The difference in an inverted L and a shunt-fed tower would have been
overwhelmed by any differences in the ground/counterpoise systems
underneath. How you deal with ground and radials/counterpoise on 160 is the
1000 pound gorilla in the room with no real competition.
Beyond that, if the bend of the L was supported by the tower, you may have
been mostly using the tower anyway. One could not evaluate the change
without some estimate of the interaction, particularly whether the *tower*
had good radials when the L was in use, or whether the radials were only
added when the tower was loaded.
If if looked like a simple question, it's really drowned in complications
with make or break outcomes.
73, Guy.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Mike(W5UC) & Kathy (K5MWH) <
w5uc@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> Greetings fellow Topbanders:
>
> Please, an antenna question. For the last several years I have use a
> Inverted L on 160. Rscently I became able to run more power (from 450
> watts up to 1 KW output. At that point it appeared that I had developed an
> arc somewhere in my antenna system, so I abandoned the inverted L for shunt
> feed of my tower(which many years ago, I used successfully), I have been
> able to successfully match the Shunt Fed tower using a Omega Match'
>
>
> So my question is: How effective is a Shunt Fed tower, AND, is it more
> effective than the Inverted L?
>
> 73,
> Mike, W5UC
> _________________
> Topband Reflector
>
_________________
Topband Reflector
|