On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Tom Osborne wrote:
> I'd have to disagree on that one. If someone wants to get an antenna for
> 160, they can do it. I have seen designs for 160 antennas that are only 33
> feet tall.
This story is not about RTTY, but CW:
Up until the 2007 N8S Swains Island DXpedition, I have never in my life worked
160m.
However, I heard them on 160 with really good SNR. So, I though...
reciprocity theory :-).
I have no 160m antenna. The closest is a HF-2V with elevated radials for 40m
and 80m (fitting the description of Tom's "33 foot vertical" but without a
loading coil to match it for 160m).
When I tried it, I could not tune it with either the FT-1000MP's internal
antenna tuner, or a Ten-Tec 238 manual tuner. But, with the two of them in
tandem, I managed to get the Yaesu's PA to see an SWR of less than 3.0:1.
After a few diditdahdahdidit from N8S, they finally got my callsign correctly.
I have never dared tried the same stunt after that, so the N8S QSO remains my
one and only 160m QSO.
I am guessing that I was probably only getting a couple of percent efficiency,
so the other 90+ watts has to be heating something up :-).
If DX can be worked with such a set up, a properly built capacitance loaded 33
foot tall antenna (with a decent counterpoise) will probably do OK.
73
Chen, W7AY
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|