Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[john]

Or hold  and spin the mouse wheel to zoom however I do not recall
having to do that on any of your articles that I read. I certainly would not
complain about having free access to all of that information.

John KK9A


Jim Brown K9YC wrote:

On 8/28/2020 6:25 PM, W2xj wrote:
> Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts.

Use < +> to zoom window or go to settings in your browser to zoom 
in or out. Has worked fine on my browsers for 25 years. Yours is the 
first complaint.

73, Jim K9YC

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[W2xj]

Nice website.

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 29, 2020, at 6:08 PM, David Gilbert  wrote:
> 
> 
> I did a search on your callsign.  I couldn't find a single publicly 
> attributed contribution you've ever made to the hobby, and yet you have the 
> gall to post a snide and ignorant comment like that.
> 
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
>> On 8/29/2020 12:41 PM, W2xj wrote:
>> page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 years. 
>> You need to work more on webpage layout.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to w...@w2xj.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

I did a search on your callsign.  I couldn't find a single publicly 
attributed contribution you've ever made to the hobby, and yet you have 
the gall to post a snide and ignorant comment like that.


Dave   AB7E


On 8/29/2020 12:41 PM, W2xj wrote:

page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 years. 
You need to work more on webpage layout.

Sent from my iPad



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Fred Jensen]

Actually, not so much for me.  I have monochrome vision and sites with a 
lot of "color coding" aren't great.  YMMV


73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/29/2020 2:21 PM, W2xj wrote:

Here’s a readable website

https://k2av.com/




__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Fred Jensen]

Several bags of salt in the pool should do it. [:=)

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:

With a large patio and an in-ground pool, there is absolutely no place for 
conventional 160 meter radials.I came across the FCP several years ago.


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[W2xj]

Here’s a readable website

https://k2av.com/

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 29, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:
> 
> On 8/29/2020 12:41 PM, W2xj wrote:
>> page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 years. 
> 
> That's YOUR problem, not mine.
> 
>> You need to work more on webpage layout.
> 
> Let's see if I understand this. I spend thousands of hours doing extensive 
> research and generating free content and I need to do more to work with YOUR 
> computer?
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to w...@w2xj.net
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Bert]

You're doing great Jim and we're all thankful for all the
work you've have done, free of charge to the rest of us.

Don't let anybody rattle your cage! ;-))

Bert VE3NR


On 2020-08-29 16:13, Jim Brown wrote:

On 8/29/2020 12:41 PM, W2xj wrote:
page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 
years. 


That's YOUR problem, not mine.


You need to work more on webpage layout.


Let's see if I understand this. I spend thousands of hours doing 
extensive research and generating free content and I need to do more 
to work with YOUR computer?


73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ve...@bell.net 


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/29/2020 12:41 PM, W2xj wrote:
page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 years. 


That's YOUR problem, not mine.


You need to work more on webpage layout.


Let's see if I understand this. I spend thousands of hours doing 
extensive research and generating free content and I need to do more to 
work with YOUR computer?


73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Wes]

Why don't you start a go fund me page so Jim can hire a full-time web page 
designer.

On 8/29/2020 12:41 PM, W2xj wrote:

page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 years. 
You need to work more on webpage layout.

Sent from my iPad


On Aug 29, 2020, at 1:58 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:

On 8/28/2020 6:25 PM, W2xj wrote:

Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts.

Use < +> to zoom window or go to settings in your browser to zoom in or 
out. Has worked fine on my browsers for 25 years. Yours is the first complaint.

73, Jim K9YC


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Josh Fiden]

Wow. No good deed...

73
Josh W6XU

Sent from my mobile device

> You need to work more on webpage layout. 
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[W2xj]

page is too busy and is not iPad friendly. I haven’t used a PC for 15 years. 
You need to work more on webpage layout. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 29, 2020, at 1:58 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:
> 
> On 8/28/2020 6:25 PM, W2xj wrote:
>> Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts.
> 
> Use < +> to zoom window or go to settings in your browser to zoom in or 
> out. Has worked fine on my browsers for 25 years. Yours is the first 
> complaint.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
> 
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to w...@w2xj.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/28/2020 6:25 PM, W2xj wrote:

Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts.


Use < +> to zoom window or go to settings in your browser to zoom 
in or out. Has worked fine on my browsers for 25 years. Yours is the 
first complaint.


73, Jim K9YC



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Another possibility for a compact counterpoise is what N6BT calls an 
"open ring" as part of his VOR (Vertical, Open Ring) concept.  It's 
basically a horizontal, elevated, single turn 1/4 wavelength length of 
wire wrapped around the base of the vertical ... one end open and the 
other end running to the feedpoint at the base of the vertical at the 
center of the counterpoise loop.   Mechanically, if the lines holding up 
the vertical are non-conductive, spaced and positioned properly, the 
counterpoise wire can be supported above ground by the lines.  I've 
modeled several antennas with it (including versions where the 
counterpoise is comprised of two wires spaced several inches apart for 
better bandwidth) and the concept looks viable.


N6BT wrote an article on it in an issue of the NCJ about 18 months ago 
if anyone wants more details.


73,
Dave   AB7E



On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:

For those of you who have limited real estate, like I do, and have HOA/CC 
issues, AND want to get on 160 meters, you might want to do some reading on the 
Folded CounterPoise (FCP). Do a Google search and you’ll uncover several hits and 
links to this unusual and workable compromise “radial” system.

I live on a small California city lot and am not allowed towers, beams, etc. I 
do have several redwoods on the property that allow me to string thin, stealthy 
wires. With a large patio and an in-ground pool, there is absolutely no place 
for conventional 160 meter radials.I came across the FCP several years ago. 
Built one for an 80 meter Inverted L and another for a 160 meter Inverted L. 
Both work very well - they are mounted on the upper part of the fences around 
our property. One hundred percent not seen outside of our property. The antenna 
wire is nearly impossible to see. Can I easily get DXCC on 160 meters? Heck no. 
But I did complete WAS and have about 25 countries (all CW) confirmed on Top 
Band.

If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the 
FCP.

Jim / W6JHB



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[W2xj]

Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 8:14 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:
> 
> On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:
>> If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at 
>> the FCP.
> 
> Yes, two of my friends have had success with it, and it's one of many options 
> in the 160M slide show that I posted a day or two ago in this thread.  
> k9yc.com/publish.htm  Scroll down to find it.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to w...@w2xj.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:

If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the 
FCP.


Yes, two of my friends have had success with it, and it's one of many 
options in the 160M slide show that I posted a day or two ago in this 
thread.  k9yc.com/publish.htm  Scroll down to find it.


73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/28/2020 4:38 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:

For the record, I agree but as I made no series of qualifying tests;


I've done both building and modeling. When I first moved to W6 in 2006, 
I had a 160M dipole up about 110 ft redwoods AND a Tee vertical about 80 
ft vertical with enough top to resonate it, and about 50 radials on the 
ground, varying length. I worked a lot of contests over several years, 
always A/B comparisons. The vertical almost always won, often by a lot. 
With legal limit, I could reliably work good stations 800 miles or so 
two hours before sunset on the vertical, not even a "QRZ?" on the 
dipole. And that dipole was more than twice as high as most hams could 
rig. When I lost the horizontal dipole in a storm I didn't consider 
repairing and re-rigging it.


Modeling predicts the vertical outperforms at most vertical angles.

73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[James Bennett via Elecraft]

For those of you who have limited real estate, like I do, and have HOA/CC 
issues, AND want to get on 160 meters, you might want to do some reading on the 
Folded CounterPoise (FCP). Do a Google search and you’ll uncover several hits 
and links to this unusual and workable compromise “radial” system.

I live on a small California city lot and am not allowed towers, beams, etc. I 
do have several redwoods on the property that allow me to string thin, stealthy 
wires. With a large patio and an in-ground pool, there is absolutely no place 
for conventional 160 meter radials.I came across the FCP several years ago. 
Built one for an 80 meter Inverted L and another for a 160 meter Inverted L. 
Both work very well - they are mounted on the upper part of the fences around 
our property. One hundred percent not seen outside of our property. The antenna 
wire is nearly impossible to see. Can I easily get DXCC on 160 meters? Heck no. 
But I did complete WAS and have about 25 countries (all CW) confirmed on Top 
Band.

If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the 
FCP.

Jim / W6JHB

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:38 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I  wrote:
> 
> For the record, I agree but as I made no series of qualifying tests; all I 
> was able to state in my previous comments was that the inverted L was more 
> efficient (heard by more) and I heard better when I went vertical.
> 
> Both of which can be my change in location; this locale is loads quieter, one 
> of the points I reviewed before purchase.  Although moving 800 miles north in 
> NA rarely helps propagation (I didn't move here for the fast internet or easy 
> prop).  I can state that I have another 80 or so ATNO since the move (because 
> I can HEAR now!); sitting at 304 worked (but I really have to work on getting 
> more QSL cards).
> 
> What I have now works ; I mostly work what I hear (and with a K3, that 
> ain't bad).  Will it work better with stacked arrays and/or taller towers?  
> We'll never know.  ;-)   Soon I'll be down to one antenna per band (total 2 
> for HF).  While that makes 'single point failure' possible, I like simple... 
> and I have other endeavors should the antenna/s fail.
> 
> 73,
> Rick NK7I
> FAR North Idaho
> 
> On 8/28/2020 4:13 PM, Bill Johnson wrote:
>> Exactly spot on in my opinion. What "works" in my backyard, perhaps will not 
>> in yours.  What seems to be a great antenna in my yard, doesn't make it 
>> movable and working elsewhere.  That's the fun of antennas IMHO.  Love to 
>> experiment and don't take too seriously all the suggestions.  I like talking 
>> about antennas but not pontificating about one over another.
>> 
>> 73,
>> Bill
>> K9YEQ
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
>> Behalf Of Lyn Norstad
>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:41 AM
>> To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters
>> 
>> Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:
>> 
>>> My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get
>> better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.
>> 
>> Bingo!  We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
>> each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.
>> 
>> In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
>> rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
>> system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
>> physical and aesthetic.
>> 
>> So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.
>> 
>> Done.
>> 
>> 73
>> Lyn, W0LEN
>> 
>>  
>> __
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to k9...@live.com
>> __
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to rick.n...@gmail.com <mailto:rick.n...@gmail.com>
> _

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Rick Bates, NK7I]

For the record, I agree but as I made no series of qualifying tests; all 
I was able to state in my previous comments was that the inverted L was 
more efficient (heard by more) and I heard better when I went vertical.


Both of which can be my change in location; this locale is loads 
quieter, one of the points I reviewed before purchase.  Although moving 
800 miles north in NA rarely helps propagation (I didn't move here for 
the fast internet or easy prop).  I can state that I have another 80 or 
so ATNO since the move (because I can HEAR now!); sitting at 304 worked 
(but I really have to work on getting more QSL cards).


What I have now works ; I mostly work what I hear (and with a K3, 
that ain't bad).  Will it work better with stacked arrays and/or taller 
towers?  We'll never know.  ;-)   Soon I'll be down to one antenna per 
band (total 2 for HF).  While that makes 'single point failure' 
possible, I like simple... and I have other endeavors should the 
antenna/s fail.


73,
Rick NK7I
FAR North Idaho

On 8/28/2020 4:13 PM, Bill Johnson wrote:

Exactly spot on in my opinion. What "works" in my backyard, perhaps will not in 
yours.  What seems to be a great antenna in my yard, doesn't make it movable and working 
elsewhere.  That's the fun of antennas IMHO.  Love to experiment and don't take too 
seriously all the suggestions.  I like talking about antennas but not pontificating about 
one over another.

73,
Bill
K9YEQ

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Lyn Norstad
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:41 AM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:


My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get

better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.

Bingo!  We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.

In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
physical and aesthetic.

So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.

Done.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

  


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to k9...@live.com
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to rick.n...@gmail.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Bill Johnson]

Exactly spot on in my opinion. What "works" in my backyard, perhaps will not in 
yours.  What seems to be a great antenna in my yard, doesn't make it movable 
and working elsewhere.  That's the fun of antennas IMHO.  Love to experiment 
and don't take too seriously all the suggestions.  I like talking about 
antennas but not pontificating about one over another.  

73,
Bill
K9YEQ

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of Lyn Norstad
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:41 AM
To: j...@audiosystemsgroup.com; elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:

>My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get 
better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources. 

Bingo!  We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.

In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
physical and aesthetic.

So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.

Done.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to k9...@live.com 
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Edward R Cole]

Originally, I was looking to hang a half-square on 80m as accidently 
ended up with two 50-foot towers spaced 130-foot apart.  But then 
around 2011, I got interested and joined the ARRL 600m Experimental 
Group and was looking at 600m antennas.  With just under 2-acres 
(200x300 foot). there was just not enough horizontal room for an LF antenna.



Revising my plans I made a 43x122 foot inverted-L.  I tripled the 
vertical wires and doubled the horizontal wires to get a bit more 
bandwidth (5-KHz at 495-KHz).  I laid out three radials on the ground 
using 2-foot wide chicken wire and fourth radial was shield of my 
120-foot run of 1-5/8 inch Heliax to the tower holding the vertical 
section.  All much shorter than 1/4 WL.

http://www.kl7uw.com/630m.htm

Efficiency at 475-KHz is terrible (4%) with such a short vertical but 
it hears well using basically ground-wave prop out to 
1100-miles.  I've copied Rudy-N6LF several times over much longer 
path into Oregon from AK (1647 miles).


I tried a BOG but though a lot quieter also signals were much less 
(500-foot not long enough to work well as a Beverage on 600m)


With some changes on my base loading coil the invert-L could be used 
on 160m (maybe some day??).


Sidenote to 6m ops:  My dual 7-element LFA yagi array is functional 
for FT8 (Es) or JT65 (eme) or MSK-144 (ms); will have 1000w QRV in 
few more days (after testing).


73, Ed - KL7UW
  http://www.kl7uw.com
Dubus-NA Business mail:
  dubus...@gmail.com 
__

Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Lyn Norstad]

Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:

>My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get 
better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources. 

Bingo!  We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.

In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
physical and aesthetic.

So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.

Done.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/27/2020 9:14 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
I have no problem at all with folks who for whatever reason elect to go 
with something that "works".  I do have a problem with them promoting to 
others it as being "good" without some supporting data other than "I 
worked such and such".


Same here. We've ALL used what we could for all sorts of reasons. But 
the whole basis for the work I've done, both studying and teaching, is 
to make folks aware of the options, and some are 15-20 dB better than 
others. 15 dB is 32x the power, 20 dB is 100x the power -- that is, the 
difference between 10W and 1,000W.


73, Jim K9YC

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Excellent post.

K0BG's "WORKs" acronym is spot on, and I consider any anecdotal 
rationalization of any antenna to be without much merit.  Without a 
direct comparison anecdotes are simply anecdotes, and they do little to 
advance the hobby.


I have my own example of an antenna that "worked" great .. 
once.  It was the night before Field Day and for pure expediency I put 
up a low, elongated rectangular loop fed on a vertical side.  I modeled 
it to be "usable" on both 20m and 40m (decent feed but marginal 
pattern), and I worked an FR5 on the other side of the world from here 
in Arizona on 20m with 5 watts on CW and Q5 reports both ways.  I 
thought I had a winner, but it subsequently turned out to give me one of 
the worst Field Day scores I ever had.


I have no problem at all with folks who for whatever reason elect to go 
with something that "works".  I do have a problem with them promoting to 
others it as being "good" without some supporting data other than "I 
worked such and such".


73,
Dave   AB7E




On 8/27/2020 7:04 PM, K8TE wrote:

It's refreshing to read something based on science!  All of the anecdotes are
interesting, but nothing more.  I would not jump on any of them without
reading scientific documentation comparing them directly to a half-wave,
flat top dipole at a half wavelength high, or as high as possible and
specified.  Jim's point about the NVIS myth is well taken.  Most of the
"literature" is bunk and with little to no backing in science.

I strongly promote using WSPRLite on two antennas simultaneously to
demonstrate the new antenna's performance over time.  Those results have
meaning.

I worked an Italian station on 20m SSB using my KX3 at five Watts into a
mobile screwdriver antenna.  that was in 2016 near the second peak of Cycle
24.  Based on how others assert "This antenna works."  I should pull my
dipoles down (283 DXCC entities from NM, mostly during Cycle 24) and just
use the mobile antenna.

Right!  BTW, my friend Alan, K0BG, calls "WORKs" an acronym for "WithOut
Real Knowledge."  He is probably right 80-95% of the time about that.  So it
worked, but that doesn't make it good, better, or even worse.

Ward Silver, N0AX, wrote:  "The best antenna is one that is in the air."
Kevin is trying to erect an antenna better than what he has now.  Anecdotes
won't help him, IMHO.

73, Bill, K8TE



A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
a few hundred miles reliably.  Horses for courses and all that.

That's an urban myth. A low horizontal antenna is very lossy, and has
much weaker radiation at ALL angles, including high ones. The origin of
the myth is that ARRL Antenna plots set the peak radiation to 0dB. But
when plot the vertical field strength for all heights on the same scale,
you get the family of curves beginning with slide 13.

Study http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

There is an optimum range of heights for high angle radiation, and it
isn't low. Slide 19 shows that the optimum height is about 55 ft on 80M,
and high angle drop by only 2 dB at 90 ft. Divide those heights by 2 for
40M.

73, Jim K9YC



--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[K8TE]

It's refreshing to read something based on science!  All of the anecdotes are
interesting, but nothing more.  I would not jump on any of them without
reading scientific documentation comparing them directly to a half-wave,
flat top dipole at a half wavelength high, or as high as possible and
specified.  Jim's point about the NVIS myth is well taken.  Most of the
"literature" is bunk and with little to no backing in science.

I strongly promote using WSPRLite on two antennas simultaneously to
demonstrate the new antenna's performance over time.  Those results have
meaning.

I worked an Italian station on 20m SSB using my KX3 at five Watts into a
mobile screwdriver antenna.  that was in 2016 near the second peak of Cycle
24.  Based on how others assert "This antenna works."  I should pull my
dipoles down (283 DXCC entities from NM, mostly during Cycle 24) and just
use the mobile antenna.  

Right!  BTW, my friend Alan, K0BG, calls "WORKs" an acronym for "WithOut
Real Knowledge."  He is probably right 80-95% of the time about that.  So it
worked, but that doesn't make it good, better, or even worse.

Ward Silver, N0AX, wrote:  "The best antenna is one that is in the air." 
Kevin is trying to erect an antenna better than what he has now.  Anecdotes
won't help him, IMHO.

73, Bill, K8TE


> A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
> a few hundred miles reliably.  Horses for courses and all that.

That's an urban myth. A low horizontal antenna is very lossy, and has
much weaker radiation at ALL angles, including high ones. The origin of
the myth is that ARRL Antenna plots set the peak radiation to 0dB. But
when plot the vertical field strength for all heights on the same scale,
you get the family of curves beginning with slide 13.

Study http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

There is an optimum range of heights for high angle radiation, and it
isn't low. Slide 19 shows that the optimum height is about 55 ft on 80M,
and high angle drop by only 2 dB at 90 ft. Divide those heights by 2 for
40M.

73, Jim K9YC



--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Bill Frantz]

When I lived in California, I had a 160M dipole which went up in 
the spring of 2013. It was almost full size, with one end 
hanging down about 10 feet rather than go into the tree holding 
that end.


I managed 47 confirmed states, missing ME, VT, and RI. I also 
had 14 confirmed DXCCs.


The antenna also worked reasonably well on higher bands. 15M was 
particularly good and I made a couple of FT8 QSOs to QC on 6M. 
Modeling showed a pattern with a lot of fingers instead of a 
single lobe. This kind of pattern made contacts more a matter of 
luck than of planning.


73 Bill AE6JV

On 8/26/20 at 2:50 PM, ab7e...@gmail.com (David Gilbert) wrote:

Yes, I completely agree with that.  I'm sure the folks with 
low EDZ's and large horizontal loops and low dipoles make 
contacts on 160m, but almost any half decent vertical will 
reach out further better.


-
Bill Frantz| Government is not reason, it is not 
eloquence, it is force; like
408-348-7900   | a fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful 
master. Never for a
www.pwpconsult.com | moment should it be left to irresponsible 
action. Geo Washington


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Fred Jensen]

But, was HC8N ever loud over that all water path!!

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/27/2020 12:26 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:
Jim, I'd submit that not only is 160M more challenging on the left 
coast, but 6M is worse since it tends to be N/S much of the time and 
even the coastline leans left so not many stations are south. ;-P


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/27/2020 1:42 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:

While I appreciate the common opinion that 160m 'means' vertical, the fact that 
I worked all states on 160 over a weekend, without breaking a sweat, leads me 
to believe that I would benefit little by going that route.


A study of the ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book is worthwhile. Likewise, 
ON4UN's "Low Band DXing," also publishe by ARRL. Also, N6BT's "Array of 
Light," which includes his experiment of working all continents loading 
a light bulb, proving that everything "works," but that some things work 
far better than others.


My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get 
better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources. 
I did very different things from my childhood home in WV to a dorm room 
at U of Cincy to two different Chicago city lots to a lot of property in 
NorCal. I have a 1960 QSL from K4BVD for a QSO on a long wire from that 
dorm room; Rusty later settled near San Francisco, now near Seattle. 
He's W6OAT.


Verticals DO rule on 160M, simply because any horizontal antenna that 
can be rigged for that band is a very low dipole (in terms of electrical 
height), and therefore very LOSSY (meaning that most of the TX power 
heats the soil). To deny that is to deny the fundamental laws of 
physics. But if we cannot rig a vertical, we do what we can and call CQ.


In Chicago, my best antenna for both 80 and 160 was a 40M dipole with 
loading coils to resonate it on 80M. Initially I fed it with coax, but 
changed to vintage Belden KW twinlead that I had found "new old stock" 
at the Milwaukee hamfest 20 years earlier. For 80 and 160, it worked far 
better with both sides of the feedline tied together and fed against a 
big wrought-iron fence that ran around the front of our yard. The 
feedline did the radiating, the horizontal dipole wires served as 
top-loading to increase efficiency. That top-loaded vertical was not a 
good antenna above 80M.


There are photos in this set of slides. The shack was on the second 
floor, and the vertical wires running from three down to the fence were 
part of the antenna. The photos show that the antenna was sloped more 
than vertical. :)


http://k9yc.com/LimitedSpaceAntennasPPT.pdf

73, Jim K9YC


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Lyn Norstad]

Rick -

FWIW, we worked on 160m in the early morning (late night?) hours last December 
according to my log.

At a bearing of 298º WNW and a distance of 1426 miles, you are pretty much dead 
centered in the Western null of my EDZ (which becomes a center fed 5/8 wave on 
160m).

While I appreciate the common opinion that 160m 'means' vertical, the fact that 
I worked all states on 160 over a weekend, without breaking a sweat, leads me 
to believe that I would benefit little by going that route.

73
Lyn, W0LEN


-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Rick Bates, NK7I
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 2:27 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

I will interject here that when I lived in Mordor, er, CA, I also used a 
low (35' max height) EDZ (370', window line fed dipole).  I was able to 
work 200+ countries on all bands (I used a J pole on 6M) within an HOA 
environment (I put it up on a weekday when no one was home, it was 
'invisible').  Then I came to my senses and left the state.

For the first two years here, I used an 80M Sloper (was originally a 
dipole, but a branch took out one end, in the middle of winter snow) and 
a 160M Inverted L which I used on all other bands (except 6M).  In many 
ways, that was better than the EDZ (not enough trees to reuse that) but 
mostly due to the lower noise floor (dropped by ~40 dB in the move).

Now I use a SteppIR DB 36/80 at 60' (and the L on 160M) and it easily 
blows everything I've used out of the water, always in resonance too.  
Not only does it hear better (by nulling out noises, favoring the 
intended direction) it provides gain as well.  A HUGE difference to the 
untuned (but matched) Inverted L (what was unheard, is now workable).  
(Adding a proper grounding system also lowered the noise floor another 
20 dB on average; the house Ufer ground, while legal, was not 
sufficient.  At many times, the floor is at the MDS of the K3.)

The Inverted L at 500 watts out, talked better than it could hear (on 
the K3), frustrating everyone, proving that mismatch losses cost in both 
directions (and costing me a lot of DX).  After installing a proper 
grounding system AND bonding EVERYTHING; the next challenge is to lower 
the noise floor further (remove or reduce all noise sources).  I can now 
hear a little more than I can work (the 'other' side has noise to deal 
with) but will add an array for low band RX.

So you're both right, everyone is limited by what is available on the 
property and budget; I've used all the antennas mentioned in this 
thread.  And that, is the rest of the story (and even in the low range 
of the solar cycle, I have added some ATNO and numerous band slots).

Jim, I'd submit that not only is 160M more challenging on the left 
coast, but 6M is worse since it tends to be N/S much of the time and 
even the coastline leans left so not many stations are south. ;-P   6M 
like 160, also 'spotlights' but in pinpoints.  I have managed DXCC on 
160M since the move, 6M is still a greater challenge (up to 6 so far, 
it's a start).

I'm pleased your place has survived the fires (please do your PRC 4291 
'homework' to continue that good fortune).

73,
Rick NK7I


On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
> That being said, when working within a limited budget (ham radio IS
> important to me but it's not my whole life) and limited antenna options due
> to HOA restrictions, I think my Extended Double Zepp performs exactly as I
> hoped it would and pretty much maximizes the use of the space available.  At
> its design frequency, it produces 4.7 dbi gain with exactly the radiation
> pattern I want, namely N-S NVIS on 80 meters for statewide EmCOMM purposes,
> E-W for 40m, Increasing numbers of lobes as we go up to 6 meters and thusly
> becoming more omni. All are as desired.
>
> How does that compare to your Inverted-L? (Serious question ...)
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Rick Bates, NK7I]

I will interject here that when I lived in Mordor, er, CA, I also used a 
low (35' max height) EDZ (370', window line fed dipole).  I was able to 
work 200+ countries on all bands (I used a J pole on 6M) within an HOA 
environment (I put it up on a weekday when no one was home, it was 
'invisible').  Then I came to my senses and left the state.


For the first two years here, I used an 80M Sloper (was originally a 
dipole, but a branch took out one end, in the middle of winter snow) and 
a 160M Inverted L which I used on all other bands (except 6M).  In many 
ways, that was better than the EDZ (not enough trees to reuse that) but 
mostly due to the lower noise floor (dropped by ~40 dB in the move).


Now I use a SteppIR DB 36/80 at 60' (and the L on 160M) and it easily 
blows everything I've used out of the water, always in resonance too.  
Not only does it hear better (by nulling out noises, favoring the 
intended direction) it provides gain as well.  A HUGE difference to the 
untuned (but matched) Inverted L (what was unheard, is now workable).  
(Adding a proper grounding system also lowered the noise floor another 
20 dB on average; the house Ufer ground, while legal, was not 
sufficient.  At many times, the floor is at the MDS of the K3.)


The Inverted L at 500 watts out, talked better than it could hear (on 
the K3), frustrating everyone, proving that mismatch losses cost in both 
directions (and costing me a lot of DX).  After installing a proper 
grounding system AND bonding EVERYTHING; the next challenge is to lower 
the noise floor further (remove or reduce all noise sources).  I can now 
hear a little more than I can work (the 'other' side has noise to deal 
with) but will add an array for low band RX.


So you're both right, everyone is limited by what is available on the 
property and budget; I've used all the antennas mentioned in this 
thread.  And that, is the rest of the story (and even in the low range 
of the solar cycle, I have added some ATNO and numerous band slots).


Jim, I'd submit that not only is 160M more challenging on the left 
coast, but 6M is worse since it tends to be N/S much of the time and 
even the coastline leans left so not many stations are south. ;-P   6M 
like 160, also 'spotlights' but in pinpoints.  I have managed DXCC on 
160M since the move, 6M is still a greater challenge (up to 6 so far, 
it's a start).


I'm pleased your place has survived the fires (please do your PRC 4291 
'homework' to continue that good fortune).


