Topband: What ever happened to the 160 meter "Z" antenna?

[Herbert Schoenbohm]

Tom,  Thanks for the details on the "Z" for TB.  On a related matter I 
have been looking for comparisons between a "L" and a "T" firmly 
believing that a "T" would be better as in 65' up and 135' horizontal 
fed in the exact center.  However there are so many TB'ers using "L" 
rather than "T"s which begs the question....why? You need two supports 
for the "L" but how much do you gain by converting this to a "T" with 
even a modest ground plain of 6-12 radials?  Or is it just a matter of 
convenience and lot size?  Here on 80 meters I use a "T" with a 50' drop 
wire and a 20 foot center fed top wire.  Sloping off to one side of the 
top is a 34' drop wire separated with some Dacron rope so the 40 meter 
section meets the same feed point.  And this makes for a very good 
performing 80/40 meter vertical.  At times on some DX it outperforms my 
80/40 meter dipole at 70 feet.  The ground system is 20 radials made 
from Cat 5 cable laying on the ground with the feed point and ground rod 
next to the the septic system tank.

Again my question:  How much better is a "T" over an "L" on 160?



Herb Schoenbophm, KV4FZ


On 2/16/2015 6:23 AM, Tom W8JI wrote:
>> Rick,  I think it had more to do with getting something out of the 
>> shack window with the tuner inside.  I also think it had more to 
>> getting the current maximum at the top of the pole.  The OT's used to 
>> tell me they just taped a #47 bulb and a small loop of wire at the 
>> top and fed some power 20 watts or so at night and then trimmed the 
>> far end for maximum brilliance to try and get the current maximum at 
>> the top of the slant wire.  With some vertical component and 
>> horizontal cancellation I can not see how this was a *bad* antenna 
>> for beginners on TB.
>
> That was an antenna popular in the early 1960's, I tried one myself 
> back then.
>
> It appeared everywhere as an improvement to a vertical or inverted L 
> antenna.  It was ideally out 65 horizontally, up 65 vertically, and 
> out 130 horizontally. If the vertical section was lower height, the 
> low horizontal was extended.
>
> The idea was to get current at the top of the vertical section, and 
> enough length on a horizontal single wire feed to make it a 1/2 wave, 
> but it was a bad idea. Mine was way down in signal strength locally on 
> groundwave over a base loaded vertical. It improved greatly when 
> turned into an inverted L with current maximum at the base.
>
> As Rick says, it acted more like a bent dipole with one end 6 feet off 
> the ground for 70 feet or more.
>
> 73 Tom
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband