Perhaps so - but Dale is gong down there to put in a 240' broadcast tower.
73,
Charlie, K4OTV
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:19 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Fw: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition
I agree with Herb. Also Haiti is on an earthquake fault. The quarter
wave tower would have a better chance of survival and is safer.
73
Bruce-K1FZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Herb Schoenbohm" <herbs@vitelcom.net>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition
> Half wave verticals have been very disappointing to me over the years when
> I had the tall BC towers in my backyard to play with after midnight on
> 160. I have had much better result in hanging 1/2 wave center fed slopers
> of of high towers. Radio stations seem to prefer if they have extermely
> high towers like KSTP in St. Paul to split them with an insulated section
> and feed them as a Franklin design and pick up some additional gain along
> the ground. Some designs do not required two stacked half waves but
> achieve significant height by folding back the top and bottom sections
> with a cage or in fact using a top hat and an equivalent on the bottom.
> The proper phasing section is mounted in a box at the center split and the
> feedline is inside the tower. Why this should work any better than a
> straight 1/2 wave, as it seems to is available perhaps in those who can
> model and compare the two. It seems however that topbanders who expect
> good results with a bottom fed 1/2 over a traditional 1/4 wave over a good
> ground, seem to come away disappointed like myself.
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|