jumper 1/2 turn at a time and adjusting
the feed line tap until you are happy.

Remember, the feedline tap does not 'Tune' the antenna - that is done by
adjusting the total amount of the 'tuning' coil.  The feedline tap only
adjusts the impedance (R) seen by the feedline.

The single coil can be viewed as a two coil "L" network.  The coil from
the tap point to the vertical wire tunes the antenna to resonance (X=0)
whilst the coil from the tap point to ground (across the feed line) is
responsible for adjusting the impedance (matching to the feed line).

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 11/1/2017 12:54 PM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a 
low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap 
the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by 
moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[MR TREVOR DUNNE]

Thanks everyone for the replies, I'm new to all this so you may go easy on me, 
I don't understand this R+JX stuff so I need a dummies guide if possible,

I have the vertical section at the top of the coil and I connect the feed line 
to it where I can get the lowest SWR at 1.825mhz,

Does the amount of coil left under the tap matter I didn't know it would as 
it's going to ground,

Ideally I don't want to drop the loading wires as they are not easy to get to 
but I can if I need to,

Thanks
Trevor



- Original Message -
From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List" 

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:25:25
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

You need +j34 ohms in parallel with your coax coming in.
This is about 3 microhenries.  This would be around 6
turns on your coil if the turns are spaced a wire
diameter.  IOW, tap the coax 6 turns from the grounded end.
Then tap the antenna to whatever tunes to 1.83 MHz.

Rick N6RK

On 11/1/2017 9:54 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:
> 
> Hi All
> 
> 
> 
> I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find 
> a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I 
> tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band 
> by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,
> 
> My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
> wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in 
> line,
> 
> I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
> allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??
> 
> With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,
> 
> The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
> attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,
> 
> Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,
> 
> Thanks
> Trevor
> EI2GLB
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Ronald Gorski]

Trevol, the portion of the coil between the tap and the base of the vertical 
determines resonance and needs to be variable unless you were lucky and found 
the correct value. The shunt portion of the coil affects the feed impedance. 
This shunt portion is like the hairpin match for a yagi. You select the series 
inductance to make the antenna slightly capacitive and adjust the shunt 
inductance to raise the feed impedance.  Both these moves interact. Use a clip 
lead to vary the inductance of the series coil.
Cheers,
Ron N9AU 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR 
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
Cc: topband List
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Hi Wes

Thanks for the reply I can move the point of lowest SWR by moving the tap on 
the coil, I need to lower the SWR I thought using the coil across the feed 
point would do this but its not working for me??

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

- Original Message -
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List" 

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:02:55
Subject: RE: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option would 
be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at the top. 
 You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with 2x 15' +/- 
drop wires.

   ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR 
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a 
low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap 
the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by 
moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[JC]

Hi guys

Before anything else, don't trust MFJ269 reading, transmit with 10 w and
measure the SWR. It is very common the energy from AM broadcast stations
changes the real impedance reading on portable analyzers.

73's
N4IS
JC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ronald
Gorski
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 2:38 PM
To: MR TREVOR DUNNE ; Wes Attaway (N5WA)

Cc: topband List 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Trevol, the portion of the coil between the tap and the base of the vertical
determines resonance and needs to be variable unless you were lucky and
found the correct value. The shunt portion of the coil affects the feed
impedance. This shunt portion is like the hairpin match for a yagi. You
select the series inductance to make the antenna slightly capacitive and
adjust the shunt inductance to raise the feed impedance.  Both these moves
interact. Use a clip lead to vary the inductance of the series coil.
Cheers,
Ron N9AU 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
Cc: topband List
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Hi Wes

Thanks for the reply I can move the point of lowest SWR by moving the tap on
the coil, I need to lower the SWR I thought using the coil across the feed
point would do this but its not working for me??

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

- Original Message -
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List"

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:02:55
Subject: RE: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option
would be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at
the top.  You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with
2x 15' +/- drop wires.

   ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't
find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter
where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down
the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T
shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level
and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Bryon Paul Veal NØAH]

a drawing guys would help

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On November 1, 2017 12:28:35 PM MR TREVOR DUNNE  wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the replies, I'm new to all this so you may go easy on 
> me, I don't understand this R+JX stuff so I need a dummies guide if possible,
>
> I have the vertical section at the top of the coil and I connect the feed 
> line to it where I can get the lowest SWR at 1.825mhz,
>
> Does the amount of coil left under the tap matter I didn't know it would as 
> it's going to ground,
>
> Ideally I don't want to drop the loading wires as they are not easy to get 
> to but I can if I need to,
>
> Thanks
> Trevor
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" 
> To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List" 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:25:25
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help
>
> You need +j34 ohms in parallel with your coax coming in.
> This is about 3 microhenries.  This would be around 6
> turns on your coil if the turns are spaced a wire
> diameter.  IOW, tap the coax 6 turns from the grounded end.
> Then tap the antenna to whatever tunes to 1.83 MHz.
>
> Rick N6RK
>
> On 11/1/2017 9:54 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>>
>>
>> I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't 
>> find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter 
>> where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down 
>> the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,
>>
>> My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T 
>> shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level 
>> and in line,
>>
>> I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
>> allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??
>>
>> With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,
>>
>> The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
>> attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,
>>
>> Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,
>>
>> Thanks
>> Trevor
>> EI2GLB
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Bryon Paul Veal NØAH]

Rick,

what are the ball park figured on the coil diameter I'm guessing 5 or 
so inches across is a good place to start

Paul. N0AH

Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On November 1, 2017 11:25:42 AM "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" 
 wrote:

> You need +j34 ohms in parallel with your coax coming in.
> This is about 3 microhenries.  This would be around 6
> turns on your coil if the turns are spaced a wire
> diameter.  IOW, tap the coax 6 turns from the grounded end.
> Then tap the antenna to whatever tunes to 1.83 MHz.
>
> Rick N6RK
>
> On 11/1/2017 9:54 AM, MR TREVOR DUNNE wrote:
>>
>> Hi All
>>
>>
>>
>> I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't 
>> find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter 
>> where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down 
>> the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,
>>
>> My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T 
>> shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level 
>> and in line,
>>
>> I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
>> allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??
>>
>> With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,
>>
>> The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
>> attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,
>>
>> Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,
>>
>> Thanks
>> Trevor
>> EI2GLB
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - 
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.contesting.com%2F_topband&data=02%7C01%7CK7OX%40msn.com%7C032f93683a6241271c8808d5214d934d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636451539420438619&sdata=X6KDWuh9loRub4Ciq0nWsv1q%2BSrCmiOXAtxbHo621uk%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - 
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.contesting.com%2F_topband&data=02%7C01%7CK7OX%40msn.com%7C032f93683a6241271c8808d5214d934d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636451539420438619&sdata=X6KDWuh9loRub4Ciq0nWsv1q%2BSrCmiOXAtxbHo621uk%3D&reserved=0


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Russ Tobolic via Topband]

JC's caution is important. Check to see if you have any MF broadcast stations 
near you.  I have the MFJ259 and a 5KW AM station at 1480 Kc about 1.5 miles 
away which renders the 259 useless on 160M'
Russ, N3CO

  From: JC 
 To: 'Ronald Gorski' ; 'MR TREVOR DUNNE' 
; 'Wes Attaway (N5WA)'  
Cc: 'topband List' 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 5:30 PM
 Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help
   
Hi guys

Before anything else, don't trust MFJ269 reading, transmit with 10 w and
measure the SWR. It is very common the energy from AM broadcast stations
changes the real impedance reading on portable analyzers.

73's
N4IS
JC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ronald
Gorski
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 2:38 PM
To: MR TREVOR DUNNE ; Wes Attaway (N5WA)

Cc: topband List 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Trevol, the portion of the coil between the tap and the base of the vertical
determines resonance and needs to be variable unless you were lucky and
found the correct value. The shunt portion of the coil affects the feed
impedance. This shunt portion is like the hairpin match for a yagi. You
select the series inductance to make the antenna slightly capacitive and
adjust the shunt inductance to raise the feed impedance.  Both these moves
interact. Use a clip lead to vary the inductance of the series coil.
Cheers,
Ron N9AU 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
Cc: topband List
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Hi Wes

Thanks for the reply I can move the point of lowest SWR by moving the tap on
the coil, I need to lower the SWR I thought using the coil across the feed
point would do this but its not working for me??

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

- Original Message -
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List"

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:02:55
Subject: RE: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option
would be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at
the top.  You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with
2x 15' +/- drop wires.

  ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
  ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't
find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter
where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down
the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T
shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level
and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


   
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[MR TREVOR DUNNE]

I Don't think we even have any AM stations in the country never mind close 
enough to bother my MFJ but thanks for the info,

Trevor 
EI2GLB 
- Original Message -
From: Russ Tobolic 
To: JC , 'Ronald Gorski' , 'MR 
TREVOR DUNNE' , 'Wes Attaway (N5WA)' 

Cc: 'topband List' 
Sent: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 13:19:21 -0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

JC's caution is important. Check to see if you have any MF broadcast stations 
near you.  I have the MFJ259 and a 5KW AM station at 1480 Kc about 1.5 miles 
away which renders the 259 useless on 160M'
Russ, N3CO

  From: JC 
 To: 'Ronald Gorski' ; 'MR TREVOR DUNNE' 
; 'Wes Attaway (N5WA)'  
Cc: 'topband List' 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 5:30 PM
 Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help
   
Hi guys

Before anything else, don't trust MFJ269 reading, transmit with 10 w and
measure the SWR. It is very common the energy from AM broadcast stations
changes the real impedance reading on portable analyzers.

73's
N4IS
JC

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ronald
Gorski
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 2:38 PM
To: MR TREVOR DUNNE ; Wes Attaway (N5WA)

Cc: topband List 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Trevol, the portion of the coil between the tap and the base of the vertical
determines resonance and needs to be variable unless you were lucky and
found the correct value. The shunt portion of the coil affects the feed
impedance. This shunt portion is like the hairpin match for a yagi. You
select the series inductance to make the antenna slightly capacitive and
adjust the shunt inductance to raise the feed impedance.  Both these moves
interact. Use a clip lead to vary the inductance of the series coil.
Cheers,
Ron N9AU 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
Cc: topband List
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Hi Wes

Thanks for the reply I can move the point of lowest SWR by moving the tap on
the coil, I need to lower the SWR I thought using the coil across the feed
point would do this but its not working for me??

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

- Original Message -
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List"

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:02:55
Subject: RE: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option
would be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at
the top.  You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with
2x 15' +/- drop wires.

  ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
  ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't
find a low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter
where I tap the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down
the band by moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T
shape, wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level
and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


   
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[VK3HJ]

I also concur with JC's recommendation.

Antenna analysers are useful, but you change the circuit when you remove the 
feed line and connect the analyser. What your analyser sees is different to 
what your transmitter sees.


