Eric,
I don't know how to answer that question.
The smart-ass answer would be, "I get 200 kHz, because it is usable across
the entire band. (hi)
The FIRST QUESTION is, how do you define bandwidth?
I know we like to define an SWR bandwidth for antennas as the frequency
range less than of 2:1.
Why?
SWR has hardly anything to do with the quality of our signal.
People who worship their SWR meters are praying to a false God.
The antenna itself (especially on 160m) is quite usable with an SWR of up to
5:1.*
In fact in the ARRL handbook, they even go one better and say "up to 6:1".*
*Provided we use a short run of high quality coax.
What REALLY matters for obtaining a good signal are the things Jim (K9YC)
pointed out in his answer.
The SECOND QUESTION is, would you like the answer to be as measured at the
antenna feedpoint or at the end of the coax in the shack? The answers are
different.
As in most every discussion where we (the group, not just you and I, Eric)
discuss, we often end up disagreeing, only to find we have been disagreeing
the semantics, not the technology.
Therefore I prefer to show people stuff, rather than describe it with words.
Then everybody can draw their own conclusion based on what they see, not on
what they think they read.
I have created a document describing how my 160m antenna is made and showing
in my own [lack of] artistic way, how it is running on my property. Then I
show the SWR curve at the antenna, measured with about 1 ft. of coax, and on
the next page I show the SWR curve measured in the shack.
Using the curves shown, everyone can define bandwidth any way they please
and using their own definition, they can determine the bandwidth of my
antenna.
Its PERFORMANCE: despite my horrible QTH, I worked 47 countries on 160m
during the CQWW 160m contest earlier this year.
Here is EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW (AND MORE) about my 160m
Inverted-L antenna:
http://www.dj0ip.de/my-station/current-2012/160m-inverted-l/
73
Rick, DJ0IP
-----Original Message-----
From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
resluder@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:34 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 M antenna
Rick,
What kind of bandwidth do you get with your inverted L, 50 kHz? Would I
still be able to use a tuner in the shack if I want to bend it for more
coverage on 160?
Eric
Eric
W9WLW
http://w9wlw.blogspot.com/
Rick - DJ0IP / NJ0IP <Rick@DJ0IP.de> wrote:
>Jim, if you have trouble with BCI on your analyzer, the BCI is gonna
>give you trouble on the air too. In that case I recommend investing in
>a good Highpass Filter like a Dunestar HPF-400 or similar. Insert it
>in the coax and then attach the analyzer. The analyzer will then work ok.
>
>The best antenna most of us can deploy is an Inverted-L.
>I wasted 20 years trying to get a low dipole to work on 160m.
>Hardly worked much outside of my own country (Germany) during that time.
>Finally tried the Inverted-L and immediately began working the world on
>160m.
>
>You don't even need a tuner. You can easily match the antenna right at
>the base.
>The only thing you have to accept in your own mind is that you have to
>have a dedicated antenna, just for 160m.
>
>The biggest mistake people make is to try and bend something so that it
>covers 160m and a bunch of other bands.
>Waste of time if you're goal is really to have a big signal on 160m.
>
>My 160m Inv.-L is resonant on 1.850 Mhz. for CW. I switch in a
>capacitor at the feedpoint to raise it 50 kHz for SSB.
>
>73
>Rick, DJ0IP
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TenTec [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim GM
>Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 8:17 PM
>To: TenTec-request
>Subject: Re: [TenTec] 160 M antenna
>
>Rick, I like your answer. I agree with the others too.
>
>Make the external tuner for 160, and 80 and auto tuner, with a remote
>bypass so you can use the tuner in the sack for the other bands. Mount
>the
>160/80 tuner out side close to the radial field.
>
>160M is a pain in the but, to get it working. BCI messes up my
>analyzer so it is a work in progress and trial and error. Just too
>close to the transmitter sites.
>
>--
>Jim K9TF
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|