Jim Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:22:21 +0000, John Tait wrote:
>
>
>> They are all at about 55ft at the highest point.
>>
>
> I'm missing a lot in your email. First, you say you're talking about
> a vertical dipole for 160M, and that the highest point is 55 ft. How
> can that be? A half wave on 160M is 80M, which is about 260 ft.
>
Yes I am I am talking dipoles here..The dipoles have single wire
capacity hats at either end, which is the most efficient way of loading
them. The bottom capacity hat wire is 10ft over ground, and the top hat
is at 55ft. all the details are at
http://www.iol.ie/~bravo/low_band_antennae.htm#My%20TX%20Antennae
Rudy's N6LF original QEX articles are at
http://rudys.typepad.com/ant/files/antenna_vertical_groundplane.pdf
and at http://rudys.typepad.com/ant/files/antenna_vertical_loaded.pdf
Vy 73
John EI7BA
> The specific antennas I'm talking about are for 40M. The vertical
> dipole is installed with its highest point at about 110 ft, putting
> its lower extent at about 40 ft. I've got an inverted V with its
> apex at 120 ft, and it blows the pants off the vertical dipole.
> There are several photos of the vertical dipole in the power point
> pdf, and there are a couple of photos of one of the horizontal
> dipoles as well.
>
> I also have flat dipoles at 120 ft (well, they sag a bit at the
> feedpoint) and they outperform the inverted Vee.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim K9YC
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|