Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] 133' Vertical on 160?

To: john@kk9a.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 133' Vertical on 160?
From: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
Reply-to: richard@karlquist.com
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
john@kk9a.com wrote:
> Hello All,
>     I've got a question, concerning the inverted L antenna. In all the
> books
> I've found, it states that one wants the vertical section "As high as
> possible". If one had a 133' tree or tower, would it just be wise to run
> all
> the wire vertically, instead of vertically and horizontally?
> Thanks for the help!
>
> Mike Almeter
> W4MJA

If you have more than 133 ft, it is advantageous to go even
higher and tune it up to frequency with a series capacitor.
The driving resistance is higher for > 1/4 wavelength, which
reduces ground loss.  Another thing you can do if you have height to burn
is move the feedpoint up in the air a few dozen feet and use elevated
radials.  If you can add a top loading wire ("T" style) without
sacrificing height, it is advantageous to do so, again to raise
the driving resistance.

Rick N6RK

_______________________________________________



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

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