Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Tophat? Does it have to be at the top?

To: Earl W Cunningham <k6se@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Tophat? Does it have to be at the top?
From: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:56:18 -0400
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Earl.

I have a Rohn 25 foot tower with a 204BA which you sent me the model parameters and it matched right down to the foot on 1.828 Khz with the data you sent. When K6VVA wanted to operate this station in the ARRL CW last spring I put up a home built 26 foot boom plumbers delight interlaced 4 element 15/10 with a Force 12 type driven element matching structure so I could use a single 7/8 inch heliax feed for this new antenna. The effect of adding the antenna below the 204BA was not even noticeable on the "sweet point" on 160. The 204BA with the longer elements above make the 10/15 antenna below essentially invisible. I probably have some interaction on the upper bands that I did not take into account because they are closer than the book recommends. But for top band it did not hurt one bit. Is it safe to say that a close spaced upside down Christmas tree is acceptable if you originally plan for the big antenna to match at the onset? (Eric did well in the contest after a return of being QRT for 10 years, I think he was #4. So the setup is not all that bad.)

Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ


Earl W Cunningham wrote:


I've never modeled an "upside-down Christmas tree" like that, but I agree
that the difference will be even more pronounced in that case.





_______________________________________________ Topband mailing list Topband@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>