Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Mike, I think the performance of a 4-square array may relate to the reason why switching to 30,000 feet of radials made a dramatic improvement. The currents in the elevated radial currents might be badly mismatched by proximity to currents in nearby radials. I never tried to measure them. 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "Mike Waters" To: "Frank Donovan" Cc: "topband" Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 5:10:31 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 Hi Frank! Thank you for sharing this experience. This is interesting, because (as you are probably aware of) no less a guru than N6LF published results showing that with a single antenna, four λ/4 elevated radials were nearly identical in performance to 120 on the ground. This is true only if RF was prevented from either flowing into the lossy earth or back along the feedline shield (thus detuning the elevated radials, since the shield would try and act as a radial and couple to the lossy earth). Was anything connected to ground at the feedpoints? And what type of coax feedline choke unun did you use at the feedpoints? Perhaps there are factors in an array vs. a single vertical that would explain your results, but I can't think of any. 73, Mike W0BTU On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 3:04 PM < donov...@starpower.net > wrote: Hi Mike, Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about ten feet high. When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the verticals was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... 73 Frank W3LPL From: "Mike Waters" < mikew...@gmail.com > To: "thoyer" < thoy...@verizon.net > Cc: "topband" < topband@contesting.com > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 CORRECTION It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than 4 feet high. From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45° (?) to nearby trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 wavelength.) I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to upload it to. I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters < mikew...@gmail.com > wrote: > Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. > > Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just > connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote > tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. > > Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor > performance. > > 73, Mike > W0BTU > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband < topband@contesting.com > > wrote: > >> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about >> how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with >> no >> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the >> band has been. >> ... >> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily >> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' >> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion >> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I >> have to work with. ... >> >> Tom >> W3TA _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Mike, I think the problem with elevated radials in 4 squares is the mutual coupling and the necessity that the radial current and impedance be equal. Otherwise the pattern is distorted. Having measured my 8 125' elevated radials there is a significant (>2:1) current imbalance in them due to several factors - towers, trees, buildings, stuff in the ground, etc. I modeled this by having 8 sources in the radials of the measured currents. My modeled pattern skew is about 1db, so I am a bit skeptical of the CW for exactly balancing radial currents for a monopole vertical. (see also N6LF modeling of half circle radials). After calibrating (essential!) my MFJ RF clamp on ammeter, the measured antenna current and sum of radial currents were equal within 2%, so the choke worked. The MFJ can only measure amplitude. Someday I will investigate how the current phase is different in each radial referenced to the vertical. Has anybody done that? Grant KZ1W On 12/21/2019 17:10, Mike Waters wrote: Hi Frank! Thank you for sharing this experience. This is interesting, because (as you are probably aware of) no less a guru than N6LF published results showing that with a single antenna, four ??/4 elevated radials were nearly identical in performance to 120 on the ground. This is true *only* if RF was prevented from either flowing into the lossy earth *or* back along the feedline shield (thus detuning the elevated radials, since the shield would try and act as a radial and couple to the lossy earth). Was anything connected to ground at the feedpoints? And what type of coax feedline choke unun did you use at the feedpoints? Perhaps there are factors in an array vs. a single vertical that would explain your results, but I can't think of any. 73, Mike W0BTU On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 3:04 PM wrote: Hi Mike, Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about ten feet high. When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the verticals was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... 73 Frank W3LPL -- *From: *"Mike Waters" *To: *"thoyer" *Cc: *"topband" *Sent: *Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM *Subject: *Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 CORRECTION It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than 4 feet high. From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45?? (?) to nearby trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 wavelength.) I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to upload it to. I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor performance. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band has been. ... Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I have to work with. ... Tom W3TA _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Hi Frank! Thank you for sharing this experience. This is interesting, because (as you are probably aware of) no less a guru than N6LF published results showing that with a single antenna, four λ/4 elevated radials were nearly identical in performance to 120 on the ground. This is true *only* if RF was prevented from either flowing into the lossy earth *or* back along the feedline shield (thus detuning the elevated radials, since the shield would try and act as a radial and couple to the lossy earth). Was anything connected to ground at the feedpoints? And what type of coax feedline choke unun did you use at the feedpoints? Perhaps there are factors in an array vs. a single vertical that would explain your results, but I can't think of any. 73, Mike W0BTU On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 3:04 PM wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated > radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about > ten feet high. > > When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground > I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, > suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the > verticals > was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. > > As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > -- > *From: *"Mike Waters" > *To: *"thoyer" > *Cc: *"topband" > *Sent: *Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM > *Subject: *Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 > > CORRECTION > > It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the > feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! > > The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to > the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than > 4 feet high. > From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45° (?) to nearby > trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way > to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance > from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 > wavelength.) > > I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to > upload it to. > > I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. > > 73, Mike > W0BTU > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: > > > Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. > > > > Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just > > connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote > > tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. > > > > Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor > > performance. > > > > 73, Mike > > W0BTU > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband > > > wrote: > > > >> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about > >> how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself > with > >> no > >> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the > >> band has been. > >> ... > >> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could > easily > >> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' > >> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal > portion > >> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I > >> have to work with. ... > >> > >> Tom > >> W3TA > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Hi Dave, I remember K5IU's article well. I have no doubt such a system can be made to work well. However, I have no plans to replace my 30,000 feet of radials with elevated radials... Thanks 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "Artek Manuals" To: topband@contesting.com Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:03:48 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 Frank I agree with you if the elevated radials are "resonant" .� However my experience is the direct opposite with non resonant radials� for my elevated system. Mine are 90' long for 160M. So far this year I have worked 118 countries (102 confirmed) since getting back on the air� starting in May of this year. A little harder since we don't ( I can speak from prior experience) get as good� propagation typically to Europe and over the pole here in Florida as you guys up north get. There was an article in the Spring 1997 Communications Quarterly by K5IU extolling the virtues of non resonate radials and how to match them which got me headed down the path. I could post a copy� I suppose but I need to have an understanding about the copy rights first.. You may find a copy on the web if you google long enough. DaveNR1DX On 12/18/2019 4:10 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: > Hi Csaba, > > > My experience is that an extensive radial system on the ground performs > significantly better than a few elevated radials. I suspect its > difficult to > obtain nearly equal currents among a small number of elevated radials. > > > There is nothing wrong with gull wing elevated radials, but in my > experience > they shorten the effective length of the vertical. > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > - Original Message - > > From: "HA3LN" > To: donov...@starpower.net > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:57:40 PM > Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 > > Hi Frank, > > So the gull-wing elevated setup should be dropped from the performance > point of view, right? > > I have a 26m spider-pole and just wondering how to setup the radials for > that but considering you wrote no sense to make the radials into > gull-wing then. > > Thanks and 73! > Csaba HA3LN / HG3N > http://ha3ln.hu/ > > > On 2019-12-16 22:04, donov...@starpower.net wrote: >> Hi Mike, >> >> >> Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated >> radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about >> ten feet high. >> >> >> When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the >> ground >> I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, >> suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of >> the verticals >> was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the >> verticals. >> >> >> As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... >> >> >> 73 >> Frank >> W3LPL >> >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: "Mike Waters" >> To: "thoyer" >> Cc: "topband" >> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM >> Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 >> >> CORRECTION >> >> It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the >> feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! >> >> The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from >> that to >> the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is >> less than >> 4 feet high. >> From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45� (?) to >> nearby >> trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all >> the way >> to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance >> from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 >> wavelength.) >> >> I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to >> upload it to. >> >> I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. >> >> 73, Mike >> W0BTU >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: >> >>> Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. >>> >>> Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just >>> connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Frank I agree with you if the elevated radials are "resonant" .