Hi Gary, It would make a nice receiving antenna.
Let's start with a question: Would you put up a loop for 20 meters
that is 6 feet off the ground? Height for horizontal antennas must
always be thought of in terms of _wavelength_. There is only one
effective transmitting antenna for medium wave,
Well Rob, if you read Gary's email, you will find that he is interested in
communicating "...with the hams I daily keep in touch with in the 500-600 mile
range." The loop may be a great antenna for this but not, as you say, so much
for DXing.
But there is, in my view, a deeper issue here. I
Hi Rob (and gang),
I would like to make one point that should be considered in this discussion.
A true vertical which is what I use (not an inverted L) on 160 meters is
sometimes horrible on 160 meters for skywave that originates from close in
(200 miles or less as an example). During contests I
On Wed,12/2/2015 11:02 AM, Don Kirk wrote:
Therefore while I don't disagree that a vertical on 160 meters is a great
antenna especially for DX work, for working stations in close it sometimes
can be a disadvantage. Based on modeling it looks like a dipole only 15
feet off the ground on 160 meter
You are misinterpreting the model data by looking at the shape of the
pattern rather than the relative strength of the pattern at angles of
interest. Example -- the so-called "take off angle" simply shows the
vertical angle where the signal is the strongest. FAR more important to
look at the fi
160m is a band for vertical polarization.
www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html
I am a happy user of an inverted-L hung from a tree.
Those that don't have room for resonant elevated radials like mine can use
K2AV's compact counterpoise, or lay as much wire on the ground as your
space permits.
www.w0uce.ne
For what its worth Id stick with the dipoles at that height. I tried 1,2 and 3
wave length loops at ~110 ft
(vs dipole at 110 ft) and "on the average" the dipole worked the best. This
is completely unscientific but
two years of playing on 160 the 1 wave length loop was quieter but didnt have
Model a low 1-wl loop, and you'll see why it was quieter.
1. There's not quite as much low-angle response. Most local noise comes
from very low angles.
2. More ground loss.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, wrote:
> two years of playing on 160 the 1 wave length loop was qu
I should have added that in some types of weather, a dipole may have more
corona (which makes noise) off the ends than a loop.
I have an EZNEC model of a low loop, if someone wants it.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
> Model a low 1-wl loop, and you'll
Forget I said all that. I looked at the model and found some possible
mistakes. And I don't have any more time now to fix it.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
> I have an EZNEC model of a low loop, if someone wants it.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:25
Try putting a closed reflector wire under a 1 WL horizontal loop. Lay it on the
ground or bury. Use insulated wire and size per typical loops…~+5% at design
frequency. Experiment by listening to weak signals while opening and closing
the ends of the reflector.
At our latitude (64N) loops (and
Kevin - I'm in a more tenuous position with Rob than you!!! I operate QRP on
160 you can bet if Rob gets wind of that he'll think I'm REALLY peeing in
his Wheaties, 'eh
71.5/72 de Jim R. K9JWV
From: Topband on behalf of kol...@rcn.com
Sen
Hi Tom,
You said "Compared to a vertical, there could be 10-30 dB difference in
favor of a low dipole (less than 150 ft high) within a few hundred miles.",
and I was pretty much trying to make the same point but indirectly since I
don't have a dipole on 160 meters.
The original poster mentioned r
Actually iam using an inverted L for 160 with few radials.I would like to build
another one for 75 meters band. my questio are:1. How close they could be? 2.
could i use the same radials existing from the 160 inverted L?Thankskp2bh/jimmy
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.c
Thanks for all the replies, guess the consensus is it is not worth the
effort to put up a 2wl loop over a 1wl.
I know several mentioned verticals but I really was interested in the
loop option. This is for QSO's with stations 500-600 miles from me,
currently they report that my signal is strong
You said "Compared to a vertical, there could be 10-30 dB difference in
favor of a low dipole (less than 150 ft high) within a few hundred
miles.",
and I was pretty much trying to make the same point but indirectly since I
don't have a dipole on 160 meters.
The original poster mentioned relativ
I have a 80m free standing 1/4 vertical on 80m, over 60x 65' radials. A
coil between the feed-point and the radial plate matches the antenna.
Large ferrite beads were added to the feed-line at the feed point. The
feed-line is about 250 feet of LMR-400-DB/
Last year I decided add an inverted L for
In the previous post i did not mention that the antennas will be feed
individually.thanks kp2bh / jimmy
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Nc3Z
I use a 1wl vertical plane loop for DX on 80-20. It does about as well as
the 80m inv V with apex at a little under twice the height. If I had room
I'd try a 1WL on 160, even with the 50' height limitation. For local...I'm
lazy. I'd try the 1WL before doing all the work to clear space for the
James,
You can add another inverted L in the same plane as the 160m one. If you keep
'm seperated 1 or 2 meters they 'll work great, they don' t "see" each other.
You can put 'm on the same feedpoint and just add some more capacitance to an L
network on 160m to match the antennas to the feedlin
Greetings to the Ditters and Dawters of the 160M Realm,
The evil snow, ice, winds and politicians are all afoot now... but
the bright spot is
coming your way 1500Z Dec. 26 to 1500Z Dec. 27 in the form of the 20th
Edition
of The Stew Perry TopBand DX Challenge sponsored by The Boring Amateur
R
21 matches
Mail list logo