Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"

Jan Erik Holm sm2ekm at
Thu Apr 21 22:42:07 PDT 2011

Well base loading should be better then linear loading, lower
losses. However the base loading LC network has to have low Q
or at least "decent" Q.

Once I had my 160 vertical linear loaded, it was a 90 foot
radiator. I did measure the difference between linear loading
and base LC network loading. Did measure the ground wave
field strength about 400m (1300ft) away. I could clearly
measure 0.5 dB less field strength with the linear loading.
Since I don´t like to give away even half a dB I replaced
the linear loading with base loading.

These days I use a 95 ft top loaded vertical and yes it "seems"
to be "slightly" better then the 90 ft base loaded however
this is just a feeling and I have no measurements to back it
up with. But as long as my brain thinks it is better it is
fine for me.

Bottom line: I will never use linear loading again !!

73 Jim SM2EKM
On 2011-04-21 04:42, Lars Harlin wrote:
> Hi Rag!
> Have you thought about the possibility to use linear loading? That could be
> a good alternative when you cant put the loading on top...
> 73 de Lars, SM3BDZ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stein Roar Brobakken"<s-roabr at>
> To:<topband at>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:11 PM
> Subject: Topband: 160m vertical with "top loading"
>> Hi
>> We are going to install a 18m spiderbeam @ LA9TJA for use for 160m
>> We been studying different top loading configurations, but we can't have
>> the
>> wires stringed from the top because it will break the spiderbeam ;)

More information about the Topband mailing list