Previously -
>... I ran across this, which was originally posted
> on the Broadcasting list ...
__
Below is a link from a followup post there with a
NEC4.2 analysis of the performance of a 1/4-wave
monopole driven against a set of 4 x 1/4-wave,
elevated, horizontal radials.
https://s28.
One reason for the 120 radial ground system on broadcast sticks often
over-looked is that a large number of radials below grade makes the
system more stable over seasons between dry and wet wx. It may not
matter as much for ham but many radials causes the Z to settle down or
not vary as widely bet
I ran across this, which was originally posted on the Broadcasting list and may
be of interest to Topbanders. Something I might add as a justification for
exceeding, if possible, the point of diminishing returns in a radial field (not
necessarily going all the way to 120) is that in many insta
Hi, Ignacy,
I didn't see any response to your proposal.
There are several issues.
1) If the two antennas are using the same elevated radials, the radials
cannot possibly be effective on both bands without special engineering or
switching. Well-engineered ground radials do not have resonance effe
7;re
> running high power.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Don Kirk"
> To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett"
> Cc: "topband"
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
> Subject: Re: T
I have an 80m full-size wire vertical and 160m inv L using the same 8 long
elevated (and tuned) radials, each 20m long and 2m high. The RCS-4 switch
picks up either antenna. Having separate feeds makes tuning simple.
Compared to an 80m flattop at 20m fed with ladderline, the 80m vertical is
usuall
5:16 AM
>To: topband
>Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>
>An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than
>a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth
>is much broader and you don't have to deal with the ver
---
> *From: *"Don Kirk"
> *To: *"W0MU Mike Fatchett"
> *Cc: *"topband"
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
>
> HI Mike,
>
> I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 15:22 +0100, Maciej Wieczorek wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> did anyone try to match such 160m vertical /L or /T on 80m?
> How about efficiency?
>
> After my 31m tall vertical broke last sunday (now it's 23m only) my
> idea is
> to add 2 x15m top loading wires, making a T-vertical. 160m
f the loaded vertical, especially if you're
running high power.
73
Frank
W3LPL
*From: *"Don Kirk"
*To: *"W0MU Mike Fatchett"
*Cc: *"topband"
*Sent: *Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
*S
;d like to use it also on 80m.
TNX
73's
Mac SP2XF / SN2M
- Original Message -
From:
To: "topband"
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
Hi Mike,
An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than
a bo
high power.
73
Frank
W3LPL
- Original Message -
From: "Don Kirk"
To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett"
Cc: "topband"
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
HI Mike,
I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on
HI Mike,
I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried
ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials). I only run 100 watts and
located near Indianapolis. I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base
loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but
h
12:33 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: 160 vertical/L
I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft
vertical for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great.
I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I
use for the 160. It is 30ish radia
I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft
vertical for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great.
I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I
use for the 160. It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen
where people have loaded the 8
15 matches
Mail list logo
