Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas for160???

[Charlie Cunningham]

Well, I've worked a lot of good stuff all over the world on 160 with an
inverted L with two elevated radials - because that's what I had room for.
If you get up to 4 symmetrical elevated radials there's not much to be
gained by adding more. There's been a lot of work done in the broadcast
industry using elevated radials to replace deteriorated buried radial fields
that shows that pretty clearly. It was published in some IEEE transactions
some years ago.

73,
Charlie, K4OTV

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Waters
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:28 PM
To: topband List
Subject: Re: Topband: Anyone purchased the ARRL book on Short Antennas
for160???

The only real way to tell is have one of each, and do many instant A-B
comparisons over a period of time.

I just have two 10'+ high elevated radials on my bottom-fed L. It seems to
work "well", but I should add more radials this summer. And that's what I'll
probably do before I ever build one of those.
http://www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html#inv-l_antenna

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Gary and Kathleen Pearse
<pearse at gci.net>wrote:

> I've built them for 40 and 80 via his modeling years ago. Fed both up 
> high, and both down low. High feed 'seemed better', but no real way to 
> tell. Worked a RU station on 80 from KL7 so they do emit a signal. It 
> was a good aerial, easy to build, with some vertical component to the
pattern.
>
> On 160 it may take some bending. Fed low it's a vert with an elevated 
> radial. Two would be better, but then so would four and so on.
>
> 73, Gary NL7Y
>
> > Wouldn't feeding it up high in the corner like that at least 
> > eliminate
> the
> > need for radials?
>
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband