Re: Topband: Inverted L height vs. length.
Hi & Thanks Yuri. That's good info to know. I had wondered about that actually... I may be able to get the hz portion over to a far away tree, just slightly lower than the 35' peak of the first tree, instead of sloping it back to earth. I am limited in what I can do, hi ! Appreciate the input. Mike VE9AA Yuri Blanarovich wrote: > Hi Mike, > > from your description, I think you would be best off not to fold back > the top wire, but try to "go away" horizontally as much as possible. > Folding back in "U" manner makes the current/radiation from the top half > cancel portion from the fed portion. > > If you want to enhance vertical polarization and lower angles, try to > use "T" loading, that cancels most of the high angle horizontal > radiation. > > You might be more efficient to use loading coil (and make it work on 80m > as a trap) at the top and shorten the loading end of wire. > > I have great results with my Inverted Vee in a Tree, top at abt 40 ft, > with ends drooping down and going horizontal at about 10 ft. I have high > water table. I am surprised how well it works, suspect that ends are > acting as "radials" to the sloppy top fed vertical, no stinkin baluns, > perfect 1:1 50 ohm match. > > 73 Yuri, VE3BMV, K3BU.us > > > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 01:39 PM, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA wrote: > > > de VE9AA > > > > > > I know inverted L's have been hashed out quite a few times on this > > list, and > > I have gleaned some knowledge. At my previous QTH I had a 5/16th WL > > one > > which seemed to work tons better than my current one, even though I > > was not > > up over 40' high. > > > > > > As it happens, on my current property I don't have any towers, nor > > tall > > trees so I have a general question. > > > > > > As far as a 127' inverted L goes, do I have anything to gain by > > sloping the > > "vertical" portion of the wire slightly up to a short treetop, vs. > > going > > nearly vertical, then the rest horizontal? > > > > > > Example: > > > > I have a 35-40' tree nearish to where my coax exits the ground from an > > underground run. I slope it "up" so essentially I have likely close > > to 50' > > of "vertical" then the remainder meanders through some shorter > > treetops and > > comes back to ground rather quickly (unfortunately it's more an > > inverted U > > than L). I have a few thousand feet of radials mostly in the southern > > portion of the field under the "horizontal section". A 800pf Cap is > > at the > > base and my SWR is around 50-60Kcs at the 2.1:1 pts. I seem to do > > quite > > well into w1,2,3,4,8 and at times western EU/Carib. Anything outside > > that > > sucks. That tells me I probably have gobs of high angle radiation. > > > > > > Have I anything to gain by putting the coax directly under the tree, > > going > > perfectly vertical for 37-ish feet, then, sadly, pretty much "down to > > the > > ground" for the "horizontal" section same as the original? > > > > > > (hope this ascii art works) > > > > > > Ie: This is what I am doing now (wire is around 65*-70* vertical or > > so_) > > > >___ > > > > /\ > > > > /\ > > > > / \ > > > > > > > > but I wonder of this is any better > > > > > > __ _ > > |\ > > > > | \ > > > > |\ > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, I could go farther away from the tree and try to get 80-90' of > > sloping wire (likely closer to 45*) and then have the remainder droop > > itself > > back to Earth. > > > > > >_ _ _ _ > >/ \ > > > > / \ > > / \ > > > > / > > > > > > Anyone have a skyhook for sale? > > > > > > > > Thanks for any insight. > > > > > > Mike VE9AA FN66na @ 660' ASL.rocky ridgetop. > > > > > > Mike, Coreen & Corey > > > > Keswick Ridge, NB > > > > > > _ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Inverted L height vs. length.
