[TowerTalk] 160M Wire Antenna
Al Williams
alwilliams@olywa.net
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:42:02 -0700
I would much rather that you explain how you accomplished such success so we
could all benefit. If pressed I would have to guess that persistence,
longetivity, operator skill was far more beneficial than the 90' high
antenna. Add a little for the inverted v vertical component and the east
coast location?
Perhaps I should explain that my posting was in response to the query
concerning a U shaped antenna.
I may have misinterpreted as a horizontal U. The reason could have been
that hams on our local
80/160 ragchewing roundtables quite often ask/hope that adding more wire on
their city size lots will
improve their getting out (tuner assumed to be used).
As others have responded, radiation at 36 deg elevation for a 90' antenna
is down only about 3db so
a 100 watt xmtr signal is still equivalent to 50 watts pointed at 36
degrees.
Nevertheless, two operators on two 160m recent contests(fone&Cw) only
managed about 50 qsos each
contest with only two foreign stations heard. Four antennas were used: a
500' single wire, a 320' 80m double ext zepp, a half-wave dipole(all about
70'high), and a 100' vertical with 12 elevated (10')radials 130' long. Is
the Pacific Northwest a poor 160m location.
PS Is there an antenna reflector for these conversations, rather than using
this tower reflector?
k7puc
vertical
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Reisert <jreisert@jlc.net>
To: Al Williams <alwilliams@olywa.net>; towertalk@contesting.com
<towertalk@contesting.com>; Tom K Osborne <w7why@juno.com>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Wire Antenna
>K7PUC,
>
>Straight up may be a misnomer. Not all power on 160-Meters is directed
>straight up. How do you explain how I have confirmed over 250 DXCC entities
>on 160 Meters with the highest antenna I've ever used being 90 feet at the
>center and they are all dipoles or so-called inverted "V" dipoles, many
>with loading coils to boot!
>
>73,
>
>Joe, W1JR
>
>
>At 07:03 AM 4/21/00 -0700, Al Williams wrote:
>
>>My observations using EZNEC are that all horizontal single wire antennas
>>(except several wavelengths)
>>under ~100' high radiate about equally i.e. straight up!
>>
>>The only difference is how easily they tune.
>>Any disagreements?
>>
>>k7puc
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Tom K Osborne <w7why@juno.com>
>>To: towertalk@contesting.com <towertalk@contesting.com>
>>Date: Thursday, April 20, 2000 8:32 PM
>>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Wire Antenna
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How would a dipole bent in the shape of a "U" work, with each side
>> >> being about 1/3 of the total length?
>> >
>> >Hi Ted.
>> >
>> >That would work pretty well. I had one up for 80 meters like that and I
>> >couldn't tell the difference from the regular inverted "V". I also made
>> >one on it's side, shaped like the letter "C" and it worked too. 73 and
>> >GL
>> >Tom W7WHY
>> >________________________________________________________________
>> >YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
>> >Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
>> >Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
>> >http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>> >
>> >--
>> >FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>> >Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>> >Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> >Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>> >Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>--
>>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>>Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>>Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm