I have an inverted-L for 160 with 24 radials that works really well. I'd like to add 80m and possibly 40m by having those respective vertical elements attached to the same radial system. My question:
Hmmm..another variation on the question. It seems one ought to be able to run two inverted L's from the same feedline, using the same radial field (common radial plate). Fanning them out from the bas
Yes. The antenna described in my earlier post, which is somewhere between an inverted L and a top loaded vertical, worked quite well on 80 and 160, but was quite poor on 40. So while a fan would cert
Why not a SINGLE vertical wire, with three wires attached at the top of the vertical portion to tune for the three bands? Seems someone could model this and give us some projections. Don N8DE _______
I do this with my 45' top/center loaded portable 160 meter vertical. To get good performance on 80 meters, I have a small "12 long L-bracket at the top of the 160 meter vertical with a pulley attache
The biggest problem you have with low band multiple L antennas is matching and bandwidth. To start with, a 160 meter L will not have a lot of bandwidth and the impedance will be low compared to 50 oh
I have an 80m inverted L up and running very nicely with 26 x 60' radials. I'm thinking about adding 40m. My support for the 80m L is at 46' on a pulley connected to a cross-boom 5' out from my tower
Please be aware that the bandwidth for a coaxial inverted L is very broad. My SWR at 1.800 is 1.3 and slowly rises to 1.7 at 2.000Mhz. (The antenna is cut for 1.8400MHz and is physically located abou
Hi Bruce, The only way for the bandwidth of an inverted L to be broad is if there are excessive losses. If you measure the resonant impedance at the feedpoint and compare it to the known radiation re
My coaxial inverted Ls can be thought of as 1/2 of a bazooka. It is fed by coax. At the antenna base the shield of the feeding coax goes to the center conductor of the RG8X coax of the antenna and th
Gentlemen... Here we go again... so which is it? Inverted L's have plenty of bandwidth or Inverted L's little bandwidth??? First, let me say if you are not taking your measurements AT THE FEEDPOINT,
I have been using a pair of phased " coaxial inverted l's " for about 20 years on 160 meters. They are 1/2 of a double bazooka, fed against ground. They are very broad-banded, not lossy and out do my
..."Here we go again... so which is it? Inverted L's have plenty of bandwidth or Inverted L's little bandwidth??? "... The traditional L with a good ground doesn't have much bandwidth. But WA3AFS doe
Inverted L's have similar bandwidth to a 1/4 wave vertical...and it isn't "real broad" without excessive return loss. All measurements need to be made at the feedpoint. I've done radial studies on my
Isn't an inverted L antenna just one (Unique) configuration of a top hat vertical? k7puc _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mail
I put on my safari hat and lots of bug repellent and took a trip out to my closest 160M and 80M inverted coaxial Ls. The base plates of these antennas are next to each other. The SWR on the 160M feed
No, a top hat or tee vertical will have virtually no radiation from the flat top if designed correctly. I have a website on that type of antenna at http://www.kn4lf.com/kn4lf2.htm . On an inverted L
Your method is certainly one way to do it, but there are far simpler ways. The link below describes the one I think when you say "inverted L." His discussion is quite solid from an engineering point