Hi Mike, from your description, I think you would be best off not to fold back the top wire, but try to "go away" horizontally as much as possible. Folding back in "U" manner makes the current/radiation from the top half cancel portion from the fed portion. If you want to enhance vertical polarization and lower angles, try to use "T" loading, that cancels most of the high angle horizontal radiation. You might be more efficient to use loading coil (and make it work on 80m as a trap) at the top and shorten the loading end of wire. I have great results with my Inverted Vee in a Tree, top at abt 40 ft, with ends drooping down and going horizontal at about 10 ft. I have high water table. I am surprised how well it works, suspect that ends are acting as "radials" to the sloppy top fed vertical, no stinkin baluns, perfect 1:1 50 ohm match. 73 Yuri, VE3BMV, K3BU.us On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 01:39 PM, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA wrote: > de VE9AA I know inverted L's have been hashed out quite a few times on this list, and I have gleaned some knowledge. At my previous QTH I had a 5/16th WL one which seemed to work tons better than my current one, even though I was not up over 40' high. As it happens, on my current property I don't have any towers, nor tall trees so I have a general question. As far as a 127' inverted L goes, do I have anything to gain by sloping the "vertical" portion of the wire slightly up to a short treetop, vs. going nearly vertical, then the rest horizontal? Example: I have a 35-40' tree nearish to where my coax exits the ground from an underground run. I slope it "up" so essentially I have likely close to 50' of "vertical" then the remainder meanders through some shorter treetops and comes back to ground rather quickly (unfortunately it's more an inverted U than L). I have a few thousand feet of radials mostly in the southern portion of the field under the "horizontal section". A 800pf Cap is at the base and my SWR is around 50-60Kcs at the 2.1:1 pts. I seem to do quite well into w1,2,3,4,8 and at times western EU/Carib. Anything outside that sucks. That tells me I probably have gobs of high angle radiation. Have I anything to gain by putting the coax directly under the tree, going perfectly vertical for 37-ish feet, then, sadly, pretty much "down to the ground" for the "horizontal" section same as the original? (hope this ascii art works) Ie: This is what I am doing now (wire is around 65*-70* vertical or so_) ___ /\ /\ / \ but I wonder of this is any better __ _ |\ | \ |\ Lastly, I could go farther away from the tree and try to get 80-90' of sloping wire (likely closer to 45*) and then have the remainder droop itself back to Earth. _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / Anyone have a skyhook for sale? Thanks for any insight. Mike VE9AA FN66na @ 660' ASL.rocky ridgetop. Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Inverted L height vs. length.
I can speculate that your mail box would be overflowing and you could retire comfortably especially if you had a 160m station that worked. Sri Tom, I couldn't resist having some fun. Doug -Original Message- 24 hours and even not one comment? Maybe I really should've said I was renting the station out for hire to offshore stns only, to be used to work rare countries, during contests for DXCC credits to put them at the top of the honor roll... VE9AA Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Inverted L height vs. length.
I have used one inverted L and the horses wiped it out a few years ago. I had about 70 ft of vertical and the rest horizontal. I am not sure how much interaction the tree will have if you run the wire next to it. The end sloping down will affect the match if my memory serves. If that is what you can do, what other choices are there? I would say that top loaded vertical might be a better option as they both require radials right? Mike W0MU On 3/1/2015 12:19 PM, Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA wrote: 24 hours and even not one comment? What if I had a BOG for RX, buried, uninsulated radials and had worked K1N with it during my move into a Brave New World? Maybe I really should've said I was renting the station out for hire to offshore stns only, to be used to work rare countries, during contests for DXCC credits to put them at the top of the honor roll... ;-) Sorry for asking a pretty reasonable non-emotionally charged question (how foolish of me) Mike, An Inverted L challenged guy in the snowbelt of NB VE9AA Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB From: Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA [mailto:ve...@nbnet.nb.ca] Sent: February 28, 2015 2:40 PM To: 'topband@contesting.com' Subject: Inverted L height vs. length. de VE9AA I know inverted L's have been hashed out quite a few times on this list, and I have gleaned some knowledge. At my previous QTH I had a 5/16th WL one which seemed to work tons better than my current one, even though I was not up over 40' high. As it happens, on my current property I don't have any towers, nor tall trees so I have a general question. As far as a 127' inverted L goes, do I have anything to gain by sloping the "vertical" portion of the wire slightly up to a short treetop, vs. going nearly vertical, then the rest horizontal? Example: I have a 35-40' tree nearish to where my coax exits the ground from an underground run. I slope it "up" so essentially I have likely close to 50' of "vertical" then the remainder meanders through some shorter treetops and comes back to ground rather quickly (unfortunately it's more an inverted U than L). I have a few thousand feet of radials mostly in the southern portion of the field under the "horizontal section". A 800pf Cap is at the base and my SWR is around 50-60Kcs at the 2.1:1 pts. I seem to do quite well into w1,2,3,4,8 and at times western EU/Carib. Anything outside that sucks. That tells me I probably have gobs of high angle radiation. Have I anything to gain by putting the coax directly under the tree, going perfectly vertical for 37-ish feet, then, sadly, pretty much "down to the ground" for the "horizontal" section same as the original? (hope this ascii art works) Ie: This is what I am doing now (wire is around 65*-70* vertical or so_) ___ /\ /\ / \ but I wonder of this is any better __ _ |\ | \ |\ Lastly, I could go farther away from the tree and try to get 80-90' of sloping wire (likely closer to 45*) and then have the remainder droop itself back to Earth. _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / Anyone have a skyhook for sale? Thanks for any insight. Mike VE9AA FN66na @ 660' ASL.rocky ridgetop. Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Re: Topband: Inverted L height vs. length.
24 hours and even not one comment? What if I had a BOG for RX, buried, uninsulated radials and had worked K1N with it during my move into a Brave New World? Maybe I really should've said I was renting the station out for hire to offshore stns only, to be used to work rare countries, during contests for DXCC credits to put them at the top of the honor roll... ;-) Sorry for asking a pretty reasonable non-emotionally charged question (how foolish of me) Mike, An Inverted L challenged guy in the snowbelt of NB VE9AA Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB From: Mike & Coreen Smith VE9AA [mailto:ve...@nbnet.nb.ca] Sent: February 28, 2015 2:40 PM To: 'topband@contesting.com' Subject: Inverted L height vs. length. de VE9AA I know inverted L's have been hashed out quite a few times on this list, and I have gleaned some knowledge. At my previous QTH I had a 5/16th WL one which seemed to work tons better than my current one, even though I was not up over 40' high. As it happens, on my current property I don't have any towers, nor tall trees so I have a general question. As far as a 127' inverted L goes, do I have anything to gain by sloping the "vertical" portion of the wire slightly up to a short treetop, vs. going nearly vertical, then the rest horizontal? Example: I have a 35-40' tree nearish to where my coax exits the ground from an underground run. I slope it "up" so essentially I have likely close to 50' of "vertical" then the remainder meanders through some shorter treetops and comes back to ground rather quickly (unfortunately it's more an inverted U than L). I have a few thousand feet of radials mostly in the southern portion of the field under the "horizontal section". A 800pf Cap is at the base and my SWR is around 50-60Kcs at the 2.1:1 pts. I seem to do quite well into w1,2,3,4,8 and at times western EU/Carib. Anything outside that sucks. That tells me I probably have gobs of high angle radiation. Have I anything to gain by putting the coax directly under the tree, going perfectly vertical for 37-ish feet, then, sadly, pretty much "down to the ground" for the "horizontal" section same as the original? (hope this ascii art works) Ie: This is what I am doing now (wire is around 65*-70* vertical or so_) ___ /\ /\ / \ but I wonder of this is any better __ _ |\ | \ |\ Lastly, I could go farther away from the tree and try to get 80-90' of sloping wire (likely closer to 45*) and then have the remainder droop itself back to Earth. _ _ _ _ / \ / \ / \ / Anyone have a skyhook for sale? Thanks for any insight. Mike VE9AA FN66na @ 660' ASL.rocky ridgetop. Mike, Coreen & Corey Keswick Ridge, NB _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
