Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160

Thu Dec 19 16:13:57 EST 2019

Hi Dave, 

I remember K5IU's article well. I have no doubt such a system can be 
made to work well. 

However, I have no plans to replace my 30,000 feet of radials with 
elevated radials... 

Thanks 

73 
Frank 
W3LPL 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Artek Manuals" <Manuals at ArtekManuals.com> 
To: topband at contesting.com 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 9:03:48 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 

Frank 

I agree with you if the elevated radials are "resonant" .� However my 
experience is the direct opposite with non resonant radials� for my 
elevated system. Mine are 90' long for 160M. So far this year I have 
worked 118 countries (102 confirmed) since getting back on the air� 
starting in May of this year. A little harder since we don't ( I can 
speak from prior experience) get as good� propagation typically to 
Europe and over the pole here in Florida as you guys up north get. 

There was an article in the Spring 1997 Communications Quarterly by K5IU 
extolling the virtues of non resonate radials and how to match them 
which got me headed down the path. I could post a copy� I suppose but I 
need to have an understanding about the copy rights first.. You may find 
a copy on the web if you google long enough. 

DaveNR1DX 

On 12/18/2019 4:10 PM, donovanf at starpower.net wrote: 
> Hi Csaba, 
> 
> 
> My experience is that an extensive radial system on the ground performs 
> significantly better than a few elevated radials. I suspect its 
> difficult to 
> obtain nearly equal currents among a small number of elevated radials. 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with gull wing elevated radials, but in my 
> experience 
> they shorten the effective length of the vertical. 
> 
> 
> 73 
> Frank 
> W3LPL 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> From: "HA3LN" <csaba at ha3ln.hu> 
> To: donovanf at starpower.net 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:57:40 PM 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 
> 
> Hi Frank, 
> 
> So the gull-wing elevated setup should be dropped from the performance 
> point of view, right? 
> 
> I have a 26m spider-pole and just wondering how to setup the radials for 
> that but considering you wrote no sense to make the radials into 
> gull-wing then. 
> 
> Thanks and 73! 
> Csaba HA3LN / HG3N 
> http://ha3ln.hu/ 
> 
> 
> On 2019-12-16 22:04, donovanf at starpower.net wrote: 
>> Hi Mike, 
>> 
>> 
>> Years ago my 4-square transmitting array used "gull-wing" elevated 
>> radials sloping 45 degrees from the feedpoint at ground level to about 
>> ten feet high. 
>> 
>> 
>> When I replaced the radials with sixty 120-foot radials laid on the 
>> ground 
>> I had to shorten the verticals by about five feet to maintain resonance, 
>> suggesting that the current at the bottom five feet -- or so -- of 
>> the verticals 
>> was attenuated by the sloping radials in close proximity to the 
>> verticals. 
>> 
>> 
>> As an aside, the performance of the array improved dramatically... 
>> 
>> 
>> 73 
>> Frank 
>> W3LPL 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> 
>> From: "Mike Waters" <mikewate at gmail.com> 
>> To: "thoyer" <thoyer1 at verizon.net> 
>> Cc: "topband" <topband at contesting.com> 
>> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 8:52:41 PM 
>> Subject: Re: Topband: Temporary antenna suggestion for 160 
>> 
>> CORRECTION 
>> 
>> It was just pointed out to me that I neglected to mention that the 
>> feedpoint on my 160m inverted-L was much lower than 10 feet high! 
>> 
>> The tuner sits on the earth, and the two wires go straight up from 
>> that to 
>> the insulator block holding the antenna and the radials, which is 
>> less than 
>> 4 feet high. 
>> From that point, the two radials angle upwards at roughly 45� (?) to 
>> nearby 
>> trees, and level out at 10' high to the North and to the South all 
>> the way 
>> to the ends. (The South radial zigzags back and forth since the distance 
>> from the base to the neighbor's fence in that direction is less than 1/4 
>> wavelength.) 
>> 
>> I had photos of it online, but w0btu.com crashed. Looking for a place to 
>> upload it to. 
>> 
>> I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the lack of details below. 
>> 
>> 73, Mike 
>> W0BTU 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 8:22 PM Mike Waters <mikewate at gmail.com> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Do the inverted-L, but use at least two 10' high 1/4 wave radials. 
>>> 
>>> Do NOT use an RF ground rod, or any radials on or near the earth. Just 
>>> connect the coax shield to the junction of the radials and any remote 
>>> tuner. At that point a good choke balun is necessary. 
>>> 
>>> Leaving out the choke or grounding the shield will result in very poor 
>>> performance. 
>>> 
>>> 73, Mike 
>>> W0BTU 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:04 PM thoyer via Topband 
>>> <topband at contesting.com> 
>>> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> With only 9 more to go for DXCC on 160 and all of the recent posts 
>>>> about 
>>>> how good the band has been recently "best in years....) I find 
>>>> myself with 
>>>> no 
>>>> antenna for the low bands and cringing after each post on how good the 
>>>> band has been. 
>>>> ... 
>>>> Options - I have a 45' tower with TH6DXX, 6m and 2m yagis. I could 
>>>> easily 
>>>> string a makeshift inverted L with about 45' vertical and around 100' 
>>>> horizontal. This I could string up in a few hours. the Horizontal 
>>>> portion 
>>>> would be pointed south. Not the best of configurations but that's 
>>>> what I 
>>>> have to work with. ... 
>>>> 
>>>> Tom 
>>>> W3TA 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> _________________ 
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
>> Reflector 
>> 
>> _________________ 
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
>> Reflector 
>> 
> _________________ 
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 
> Reflector 

-- 
Dave 
Manuals at ArtekManuals.com 
www.ArtekManuals.com 

_________________ 
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 