[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] Inverted "L" on 40/80?

To: <>
Subject: [Towertalk] Inverted "L" on 40/80?
From: (Tom Rauch)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:06:14 -0400
>  All this discussion of HF2V, radials, etc. causes me to wonder: if
>  the
> inverted "L" is so great for 160, why isn't it used on 40 and 80?

I'm assuming you mean the common L, which is vertically polarized.

On 160, a wave can penetrate deeper and cut a larger cross-section of 
earth. Because of that, losses are generally less. The best example 
of this would be to compare groundwave attenuation with distance as 
frequency is reduced.

Obstructions are also less problematic on 160 and 80, where things 
have to be taller to cause big problems. Since a vertical depends 
more on reflection at a distance, there is less clutter that affects 
the signal on lower (longer wavelength) bands.

It is also nearly impossible for most people to get a 5/8th wl high 
dipole on 80, let alone 160. So the increased FS at lower wave 
angles, despite having less peak gain, can offset differences between 
peak gains.

A practical dipole has a clear transmitting advantage on 40 in most 
cases, while a practical Inverted L or vertical has the clear 
transmitting advantage on 40 meters and most cases.

The above does NOT apply to receiving, that is a whole different 

73, Tom W8JI 

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