Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?

[Carl]

Youre getting confused Charlie.

1. My query was about a theoretical installation and not band specific. 
Maybe I'll try using the 600'  UHF TV tower on the next hill over if there 
is a chance it might work or just install stacked horizontal collinears 
inverted V fashion (-;

2. My tower was just mentioned in passing since someone mentioned modeling a 
tower and the variations involved; my configuration is just one of many 
possibilities.

Carl
KM1H





> No I haven't attempted that modeling exercise, Carl.  I mostly model 
> things
> I can build of wire and/or tubing. That's new information about the tower
> not being grounded, I think. Do you feed it at the base for 160? Or is it
> shunt-fed? - Or is it even your 160 antenna? What's on top? I assume that
> there are also feed-lines running up the tower?
>
> I did model my 5-band home-brew quad on my little 40' tower.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl [mailto:km1h at jeremy.mv.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 3:04 PM
> To: Charlie Cunningham; 'Mike Armstrong'; 'Mike Waters';
> mapa50 at windstream.net; Tom W8JI; paul at n1bug.com; Bob Kupps; Guy Olinger
> K2AV; Bruce
> Cc: 'topband'
> Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
>
>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
>
>
>> Gee, I wonder if Carl had any idea what a "catfight" he was going to
>> start,
>> when he began this thread?
>
>
> ** Nope but what dissapoints me is that no one has modeled this and one 
> just
>
> tells past tales of irrelevant attempts at doing something not related.
> As I said at the very beginning this was posted just as an exercise. But 
> if
> someone wants to model it assume a 400' tower or higher for 160, 200' + 
> for
> 80 and even 40. All with the same 12' spacing from the tower.
>
>
>
>
>> For my money, if I had enough support height to support two 1/4 wave
>> ground
>> planes, one above the other, I'd install a vertical 1/2 wave dipole and
>> get
>> the current maximum higher above ground to reduce the ground losses. No
>> radials required!
>
>
>
> ** And no improvement if still hanging from the same tower which may or 
> may
> not ruin the performance.
> At a past QTH I had a 100' shunt fed tower on 160 that was resonant at
> around 1400kHz due to the top loading of stacked 10-15-20M 4 el yagis.
> Hanging from the same tower was a 80M delta loop, vertically polarized, 
> and
> about 6' from the tower that matched as predicted, worked very well to the
> point of enabling me to confirm the first 5BWAZ from New England as well 
> as
> winning the US in DX contests.
>
>
>
>> But I think Carl's proposed location for the vertical elements 6-12' from
>> the tower face is way too close especially for 160 or 80 meters!  Not
>> likely
>> to be a good  radiator with a desirable pattern, I expect. Furthermore,
>> the
>> electrical height of the tower would play a very significant role!
>>
>> 73,
>> Charlie, K4OTV
>
>
> ** Have you modeled the pattern distortion of a 12 to 18" non resonant 
> tower
>
> at various spacings and different bands Charlie?
>
> Trying to confuse the issue by using 2M doesnt work either as now the 
> tower
> face is a significant part of a wavelength and in fact just about 1/4 wave
> for Rohn 45/55 tower.
>
> My own tower has no RF ground as all guys are broken up and the base sits 
> on
>
> a pier pin.
>
> Anybody else have something to offer...on the subject matter please.
>
> Carl
> KM1H
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike
>> Armstrong
>> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:46 PM
>> To: Mike Waters
>> Cc: topband
>> Subject: Re: Topband: Are stacked verticals feasible?
>>
>> Mike, you are answering the wrong question.  Guy didn't understand the
>> question at all.  I KNOW that sea water is a better ground than 
>> dirt......
>> The comparison I was ALWAYS talking about had NOTHING AT ALL to do with
>> LOCATION!  NOTHING!  The comparison was a quarter wave vertical compared
>> to
>> a 5/8ths wave vertical IN THE EXACT SAME LOCATION...... Sorry Mike, I am
>> taking it out on you and it wasn't your fault.  People are responding who
>> didn't actually read what I wrote, then they comment..... and they YOU
>> commented on their comment which had the wrong premise to begin with.....
>> I
>> say again, the comparison had nothing to do with the actual location, but
>> rather two different vertical types in the exact same place..... Well, 
>> ok,
>
>> a
>> few yards apart, but with the same number of radials and the same 
>> seawater
>> location (Iroquois Point Military Housing on Oahu).  THe words RURAL or
>> DIRT
>> were used nowhere in my original email.
>>
>> What intrigued me was that I had such a great experience with a 5/8 wave
>> vertical over a 1/4 wave vertical AT THE SAME LOCATION..... and on 20
>> meters.  Tom commented that 5/8 waves were basically garbage on 160 and I
>> would like to know why..... IF he knew or had a clue as to the why.  Then
>> Guy started talking about seawater vs rural dirt and off the entire 
>> thread
>> goes in the wrong direction...... a direction that indicated he was
>> reading
>> stuff into my post that just wasn't there.  It is exasperating in the
>> extreme to have that happen, then others like yourself are misdirected by
>> their misdirection because you read theirs instead of mine..... Not
>> knowing