Luke VK3HJ

-Original Message- 
From: MR TREVOR DUNNE

Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:46 AM
To: Russ Tobolic
Cc: 'Wes Attaway (N5WA)' ; JC ; 'topband List' ; 'Ronald Gorski'
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

I Don't think we even have any AM stations in the country never mind close 
enough to bother my MFJ but thanks for the info,


Trevor
EI2GLB 


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[vk2wf]

In my experience the vertical with its top loading etc. Needs to be resonant at 
2.1 Mhz. Then a 50 ohm match will be easily achieved with just a few turns from 
the bottom. I tried it first with the vertical resonant at 2.001 Mhz then I 
found that the impedance tapping point did also influence the resonant 
frequency of the antenna.73Adrian VK2WF


Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy S7 on the Telstra Mobile Network
 Original message From: Ronald Gorski 
 Date: 2/11/17  5:37 am  (GMT+10:00) To: MR TREVOR 
DUNNE , "Wes Attaway (N5WA)"  Cc: 
topband List  Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical 
matching Help 
Trevol, the portion of the coil between the tap and the base of the vertical 
determines resonance and needs to be variable unless you were lucky and found 
the correct value. The shunt portion of the coil affects the feed impedance. 
This shunt portion is like the hairpin match for a yagi. You select the series 
inductance to make the antenna slightly capacitive and adjust the shunt 
inductance to raise the feed impedance.  Both these moves interact. Use a clip 
lead to vary the inductance of the series coil.
Cheers,
Ron N9AU 

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR 
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:12 PM
To: Wes Attaway (N5WA)
Cc: topband List
Subject: Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Hi Wes

Thanks for the reply I can move the point of lowest SWR by moving the tap on 
the coil, I need to lower the SWR I thought using the coil across the feed 
point would do this but its not working for me??

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB

- Original Message -
From: "Wes Attaway (N5WA)" 
To: "MR TREVOR DUNNE" , "topband List" 

Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 17:02:55
Subject: RE: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

Without doing any modeling, an off the top of the head idea, one option would 
be to drop a wire down from the end of each of the T wires you have at the top. 
 You might be able to move the point of lowest SWR down to 1.8 with 2x 15' +/- 
drop wires.

   ---
Wes Attaway (N5WA)
(318) 393-3289 - Shreveport, LA
Computer/Cellphone Forensics
AttawayForensics.com
   ---
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of MR TREVOR 
DUNNE
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:54 AM
To: topband List
Subject: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help


Hi All



I finally got the vertical up and running, problem I have now is I can't find a 
low SWR on the coil, the best I can get is about 2.8:1 no matter where I tap 
the coil that's the best SWR, I can move that point up and down the band by 
moving the tap but the SWR stays the same,

My current set up is about 55ft vertical I have 2 loading wires in a T shape, 
wires are 50ft either side of the vertical and the are pretty level and in line,

I have 38 radials averaging about 45-60ft long, I will add more when time 
allows but don't the make the SWR worse ??

With no coil I get resonance at 2.12mhz with R=16 X=2 on my MFJ269,

The coil is 25ft of 5mm copper brake pipe in a 4" diameter, the coil is 
attached to base of the vertical and the other end is grounded,

Any pointers on what I can do to get a better match,

Thanks
Trevor
EI2GLB
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Wes Stewart]

Well, yes, the transmitter is looking into the transmission line and then the 
antenna load, so they are different.  To be fair you need to place the analyzer 
at the input (TX) end of the line.  Now the TX and the analyzer see the same 
thing.  But this isn't a good way to match the antenna to the line, which I 
believe is the object of this exercise.


Wes  N7WS


On 11/2/2017 5:14 PM, VK3HJ wrote:

I also concur with JC's recommendation.

Antenna analysers are useful, but you change the circuit when you remove the 
feed line and connect the analyser. What your analyser sees is different to 
what your transmitter sees.


Luke VK3HJ 


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m Vertical matching Help

[Bill Cromwell]

On 11/02/2017 11:25 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:

Well, yes, the transmitter is looking into the transmission line and
then the antenna load, so they are different.  To be fair you need to
place the analyzer at the input (TX) end of the line.  Now the TX and
the analyzer see the same thing.  But this isn't a good way to match the
antenna to the line, which I believe is the object of this exercise.

Wes  N7WS


On 11/2/2017 5:14 PM, VK3HJ wrote:

I also concur with JC's recommendation.

Antenna analysers are useful, but you change the circuit when you
remove the feed line and connect the analyser. What your analyser sees
is different to what your transmitter sees.

Luke VK3HJ


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


--
bark less - wag more
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[jh-...@sbcglobal.net]

 Just bare copper wire with washers or lead fishing weights tied on the ends is 
just fine if you wish to enhance coupling between the vertical and the salt 
water, or 4 raised counterpoise wires in the air will also work extremely well. 
 The main issue is to position the vertical over the near-perfect salt water 
ground vs the terrestrial. 
I used to operate /M 160 from the Monterey (CA) commercial pier, and the salt 
water was amazing for brewster angle and enhanced RX, even with the vehicle 15' 
up over the water.  Your setup as envisioned with "Floating plate" coupling 
will be a maintenance nightmare and will last exactly ONE storm.   Use the KISS 
principle when it comes to salt-water vertical installations!
I laughed when tourists used to pull on the washer-weighted wires hanging off 
the base of my 160 Pro-Am stick thinking I was crab fishing from the pier.  
Come to think of it, I should've attached a turkey leg to that wire and made it 
dual purpose!! 
Best, John H W6UQZ      
On Wednesday, January 8, 2020, 02:30:16 PM PST, Robert Fanfant 
 wrote:  
 
 
Am looking to activate a location with very limited space surrounded by ocean. 
Think of a small rock surrounded by saltwater/ocean.  The vertical will be a 
tall 60’+ fiberglass pole and made to resonate on 160m. I would like a way to 
reduce the required space of the 160m antenna radial field due to the limited 
physical space available. The vertical will be located at the waters edge, or 
even possibly over the oceans surface. At the feed point, will be a choke 
designed for 160m. We should also assume maximum power of 1.5KW being fed into 
the vertical and the activation will be for a 2 week duration of time.

One idea that came up is to use a floating piece of conductive material as the 
verticals counterpoise. Specifically,  a thin conductive plate designed to 
float on the oceans surface. From the antenna’s feed point, will be a short 
length of  ground wire say about 6’ long,  to this conductive plate.

Question(s):

  1.  Is it possible to just use the ocean as the ground plane / counterpoise ? 
That is, can this idea work?
  2.  If so,
    *  How do I determine the required square footage/size of the plate?
    *  What material should be used as the conductive plate? (Nickel, copper, 
aluminum, etc..? )The thought here is to make this plate as light as possible, 
yet effective. It  will need to last the duration of the activation (~2 weeks) 
in/on saltwater, it needs to handle 1.5KW at the feed point, and likely exposed 
to air and saltwater as it floats on the ocean surface.

-rob N7QT



Sent from Mail for Windows 10

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[Stan Stockton]

How big is the land area?

Stan, ZF9CW

> On Jan 8, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Robert Fanfant  wrote:
> 
> 
> Am looking to activate a location with very limited space surrounded by 
> ocean. Think of a small rock surrounded by saltwater/ocean.  The vertical 
> will be a tall 60’+ fiberglass pole and made to resonate on 160m. I would 
> like a way to reduce the required space of the 160m antenna radial field due 
> to the limited physical space available. The vertical will be located at the 
> waters edge, or even possibly over the oceans surface. At the feed point, 
> will be a choke designed for 160m. We should also assume maximum power of 
> 1.5KW being fed into the vertical and the activation will be for a 2 week 
> duration of time.
> 
> One idea that came up is to use a floating piece of conductive material as 
> the verticals counterpoise. Specifically,   a thin conductive plate designed 
> to float on the oceans surface. From the antenna’s feed point, will be a 
> short length of  ground wire say about 6’ long,  to this conductive plate.
> 
> Question(s):
> 
>  1.  Is it possible to just use the ocean as the ground plane / counterpoise 
> ? That is, can this idea work?
>  2.  If so,
> *   How do I determine the required square footage/size of the plate?
> *   What material should be used as the conductive plate? (Nickel, 
> copper, aluminum, etc..? )The thought here is to make this plate as light as 
> possible, yet effective. It  will need to last the duration of the activation 
> (~2 weeks) in/on saltwater, it needs to handle 1.5KW at the feed point, and 
> likely exposed to air and saltwater as it floats on the ocean surface.
> 
> -rob N7QT
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[Gary K9GS]

I'm thinking Scarborough Reef?73,Gary K9GS
 Original message From: Stan Stockton  Date: 
1/8/20  6:25 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Fanfant  Cc: 
topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding 
How big is the land area?Stan, ZF9CW> On Jan 8, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Robert 
Fanfant  wrote:> > > Am looking to activate a location 
with very limited space surrounded by ocean. Think of a small rock surrounded 
by saltwater/ocean.  The vertical will be a tall 60’+ fiberglass pole and made 
to resonate on 160m. I would like a way to reduce the required space of the 
160m antenna radial field due to the limited physical space available. The 
vertical will be located at the waters edge, or even possibly over the oceans 
surface. At the feed point, will be a choke designed for 160m. We should also 
assume maximum power of 1.5KW being fed into the vertical and the activation 
will be for a 2 week duration of time.> > One idea that came up is to use a 
floating piece of conductive material as the verticals counterpoise. 
Specifically,   a thin conductive plate designed to float on the oceans 
surface. From the antenna’s feed point, will be a short length of  ground wire 
say about 6’ long,  to this conductive plate.> > Question(s):> >  1.  Is it 
possible to just use the ocean as the ground plane / counterpoise ? That is, 
can this idea work?>  2.  If so,> *   How do I determine the required 
square footage/size of the plate?> *   What material should be used as the 
conductive plate? (Nickel, copper, aluminum, etc..? )The thought here is to 
make this plate as light as possible, yet effective. It  will need to last the 
duration of the activation (~2 weeks) in/on saltwater, it needs to handle 1.5KW 
at the feed point, and likely exposed to air and saltwater as it floats on the 
ocean surface.> > -rob N7QT> > > > Sent from 
Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10> > 
_> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - 
Topband Reflector_Searchable Archives: 
http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

A very effective device called *Dynaplate* works very well as a saltwater
grounding system for boats or limited areas to run full-sized radials.  You
can get one for $100 from the link below.
https://www.jamestowndistributors.com/userportal/show_product.do?pid=13331

Herb, KV4FZ

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:30 PM Robert Fanfant  wrote:

>
> Am looking to activate a location with very limited space surrounded by
> ocean. Think of a small rock surrounded by saltwater/ocean.  The vertical
> will be a tall 60’+ fiberglass pole and made to resonate on 160m. I would
> like a way to reduce the required space of the 160m antenna radial field
> due to the limited physical space available. The vertical will be located
> at the waters edge, or even possibly over the oceans surface. At the feed
> point, will be a choke designed for 160m. We should also assume maximum
> power of 1.5KW being fed into the vertical and the activation will be for a
> 2 week duration of time.
>
> One idea that came up is to use a floating piece of conductive material as
> the verticals counterpoise. Specifically,   a thin conductive plate
> designed to float on the oceans surface. From the antenna’s feed point,
> will be a short length of  ground wire say about 6’ long,  to this
> conductive plate.
>
> Question(s):
>
>   1.  Is it possible to just use the ocean as the ground plane /
> counterpoise ? That is, can this idea work?
>   2.  If so,
>  *   How do I determine the required square footage/size of the plate?
>  *   What material should be used as the conductive plate? (Nickel,
> copper, aluminum, etc..? )The thought here is to make this plate as light
> as possible, yet effective. It  will need to last the duration of the
> activation (~2 weeks) in/on saltwater, it needs to handle 1.5KW at the feed
> point, and likely exposed to air and saltwater as it floats on the ocean
> surface.
>
> -rob N7QT
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail for
> Windows 10
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[Rob Atkinson]

Interesting information here:

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Antenna%20Book%20Supplemental%20Files/22nd%20Edition/Seawater%20Grounds%20-%20by%20N6LF.pdf

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[GEORGE WALLNER]

Robert,
You only have to "connect" to the salt-water. Don't worry about radials or 
field of radials. From you coax shield, or whatever GND (common) you have, 
run as many wires as you can into the water. They do not have to be long: 
you just want about 6' of wire in the water (even at low tide). (RF does not 
go far in salt water. You need to have the wires in the water to make them 
(capacitively) couple to the water. You need many wires to get a low 
impedance connection.) Of course, if you can tie to a large metal object 
that is in the water, you will need only two or three wires in parallel.
I normally use #14 THHN with rocks (or other weights) tied to the ends. Four 
wires will do OK, but 6 - 8 would be better.

Look at this: http://pt0s.com/index.php?page=photo&shot=antenna_wave

GL and 73,
George
AA7JV


On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:30:05 +
 Robert Fanfant  wrote:


Am looking to activate a location with very limited space surrounded by ocean. 
Think of a small rock surrounded by saltwater/ocean.  The vertical will be a 
tall 60’+ fiberglass pole and made to resonate on 160m. I would like a way to 
reduce the required space of the 160m antenna radial field due to the limited 
physical space available. The vertical will be located at the waters edge, or 
even possibly over the oceans surface. At the feed point, will be a choke 
designed for 160m. We should also assume maximum power of 1.5KW being fed into 
the vertical and the activation will be for a 2 week duration of time.

One idea that came up is to use a floating piece of conductive material as the verticals counterpoise. Specifically,   a thin conductive plate designed to float on the oceans surface. From the antenna’s feed point, will be a short length of  ground wire say about 6’ long, 
to this conductive plate.


Question(s):

 1.  Is it possible to just use the ocean as the ground plane / counterpoise ? 
That is, can this idea work?
 2.  If so,
*   How do I determine the required square footage/size of the plate?
*   What material should be used as the conductive plate? (Nickel, copper, 
aluminum, etc..? )The thought here is to make this plate as light as possible, 
yet effective. It  will need to last the duration of the activation (~2 weeks) 
in/on saltwater, it needs to handle 1.5KW at the feed point, and likely exposed 
to air and saltwater as it floats on the ocean surface.

-rob N7QT


Sent from Mail for Windows 10

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[Ignacy Misztal]

 I operated on a pier over salt water on 160m in 3 locations. Once with
baloon for an inv L. KW with short antenna creates special problems. See my
message yesterday.

Short radials will have extremely high voltage at a KW level. Small metal
plate on salt water may have water sizzling or would introduce losses.

I would try to have 1-4 elevated radials as long as possible. 15 to 50 ft.
Then the transformer needs to be wound with teflon wire to prevent sparcing
and heating due to high voltages.

Ignacy, NO9E
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[GEORGE WALLNER]

Rob,
This is a good reference. Only one comment: I found recently on C6AGU that 
on 160 m the 2 -3 foot tidal change cause only a small change in the SWR of 
a tuned inverted L with its metal base standing in salt-water. I tuned the 
antenna to resonance with an SWR of 1.2 at mid-tide. Between low and high 
tides the SWR remained below 1.6. (Including losses in 300' of LMR-400 
coax.)

73,
George,
AA7JV/C6AGU


On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 06:40:27 -0600
 Rob Atkinson  wrote:

Interesting information here:

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Antenna%20Book%20Supplemental%20Files/22nd%20Edition/Seawater%20Grounds%20-%20by%20N6LF.pdf

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical saltwater grounding

[Grant Saviers]

Rob,

I considered this for my MM SSB.  It doesn't work.  Several published 
tests prove that.  Ok as an AC/DC ground.