� However my experience is the direct opposite with non resonant radials� for my elevated system. Mine are 90' long for 160M. So far this year I have worked 118 countries (102 confirmed) since getting back on the air� starting in May of this year. A little harder since we don't ( I can speak from prior experience) get as good� propagation typically to Europe and over the pole here in Florida as you guys up north get. There was an article in the Spring 1997 Communications Quarterly by K5IU extolling the virtues of non resonate radials and how to match them which got me headed down the path. I could post a copy� I suppose but I need to have an understanding about the copy rights first.. You may find a copy on the web if you google long enough. DaveNR1DX On 12/18/2019 4:10 PM, donov...@starpower.net wrote: Hi Csaba, My experience is that an extensive radial system on the ground performs significantly better than a few elevated radials. I suspect its difficult to obtain nearly equal currents among a small number of elevated radials. There is nothing wrong with gull wing elevated radials, but in my experience they shorten the effective length of the vertical. 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "HA3LN" To: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:57:40 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 Hi Frank, So the gull-wing elevated setup should be dropped from the performance point of view, right? I have a 26m spider-pole and just wondering how to setup the radials for that but considering you wrote no sense to make the radials into gull-wing then. Thanks and 73! Csaba HA3LN / HG3N http://ha3ln.hu/ On 2019-12-16 22:04, donov...@starpower.net wrote: Hi Mike, Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about ten feet high. When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the verticals was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "Mike Waters" To: "thoyer" Cc: "topband" Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 CORRECTION It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than 4 feet high. From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45� (?) to nearby trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 wavelength.) I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to upload it to. I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor performance. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband wrote: With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band has been. ... Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I have to work with. ... Tom W3TA _ 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 -- Dave manu...@artekmanuals.com www.ArtekManuals.com _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Hi Csaba, My experience is that an extensive radial system on the ground performs significantly better than a few elevated radials. I suspect its difficult to obtain nearly equal currents among a small number of elevated radials. There is nothing wrong with gull wing elevated radials, but in my experience they shorten the effective length of the vertical. 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "HA3LN" To: donov...@starpower.net Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:57:40 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 Hi Frank, So the gull-wing elevated setup should be dropped from the performance point of view, right? I have a 26m spider-pole and just wondering how to setup the radials for that but considering you wrote no sense to make the radials into gull-wing then. Thanks and 73! Csaba HA3LN / HG3N http://ha3ln.hu/ On 2019-12-16 22:04, donov...@starpower.net wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated > radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about > ten feet high. > > > When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground > I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, > suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the > verticals > was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. > > > As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... > > > 73 > Frank > W3LPL > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Mike Waters" > To: "thoyer" > Cc: "topband" > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM > Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 > > CORRECTION > > It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the > feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! > > The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to > the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than > 4 feet high. > From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45° (?) to nearby > trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way > to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance > from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 > wavelength.) > > I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to > upload it to. > > I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. > > 73, Mike > W0BTU > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: > >> Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. >> >> Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just >> connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote >> tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. >> >> Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor >> performance. >> >> 73, Mike >> W0BTU >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband >> wrote: >> >>> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about >>> how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with >>> no >>> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the >>> band has been. >>> ... >>> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily >>> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' >>> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion >>> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I >>> have to work with. ... >>> >>> Tom >>> W3TA >>> >>> >>> > _ > 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: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Hi Mike, Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about ten feet high. When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the ground I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of the verticals was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the verticals. As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... 