[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 160m 1/4 Wave Vertical Results Thus Far...

To: "'AB5MM'" <>, <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 160m 1/4 Wave Vertical Results Thus Far...
From: "Tim Duffy K3LR" <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:12:40 -0500
List-post: <>
Hello Steve and Lloyd!

I have the very same omni antenna series fed vertical for 160 meters. My
feedpoint impedance is 36.5 +j0 at 1830 KHz. A simple L network (series L
with shunt C) gives 50 +j0 at 1830 and a useful bandwidth of over 100 KHz.
Even without the L network the VSWR at +j0 is 1.55 to 1 on my vertical.

There must be something wrong to have the VSWR minimum be only 2.6 to 1
given the ground system involved.

We need a few more details. What are you using to measure VSWR?

Tim K3LR 

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of AB5MM
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:52 PM
Subject: [TowerTalk] 160m 1/4 Wave Vertical Results Thus Far...


I would like to extend a hardy "Thanks" to each of you that responded to 
my plea for help with matching the 120'-6" 160m Rohn 25 Vertical. It's 
still not working like I think it should, so let me tell you what we've 
managed to accomplish to date.

1. We now have 40ea. 125' long ground radials installed. Another 20 will 
be added this weekend for a total of 60. I think I'm going to say that's 
enough for now.  NOTE: Going from 22 to 40 ground radials made little 

2. Both the MFJ-249 and MFJ-259B are virtually useless at these 
frequencies. Too much rf from the BC band. This alone would have saved 
us hours in trying various matching networks, not to mention the number 
of "Pepcid Complete" ingested.

3. In sweeping the tower from 1.600 MHz to 2.500 MHz, we found it's 
natural (no matching other than the 75' of LDF4-50A) resonance at 1.788 
MHz. The lowest swr observed at this frequency was 2.6/1. At 1.800 it is 
3.0/1 and slowly rising to 4.0/1 at 2.000 Mhz. Conventional wisdom tells 
us that the thing is too long (tall).  This still brings up the 
question, "How can this be the case when the vertical is only 120 ft.-6 
in. tall to begin with?" What are we missing here guys? The center of 
the band (1.900 mhz) is what we've been shooting for all along.

4. A high pass "T" network brings the match down flat, but it's Q is 
high enough to only realize a practical band width of ~33kc.

5. A low pass "L" network works as well and exhibits a little larger 
band width of ~60 kc. Our goal is ~100 kc wide... is this reasonable?

We really don't know what to do or try next, if anything. Should we be 
satisfied with what we have?

Press on, nothing is as persistent as persistence itself.

Tnx & 73,
Steve AB5MM
Lloyd K5ZO

TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

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