at-ground feed point with Zo ~
> 2000-ohms or so, what sort of improvement might one expect if the radial
> field was significantly improved?
>
> 73 to all - Dick/w7wkr at CN98pi
> =
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:07:16 -0500
> From: Guy
mprovement might one expect if the radial field was
significantly improved?
73 to all - Dick/w7wkr at CN98pi
=
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:07:16 -0500
From: Guy Olinger K2AV
To: Todd Goins
Cc: TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
I could give other advice but the best that I could offer is to check out
Rudy's, N6LF, site: https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/ Regrettably, this isn't all
that he's published so further searching might be in order. QEX published a
series in 2009-2010 of his stuff.
In my "Antennas" document
Hi, Grant.
Your original was posted to the reflector as well, and I'll let this
go there as well.
3:1 current imbalance, whether scalar or not, is grotesquely large
with 8 evenly spaced elevated equal length radials. I presume you have
already looked for connection issues at the center of the
> It doesn't work very well. Last night it was much poorer on receive and
> transmit than my existing 43' vertical setup. I'm not sure what to think.
Your fundamental problem is a lack of understanding of how a monopole
works, specifically a base fed vertical with a ground system. Anyone
who
Guy,
I need some more db's on Tx. For Rx I hear much better than heard into
EU from Seattle area. It's a hard path and easy to believe EU QRN/QRM is
the main culprit. Your "loss list" is a great list, but I am thinking
about a different potential problem with my T with eight 125' long
Apologies to all for delay in response.
Losses related to ground and close dielectric materials remain the
single monster gorilla in the room for improving TX performance of
vertical antennas.
Setting aside content on k2av.com relating to the FCP, the other
issues in that web page’s "Loss List"
er K2AV
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 11:32 PM
To: chet moore
Cc: TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
Hi Chet,
Before we start, a disclaimer: I still have my MP, maybe I'm a radio
hoarder. I do have a 75A3 and a Johnson Ranger and Courier and an FT 101Z
Thanks again everyone. I've read all your suggestions and advise and
although I won't be able to make some of the more difficult (or impossible
at my site) changes there are a few things I'm willing to try.
I read the w0btu.com webpage and I'm not really that far off from that
setup. Minus that
VP2A, ZD8W, VQ9Xx, KL7AIZ, KG4ZO, N6Zo/HH9
N6ZO/6Y5
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Atkinson
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 9:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
Hmmm.
hen I asked what else I could do he suggested that I might want
> to consider putting up a FOR SALE sign.
>
> Thanks again for sharing your results.
>
> 73
>
>
> Chet N4FX KP4EAJ, VP2A, ZD8W, VQ9Xx, KL7AIZ, KG4ZO, N6Zo/HH9
> N6ZO/6Y5
>
>
>
>
>
>
KG4ZO, N6Zo/HH9
N6ZO/6Y5
-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Atkinson
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 9:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebui
Todd
If you are interested in experimenting, you could try a K2AV folded
counterpoise under that inverted L. If installed as recommended, it will
provide a decent counterpoise system. One advantage to the FCP is that it
is possible to also end fed the system, should that be a requirement.
I
Hi Rob,
You ask some good questions and make some interesting observations.
Nope, it is the same radial system. I don't have a reasonable way
(time/money/effort) to create a whole new 50-60 wire buried radial system
for this experiment. I just disconnected the 43' vertical from the radial
Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebuild your ground system so it converges
on a point below the bottom of the 100 foot tall wire right? I mean,
you aren't using the 43 foot vert. ground system with the 100' wire?
A series fed vertical isn't rocket science so let's not over think
this. If it doesn't
Goins , TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 *
1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance. Are the eleva
Exactly! You have a lot of loss in your ground (or something), Todd.
Perhaps it's the lack of a proper feedline choke.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:00 AM Grant Saviers wrote:
> Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 *
> 1880-1810) which implies
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 8:59 AM Grant Saviers wrote:
> Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 *
> 1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance. Are the elevated
> radials fully insulated from trees, not contacting foliage, etc? Add
> three more.
> Problem #2.
Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 *
1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance. Are the elevated
radials fully insulated from trees, not contacting foliage, etc? Add
three more.
Problem #2. Your coiled coax choke may be making things worse. Check
Those SWR readings seem to indicate a very large bandwidth, to the extent
it might suggest that your ground resistance losses are swamping the
antenna R radiation resistance. It would be nice to know the R value at
resonance, where there is no J value. Too bad the analyzer is overloading.
A
A person emailed me to ask if I could take SWR readings at the rig without
a tuner. Since my antenna analyzer is non-op due to the AM station nearby.
The feedline is about 140' of LMR-240.
Here is the indicated SWR at the 7300:
1.810 1.2:1
1.830 1.3:1
1.850 1.5:1
1.870 1.8:1
1.900 2.3:1
1.940
Hi Mike,
Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged up
the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it in
line just in case.
Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on
Hi Todd,
I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
Take at look at
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.
A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, from
http://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
Sorry, I wasn't completely clear in my post. The elevated radials are not
connected to the buried radial field. They are two separate entities. Now
the elevated radials do sit above or cross some the buried radials in some
places so I'm sure they do interact but they aren't directly connected
Hello Grant,
Your advice is spot-on! Elevated radials MUST NOT be connected to ground.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Todd's inverted-L is working so
poorly.
