Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

Jamie WW3S ww3s at zoominternet.net
Wed Jan 23 16:21:07 EST 2019


Todd, don’t get discouraged and don’t let lot size fool you....I'm in a 
subdivision, 80x180 ft lot, with a 50ft tower, hygain hytower for 75/80m 
(also works as a second radio antenna), and 2L 40m phased array...my inv l 
is suspended off the top of the tower....I never modeled it, I just know it 
works.....DXCC on 160 with low power.....now that I added an amp, I'm up to 
140+ worked.....the secret on 160 is receiving, which really hampers 
me.....forgot the modeling for a minute, did you try the reverse beacon 
thing I mentioned a few days ago.....that will tell you if you are getting 
out or not.....btw, my L is 135 ft (at least it was when it started, I lost 
a few feet due to some weather related issues)......about 50 ft vertical, 
then the rest  mostly horizontal to a tall tree in the woods....

-----Original Message----- 
From: Todd Goins
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 4:09 PM
To: topband at contesting.com ; 676a8e87-aec6-9ead-1297-0bdb1f0a7071 at gmail.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvements - Part 3 (now with data)

Both Merv and Guy are correct here. Perhaps this antenna doesn't ever
have a chance at being any good due to the suburban area and lot size
that I'm constrained by.

Within a 250ft radius (huge!) there is as follows: 80m dipole, 40m
dipole, 30m dipole, 20m dipole, 15m dipole, 20m yagi, and the original
43' tall T antenna for 160m and its radial system. Also, the house is
easily within 250ft.  Most certainly the radial systems, although not
physically connected to each other, are let's say "mingling".

So perhaps this tall wire was doomed from the outset? I was so
encouraged that the 43' T worked so well for what it was and the small
amount of effort it took to get converted to 160m that maybe a taller
version would be substantially better. That's how this saga started.
Maybe the real answer after time/effort/money expended and all of your
advise is that it isn't going to get any better in my environment?

At this point the best path forward may be to just remove the tall
wire and reroute all of the new radials (over 2000ft) to the original
43' T's radial plate and with any luck make it play better as a
result?

Todd - NR7RR


>Way back some where around the original posting did he not say he had
>2 160 antennas up and they are close to each other?  a short vertical and
>this antenna?   If so what is the short vertical doing,  is it floating or
>grounded or hooked to the ground system yet,  what is its status?
>Would make all the difference in the world if the short 160 vertical is
>any where around yet.
>
>73 Merv K9FD

>* Have to pay attention to everything he is reporting. He added a feedpoint
*>* choke per K9YC at the same time. Which may, depending on the physical
*>* connections at his feedpoint, have removed the feedline shield as an
*>* alternate “radial” in parallel with the increasing but still not full 
size
*>* radial system.
*>>* That indicates that his ground characteristics could be well into the
*>* “poor” end of the range where ground radial deficiencies are multiplied 
and
*>* emphasized.
*>>* His SWR bandwidth narrowed slightly. Leaving a strong possibility that
*>* there was an improvement in desired radiated pattern.
*>>* There remains the question of every conductor in a 250 foot radius,
*>* including a tower? There remains the question of large dielectric masses
*>* close by.
*>>* 73, Guy K2AV
*

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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com 



More information about the Topband mailing list