[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals

To: <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] trees and verticals
From: "David Thompson" <>
Reply-to: David Thompson <>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:17:02 -0500
List-post: <">>
I hear all the horror stories of verticals or inverted L's next to a tree 
but have to agree with Eddy, VE3CUI, VE3XZ.  A tree should be better than a 
metal pole or tower.  I have a diagram of the K8UR/W9LT vertical dipoles at 
KC1XX and they work fine with a tower in the center.

At my QTH I have a pair of old Mor-Gain 80/40 dipoles that are mostly 
vertical in tall trees.  The first one went up just before the D68C 
operation 20 years ago and when they called for 4's I was the first through 
on 75 SSB.  This one is attached to a high branch and runs between two 
trees.  The bottom half slopes slightly NE.  I mounted a second in my 
backyard that is mostly vertical with the bottom half sloping slightly to 
the W.  I have an 80 half square (bi-directional N/S) and the vertical 
dipoles get me through well toward Eu and AF or ZL/VK.  However, I agree 
with KR2Q that my Cushcraft 2 el 40 is better (by as much as 2 or 3 S units) 
when I use the Mor-Gains on 40. No metter which way the beam is pointed and 
it does have about 12 to 15 DB front to back.

I remember the ham from North Carolina who liked quarter wave slopers but 
found that over North GA clay and Stone Mountain rock those same antennas 
did not work at all.

I do think that the vertical wire needs to be several feet away from the 
actual tree.

73 Dave K4JRB 


TowerTalk mailing list

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