I put up an 1100 foot horizontal loop about 6 years ago here in Fort
Collins, CO. out in the clear in my back field held up by four 70 foot
utility poles spaced about 280 feet apart. Fed by about 220 feet of 450
ohm window line, back to a Palstar BT-1500A true balanced tuner. The
loop wire is a
I should have written "10 dB or more _additional_ noise."
This is a serious problem and is on the radar of the medium wave
broadcast industry as well:
http://www.radioworld.com/article/afcce-symposium-examines-am-broadcast-band-woes/273098
One other typo:
"101 radials, many > 50 feet" should ha
10 dB or more of noise ? Mein Gott !
Oh for such a quiet QTH !
73 - Mort, G2JL
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
I apologize if I ticked anyone off; I'm just trying to help hams
understand what is needed to get out. This is not directed at any one
person. The topic came up and I have an opinion based on experience
with what works and what doesn't.
If you put up a cloud burner one or more of three things ha
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
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
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
lf of kol...@rcn.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2015 11:48 AM
To: Rob Atkinson
Cc: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?
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 w
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
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
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
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
loops tend to model better than even
wavelength loops.??
K7MS/Lake Tahoe
On Tue, 12/1/15, NC3Z Gary wrote:
Subject: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?
To: "topband@contesting.com"
Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015, 7:00 PM
I have been
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
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
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
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
ve fun and do the best I can with
what I have. So if I occasionally call out of time (I try not to) because I
don't have the "ears" you do, don't take it personally...
73 Kevin K3OX
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Atkinson"
To: topband@contesting.
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,
I have been contemplating a sky loop to replace my coax 160/80M fan
dipole. The loop would be fed with ladder line so I could use it on 160-40M.
It would take a bit more effort clearing an area to get up 2wl of wire
but it could be done. Is the effort worth it over a 1wl loop? An
additional iss
20 matches
Mail list logo