Grant

On 1/9/2020 01:18, Herbert Schoenbohm wrote:

A very effective device called *Dynaplate* works very well as a saltwater
grounding system for boats or limited areas to run full-sized radials.  You
can get one for $100 from the link below.
https://www.jamestowndistributors.com/userportal/show_product.do?pid=13331

Herb, KV4FZ

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:30 PM Robert Fanfant  wrote:



Am looking to activate a location with very limited space surrounded by
ocean. Think of a small rock surrounded by saltwater/ocean.  The vertical
will be a tall 60???+ fiberglass pole and made to resonate on 160m. I would
like a way to reduce the required space of the 160m antenna radial field
due to the limited physical space available. The vertical will be located
at the waters edge, or even possibly over the oceans surface. At the feed
point, will be a choke designed for 160m. We should also assume maximum
power of 1.5KW being fed into the vertical and the activation will be for a
2 week duration of time.

One idea that came up is to use a floating piece of conductive material as
the verticals counterpoise. Specifically,   a thin conductive plate
designed to float on the oceans surface. From the antenna???s feed point,
will be a short length of  ground wire say about 6??? long,  to this
conductive plate.

Question(s):

   1.  Is it possible to just use the ocean as the ground plane /
counterpoise ? That is, can this idea work?
   2.  If so,
  *   How do I determine the required square footage/size of the plate?
  *   What material should be used as the conductive plate? (Nickel,
copper, aluminum, etc..? )The thought here is to make this plate as light
as possible, yet effective. It  will need to last the duration of the
activation (~2 weeks) in/on saltwater, it needs to handle 1.5KW at the feed
point, and likely exposed to air and saltwater as it floats on the ocean
surface.

-rob N7QT



Sent from Mail for
Windows 10

_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[Lars Harlin]

Hi Rag!

Have you thought about the possibility to use linear loading? That could be 
a good alternative when you cant put the loading on top...

73 de Lars, SM3BDZ


- Original Message - 
From: "Stein Roar Brobakken" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:11 PM
Subject: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"


> Hi
>
> We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m
>
> We been studying different top loading configurations, but we can't have 
> the
> wires stringed from the top because it will break the spiderbeam ;)
>

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[Lup Schlueter]

Ho

i guess you are talking about a spider pole not a beam?
Look what is done in your country with poles:

http://www.comrod.com/getfile.php/Utvikling/AT101D_S%2023042009.pdf

If the hat wires are to long, you end up with a kind of windom with 
"glassfever feedsystem.
Best you modell itbefore errecting.;-)

55/Lup DJ7SW

Am 20.04.2011 17:11, schrieb Stein Roar Brobakken:
> Hi
>
> We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m
>
> We been studying different top loading configurations, but we can't have the
> wires stringed from the top because it will break the spiderbeam ;)
>
> So our plan was to take this 18m and have it high in a tree.. maybe have
> totally 24 m or more vertical part feed via a loading coil or similar
> network in the bottom 2 m above ground.
>
> 2nd plan was to have 2-3 wires out of the spiderbeam on level from 6 to 10 m
> from bottom of the spiderbeam..
> There is then left about 12m to 8m of the vertical wire from this loading
> wires VS the vertical remaining part of vertical wire..
>
> After I my readings about vertical top loading the loading wires cannot be
> longer then the vertical part ?
>
> In my opion is that the loading wires can't be placed too far down to the
> vertical element, as I remember they have to be high as possible to "act" as
> capacitive loading on the element...
> Some guy wrote that the loading wires can be 1/8 wl maximum from the "end "
> of the vertical element... but since we  use this spiderbeam and it is not a
> fully 1/4 wavelength on 160m...
> Is it ok that we are mouting the loading wires 8m from the end of the
> vertical part ( 10m from bottom of the spiderbeam) and 2-3 x 11 meter of
> loading wires ? or should this loading wires be 7 m.. so they aren't longer
> than the remaining vertical element ?
>
> I think we should shorten them so they are shorter then vertical element and
> maybe have 3-4 of them... so we can have max vertical radiation..
>
>
> 73 LA6FJA Rag
>
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[Jan Erik Holm]

Well base loading should be better then linear loading, lower
losses. However the base loading LC network has to have low Q
or at least "decent" Q.

Once I had my 160 vertical linear loaded, it was a 90 foot
radiator. I did measure the difference between linear loading
and base LC network loading. Did measure the ground wave
field strength about 400m (1300ft) away. I could clearly
measure 0.5 dB less field strength with the linear loading.
Since I don´t like to give away even half a dB I replaced
the linear loading with base loading.

These days I use a 95 ft top loaded vertical and yes it "seems"
to be "slightly" better then the 90 ft base loaded however
this is just a feeling and I have no measurements to back it
up with. But as long as my brain thinks it is better it is
fine for me.

Bottom line: I will never use linear loading again !!

73 Jim SM2EKM
-
On 2011-04-21 04:42, Lars Harlin wrote:
> Hi Rag!
>
> Have you thought about the possibility to use linear loading? That could be
> a good alternative when you cant put the loading on top...
>
> 73 de Lars, SM3BDZ
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stein Roar Brobakken"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:11 PM
> Subject: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m
>>
>> We been studying different top loading configurations, but we can't have
>> the
>> wires stringed from the top because it will break the spiderbeam ;)
>>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[Allan Greening]

I usea top loaded 90 ft vertical with 4 off 36ft top load wires at 45
degrees which also be come the 4 guy wires to support the top.. Other guy
are at 40 es 60 ft levels.. I have 60 x 1/4 wave gnd radials, es use a multi
tap toroid transformer set at approx 18 ohm point..
In 10 months have wked 103 es 82 comfirmed DXcc es 35 WAZ wked es 33
comfirmed
Verticals "only" work gud with a gud gnd system,,
I have just improved my RX with a "Hi-Z"  Triangle phased rx ant..
Cu on TB..
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[k3bu]

On the subject of resonant loaded radiator - element please see my article at

http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm

it took me some 40 years to realize wasaaap with loaded elements - current 
distribution and efficiency.
We had a duel on the subject between K3BU, W9UCW, W5DXP in one corner and W8JI 
and W7EL in another. W8JI still insists he is right.
Measurements and experience confirm "our" argument and as result of the 
exchange, W7EL updated the EZNEC to allow real life coil with turns to be 
modeled, similar to linear hair pin loading.

