A 45 ft vertical for 160 is a little problematic. Looking at bottom loading, you need about 80 uH. Now lets assume some reasonable numbers, wire = #12, coil Q = 400 which gives about 2.3 ohms loss, a
-- Those ICE articles on how their units work seem to have some misinformation. When lambasting the competition they make this statement: "The use of a gas discharge unit as a sole-source mechanism f
..."Their use of a coil across the line is also questionable."... -- Now that you mention it, I may as well give you the answer. I don't know the value of the inductor they use, but a little circuit
In suppressors intended for VHF these inductors can be made to work because the inductor can be much smaller. However when applied to operation at 160 meters there is a problem getting the inductor i
Adding a reflector sounds like a wasted effort. EZNEC says a gain increase of about 0.3 dB straight up. Assuming an inverted vee with the ends 30 feet below the apex, the height for max straight up g
Yes, I know what he was looking for. He was thinking his 95 ft 80 meter inverted vee was a low angle radiator, and that he may be able to convert it easily into a high angle radiator when desired. Fa
Thanks for the post Bill. That brings up an interesting question. I am aware that sometimes high angles are good on 160, such as you might get from a low dipole, inverted vee, or a loop. But I was re
That UST TX472 would be seriously overloaded at 90 MPH. It's rated as 10.3 sqft at 70 mph. I didn't do the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that it wouldn't, or maybe would just barely, s
You could move the inverted vee to 125 ft and pick up 2 to 3 dB. A vertical loop with 102 ft horizontal wires and 42 ft vertical wires, with the top wire at 80 ft (resonates at 3.55 MHz), fed at the
The K8UR four square would give significant amount of additional gain below 35 degrees elevation. However it is significantly more complex than an inverted vee or a loop. It gives about the same gain
If you don't want to shunt feed your tower, you don't want a sloper, unless you mean a sloping dipole. But that isn't likely to be very good either. To work the zones you listed, you need something t
A coax choke is not going to significantly effect forward gain unless you have a bad connection. It could effect front-to-back if the choke is done incorrectly. If the SWR is OK, then it is probably
The HF2V mod for 160 meters is nothing more than longer top loading wires (which kills 40 meter performance). Look at the manual. For an HF2V with four 25 ft top loading wires sloping away at a 45 de
Glad you got your antenna working Gerry. A quick look at your antenna with EZNEC shows a take-off angle of 27 degrees with a gain of about 0.15 dBi. It has a null overhead. Looking in the azimuth dir
-- Here is a comparison between an inverted vee, apex at 95 ft with an included angle of 120 degrees, compared to an equilateral delta loop with apex at 95 feet (which makes the bottom wire at 9 feet
An addition to my antennas comparison post. I compared an equilateral delta to an inverted vee. If you flatten the shape of the delta some to get the bottom wire higher, you can pick up a little more
It should work, but remember you have the same challenges making this work correctly as you do for any other beam. It will have a narrow bandwidth. Move a little off frequency and the beam direction
An inverted vee is not more susceptible to QRN than a dipole. There are two reasons the QRN is worse on 80 meters than 40 meters. 1. Noise level is much higher on 80 than 40. 2. You have a two elemen
An interesting discussion guys. I'm glad I was the one that provoked it. Some interesting and very good points were made. 1. A dipole has a larger null off its ends. 2. The vertical component of LOCA