Topband: 160 vertical/L

[Maciej Wieczorek]

Hi ,

did anyone try to match such 160m vertical /L or /T on 80m?
How about efficiency?

After my 31m tall vertical broke last sunday (now it's 23m only) my idea is 
to add 2 x15m top loading wires, making a T-vertical. 160m is a priority in 
this case and I know it will work OK,  but I'd like to use it also on 80m.

TNX

73's
Mac SP2XF / SN2M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <donovanf at starpower.net>
To: "topband" <topband at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L


> Hi Mike,
>
>
> An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than
> a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth
> is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high
> voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're
> running high power.
>
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Don Kirk" <wd8dsb at gmail.com>
> To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu at w0mu.com>
> Cc: "topband" <topband at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
>
> HI Mike,
>
> I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried
> ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials). I only run 100 watts and
> located near Indianapolis. I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base
> loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but
> having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and
> most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor
> condition.
> Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters.
>
> For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading
> coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus 
> your
> 33 foot vertical. You can use part of the loading coil you install on the
> full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to
> form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great). This would
> allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas.
> Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base
> loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center
> conductor of my feedline. I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my
> loading coil / L network.
>
> But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have
> said above and just install the Inverted-L.
>
> Don (wd8dsb)
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com> wrote:
>
>> I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical
>> for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great.
>>
>> I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use
>> for the 160. It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where
>> people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160. I think I recall people are
>> not overly excited about bottom loading the 80. The 80 is unguyed so the
>> top cannot support anything.
>>
>> I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet.
>>
>> Any feelings one way or another? I can make a switching system for the 80
>> vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution. I have a
>> rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal.
>>
>> W0MU
>>
>> _________________
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> _________________
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>