It boils down to distribution of the current along the standing wave element 
and efficiency is roughly proportional the area under the current curve. 
Realizing that, it makes it plain to visualize the efficiency and performance 
of the loaded antenna element. The trick is to make the high current portion as 
long (area as large) as possible. 3/8 wave loaded elements, are the best - 
large area and higher base impedance, close to 50 ohms.

Linear loading is less efficient than coil, base loading worst, top loading is 
the best, loading coil about 2/3 up is a good compromise especially for mobile 
antennas. 

ON4UN had it right in earlier edition of his book, then W8JI convinced" him to 
change to his "truth". Many found out with their own lying eyes what truly 
works better.

Happy Easter Egg to all!

Yuri  K3BU.us
www.MVmanor.com  home of Glen Spey RadioFest


> > These days I use a 95 ft top loaded vertical and yes it "seems"
> to be "slightly" better then the 90 ft base loaded however
> this is just a feeling and I have no measurements to back it
> up with. But as long as my brain thinks it is better it is
> fine for me.
> 
> Bottom line: I will never use linear loading again !!
> 
> 73 Jim SM2EKM
> -
> On 2011-04-21 04:42, Lars Harlin wrote:
> > Hi Rag!
> >
> > Have you thought about the possibility to use linear loading? 
> That could be
> > a good alternative when you cant put the loading on top...
> >
> > 73 de Lars, SM3BDZ
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Stein Roar Brobakken"
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:11 PM
> > Subject: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"
> >
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m
> >>
> >> We been studying different top loading configurations, but we 
> can't have
> >> the
> >> wires stringed from the top because it will break the 
> spiderbeam ;)
> >>
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> 
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[GeorgeWallner]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:05:24 + (GMT)
  k...@optimum.net wrote:
> On the subject of resonant loaded radiator - element 
>please see my article at
> http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm
> it took me some 40 years to realize wasaaap with loaded 
>elements - current distribution and efficiency.

Yuri,

Regarding the current in a loading coil, of course you are 
correct. A inductor inserted into a vertical will have 
higher voltage (ref to GND) on its "upper" end. If the 
current remainded the same as on at "lower" end, there 
would be more power on the "upper" end. Not likely.

Another way to look at this is that the inductor is part 
of a Pi network, the two capacitors being the two halfs of 
the antenna. At the top is the higher impedance port, 
where, for the same power (discounting losses), the 
voltage is higher and, by definition, the current is 
lower.

Any one of us who has ever touched the top portion of a 
center loaded mobile whip during transmit can attest to 
that higher voltage!

TKS for the excellent paper,

73,

George, AA7JV

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

I tried to read this article, but it had equal parts of truth
and fiction.  (The fictional parts were duly noted, but it is
still confusing).  It would be a lot more readable if you just stated
what is now known to be true.  The two ammeter photo is shocking.
I never would have thought that was happening.  I still don't
understand the theory of where the current goes, but I can't
argue with the photo.  Come to think of it, in a Tesla coil,
the current at the top is also not the same as the current at
the bottom.  The comments about loading coil Q not
being critical are also surprising.  I have always used top
loading wires, so I guess I don't have to change anything
based on this corrected information.

Rick N6RK

On 4/23/2011 9:05 AM, k...@optimum.net wrote:
> On the subject of resonant loaded radiator - element please see my article at
>
> http://www.k3bu.us/loadingcoils.htm
>
> it took me some 40 years to realize wasaaap with loaded elements - current 
> distribution and efficiency.
> We had a duel on the subject between K3BU, W9UCW, W5DXP in one corner and 
> W8JI and W7EL in another. W8JI still insists he is right.
> Measurements and experience confirm "our" argument and as result of the 
> exchange, W7EL updated the EZNEC to allow real life coil with turns to be 
> modeled, similar to linear hair pin loading.
>
> It boils down to distribution of the current along the standing wave element 
> and efficiency is roughly proportional the area under the current curve. 
> Realizing that, it makes it plain to visualize the efficiency and performance 
> of the loaded antenna element. The trick is to make the high current portion 
> as long (area as large) as possible. 3/8 wave loaded elements, are the best - 
> large area and higher base impedance, close to 50 ohms.
>
> Linear loading is less efficient than coil, base loading worst, top loading 
> is the best, loading coil about 2/3 up is a good compromise especially for 
> mobile antennas.
>
> ON4UN had it right in earlier edition of his book, then W8JI convinced" him 
> to change to his "truth". Many found out with their own lying eyes what truly 
> works better.
>
> Happy Easter Egg to all!
>
> Yuri  K3BU.us
> www.MVmanor.com  home of Glen Spey RadioFest
>
>
>> >  These days I use a 95 ft top loaded vertical and yes it "seems"
>> to be "slightly" better then the 90 ft base loaded however
>> this is just a feeling and I have no measurements to back it
>> up with. But as long as my brain thinks it is better it is
>> fine for me.
>>
>> Bottom line: I will never use linear loading again !!
>>
>> 73 Jim SM2EKM
>> -
>> On 2011-04-21 04:42, Lars Harlin wrote:
>>> Hi Rag!
>>>
>>> Have you thought about the possibility to use linear loading?
>> That could be
>>> a good alternative when you cant put the loading on top...
>>>
>>> 73 de Lars, SM3BDZ
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Stein Roar Brobakken"
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:11 PM
>>> Subject: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"
>>>
>>>
 Hi

 We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m

 We been studying different top loading configurations, but we
>> can't have
 the
 wires stringed from the top because it will break the
>> spiderbeam ;)

>> ___
>> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>>
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[DF3KV]

Beside all that is correct higher efficient mobile antennes on the low bands
are those with base loading by high Q coils.