Another important thing is to have a GOOD choke balun right at the
feedpoint. *We need to keep the current off of the feedline
Modeling I've done shows it a bad idea to have in ground and elevated
radials connected together, but that is not clear from what you
described. Then with the elevated separate, moving the feedpoint up at
least 8', to 12' is better and elevated radials run out at that height.
I think it is a
that you can
tell someone is calling.
K9ZO
From: Topband on behalf of Todd Goins
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 5:35:53 PM
To: TopBand List
Subject: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
I originally started this thread and I want to once again
I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.
So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer
want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it is
> impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
>
> 73
> JC
> N4IS
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband On Behalf Of Wes Stewart
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:50 AM
> To: Arthur Delibert ; Jeff Wo
Delibert ; Jeff Woods
Cc: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to
the group. He has provided a lot of modeling tools.
That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated
I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to
the group. He has provided a lot of modeling tools.
That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated,
not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes. I could be
It’s fun chasing pirates. I had an SAL-30...worked great for BCB dxing. Not
sure what’s up at my place but I haven’t found an RX antenna yet that hears any
better on 160 than my inverted L. Used K9AY, SAL-30, BOG no avail...can’t get
to the next layer.
Won’t give up though.
Cecil
K5DL
Sent
Shortwave broadcasting in 2018?! I thought there was hardly any English SW
stations left, no?
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:16 PM Arthur Delibert wrote:
> ... I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I love it. (I do mostly 49-, 60-
> and 90-meter SWBC DX.) ... KB3FJO
>
>
: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
Jeff, et.al.
1) Yes, I am on 1.7 acres (2 AC - easements). Some guys would love this much
land, to farmers it's just enough room for the barn. Regardless, considering I
also have a house, a tower and a vertical antenna to share it with, I don't have
Jeff, et.al.
1) Yes, I am on 1.7 acres (2 AC - easements). Some guys would love this much
land, to farmers it's just enough room for the barn. Regardless, considering I
also have a house, a tower and a vertical antenna to share it with, I don't have
room for Beverages, at least not an
Wes,
A sure sign that your RX antennas are good enough is when DX stations that are
Q5 copy repeatedly CQ in your face.
What Mike's saying is true; trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear
that is a TX vertical is a losing game. Waller Flags, K9AYs, EWEs, etc. are
all cheap and can
How about a Waller flag? Better than a Beverage, since you can rotate it!
Search for *Waller* or *Waller flag* in the Topband archives. Lots of
information there, with a link to the N4IS page about them.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 4:20 PM Wes Stewart wrote:
> I just drove
Hello Wes,
I tried 160 back in the early 70's when my brother was active from
CO and we skedded on weekends. I used a long wire about 650 ft long for
both TX and RX. Working Europe was special with that setup. I had a
75A4 RX and a t-368 RF deck with 1000 volts on the 4-400 to net me 80
I just drove down to the local convenience store and bought some Powerball
tickets. If I win, there's a nice 80 acre parcel across the street from me that
I would buy. Until then, I'm stuck on a 1.7 acre plot with no room for beverages.
Wes N7WS
On 12/22/2018 1:20 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
Hi Wes,
Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't hearing
the weak ones that called you. ;-) See
http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 8:05 AM Wes Stewart wrote:
> Although licensed for 60 years I'm a relative newby
Although licensed for 60 years I'm a relative newby on topband. (I did work VE7
in 1959 but that's another story). I decided to semi-seriously take up the band
to acquire my 9th DXCC band award.
As I've described before, pardon the redundancy, I worked my first 70 entities
using an
If your inverted L is any good at all it will suck as a receiving
antenna. This is one of the key things to accept about medium wave
but many casual 160 m. operators can't wrap their heads around it. A
flame throwing tx antenna will probably have a completely unacceptable
noise level on
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
Hello,
Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I have
CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on 160m. I
participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time. I
So, Mirko brings up an interesting point. I can run out far more than 35'
horizontally. Should I make the wire a lot longer in that dimension? I was
working with the 130' (approx) total length I'd read about using for the
43' vertical's top loading wire. I know, I should be modeling this myself.
L 70' vertical 100' sloping away horizontally fed with
series cap against about 40 radials of unknown pedigree)
-Original Message-
From: Todd Goins
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:07 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
Hi Gary
Hello Todd,
my experiences were pretty limited, but I would suggest you about 150' of
wire (to 100' height, the rest horizontally), with air variable capacitor
in series with the wire to cancel inductive reactance. Some 500 - 800 pF
would be OK, It will tune antenna nicely without any need for
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the help. I got the new wire in place roughly as you described.
It is a few feet lower to give good clearance from the anchoring branch.
It doesn't work very well. Last night it was much poorer on receive and
transmit than my existing 43' vertical setup. I'm not sure what to
Mt 2 pence is I'd do the vertical wire to
the 100' limb and if possible, get the
remaining 30 or so feet out as horizontal
as possible to make an inverted L, you
have a nice vertical component with 100'.
I have a sloper using a radial bed
somewhat like yours and it works very
nicely. I
Hello,
Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I have
CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on 160m. I
participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time. I will also
be particiapating in the Stew and the CQ contests in January. I'd
49 matches
Mail list logo
