Well base loading should be better then linear loading, lower losses. However the base loading LC network has to have low Q or at least "decent" Q.
Once I had my 160 vertical linear loaded, it was a 90 foot radiator. I did measure the difference between linear loading and base LC network loading. Did measure the ground wave field strength about 400m (1300ft) away. I could clearly measure 0.5 dB less field strength with the linear loading. Since I don´t like to give away even half a dB I replaced the linear loading with base loading. These days I use a 95 ft top loaded vertical and yes it "seems" to be "slightly" better then the 90 ft base loaded however this is just a feeling and I have no measurements to back it up with. But as long as my brain thinks it is better it is fine for me. Bottom line: I will never use linear loading again !! 73 Jim SM2EKM ----------------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-04-21 04:42, Lars Harlin wrote: > Hi Rag! > > Have you thought about the possibility to use linear loading? That could be > a good alternative when you cant put the loading on top... > > 73 de Lars, SM3BDZ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stein Roar Brobakken"<s-ro...@online.no> > To:<topband@contesting.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:11 PM > Subject: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading" > > >> Hi >> >> We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m >> >> We been studying different top loading configurations, but we can't have >> the >> wires stringed from the top because it will break the spiderbeam ;) >> _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
