[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] dipole configuration

To: "Towertalk" <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] dipole configuration
From: "Tom Osborne" <>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:55:33 -0800
List-post: <">>
Hi All

It seems I read somewhere that on an antenna like this, it would be better 
if the bends were gentle, like through a piece of hose or something, instead 
of abrupt, like 2 wires tied to the hole of an insulator at right angles to 
each other.
Any truth to this or just another 'old wives tale'?  73

> Blair,
> You've gotten some good inputs on your question.  Vertical polarization
> is definitely the way to go on 160m.  Given your space constraints, the
> K2KQ "Double-L", would be a good antenna for you.  See
> and
>   K2KQ shows a dual
> band (80-160) version, but you can just leave off the 80m wires if that
> band isn't of interest.  If you can't get the full height, you can
> lengthen the horizontal wires to keep the total length the same.  The
> impedance will be a bit lower with less vertical height.
> N0HR has done some modeling of this antenna and includes radiation
> patterns:
> This antenna has a lot of low angle signal, but also fills in the null
> somewhat at high angles, making it good for short haul work, too.  It
> will have a lot more bandwidth than an approach using loading coils and
> much more efficient than a low dipole.
> 73, Terry N6RY


TowerTalk mailing list

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