It was just un-satisfactory so i pulled it down and replaced it with
the 160 antenna I still use today. A full wave loop fed at a lower
corner, top at the same 110 ft point. I did have to tilt it 15 deg
from the vertical to get it in the property lines but it works like a
bandit.
You replaced a horizontally polarized antenna < 1/4 wave above ground
(a "cloud warmer") with a vertically polarized "ground independent"
antenna. The change fro horizontal to vertical probably accounted for
90% of the performance increase you observed.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 5/25/2016 12:01 PM, Courtney Judd wrote:
hey Steve, yes, I did enjoy the article about verticals/beach, very
educational! BUT, in the same issue of QST another article "If you can
hang a full-size vertical loop, then hang a dipole" really made me roll
my eyes. While I have never done any modeling, 50 plus years of playing
with various antennas leaves me with the opposite conclusion. A loop is
ALWAYS better than a dipole in my experience. I wanted to spend some
time on 160 some years back so I strung up a dipole at 110 ft with the
resonant point at 1840.00.... worked great.... all kinds of dx.... BUT
the 2:1 swr points were only 7.5 kz up and down... even with a tuner the
antenna preformed poorly beyond that. It was just un-satisfactory so i
pulled it down and replaced it with the 160 antenna I still use today. A
full wave loop fed at a lower corner, top at the same 110 ft point. I
did have to tilt it 15 deg from the vertical to get it in the property
lines but it works like a bandit. It is quiet and broad banded: 2:1 is
1800 to 1890 and works well over the whole frequency! I would NEVER
replace it with a dipole. Well, thats my 2 cents and I am sticking to
it! lol, 73's Cort K4WI
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk