Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length

 Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length "Michael Ryan" Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:20:41 -0400 mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
 ```Where did that 12 - 15 ft above a structure come from? - m -----Original Message----- From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of jimlux Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:44 AM To: Dan Zimmerman N3OX Cc: towertalk@contesting.com Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote: >> If one uses the old CB antenna rules of 12-15 ft max height above >> structure as a constraint, are you better off with some sort of short >> vertical dipole, up 30 ft on the roof, or with a 45 ft vertical, on the >> ground? > > > When you start talking about 12 foot high vertical dipoles, you really need > to revisit your assumption of a lossless matching network. > > Anyway, this is straying off the original topic, but I think that the best > all-HF-bands approach even in a situation where unobtrusiveness is very > important may be more than one type of antenna... > And, also Joe's comments about multiple antennas. So.. given one fixed length element, the trade is to make it long enough that the efficiency isn't wretched on the lowest band of operation, but short enough that you don't get funky high band patterns.. which is tough. So, you can make a single "variable length" radiator; either by the SteppIR approach, or with traps. (Leading to an interesting question of whether, given that you've got a tuner, you could use just one trap.. can one make a "low pass" trap? you'd have one length for, say, 10,12,15,17 and another for 20,30,40,80) Or, as seems to be a reasonably non-obtrusive solution, a long ground mounted vertical (for lower bands) and a shorter roof mounted vertical (for higher bands) One might also be able to make a fairly inconspicuous multiband vertical of sorts.. base driven for low bands, center fed for higher bands (coax up the center of bottom half) with some switching scheme to short the upper feedpoint remotely. Leading to yet another interesting question. Given, say, a 40 ft total vertical length, for low bands, are you better off feeding it as a short vertical dipole (in the middle) or as a base fed vertical (where you add losses from the ground).. I suspect the base fed is better, because you can always put lots of radials out and make the loss no worse than the bottom half of the vertical dipole, and the IR losses in a short radiator are always higher than in a longer radiator. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk __________ NOD32 4122 (20090602) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk ```
 Current Thread Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, jim Jarvis Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, Joe Subich, W4TV Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, Paul Christensen Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, jimlux Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, Joe Subich, W4TV Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, Dan Zimmerman N3OX Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, jimlux [TowerTalk] tramming preparation, Sain'T Tom Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, Michael Ryan <= Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, jimlux Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, jimlux Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, Joe Subich, W4TV Re: [TowerTalk] optimum vertical length, jimlux