73,
Rick NK7I


On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:

That being said, when working within a limited budget (ham radio IS
important to me but it's not my whole life) and limited antenna options due
to HOA restrictions, I think my Extended Double Zepp performs exactly as I
hoped it would and pretty much maximizes the use of the space available.  At
its design frequency, it produces 4.7 dbi gain with exactly the radiation
pattern I want, namely N-S NVIS on 80 meters for statewide EmCOMM purposes,
E-W for 40m, Increasing numbers of lobes as we go up to 6 meters and thusly
becoming more omni. All are as desired.

How does that compare to your Inverted-L? (Serious question ...)

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Lyn Norstad]

If I could afford a couple acres in No Cal, I would be happy to do so!''

(I don't recall hearing Jim, W6LG complain about it.)

73
Lyn, W0LEN


-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:06 PM
To: Reflector Elecraft
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
> The
> Society of Midwest Contesters (https://www.w9smc.com/) recognizes the
> Midwest ... lovely as it may be ... to be the infamous "Black Hole" when
it
> comes to dx-ing.  Virtually any coastal location runs circles around us
when
> it comes to the ease of making those exotic contacts (in fact many of our
> SMC members spend a great deal of time in such locations in order to
pursue
> that rare DX).

As it did when I was a member of SMC from 2003-2006, operating from a 
city lot. If you think that's a Black Hole, try your antenna in NorCal.

73, Jim K9YC
__

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:

The
Society of Midwest Contesters (https://www.w9smc.com/) recognizes the
Midwest ... lovely as it may be ... to be the infamous "Black Hole" when it
comes to dx-ing.  Virtually any coastal location runs circles around us when
it comes to the ease of making those exotic contacts (in fact many of our
SMC members spend a great deal of time in such locations in order to pursue
that rare DX).


As it did when I was a member of SMC from 2003-2006, operating from a 
city lot. If you think that's a Black Hole, try your antenna in NorCal.


73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Lyn Norstad]

Jim, K9YC wrote:

> Lyn's expectations are modest. Many of us want to work 5,000 - 8,000 
> mile paths, which is what it takes to work 175 countries from W6 in 14 
> years -- it's FAR easier to work EU east of the MS river, and EU has FAR 
> more countries with active hams than AS and OC. I know -- I lived in IL. 
> One of my goals is QRP WAS. In about ten years, I still need VT and SC. 
> And I've got three 160M verticals, all using my tower as a passive 
> reflector to give me a few dB in three directions!

Well Jim, I should never object to being called "modest."  It could be a lot
worse.

But as an update to your Illinois recollections, propagation has changed
just a bit since your residency here in the '60s, '70s, '80s, etc.  The
Society of Midwest Contesters (https://www.w9smc.com/) recognizes the
Midwest ... lovely as it may be ... to be the infamous "Black Hole" when it
comes to dx-ing.  Virtually any coastal location runs circles around us when
it comes to the ease of making those exotic contacts (in fact many of our
SMC members spend a great deal of time in such locations in order to pursue
that rare DX).

That being said, when working within a limited budget (ham radio IS
important to me but it's not my whole life) and limited antenna options due
to HOA restrictions, I think my Extended Double Zepp performs exactly as I
hoped it would and pretty much maximizes the use of the space available.  At
its design frequency, it produces 4.7 dbi gain with exactly the radiation
pattern I want, namely N-S NVIS on 80 meters for statewide EmCOMM purposes,
E-W for 40m, Increasing numbers of lobes as we go up to 6 meters and thusly
becoming more omni. All are as desired. 

How does that compare to your Inverted-L? (Serious question ...)

I managed to work 125 countries (confirmed on LoTW) in less than 2 years,
and mostly with 50 watts or less.  I also managed to WAS on 160, 80, 40, 30
and 20 meters in the same time period.

My total cash outlay was less than $600, and my annual maintenance consists
of trimming a few over-eager tree branches. I feel good about that.

73
Lyn, W0LEN
"From The Black Hole" 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/26/2020 4:20 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:

A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
a few hundred miles reliably.  Horses for courses and all that.


That's an urban myth. A low horizontal antenna is very lossy, and has 
much weaker radiation at ALL angles, including high ones. The origin of 
the myth is that ARRL Antenna plots set the peak radiation to 0dB. But 
when plot the vertical field strength for all heights on the same scale, 
you get the family of curves beginning with slide 13.


Study http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

There is an optimum range of heights for high angle radiation, and it 
isn't low. Slide 19 shows that the optimum height is about 55 ft on 80M, 
and high angle drop by only 2 dB at 90 ft. Divide those heights by 2 for 
40M.


73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Josh Fiden]

N6LF is very impressive!

https://www.powerelectronics.com/technologies/power-electronics-systems/article/21858857/rudy-severns-lifetime-achievement-award-winner

73
Josh W6XU

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Wes  wrote:
> 
> You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF.   
> (https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever want to 
> know about vertical antennas,
> 
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Nate Bargmann]

* On 2020 26 Aug 13:52 -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
> 
> Yes, I completely agree with that.  I'm sure the folks with low EDZ's and
> large horizontal loops and low dipoles make contacts on 160m, but almost any
> half decent vertical will reach out further better.

A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
a few hundred miles reliably.  Horses for courses and all that.

Not everything in ham radio is about DX.

73, Nate, N0NB

-- 

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[N2TK via Elecraft]

As a reference, I have an 80M 4-sq with 5 elevated radials at each feed point 
and use a Comtek box. The radials were 1/4 wave. The pattern was terrible. Very 
little F/S and F/B. I measured the current in each radial. It was all over the 
place. I followed N6LF's info and cut the radials to 42'. I connected all 5 
radials together at each feed point then added a small coil between the 5 
radials and the coax shield to retune the elements. Now the current is very 
close with each radial and the F/S and F/B is much, much better. Read N6LF's 
stuff and take a look at balancing elevated radials if you go that route.
73,
N2TK, Tony

-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net  On 
Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 2:11 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters



Yes, certainly current balance would minimize ground losses.  I hadn't thought 
much about it before, but I guess it's kind of intuitive in that it's analogous 
to lower return resistance losses due to better use of parallel ground paths.

73,
Dave  AB7E



On 8/26/2020 10:42 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 8/26/2020 10:07 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the 
>> ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with 
>> the current balance in the radials.
>
> Right, but N6LF has shown that current balance in radials, especially 
> elevated ones, minimizes ground losses.  Yes, elevated radials can be 
> modeled in less capable versions of NEC. All of this is addressed in 
> my slides.
>
> In all cases, the model must use soil conductivity representative of 
> the QTH. This is selected from a menu. Soil conductivity affects us 
> two ways. First, losses underneath the antenna. Better 
> radial/counterpoise systems can reduce this a lot. Second, loss in the 
> far field, over which we have no control, and those losses can vary a 
> lot if soil varies a lot in different directions. For example, a 
> vertical on a beach has much less far field loss, and much more energy 
> at low angles, in the direction of the water and much more far field 
> loss and higher angle energy than in directions over land.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to tony@verizon.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP]

Yes, but he can do something about current balance.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
On 26/08/2020 20:07, David Gilbert wrote:


Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the 
ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with the 
current balance in the radials.


73,
Dave   AB7E


On 8/26/2020 4:36 AM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:

Kevin,

My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations." 
Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a 
level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length, 
about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an 
inductance in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps 
equalize the currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle 
low.


Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of 
them. In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.


73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to k2vco@gmail.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Yes, I completely agree with that.  I'm sure the folks with low EDZ's 
and large horizontal loops and low dipoles make contacts on 160m, but 
almost any half decent vertical will reach out further better.


73,
Dave   AB7E



On 8/26/2020 11:32 AM, j...@kk9a.com wrote:
With only four radials he might be wasting 2/3 of his RF however I 
would still take that inefficient inverted L over a 30' high dipole on 
160m.


John KK9A

David Gilbert AB7E wrote:

  Four buried radials won't model well at
all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.

73,
Dave   AB7E

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com 


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[john]

With only four radials he might be wasting 2/3 of his RF however I  
would still take that inefficient inverted L over a 30' high dipole on  
160m.


John KK9A

David Gilbert AB7E wrote:

  Four buried radials won't model well at
all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.

73,
Dave   AB7E

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Yes, certainly current balance would minimize ground losses.  I hadn't 
thought much about it before, but I guess it's kind of intuitive in that 
it's analogous to lower return resistance losses due to better use of  
parallel ground paths.


73,
Dave  AB7E



On 8/26/2020 10:42 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

On 8/26/2020 10:07 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the 
ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with 
the current balance in the radials.


Right, but N6LF has shown that current balance in radials, especially 
elevated ones, minimizes ground losses.  Yes, elevated radials can be 
modeled in less capable versions of NEC. All of this is addressed in 
my slides.


In all cases, the model must use soil conductivity representative of 
the QTH. This is selected from a menu. Soil conductivity affects us 
two ways. First, losses underneath the antenna. Better 
radial/counterpoise systems can reduce this a lot. Second, loss in the 
far field, over which we have no control, and those losses can vary a 
lot if soil varies a lot in different directions. For example, a 
vertical on a beach has much less far field loss, and much more energy 
at low angles, in the direction of the water and much more far field 
loss and higher angle energy than in directions over land.


73, Jim K9YC


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

On 8/26/2020 10:07 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the 
ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with the 
current balance in the radials.


Right, but N6LF has shown that current balance in radials, especially 
elevated ones, minimizes ground losses.  Yes, elevated radials can be 
modeled in less capable versions of NEC. All of this is addressed in my 
slides.


In all cases, the model must use soil conductivity representative of the 
QTH. This is selected from a menu. Soil conductivity affects us two 
ways. First, losses underneath the antenna. Better radial/counterpoise 
systems can reduce this a lot. Second, loss in the far field, over which 
we have no control, and those losses can vary a lot if soil varies a lot 
in different directions. For example, a vertical on a beach has much 
less far field loss, and much more energy at low angles, in the 
direction of the water and much more far field loss and higher angle 
energy than in directions over land.


73, Jim K9YC
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Ronnie Hull]

I have 100’ long   wire up 30’ and am working good stuff on 160 nightly!!

Ron W5SUM 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2020, at 12:10 PM, David Gilbert  wrote:
> 
> 
> When I made that suggestion (based upon his comment that he was only going to 
> have about 4 counterpoise wires), I thought that he was going to be using 
> elevated wires ... i.e., about ten feet high or so.   NEC2 can model that 
> reasonably OK.  Four buried radials won't model well at all in NEC2, but it 
> also doesn't make a very good antenna.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
>> On 8/26/2020 9:48 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative site. 
>> Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book. And to AB7E 
>> who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise systems without a 
>> far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model the difference between 
>> horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of both.
> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to w5...@comcast.net

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the 
ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with the 
current balance in the radials.


73,
Dave   AB7E


On 8/26/2020 4:36 AM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:

Kevin,

My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations." 
Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a 
level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length, 
about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an 
inductance in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps 
equalize the currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle 
low.


Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of 
them. In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.


73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

When I made that suggestion (based upon his comment that he was only 
going to have about 4 counterpoise wires), I thought that he was going 
to be using elevated wires ... i.e., about ten feet high or so.   NEC2 
can model that reasonably OK.  Four buried radials won't model well at 
all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.


73,
Dave   AB7E


On 8/26/2020 9:48 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative 
site. Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book. 
And to AB7E who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise 
systems without a far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model 
the difference between horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of 
both.


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative site. 
Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book. And to 
AB7E who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise systems 
without a far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model the 
difference between horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of both.


Lyn's expectations are modest. Many of us want to work 5,000 - 8,000 
mile paths, which is what it takes to work 175 countries from W6 in 14 
years -- it's FAR easier to work EU east of the MS river, and EU has FAR 
more countries with active hams than AS and OC. I know -- I lived in IL. 
One of my goals is QRP WAS. In about ten years, I still need VT and SC. 
And I've got three 160M verticals, all using my tower as a passive 
reflector to give me a few dB in three directions!


Here are slides for a talk I've done at Pacificon, Visalia, and to 
several local clubs. It's mostly about antennas, mostly about 
radial/counterpoise systems. None of it is my original work, but rather 
summarizes the best work by others like N6LF.


http://k9yc.com/160MPacificon.pdf

WAS from east of the MS is also far easier than from W6 -- there are 
only seven west coast states, all with superstations that are easy to 
work -- CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, AZ, NV. There are also big stations in MT, 
ID, NM, and UT.


73, Jim K9YC


On 8/25/2020 6:27 PM, j...@kk9a.com wrote:

KD5ODS is not over thinking anything.  He is on the right track, an inverted
L is a much better top band antenna than a low all band horizontal wire.
Kevin just needs to model his inverted L, he might be a little surprised to
see which way the pattern skews.

John KK9A


Lyn W0LEN

Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP]

Oops. Too lazy to go upstairs to look at it and too old to remember
correctly. But it really is a good book.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 26/08/2020 15:07, Dave Sublette wrote:
The title is actually "HF Antennas For All Locations", not to be 
critical.  It is a classic and well worth having.


Dave, K4TO

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Dave Sublette]

The title is actually "HF Antennas For All Locations", not to be critical.
It is a classic and well worth having.

Dave, K4TO

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:40 AM Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP 
wrote:

> I forgot to add: two shortend, elevated radials, fed as described below,
> is only slightly poorer (about 1 dB) than four.
>
> 73,
> Victor, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> CWops no. 5
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> .
> On 26/08/2020 14:36, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:
> > Kevin,
> >
> > My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations."
> > Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a
> > level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length,
> > about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an inductance
> > in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps equalize the
> > currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle low.
> >
> > Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of them.
> > In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.
> >
> > 73,
> > Victor, 4X6GP
> > Rehovot, Israel
> > Formerly K2VCO
> > CWops no. 5
> > http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> > On 26/08/2020 3:31, kevinr wrote:
> >> I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property.  If they are
> >> not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble.  I plan to
> >> bury them.  This is something I've never done before which has its own
> >> merit.  I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the
> >> non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances.  I need
> >> to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a
> >> balun for the system to work.  Once my main project is done I'll have
> >> more time for modeling each method.
> >>
> >> Thanks for all the ideas guys,
> >>
> >> 73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
> >>> You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF.
> >>> (https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever
> >>> want to know about vertical antennas,
> >>>
> >>> More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be
> >>> elevated?  If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some
> >>> effort should be made to get all of the currents the same.  The last
> >>> thing you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened
> >>> vertical (which is what an L is).  There is evidence that elevated
> >>> radials are an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.
> >>> Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up
> >>> radiator height to raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury
> >>> theirs and I don't have room for full length radials anyway in my
> >>> cactus patch.  See my QRZ page for evidence.
> >>>
> >>> My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the
> >>> horizontal wire, but it's negligible.
> >>>
> >>> Wes  N7WS
> >>>
> >>> On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
>  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each
>  ~130 feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One
>  leg for the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four
>  legs for the counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken
>  wire antennas stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do
>  all of the legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or
>  can I substitute some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should
>  somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add more radials that
>  number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
> 
>  I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with
>  the rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place
>  from the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But
>  there should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal
>  portion. How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion
>  effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property
>  allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I
>  have plenty of options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road
>  used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of
>  this mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above
>  ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the
>  road.
> 
>  Inquiring minds...
> 
>  Kevin.  KD5ONS
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to k...@arrl.net
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP]

I forgot to add: two shortend, elevated radials, fed as described below, 
is only slightly poorer (about 1 dB) than four.


