Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] UL listed protector for ladder line
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:03:17 -0700
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On 6/16/2025 6:13 PM, john@kk9a.com wrote:
A fan dipole or the loaded dipole that K9YC suggested would have a consistent 
pattern with no deep nulls and ~50 ohm impedance on the designed bands.

Yes, and this is a really important factor. The lobes are quite broad, the depth of the nulls depends a lot on symmetry and surrounding conductors. They're only very deep with very good symmetry, and because the lobes are so broad, the only thing really matters more than about 6 dB is where the nulls are.

An important point about SWR. Especially on the lower HF bands, excess attenuation due to SWR is a lot less than imagined. I load an 80M dipole fed with about 160 ft of RG11 that's at 120 ft to work 60M, where legal limit is 100W EIRP. SWR measured in the shack with an LP-100A is about 5.5:1, which works out to about 7.5:1 at the antenna. Total line loss is on the order of 1.6 dB. The tuner in the KPA1500 happily puts about 150W into the feedline with about 2W from the K4. The antenna plays quite well, and I passed 100 countries on the band this winter. The only activity on the band is FT8. The limitation on what I can work is the limited number of countries active on the band and how well they can hear.

At this power level, the likelihood that high power arrestors would fault prematurely depends on whether line length establishes a high voltage at the arrestor.

73, Jim K9YC





_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

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