Topband: Vertical vs inverted L question/opinions

[john]

much, much better as a T vertical if u  got the room---  I use a wire t 
vertical at 58 ft---if I can hear it < usually I can work it IF I can 
hear it,,,, as for for here,,, hearing it has always been the problem   
73 john w8wej
On 8/10/2013 21:38, Chortek, Robert L wrote:
> Don,
>
> Others are far more knowledgable than I, but top loading has less loss than base loading so the L should perform better, all else being equal.
>
> That said, I have been using a 60' base loaded vertical with 8 elevated radials and have 136 countries from a 1/4 acre city lot in the black hole of California,  I suspect the total would be a lot better with an L!
>
> Good luck,
>
> Bob
>
> AA6VB
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 10, 2013, at 11:10 AM, "Goldtr8 (KD8NNU)" <goldtr8 at charter.net> wrote:
>
>> I am requesting opinions on what would work best for 160m based on a bottom loaded vertical or inverted L.
>>
>> I have in the past used and inverted L for 160m using a common feed with my 80m vertical.   The 80m vertical has parallel wires for 40m and 20m also and it works real well with 38 radials laid down in the grass.  I like to compare it to a fan dipole but only the vertical section is the multi wire part as the radials are buried.
>>
>> Anyway I am starting to plan for the winter season and I am wondering if a loading coil on the bottom of the vertical would yield better results than the inverted L.   The L is limited to at best 50ft vertical section and the rest on trees.    My thoughts are if I use the 80m vertical section I will have 68 ft of height which may be better than the L.    The vertical is not structurally strong enough to add a wire or a cap hat to the top of it.
>>
>> Clearly I have the ability to try both and play around but I have time to make alternate plans so I am fishing for opinions and or suggestions.
>>
>>
>> ~73
>> Don
>> KD8NNU
>> -.- -.. ---.. -. -. ..-
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector
>>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6566 - Release Date: 08/10/13
>
>