I have been contemplating a sky loop to replace my coax 160/80M fan dipole. The loop would be fed with ladder line so I could use it on 160-40M. It would take a bit more effort clearing an area to ge
Hi Gary, It would make a nice receiving antenna. Let's start with a question: Would you put up a loop for 20 meters that is 6 feet off the ground? Height for horizontal antennas must always be though
Well Rob, if you read Gary's email, you will find that he is interested in communicating "...with the hams I daily keep in touch with in the 500-600 mile range." The loop may be a great antenna for t
Hi Rob (and gang), I would like to make one point that should be considered in this discussion. A true vertical which is what I use (not an inverted L) on 160 meters is sometimes horrible on 160 mete
On Wed,12/2/2015 11:02 AM, Don Kirk wrote: Therefore while I don't disagree that a vertical on 160 meters is a great antenna especially for DX work, for working stations in close it sometimes can be
You are misinterpreting the model data by looking at the shape of the pattern rather than the relative strength of the pattern at angles of interest. Example -- the so-called "take off angle" simply
160m is a band for vertical polarization. www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html I am a happy user of an inverted-L hung from a tree. Those that don't have room for resonant elevated radials like mine can use
For what its worth Id stick with the dipoles at that height. I tried 1,2 and 3 wave length loops at ~110 ft (vs dipole at 110 ft) and "on the average" the dipole worked the best. This is completely u
Model a low 1-wl loop, and you'll see why it was quieter. 1. There's not quite as much low-angle response. Most local noise comes from very low angles. 2. More ground loss. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com ___
I should have added that in some types of weather, a dipole may have more corona (which makes noise) off the ends than a loop. I have an EZNEC model of a low loop, if someone wants it. 73, Mike www.w
Forget I said all that. I looked at the model and found some possible mistakes. And I don't have any more time now to fix it. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - htt
Try putting a closed reflector wire under a 1 WL horizontal loop. Lay it on the ground or bury. Use insulated wire and size per typical loops~+5% at design frequency. Experiment by listening to weak
Kevin - I'm in a more tenuous position with Rob than you!!! I operate QRP on 160 -- you can bet if Rob gets wind of that he'll think I'm REALLY peeing in his Wheaties, 'eh???? 71.5/72 de Jim R. K9JWV
Hi Tom, You said "Compared to a vertical, there could be 10-30 dB difference in favor of a low dipole (less than 150 ft high) within a few hundred miles.", and I was pretty much trying to make the sa
Thanks for all the replies, guess the consensus is it is not worth the effort to put up a 2wl loop over a 1wl. I know several mentioned verticals but I really was interested in the loop option. This
You said "Compared to a vertical, there could be 10-30 dB difference in favor of a low dipole (less than 150 ft high) within a few hundred miles.", and I was pretty much trying to make the same point
I apologize if I ticked anyone off; I'm just trying to help hams understand what is needed to get out. This is not directed at any one person. The topic came up and I have an opinion based on experie
10 dB or more of noise ? Mein Gott ! Oh for such a quiet QTH ! 73 - Mort, G2JL _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
I should have written "10 dB or more _additional_ noise." This is a serious problem and is on the radar of the medium wave broadcast industry as well: http://www.radioworld.com/article/afcce-symposiu