73 Frank W3LPL - Original Message - From: "Mike Waters" To: "thoyer" Cc: "topband" Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 CORRECTION It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than 4 feet high. From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45° (?) to nearby trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 wavelength.) I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to upload it to. I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: > Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. > > Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just > connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote > tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. > > Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor > performance. > > 73, Mike > W0BTU > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband > wrote: > >> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about >> how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with >> no >> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the >> band has been. >> ... >> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily >> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' >> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion >> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I >> have to work with. ... >> >> Tom >> W3TA >> >> >> _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
CORRECTION It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from that to the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is less than 4 feet high. From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45° (?) to nearby trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all the way to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 wavelength.) I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to upload it to. I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters wrote: > Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. > > Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just > connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote > tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. > > Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor > performance. > > 73, Mike > W0BTU > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband > wrote: > >> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about >> how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with >> no >> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the >> band has been. >> ... >> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily >> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' >> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion >> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I >> have to work with. ... >> >> Tom >> W3TA >> >> >> _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
I used a similar to Rick's and raised and lowered it by myself.EVERY DAYfor a few years. It took less than 10 minutes once I got the hang of it. During the winter I live in Florida in a community with very tight HOA restrictions. The 60 foot Spiderpole worked out perfectly. I set a short piece of steel pipe in concrete and slid the bottom section of the fiberglass pole on top of it. While standing on a six foot step ladder I would raise each section and twist it in place. This takes 2 minutes. I did not use hose clamps to secure the sections since it was a temporary installation. The friction of the sections is enough, I also did not use guy wires as I would not extend the antenna if the wind was more than 10 mph. The pole is very strong. I had a small loading coil at the base and I would connect the vertical wire to the top of the coil via an alligator clip. The two top load wires were extended and held to trees with a quick disconnect connector. I did not have a lot of room for radials so I used plastic coated chicken wire for a radial system filling as much space as I had and then covered it with mulch. I also had a few ground rods for lightning protection. I deployed the antenna at sunset and removed it at sunrise. No one ever knew that it was there. I did have one funny incident. I raised it normally one night when the wx was perfect. The next morning we had a storm with high winds. The winds put a lateral load on the vertical sections and they would not retract so it had to stay up until later that day. In a neighborhood of single story homes it looked like it was 100 feet tall! No one ever said a word about it. I guess the rain and wind kept them indoors. The Spiderpole is very strong and perfect for this application. The key for ease of use is to keep the sections vertical and nested before raising them. I no longer use this arrangement because I now use my home station in Ohio via remote but the Spiderpole kept me on the air and allowed me to work several new countries through some very large pileups. Of course being in Florida made a big difference. I think that Florida is a great location for low band DXing. YMMV 73 Randy W9ZRIn a message dated 12/15/2019 10:51:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, rich...@karlquist.com writes: On 12/15/2019 6:52 PM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote: > Easy! > > Get a 60’ Spiderbeam Fibeeglaas pole. Run a wire up the side and top load it > with two 44’ wires running out at 45 degrees or less. > Mine was so easy to install I was able to it alone with any trouble at all in > a few hours. > > Bob AA6VB > Robert L. Chortek So Bob, tell us the technique you used to erect the pole easily by yourself. 73 Rick N6RK _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Sure, I mounted the bottom of the pole onto a 6’ piece of 3” PVC Pipe buried 3’ into the ground, I then extended the first two (or was it three) sections of the pole and attached it to the Eave of the house. At that point I went onto the roof and extended the pole one section at a time - starting with the top section. As each section was extended I twisted the sections to lock them in place and tightened the hose clamp. I repeated the process until the entire 60’ pole was extended. The pole is so well designed and so perfectly balanced it stood straight up, only attached at the base and the Eave, while I attached the guy wires at the anchor points and put out the top loading wires to their tie off points. I raised and lowered the antenna three times by myself without incident. It’s actually very easy! My prior vertical was made of aluminum tubing and took 4 people to erect, with considerable effort, stress and cussing (on my part). The spiderbeam was a “piece of cake”! 