Hi dave,
I'm confused by this.
> version. This antenna does not require a tower to complete the
> sloper. Actually it can be mounted as a dual sloper or as a L. I had
> one up (wind storm took it down) as an L with 78 feet vertical and 27
> feet horizontal.
>
> The antenna (160/80) is actually two 1/4 verticals with the coil
> acting as a trap to cut off 80 and shorten the 160 to a total length
> of 105 feet.
If it is a dual-sloper isolated from the tower, then it is really a
dipole or a bent-up Inverted V dipole isn't it?
To be "tower independent" would require two wires making up the
antenna to be electrically broken at some point and one attached to
the shield while the other attaches to the center conductor of the
feedline. The shield must then be isolated from the tower.
That way the antenna works only against another wire in the same
package.
Does it connect that way, exactly like a dipole except being bent-up
and having loading coils? If it does, why not just call it a
dipole?73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com
|