73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
.
On 26/08/2020 14:36, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:

Kevin,

My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations." 
Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a 
level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length, 
about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an inductance 
in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps equalize the 
currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle low.


Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of them. 
In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.


73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
On 26/08/2020 3:31, kevinr wrote:
I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property.  If they are 
not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble.  I plan to 
bury them.  This is something I've never done before which has its own 
merit.  I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the 
non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances.  I need 
to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a 
balun for the system to work.  Once my main project is done I'll have 
more time for modeling each method.


    Thanks for all the ideas guys,

    73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF. 
(https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever 
want to know about vertical antennas,


More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be 
elevated?  If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some 
effort should be made to get all of the currents the same.  The last 
thing you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened 
vertical (which is what an L is).  There is evidence that elevated 
radials are an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.  
Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up 
radiator height to raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury 
theirs and I don't have room for full length radials anyway in my 
cactus patch.  See my QRZ page for evidence.


My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the 
horizontal wire, but it's negligible.


Wes  N7WS

On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each 
~130 feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One 
leg for the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four 
legs for the counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken 
wire antennas stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do 
all of the legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or 
can I substitute some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should 
somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add more radials that 
number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with 
the rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place 
from the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But 
there should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal 
portion. How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion 
effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property 
allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I 
have plenty of options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road 
used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of 
this mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above 
ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the 
road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP]

Kevin,

My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations." 
Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a 
level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length, 
about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an inductance 
in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps equalize the 
currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle low.


Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of them. 
In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.


73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
On 26/08/2020 3:31, kevinr wrote:
I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property.  If they are 
not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble.  I plan to 
bury them.  This is something I've never done before which has its own 
merit.  I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the 
non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances.  I need 
to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a balun 
for the system to work.  Once my main project is done I'll have more 
time for modeling each method.


    Thanks for all the ideas guys,

    73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF. 
(https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever 
want to know about vertical antennas,


More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be 
elevated?  If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some effort 
should be made to get all of the currents the same.  The last thing 
you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened vertical 
(which is what an L is).  There is evidence that elevated radials are 
an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.  Mine are on the 
ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up radiator height to 
raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury theirs and I don't have 
room for full length radials anyway in my cactus patch.  See my QRZ 
page for evidence.


My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the horizontal 
wire, but it's negligible.


Wes  N7WS

On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for 
the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for 
the counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas 
stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the 
legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I 
substitute some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere 
above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add more radials that number will 
reach 50 ohms asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from 
the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there 
should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion. 
How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the 
radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to 
point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of 
options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by 
loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of this 
mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above 
ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Edward R Cole]

Kevinr,

I have an inverted-L on 630m (that is 475 KHz) and is simply a 
vertical section with one horizontal section.  A quarter wave 
vertical for 1.8 MHz would be 137-foot high so 80 foot is going to be 
short.  The horizontal wires add capacitance to the top end of the 
vertical effectively shortening the length needed for resonance.


My inv-L is only 43-foot high (1/4WL= 524-feet) so its not very 
efficient and requires a big loading coil in series to resonate.  If 
you have four top-hat wires that may work better to shorten the 
needed vertical.  But probably still need a loading coil.  Use EZNEC 
to model it and it will provide a close est of the antenna Z.  I 
modified my MFJ-269B to operate 400-800   KHz and directly measured 
mine; adjusted coil to reach resonance.


Also do not forget it also needs ground radials (more the 
merrier)!  I only had a 100-foot square patch of ground for my inv-L 
so radials are very short as well.  But my signal has been heard 
4,000 miles away with 4w EIRP (100w output from amp).  Antenna is 
currently down.


73, Ed - KL7UW
  http://www.kl7uw.com
Dubus-NA Business mail:
  dubus...@gmail.com 


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[WA8JXM - Ken]

FWIW, I use WSPR to compare antennas.  That usually gives me a 
comparison list of more than a dozen receive stations.  I do multiple 
transmissions and then compare the differences.   There may be 
propagation changes during the different transmission periods but a 
couple of repeats seems to average that out.   It not only provides data 
in different directions but also different distances.


To get a same time comparison, I have used dual transmitters on slightly 
different frequencies but that gets complicated.


Ken WA8JXM


On 8/25/2020 9:28 PM, Barry LaZar wrote:


    Be careful when doing these comparisons. A 1/4 wave over a ground 
plane unless it has a really good radial system may not be as 
efficient than your inverted L. What I would normally suggest is an 
A/B test using signal strength at the receiving station, but that has 
it flaws also, what's the pattern.

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Walter Underwood]

ON4UN's Low Band DXing book is on sale for $20 right now. Get that and you’ll 
know as much as anybody about radials.

https://www.arrl.org/shop/ON4UN-s-Low-Band-DXing 


wunder
K6WRU
Walter Underwood
CM87wj
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 8:14 PM, David Gilbert  wrote:
> 
> 
> If you are going to go with buried radials, I don't think 4 or 5 of them is 
> going to do a very good job for you.
> 
> Like N7WS recommended, look up N6LF's work and read it carefully. Seriously.
> 
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/25/2020 5:31 PM, kevinr wrote:
>> I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property.  If they are not 
>> above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble.  I plan to bury them.  
>> This is something I've never done before which has its own merit.  I have 
>> plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the non-resonant, buried 
>> radials work better for my circumstances.  I need to calculate the feed 
>> point impedance to see if I need to design a balun for the system to work.  
>> Once my main project is done I'll have more time for modeling each method.
>> 
>>Thanks for all the ideas guys,
>> 
>>73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
>>> You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF. 
>>> (https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever want 
>>> to know about vertical antennas,
>>> 
>>> More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be 
>>> elevated?  If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some effort 
>>> should be made to get all of the currents the same. The last thing you want 
>>> is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened vertical (which is what 
>>> an L is).  There is evidence that elevated radials are an improvement over 
>>> on-the-ground or buried radials.  Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) 
>>> I didn't want to give up radiator height to raise the radials, 2) all of 
>>> the big guns bury theirs and I don't have room for full length radials 
>>> anyway in my cactus patch.  See my QRZ page for evidence.
>>> 
>>> My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the horizontal 
>>> wire, but it's negligible.
>>> 
>>> Wes  N7WS
>>> 
>>> On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
 From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 feet 
 long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the 
 vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
 counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored 
 in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the 
 counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter 
 lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I 
 add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
 
 I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the rest 
 of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the 
 vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be 
 some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly 
 does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation pattern 
 of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from 300 degrees 
 around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between 200 and 300 
 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the 
 towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 
 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs 
 across the road.
 
