[TowerTalk] Adding 160 to an 80M dipole?

[john at kk9a.com]

I guess I should have defined what I consider a short vertical, something
around 50' high and top loaded.  If you had a support 50' high for your
inverted V you could have used it for a vertical and then loaded it with a
wire or wires configured as either an inverted L, T or just have the wires
come back toward the ground like tower guys.  I would not expect a 20'
base loaded vertical to radiate well.

BTW one time I tried a kite at the water's edge while in Cayman Is,
unfortunately I only made a few QSOs before it dropped into the water.  It
may be something fun to try at your QTH.

John KK9A


To:	towertalk at contesting.com
Subject:	[TowerTalk] Adding 160 to an 80M dipole?
From:	RLVZ--- via TowerTalk <towertalk at contesting.com>
Reply-to:	RLVZ at aol.com
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:46:34 -0500

For 160-m. I agree with John's statement below, unless the  vertical is
real short and base loaded in which case I'd prefer a low  Dipole or Inverted
Vee on if there's no better option such as a top  loaded vertical, Shunt Fed
tower, or a Slant L.  Example: one of the  first year's I came to Florida, I
mounted a very short 20' base loaded vertical  at the edge of a salt water
river that had line-of-sight  over salt-water to a large area I was trying
to work.  I also had  a low Inverted Vee for 160-m. with apex at 50' and ends
at 20'.  I  thought the short vertical would do better on DX, but the short
vertical was down 10-20dB in every case.

73, Dick- K9OM






In a message dated 12/17/2014 10:22:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
john at kk9a.com writes:

I never  had much success using a low dipole, even from the Caribbean. For
me a  short vertical with a minimal ground system worked better and it used
much  less real estate.

John  KK9A