Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: Vertical vs inverted L question/opinions

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Vertical vs inverted L question/opinions
From: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Reply-to: herbs@vitelcom.net
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:15:49 -0400
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>

Why is an inverted "L" apparently so popular on 160 when it wastes so much RF as a cloud warmer? It is so easy converting an inverted "L" into a Marconi T. The flat top can be 130 feet fed exactly in the center by a single drop wire to the ground with the appropriate network. A 65 foot drop wire comes very close to 50 ohms and any reactance can be removed with a series capacitor. Apart for the cancellation of high angle radiation this configuration is some distance away from support structures. So many try to configure an inverted L by using their metal towers as supports for the fed end. This sometimes means you are just shock exciting the metal tower and your feed impedance results may be all over the ball park.

I challenge anyone to find a situation where an Inverted "L" will outperform a properly configured Marconi "T" with an ample ground system on either.



Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ



On 8/11/2013 5:48 PM, Don Johnson wrote:
I have not seen a length mentioned for the inverted L, so thought I would note 
that by making the inverted L longer than a quarter wave moves the high current 
portion up the vertical. I had good luck with an inverted L about 3/8 wave 
long. By good luck I mean DXCC plus some on 160. I still am trying to improve. 
In any event feeding the inverted L with a series capacitor made tuning a 
breeze. By going longer than a quarter wave made the feed point inductive and 
raised the R value closer to 50.
73,
Don
N4DJ

Sent from my iPhone
_________________
Topband Reflector

_________________
Topband Reflector

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>