Read this: http://force12inc.com/PCSDAT-002.htm It describes an 80m vertical array overlooking salt water. They used a pair of "gull wing" elevated radials at 8' high. They note that this radial conf
Go for it! I need to put one of these up, too. I modeled this in EZNEC+ 5.0.10 with the classic 29' by 14' flag dimensions mounted 2 feet above "average" "real/high accuracy" ground. This showed the
As you found, the bandwidth is considerable. As long as you have a good transformer, the match will be very broad, since they look a lot like a terminated, unbalanced open-wire line. EWEs should have
I suspected that the presence of the parallel telephone line and the electric fence would ruin the Beverage pattern, so I ran a few quick models in EZNEC. A 200m Beverage (2m high) alone would have a
This will work, but it does represent a compromise. The gain will probably be about 4 dB below the conventional inverted-V with the same center height. The bandwidth will be a lot less (less than hal
From a quick model in EZNEC, it looks like it shouldn't be too hard to shunt feed a grounded half-wave vertical. The model had a 5 inch diameter tower and the same diameter for the shunt feed wire, s
At 10:01 PM 2007-12-12, Lee K7TJR wrote, in part: Are there any data on the arrival angles of stateside signals on 160m? I'm no propagation expert, but when looking at the numbers that are shown in W
My EZNEC model shows very little interaction between the two antennas. There is some minor change to the back lobes at low elevations, but this is where the signals are down almost 25 dB from the mai
In addition to the 9 drooping elevated radials, there are 120 radials on the ground, each 0.412 wavelengths long. See Fig. 11 on page 16 of http://tf.nist.gov/general/pdf/1420.pdf for details. A desc
I haven't done this, but one issue is that with unterminated Beverages, the input impedance is a lot more variable (and usually reactive) and that could make it harder to get the current magnitudes e
In this situation, the inverted-L should have more high angle, horizontally polarized signals for short haul QSOs, but possibly more absorption in the closely spaced tree trunk and slightly lower gai
Sure, that should work fine, and will also let you use the T or Inverted-L on other bands. (Although the patterns will get "interesting" on the higher bands.) The remote tuner will probably be slight
Andree, It appears that using the 30 meter length increases the gain by about 4 dB, but decreases the F/B from about 22 dB to about 15 dB on 160m (at a 10 degree takeoff angle). This is with #14 wire
Even easier than loading coils would be to just bend the ends of a full sized dipole down to fit the space available. You may want to pull the ends away from the towers somewhat, either to the side o
This shape will have a lower feedpoint resistance than an inverted L. My quick EZNEC model shows 32 ohms for the U vs 62 ohms for the L, including 5 ohms of ground loss, with the open end 15 feet awa
Hi Neil, The first edition of ON4UN doesn't even mention the ewe. In the third edition (1999), ewes are under Antennas and also Feeding in the index (the ewe text is on page 7-46, with dimensions and
Fred, I was skeptical that there would be any benefit to the vertical dipole configuration with two 160m mobile whips, but after modeling this, it appears that there is a 3 dB improvement. I modeled
Take a look at http://www.antenna.it/military/vr%2023-f.htm This is a military version of a sloping terminated vee. Although it is rated for 2-30 MHz, it won't have much gain on 160m. If you double t
Dennis, You didn't say how the RFI affects you. Where does it appear? It sounds like your vertical antenna is very close to the shack. Maybe 40 feet or less? If so, you are definitely in the near fie