Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical question (Top Hat)

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 160 vertical question (Top Hat)
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 20:59:49 -0800
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
I agree with both Grant and Rick, but with this caveat.  Current is greatest near the feedpoint, and an inductor at the feedpoint is right at the current peak. By contrast, current is least near the end of the antenna. SO -- this is an important reason why top loading is better than inductive loading. BTW -- there was an excellent piece of work published 3-4 years ago studying the relative effectiveness of bottom, center, and top loading of mobile antennas. The study included extensive measurements of field strength, which confirmed that top loading was significantly better, AND that NEC failed to accurately model inductive loading.  As I understand it, NEC models the inductor is as a lumped component, so fails to accurately take into account phase shift across it.

Another technique that is often used for matching is to make the wires much longer than resonant (that is, resonant around the top of the BC band), so that the feedpoint Z is 50 +jX ohms (that is, inductive) on 160M, and tune the capacitance out by adding a capacitor of equal value in series.    NEC can easily model this.

73, Jim K9YC

On 2/3/2018 7:51 PM, Grant Saviers wrote:
Top loading is a winner to increase antenna efficiency.  I agree that EZNEC is essential since umbrella (slanted) wires have less effect than a flat top hat and also tend to shield the antenna a bit. The model needs the segments aligned in each element.  Trig or use AutoEZ to figure that out.

There are a couple of articles worth reading on Rudy Severns web site antennasbyn6lf.com

This article is for top loaded verticals for the new LF bands but covers the principles well
http://rudys.typepad.com/files/chapter-3--1.pdf

My T is 10' at the base elevated radials, 85' to the top, and 33' or so each side, resonates at 1820, 25 ohms.

Grant KZ1W


On 2/3/2018 17:44 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
You should really model this on EZNEC.
Having done this many times, I can say
that the length of the vertical plus the
length of one of the top wires should be
about 120 feet to hit exact 1830 resonance
without a loading coil.  However,
there is absolutely no compelling reason why
this is necessary.  A loading/matching coil
is far more convenient if you keep the wire
length to 25 feet.  Therefore, it should
never be necessary to put it up and down a
bunch of times to get it "just right".  There
is no "just right" with respect to the antenna
proper.  Use the taps on the coil to do the trimming
to make the system just right.  This has been
discussed many times on this reflector.

Rick N6RK

On 2/3/2018 5:20 PM, Bill via TowerTalk wrote:

Planning on putting up a 160 vertical, but of course a 1/4 wave vertical is out of the question here in HI since we have a height limitation.   Here's the question:  I'm putting up around 50 feet of 3 inch aluminum tubing  (left over from various antenna takedowns).  I plan on putting up on top of that around another 10 or 15 feet of smaller diameter stinger for a total height of around 60-65 feet.  I obviously need to make up for the lack of height and I was planning on making a top hat of four wires coming down from the top of the antenna at around a 45 degree angle.  The problem is how long to make each of those wires.  My guess is around 25 feet based on my past experience in making Tee-topped 80 meter verticals.  However, it is only a guess and I don't feel like yanking the 3 inch pipe up and down a bunch of times to get it just right.   I know some trimming will be necessary since this is not an exact science.  I just need an educated guess for where to start with the length.  Any ideas?
  Bill K4XS/KH7XS
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________



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