Thanks for the info guys. If only I had room for a dedicated rx antenna - then I'd leave the top-loaded vertical as is. I was copied in New Zealand with it on 630m WSPR with 1 watt ERP.
So a happy medium is what I'm after since an excellent tx antenna does me no good if I can't hear those calling me. John AE5X https://ae5x.blogspot.com On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:48 PM Tim Shoppa <tsho...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, your 80M dipole with 110 foot vertical feedline fed as a top-loaded > vertical on 160M is a wonderful antenna. > > If you are unhappy with its receive performance,the solution is to add a > receive antenna (or two, or three....!). Not to put up a worse transmitting > antenna :-) > > Tim N3QE > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:05 PM John Harper <johna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm thinking of installing an end-fed half-wave dipole as an "inverted U" >> for 160m. My tree geometry is such that the antenna would be fed at the >> base of a tree, then go up it to 120 feet. Then about 90 feet to another >> tree and down it to complete the length of the antenna. >> >> Would the close proximity of the vertical portions to the two trees >> adversely affect the antenna's performance? >> >> Last year I used my 80m dipole-110-foot vertical feedline as a top-loaded >> vertical on 160 - it worked well as a transmitting antenna but was a poor >> receiver due to noise so looking for another option. >> >> Tnx/73, >> >> John AE5X >> https://ae5x.blogspot.com >> _________________ >> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband >> Reflector >> > _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector