[TowerTalk] 160M Wire Antenna

[alsopb]

On 160M in particular it isn't how good your antenna is but rather how
BAD all the other guys' antennas are.  Anything at 100' will be in the
not-so-bad category.  However, if you want to be real competitive (and
hear well) on that band, not take 50 years to work your first 100 then
it will take something better than a dipole at 50'.  Don't overlook
the competition factor.  To me it is amazing the pileup that a G, EA
or other European will generate over there-- nothing else on the band.
Interesting how even the big guns still jump on these guys.

73 de Brian/K3KO





Tom Rauch wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> W2EQS was one of the very first 160 meter DXCC holders, and he
> used a dipole at 50 feet or less and only 100 watts. Operator skill
> and determination is 90% of a good country total. The country total
> certainly does not indicate the system is optimal, it just means it
> is possible to work DX.
> 
> I can put actual performance numbers on this subject from real-
> world tests.
> 
> I've made hundreds and hundreds of A-B-C tests with DX stations
> and many with local stations on 160 meters. In the tests, I've
> compared dipoles at 300+ feet, dipoles at 80 or 160 feet, and a
> vertical with a good ground system (a 200 foot tower with one
> hundred 200 foot long radials).
> 
> > According to the table in the antenna book, even for the 60-foot high
> > dipole, the signal at 25 degrees above the horizon is only 6 dB down from
> > the straight-up maximum.  So if you can hear 'em, you probably can work
> > 'em.
> 
> I believe the wave angle on 160 meters is much lower than people
> assume.
> 
> With VK/ZL:
> 
> I gathered about 800 reports over a one year period with VK3ZL and
> ZL3REX starting just before their sunset and continuing to my
> sunrise and beyond. (Out of a year there were only about a dozen
> days when we could not work on 160 meters!)
> 
> My 200 foot vertical is better than my 300 ft high dipole by as much
> as 20 dB and no less than 3 dB 95% of the time, if all times we
> could work are included.
> 
> If only sunrise peaks are considered, the high dipole is about even
> with the 200 ft vertical.
> 
> The low dipoles are ALWAYS at least 6 dB weaker than the
> vertical and often 25 dB or more weaker... except on rare exception
> days when signals are just booming in (generally during or just
> after geomagnetic storms). During those rare times, all of the
> antennas are about even.
> 
> The only time the high horizontals play well on a regular basis is
> during a short time interval at sunrise during the peak on certain
> days...especially during geomagnetic disturbances. The low
> horizontal, while it does produce contacts, is a dog compared to
> the other antennas for long DX.
> 
> Into Europe:
> 
> The high horizontal (I had one broadside on Europe at one time)
> was only better on two days out of a year of trying! Most of the
> time the high horizontal was about an 5 to 10 dB weaker, on
> occasion during good conditions it would be about equal to the
> vertical but with much more fading. The low horizontals were
> almost always at least 15 dB weaker than the high horizontal.
> 
> Even though I have a pulley and rope over the tower to pull the
> Europe dipole back up, it isn't worth the hour's work to do that.
> 
> Into Alabama (about 150 miles):
> 
> The high horizontal and the vertical are a toss-up, the low
> horizontal is just a tiny bit weaker most nights. During the daytime
> the low horizontals are dogs, but the high horizontal works OK. AT
> that time the vertical is much better than any other antenna.
> 
> Into Atlanta (about 60 miles):
> 
> The low horizontal kicks butt at night. It is 20-30 dB louder than
> either the vertical or the high dipole. I have no daytime data for that
> distance.
> 
> If I worked DX under good conditions, especially right at the
> sunrise/sunset peak, and if I never had a good vertical I'd probably
> never miss it. But since I have all these antennas, and since I
> spent a year or more comparing them (and they are at least 500
> feet apart, so they don't interact much) I can provide data based on
> direct comparisons between some pretty good antennas at an in-
> land location.
> 
> The opinion I've reached is I could certainly work DX with a low
> horizontal antenna on 160 meters, but the lower the wave angle the
> better. In the 70's I had an Inverted Vee dipole at 350 feet on
> WXEZ's tower in Ohio, and a 1/4 wl tower with 60 radials used to
> beat the high Inverted Vee dipole. Both antennas were in a swamp
> area.
> 
> The same thing is true today in Georgia, with greatly different soil
> that should favor a horizontal.
> 
> Like Bill Fisher (W4AN) told me after a 160 contest, "the high
> horizontals aren't worth the money to run the tower lights". Keep in
> mind we could work Asia, Europe, and everywhere else on the
> dipoles...we were just 3-20 dB weaker at most places PLUS we
> had to switch dipoles to work stuff off the ends.
> 
> 73, Tom W8JI
> w8ji@contesting.com
> 
> --
> 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