73, Bob AA6VB Robert L. Chortek > On Dec 15, 2019, at 7:51 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist > wrote: > > [External Email] > >> On 12/15/2019 6:52 PM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote: >> Easy! >> >> Get a 60’ Spiderbeam Fibeeglaas pole. Run a wire up the side and top load it >> with two 44’ wires running out at 45 degrees or less. > >> Mine was so easy to install I was able to it alone with any trouble at all >> in a few hours. >> > >> Bob AA6VB >> Robert L. Chortek > > So Bob, tell us the technique you used to erect the pole > easily by yourself. > > 73 > Rick N6RK _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
On 12/15/2019 6:52 PM, Chortek, Robert L. wrote: Easy! Get a 60’ Spiderbeam Fibeeglaas pole. Run a wire up the side and top load it with two 44’ wires running out at 45 degrees or less. Mine was so easy to install I was able to it alone with any trouble at all in a few hours. Bob AA6VB Robert L. Chortek So Bob, tell us the technique you used to erect the pole easily by yourself. 73 Rick N6RK _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Good for you. My sentiments are on my QRZ page. Wes N7WS On 12/15/2019 6:36 PM, thoyer via Topband wrote: All of my contacts for DXCC have been and will be from my property and I'd like to keep it that way (CW only also) W3TA -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 8:12 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 or you could use a remote. W0MU _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
So you suggest giving up 10 feet of a 45 foot vertical in order to raise the radials? Doesn't make sense to me. With a 45' tower I supported an inverted-V and worked my first 70+ countries on 160 from the depths of southern AZ. Wes N7WS On 12/15/2019 7:22 PM, Mike Waters wrote: Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor performance. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband wrote: With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band has been. ... Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I have to work with. ... Tom W3TA _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
I meant 45 degrees or more Bob Robert L. Chortek > On Dec 15, 2019, at 6:52 PM, Chortek, Robert L. > wrote: > > Easy! > > Get a 60’ Spiderbeam Fibeeglaas pole. Run a wire up the side and top load it > with two 44’ wires running out at 45 degrees or less. > > Use an isolation transformer at the base and > Run it against 8-12 1/8 wave elevated radials. Match with a 32/50 Ohm UnUn. > > Mine was so easy to install I was able to it alone with any trouble at all in > a few hours. > > Spiderbeam poles are extremely well balanced and very strong. > > My antenna is installed at the side of our 11,300 sq ft lot and all the > radials are laid on the roof. > > Performs very well. > > 73 > > Bob AA6VB > Robert L. Chortek > >> On Dec 15, 2019, at 5:04 PM, thoyer via Topband >> wrote: >> >> [External Email] >> >> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how >> good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no >> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band >> has been. >> >> I had some construction done in the yard (started in Sept) which required me >> to take down my Battle Creek Special so the construction equipment could get >> in and out if the yard and the workers wouldn't get tangled up in the >> support lines. Funny - I came home one day after they started the excavation >> and the builder asked what all the wire was he was digging up! Lost about >> 25% of my radials to construction. >> >> They recently finished construction and I'm looking at what to do antenna >> wise. My time is limited and the weather is starting to get cold. The tilt >> base for the vertical was torn out and I'm afraid my feedline to the base >> may be damaged also. >> >> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily >> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' >> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion >> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I >> have to work with. >> >> Or should I put the BCS back together? This would probably take the better >> part of a couple weekends (inbetween having other distractions). I'd need to >> make a new base and probably lay in a new feedline and a bunch of new >> radials. >> >> I think I know the answer - go with the BCS as it's performance would be >> better then the inv L but figred I'd ask around. >> >> I know Murphy is lurking too - just waiting for me to get an antenna up then >> he's going to pull the plug on the good condx.. (or bring back that >> 20 over noise I had last year) >> >> Tom >> W3TA >> _ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Easy! Get a 60’ Spiderbeam Fibeeglaas pole. Run a wire up the side and top load it with two 44’ wires running out at 45 degrees or less. Use an isolation transformer at the base and Run it against 8-12 1/8 wave elevated radials. Match with a 32/50 Ohm UnUn. Mine was so easy to install I was able to it alone with any trouble at all in a few hours. Spiderbeam poles are extremely well balanced and very strong. My antenna is installed at the side of our 11,300 sq ft lot and all the radials are laid on the roof. Performs very well. 73 Bob AA6VB Robert L. Chortek > On Dec 15, 2019, at 5:04 PM, thoyer via Topband > wrote: > > [External Email] > > With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how > good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no > antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band > has been. > > I had some construction done in the yard (started in Sept) which required me > to take down my Battle Creek Special so the construction equipment could get > in and out if the yard and the workers wouldn't get tangled up in the > support lines. Funny - I came home one day after they started the excavation > and the builder asked what all the wire was he was digging up! Lost about > 25% of my radials to