Hi Guys, For a temporary, 1-night, 160-meter antenna... please advise if there would be much difference in performance between the following 2 options: 1) Load up a 80-m dipole on 160-m by running th
Hi, Dick; In option 2, only the feedline radiates. The dipole acts as a capacity hat. This is called a TEE antenna; it is usually implemented with open wire feedline. It needs several, like more than
I tried it in Chicago when I lived there, it worked VERY badly. I did this for a weekend contest, with a balun at the antenna. With 100W, I burned up the so-called KW-rated balun at the antenna (it t
For your 1 day option of running an 80 meter dipole on 160, here is a piece of data for you. Assuming an antenna height of 50 ft, if you are feeding the dipole with 100 ft of RG8X, loss in the coax o
Running CW isn't without pitfalls either, Jerry. Last time I ran portable on 160 meters at El Mirage dry lake bed, I kept getting RF burns from the rivets that hold the plexiglass finger paddles to t
Again, the word "ground" is poorly chosen and confusing. Earth, indeed, is not a necessary element of the antenna. A far better word is "counterpoise" -- that is, some conductive wire/plane/body that
When we first moved to this qth I had a 40M extended double zepp up about 50 ft. I twisted the feeders together and fed as a T through an L network. Lot's of rf in the shack. I ran a quarterwave coun
I dunno, Mike, at El Mirage I had 30 one-hundred foot long radials tied to the base of the vertical, a pair of common-mode chokes on the feedline, and I was still getting RF into the cab of the truck