That is a false comparison. The linear loading is effectively center loading, which has an advantage over bottom loading. What I referred to was center loading with a coil vs center loading with lin
With linear loading, if you use thick wire (or tubing) you reduce the inductance. This forces you to stick with thin wire. In a lumped inductor, you can easily use thick wire or tubing to reduce los
I just put up a 4 element SteppIR, but kept my inverted vee's at 60 feet on a separate mast. In A/B'ing the two antennas, the beam really is a huge step up, especially in receiving. A beam is worth
It seems to me the light weight of these towers is only useful if the antenna and rotor can be raised on a Hazer 7 type elevator, (preferrably with fibreglas tracks). Otherwise, you have to climb up
It seems to me the light weight of these towers is only useful if the antenna and rotor can be raised on a Hazer 7 type elevator, (preferrably with fibreglas tracks). Otherwise, you have to climb up
Are you saying that you can put 500 pounds at the top (while laying on the ground) and tilt it up? If it can do that, it should be self supporting and not even need guys at all. Also, 500 pounds is
I wasn't able to look at the instructions on the isotruss web site due to computer problems, which I just spent 2 hours fixing. I now see on the web site that they are using a 20 foot ginpole to do
I haven't done that, but I have done a fair amount of A/B'ing of a 20 meter ground mounted vertical vs an inverted vee at 60 feet. More often than not, one is better than the other, but it's equally
This experimental data may be of interest: Friday night I did a bunch of A/B tests between an 80 meter inverted vee, 120 degrees apex angle, 60 feet apex height versus a voltage fed vertical. The ver
Correction. It's current fed on 160 and voltage fed on 80. Rick N6RK _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather St
Good question. The signal to noise ratio on the inverted vee was sometimes the same as the vertical and other times was better. The vertical was never the better receive antenna. In the past, a 40 m
Mine's been up 2 months now. It's great. I'd never go back to the conventional kind. Rick N6RK _______________________________________________ See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Tow
I bought one of these "just in case" because it was cheap but it's still in the box. One warning about Harbor Freight: some of their metal tools that would normally be forged are cheap castings. I h
I have the calcs from my MA-550 tower. I suppose you could start with those, and simply change the numbers as appropriate. I'm also a EE and I'm pretty sure I could rework the calcs to 90 MPH. Howev
I put up a 20 meter vertical with closely spaced radials 4 wavelengths long spread over about 60 degrees centered on Europe. I A/B'ed it with an ordinary vertical. The vertical with the long radials
Yep, that's why I bought that property. Just wanted to say that what I always do is listen to many signals and A/B two antennas against each other. Thus, whichever one wins has better gain at whatev
I tried 15, 30, 60 and 120 radials on a 40 meter vertical. It improved up to 60 radials, but there was no measurable change going from 60 to 120 radials. The receive antenna was about 800 feet away.
I vaguely remember someone posting to TT that LMR-400 is less than 50 cents a foot in quantity. At 46 cents, I don't see how this knockoff is any bargain. The toughest spec to copy wrt LMR-400 IMHO i
I've been using this technique since 1997. I think I read about it in "Low Band Monitor". After I discovered that beverages work better at lower heights, I switched to 4 foot high plastic electric f
You don't want the power to split equally. You want equal element currents. Typically, the rear element receives only a small percentage of the power thru the coax, being almost parasitic. Feed the v