[TowerTalk] One of our own...

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> It was just un-satisfactory so i pulled it down and replaced it with
> the 160 antenna I still use today. A full wave loop fed at a lower
> corner, top at the same 110 ft point. I did have to tilt it 15 deg
> from the vertical to get it in the property lines but it works like a
> bandit.

You replaced a horizontally polarized antenna < 1/4 wave above ground
(a "cloud warmer") with a vertically polarized "ground independent"
antenna.  The change fro horizontal to vertical probably accounted for
90% of the performance increase you observed.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV

On 5/25/2016 12:01 PM, Courtney Judd wrote:
>
> hey Steve, yes, I did enjoy the article about verticals/beach, very
> educational! BUT, in the same issue of QST another article "If you can
> hang a full-size vertical loop, then hang a dipole" really made me roll
> my eyes. While I have never done any modeling, 50 plus years of playing
> with various antennas leaves me with the opposite conclusion.  A loop is
> ALWAYS better than a dipole in my experience. I wanted to spend some
> time on 160 some years back so I strung up a dipole at 110 ft with the
> resonant point at 1840.00.... worked great.... all kinds of dx.... BUT
> the 2:1 swr points were only 7.5 kz up and down... even with a tuner the
> antenna preformed poorly beyond that.  It was just un-satisfactory so i
> pulled it down and replaced it with the 160 antenna I still use today. A
> full wave loop fed at a lower corner, top at the same 110 ft point. I
> did have to tilt it 15 deg from the vertical to get it in the property
> lines but it works like a bandit. It is quiet and broad banded: 2:1 is
> 1800 to 1890 and works well over the whole frequency! I would NEVER
> replace it with a dipole. Well, thats my 2 cents and I am sticking to
> it! lol, 73's Cort K4WI