73
Peter

-Original Message-
From: topband-boun...@contesting.com [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of k...@optimum.net

Linear loading is less efficient than coil, base loading worst, top loading
is the best, loading coil about 2/3 up is a good compromise especially for
mobile antennas. 


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[Mike Waters]

>
> Linear loading is less efficient than coil, base loading worst, top loading
> is the best,...
>

This is absolutely true, and thoroughly proven and documented. Unless one's
circumstances are very unusual, nothing except top loading should even be
considered.

73 Mike
www.w0btu.com
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

[k3bu]

Not sure what you mean by fictional parts...

I thought that I explained the "problem" with some historical development in my 
article.

The main difference in understanding the efficiency of "loaded" antenna is that 
we are not dealing with DC currents and voltages (W8JI argument) but RF 
currents and voltages on a STANDING WAVE antenna/element/radiator.

Difference between the standing wave and travelling wave antenna has to be 
remembered.

Standing wave, typical 1/4 wave radiator, has the RF going from the base to the 
tip of the antenna where it sees the end - high (almost infinite) impedance, it 
is reflected back and superimposes with forward wave. This is what we see in 
modeling - maximum current at the base, diminishing in cosinusoidal curve 
towards the tip. The voltage is just the opposite.
Voltage and current are real (standing wave), they can be measured, they burn 
coils, they blow the insulation. If we use say 3/8 or 1/2 wave electrical 
length radiator current distribution is "extended" by the rest of cosine curve 
going the "other way". Impedance increases, current decrease, voltage increase. 
Smarter engineers before us figured out that current in the radiator and it's 
magnitude is important for the efficiency.

The next important item to remember is that the efficiency of the 
antenna/radiator is roughly proportional to the area under the current curve. 
So we strive to have that portion of the radiator as large as possible. If you 
have to "load" it, it is better to do it closer to the tip, where the current 
is diminishing.

Then impedance is lowest at the base, highest at the tip of the 90 electrical 
degree - 1/4 wave radiator. Now if want shorten, "load" the radiator by say 30 
degrees (down to 2/3 length) we can insert the inductance (coil, hairpin) and 
"eat" the part of the current curve. 

Inserted at the base, we "eat" 1/3 of the fattest part, at the center less fat, 
at 2/3 up is the best compromise between the amount of current "eaten" up and 
size of the coil. We will notice that as the impedance goes up from the base to 
the tip, inserted coil has to increase in impedance - number of turns required.

This is the simplification for understanding the "problem", and as W9UCW 
demonstrated with his RF ammeters, current at the input of the coil is larger 
than at the output. Just as you would have if you would stretch the coil into 
straight wire. The difference is that turns of coil have the RF current "going 
in circles" in smaller space and not participating fully in radiating. That is 
demonstrated in my article diagrams showing that tip of the antenna is getting 
less current from the top of the coil than the bottom of the coil is.

Modeling shows slight increase in the base current in loaded antennas, I think 
this is due to the resistance (Q) of the system (wire and inductance) causing 
reflected wave to have lesser amplitude when superimposing with forward wave. 
This would perhaps explain W9UCW finding that Q of the coils is not that 
significant. 

If we have travelling wave antenna, like properly terminated Beverage, that has 
constant impedance and current along its length, inserted coil would have the 
same current magnitude at both ends. Or coil inserted in the middle of the half 
wave radiator (dipole) would have the same current at both ends but "eating" 
the most of current curve area (Beta match).

Understanding current distribution in the antenna and along it's loading 
elements tells us about the efficiency of the system. The smaller amount of 
area under the current curve "eaten" by the loading element, the more efficient 
antenna.

W5DXP web page has the results of 80m mobile antenna shootouts - measurement 
tests, showing that the best is top hat loading, then loading coil 2/3 up, 
screwdrivers, helicals and base loaded are the worst. My best 160m mobile was 
Hustler with 80m coil and wire going from the top of the coil to the front 
bumper mast on 72 Buick LeSabre.

Hope this helps understanding wasaaap with loaded antennas, current 
distribution and means of loading.
Oh, and there is some radiating going on, every cycle RF goes up and down.
Mo high current curve area, mo dBs at the other end.

73 Yuri K3BU.us


> I tried to read this article, but it had equal parts of truth> and 
> fiction. (The fictional parts were duly noted, but it is
> still confusing). It would be a lot more readable if you just stated
> what is now known to be true. The two ammeter photo is shocking.
> I never would have thought that was happening. I still don't
> understand the theory of where the current goes, but I can't
> argue with the photo. Come to think of it, in a Tesla coil,
> the current at the top is also not the same as the current at
> the bottom. The comments about loading coil Q not
> being critical are also surprising. I have always used top
> loading wires, so I guess I don't have to change anything
> based on this corrected information.
> 
> Rick N6RK
> 
__