Topband: Inverted L Question

[Mike(W5UC)]

Good Morning Herb;

In years past, when I was living about 30 miles north of Dallas, I had a 
shunt fed tower, and it worked very well.  However, when I tried the 
same configuration here, I got my fanny kicked on a regular basis, and 
that was why I decided to put up the Inverted L.  Occasionally I am 
tempted to re-establish the shunt fed  configuration.  I am about to 
plunk down $200 for an instrument to measure the complex impedance at 
the feed point of the "gamma" match, and at that point I may  go back & 
try the shunt configuration again.  However, for the moment, I am 4 or 5 
entities away from DXCC on 160, and untill I get that done I will stay 
in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"  Mode.

73,
Mike, W5UC



On 4/29/2012 7:09 AM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
> Mike,  You would be much better off by feeding the tower with a shunt or
> cage feed.  As K2AV so accurately pointed out...an inverted "L"
> supported by a metal tower is not the answer for an efficient system on
> 160.  With the amount of radials you have at the base you could do much
> better by feeding the grounded tower.  I presume the tower has a beam on
> the top and that will really make you system even more efficient by
> providing some good toploading.  An inverted L supported by a steel
> tower is not the best solution. It is probably the worst of all compared
> to a Marconi "T" out in the clear even with the same tower used to
> support one end as far away a possible from the vertical wire.
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>