>> that they actually didn't read what I wrote.  NOT YOUR FAULT, but
>> exasperating because I feel compelled to answer you because you were kind
>> enough to provide some details, but details to an issue that I wouldn't
>> have
>> mentioned because I KNOW that salt water is better than dirt..... I've
>> lived
>> in Hawaii, within yards of the oce
>> an and then Arizona, which probably has the world's least conductive dirt
>> on the entire planet.
>>
>> My desire IS STILL to have someone who might know give me a clue as to 
>> why
>> the 5/8 doesn't work well on 160 when it works so fabulously well on 20
>> meters (for one band).  I use one out here in AZ on 20, too.  It has alot
>> of
>> straight copper radials underneath it (60 half-wave long radials to be
>> precise) and it works as well here, anecdotally speaking, as it did in
>> Hawaii..... Well, not "quite" as good, but darned close if you take into
>> account the difference in solar activity, too.  When I was on Hawaii, the
>> spots were a whole lot better, even tho they were decreasing, than they
>> are
>> today at the current "peak."  If "peak" is the right word for this
>> one.....
>> he he he.  But I digress.... I find it interesting that an antenna that
>> appears to work so well on 20 as a ground mounted vertical, can be so bad
>> on
>> 160..... I would like to know why.....
>>
>> Thanks for responding Mike.  I am sure you will get the gist of what I 
>> was
>> talking about, now.  No insults intended towards anyone, but this does
>> provide a good example of what happens when folks don't read the entire
>> email someone sends and then comment on it....... Then others, who have 
>> no
>> idea that the person responding didn't read the email all the way thru or
>> thoroughly, respond to the responder...... and away she goes..... LOL.  I
>> was starting to get a little wound around the axle, but now it is just
>> funny.  Between you and me (ha ha ha) I am not going to respond to
>> anything
>> else concerning my email unless someone wants to discuss the question I
>> actually, really and truly had..... LOL.
>>
>> Speaking of which, other than the possibility that a 5/8ths wave vertical
>> lays down a very low angle radiation and it is "too low" for 160
>> (although,
>> I have to admit that for DX work, that is a hard pill to swallow..... but
>> I
>> am NOT an expert on 160, which is why I read the forum comments here in
>> the
>> first place :) :)  Like I said, when I replaced the 1/4 wave with the 5/8
>> wave ground mounted vertical (20 meters only), the unsolicited comments
>> concerning my signal were universally positive.  I was one of the early
>> WINLINK stations and my station being in Hawaii at the time was used by
>> MANY, MANY sailboat guys out in the Pacific and, particularly, the 
>> Western
>> Pacific.  Many of the guys who used my system were former or retired
>> military having a ball sailing the ocean blue...... Anyway, I needed a
>> good,
>> solid performer that, by necessity, had to be omnidirectional in nature.
>> So
>> I tried the 5/8ths and batta-bing, batta-boom I start getting UNSOLICITED
>> reports in my emails that
>> say something to the effect, "what did you do? You are definitely
>> stronger.... in fact, you are downright LOUD now."  That kind of report.
>> Again, they didn't have a clue I had recently changed my winlink 
>> dedicated
>> system antenna, but all of a sudden I am louder than they are used to
>> hearing me.  The only difference was a 5/8 wave radiator as opposed to a
>> 1/4
>> wave radiator over the same ground....... I then ran some test with some
>> of
>> my friends floating around out towards the Philippines and they 
>> confirmed,
>> via an a/b test that the 5/8 wave was louder.  I switched which one was
>> "A"
>> and which one was "B" randomly throughout the tests and not once did any
>> of
>> them pick the 1/4 as the better antenna. SOOOOOOOOOO, looks like I found 
>> a
>> winner for my 20 meter winlink node and that antenna is definitely a 
>> go-to
>> when I need a solid, omni on 20 meters.  I am going to turn my station
>> into
>> a winlink node, once again, here shortly because my setup, which includes
>> a
>> 5/8 on 20 meters over
>> 60 copper radials on TOP of AZ DIRT, seems to work almost as well as it
>> did
>> on Hawaii back in the day (all things considered, like the fact that this
>> solar cycle blows chunks).
>>
>> Mike, I am sorry this turned into a book, but maybe now you know the whys
>> and wherefores ..... as well as why it still interests me.  I would have
>> never even thought that a 5/8ths wave wouldn't work well on 160 until Tom
>> said something to that effect..... which, due to my experience with that
>> particular vertical antenna, made me say, " HUH?"  LOL LOL. If you have
>> any
>> input on the possible WHY of that statement from Tom, I am all ears.....
>> :)
>>
>> Mike AB7ZU
>>
>> P.S. I hope nobody was insulted by my little diatribe.  It wasn't 
>> intended
>> to insult, but just to remind folks that WE really need to read and try 
>> to
>> fully digest what someone says (ALL OF IT) before we respond and possibly
>> really confuse the entire thread.  I include MYSELF in that statement for
>> sure and certain, since I have definitely done the very same thing in the
>> past.  Not here, I don't think, but certainly in other ways and on other
>> days..... :) :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1432 / Virus Database: 3222/6145 - Release Date: 09/07/13
>