construction. > > They recently finished construction and I'm looking at what to do antenna > wise. My time is limited and the weather is starting to get cold. The tilt > base for the vertical was torn out and I'm afraid my feedline to the base > may be damaged also. > > Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily > string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' > horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion > would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I > have to work with. > > Or should I put the BCS back together? This would probably take the better > part of a couple weekends (inbetween having other distractions). I'd need to > make a new base and probably lay in a new feedline and a bunch of new > radials. > > I think I know the answer - go with the BCS as it's performance would be > better then the inv L but figred I'd ask around. > > I know Murphy is lurking too - just waiting for me to get an antenna up then > he's going to pull the plug on the good condx.. (or bring back that > 20 over noise I had last year) > > Tom > W3TA > _ > Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
2nd mike's point about the elevated radials if you have the room, and I underscore his point about not connecting the above gnd radials to earth ground and the need for a beefy common mode choke Dave NR1DX On 12/15/2019 9:22 PM, Mike Waters wrote: Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor performance. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband wrote: With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band has been. ... Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I have to work with. ... Tom W3TA _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector -- Dave manu...@artekmanuals.com www.ArtekManuals.com _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor performance. 73, Mike W0BTU On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband wrote: > With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about > how > good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no > antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band > has been. > ... > Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily > string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' > horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion > would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I > have to work with. ... > > Tom > W3TA > > _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
All of my contacts for DXCC have been and will be from my property and I'd like to keep it that way (CW only also) W3TA -Original Message- From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 8:12 PM To: topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 or you could use a remote. W0MU On 12/15/2019 6:04 PM, thoyer via Topband wrote: > With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts > about how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find > myself with no antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post > on how good the band has been. > > I had some construction done in the yard (started in Sept) which > required me to take down my Battle Creek Special so the construction > equipment could get in and out if the yard and the workers wouldn't > get tangled up in the support lines. Funny - I came home one day after > they started the excavation and the builder asked what all the wire > was he was digging up! Lost about 25% of my radials to construction. > > They recently finished construction and I'm looking at what to do > antenna wise. My time is limited and the weather is starting to get > cold. The tilt base for the vertical was torn out and I'm afraid my > feedline to the base may be damaged also. > > Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could > easily string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' > horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal > portion would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but > that's what I have to work with. > > Or should I put the BCS back together? This would probably take the > better part of a couple weekends (inbetween having other > distractions). I'd need to make a new base and probably lay in a new > feedline and a bunch of new radials. > > I think I know the answer - go with the BCS as it's performance would > be better then the inv L but figred I'd ask around. > > I know Murphy is lurking too - just waiting for me to get an antenna > up then he's going to pull the plug on the good condx.. (or > bring back that 20 over noise I had last year) > > Tom > W3TA > _ > 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: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160
or you could use a remote. W0MU On 12/15/2019 6:04 PM, thoyer via Topband wrote: With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts about how good the band has been recently "best in years) I find myself with no antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the band has been. I had some construction done in the yard (started in Sept) which required me to take down my Battle Creek Special so the construction equipment could get in and out if the yard and the workers wouldn't get tangled up in the support lines. Funny - I came home one day after they started the excavation and the builder asked what all the wire was he was digging up! Lost about 25% of my radials to construction. They recently finished construction and I'm looking at what to do antenna wise. My time is limited and the weather is starting to get cold. The tilt base for the vertical was torn out and I'm afraid my feedline to the base may be damaged also. Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could easily string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal portion would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's what I have to work with. Or should I put the BCS back together? This would probably take the better part of a couple weekends (inbetween having other distractions). I'd need to make a new base and probably lay in a new feedline and a bunch of new radials. I think I know the answer - go with the BCS as it's performance would be better then the inv L but figred I'd ask around. I know Murphy is lurking too - just waiting for me to get an antenna up then he's going to pull the plug on the good condx.. (or bring back that 20 over noise I had last year) Tom W3TA _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