 Inquiring minds...
 
 Kevin.  KD5ONS
 
 __
 Elecraft mailing list
 Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
 Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
 Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
 
 This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
 Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
 Message delivered to wes_n...@triconet.org 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>>> 
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> Message delivered to kev...@coho.net 
>> __
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

If you are going to go with buried radials, I don't think 4 or 5 of them 
is going to do a very good job for you.


Like N7WS recommended, look up N6LF's work and read it carefully. Seriously.

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 8/25/2020 5:31 PM, kevinr wrote:
I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property.  If they are 
not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble.  I plan to 
bury them.  This is something I've never done before which has its own 
merit.  I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the 
non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances.  I need 
to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a 
balun for the system to work.  Once my main project is done I'll have 
more time for modeling each method.


   Thanks for all the ideas guys,

   73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF. 
(https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever 
want to know about vertical antennas,


More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be 
elevated?  If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some 
effort should be made to get all of the currents the same. The last 
thing you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened 
vertical (which is what an L is).  There is evidence that elevated 
radials are an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.  
Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up 
radiator height to raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury 
theirs and I don't have room for full length radials anyway in my 
cactus patch.  See my QRZ page for evidence.


My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the 
horizontal wire, but it's negligible.


Wes  N7WS

On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each 
~130 feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One 
leg for the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four 
legs for the counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken 
wire antennas stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do 
all of the legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or 
can I substitute some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should 
somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add more radials that 
number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with 
the rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place 
from the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But 
there should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal 
portion.  How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion 
effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property 
allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I 
have plenty of options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road 
used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of 
this mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above 
ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the 
road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to wes_n...@triconet.org 



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to kev...@coho.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com 


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Ted Edwards W3TB]

So Michael — what do you use for a baking between the open wire feeder and
the coaxial outputs of the KPA500?

Go go with noises of a vertical antenna, a separate quiet receiving antenna
like a K9AY is helpful.

Important is to have fun.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 20:31 Barry LaZar  wrote:

> Kevin,
>
>
>
>  Be careful when doing these comparisons. A 1/4 wave over a ground
>
> plane unless it has a really good radial system may not be as efficient
>
> than your inverted L. What I would normally suggest is an A/B test using
>
> signal strength at the receiving station, but that has it flaws also,
>
> what's the pattern.
>
>
>
> 73,
>
>
>
> Barry
>
>
>
> K3NDM
>
>
>
> On 8/25/2020 8:21 PM, kevinr wrote:
>
> > I am hearing quite a difference between my inverted V and my 1/4 wave
>
> > over a ground plane.  For the last few weeks I've been hearing less
>
> > noise on the vertical.  Enough less to pull more ops out of the
>
> > noise.  When I try the inverted L I expect there to be a little more
>
> > noise than the vertical, but less than the doublet. Now to test that
>
> > hypothesis.
>
> >
>
> >Kevin.  KD5ONS
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 8/25/20 5:04 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Pretty sure there are some significant pattern differences between
>
> >> ANY horizontal antenna and a vertical one on 160m ... at least at
>
> >> heights practical for amateur radio purposes.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's probably why.
>
> >>
>
> >> Dave  AB7E
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> On 8/25/2020 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
>
> >>> Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just
>
> >>> because it's fun.  I get that.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot
>
> >>> EDZ (dipole) cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.
>
> >>> No radials needed.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on
>
> >>> 160m (holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> 73
>
> >>> Lyn, W0LEN
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> -Original Message-
>
> >>> From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net
>
> >>> [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr
>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
>
> >>> To: Elecraft Reflector
>
> >>> Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters
>
> >>>
>
> >>>   From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
>
> >>> feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for
>
> >>> the
>
> >>> vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
>
> >>> counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas
>
> >>> stored
>
> >>> in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
>
> >>> counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
>
> >>> lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
>
> >>> add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
>
> >>> rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from
>
> >>> the
>
> >>> vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there
>
> >>> should be
>
> >>> some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
>
> >>> does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
>
> >>> pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
>
> >>> 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options. Between
>
> >>> 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
>
> >>> maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
>
> >>> antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
>
> >>> out any dead limbs across the road.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Inquiring minds..

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Barry LaZar]

Kevin,

    Be careful when doing these comparisons. A 1/4 wave over a ground 
plane unless it has a really good radial system may not be as efficient 
than your inverted L. What I would normally suggest is an A/B test using 
signal strength at the receiving station, but that has it flaws also, 
what's the pattern.


73,

Barry

K3NDM

On 8/25/2020 8:21 PM, kevinr wrote:
I am hearing quite a difference between my inverted V and my 1/4 wave 
over a ground plane.  For the last few weeks I've been hearing less 
noise on the vertical.  Enough less to pull more ops out of the 
noise.  When I try the inverted L I expect there to be a little more 
noise than the vertical, but less than the doublet. Now to test that 
hypothesis.


   Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 5:04 PM, David Gilbert wrote:


Pretty sure there are some significant pattern differences between 
ANY horizontal antenna and a vertical one on 160m ... at least at 
heights practical for amateur radio purposes.


That's probably why.

Dave  AB7E


On 8/25/2020 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just 
because it's fun.  I get that.


But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot 
EDZ (dipole) cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  
No radials needed.


Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 
160m (holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).


I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for 
the

vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas 
stored

in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from 
the
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there 
should be

some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options. Between
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to kev...@coho.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to barrylaz...@gmail.com 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[john]

KD5ODS is not over thinking anything.  He is on the right track, an inverted
L is a much better top band antenna than a low all band horizontal wire.
Kevin just needs to model his inverted L, he might be a little surprised to
see which way the pattern skews.

John KK9A


Lyn W0LEN

Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just because
it's fun.  I get that.

But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ
(dipole) cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No radials
needed.

Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 160m
(holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).

I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-bounces at
mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

 From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the 
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored 
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the 
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter 
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I 
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the 
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be 
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly 
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation 
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from 
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between 
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks 
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any 
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear 
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Bruce]

For mine I have 1/4 wave wire for 160, goes up 35-40 ft and over to pole 
in corner of the yard with the remainder of the wire. I use mostly 
random length ground radials on top of the ground, some 1/4 wave, some 
sorter, some longer, mostly shorter,(someway shorter thanks to the lawn 
mower height), 12 so far and I add more when I get extra wire. 100 watts 
I work from here in Maryland to US west coast, Caribbean and into Europe 
and north Africa. I am happy for now but want to get more vertical 
height some day. Radials are sections of free 2 each 1000 foot rolls of 
4 pair cat 5 cable.


Jim/W3FA

On 8/25/2020 19:23, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for 
the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas 
stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs 
for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute 
some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms 
impedance.  As I add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms 
asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from 
the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there 
should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  
How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the 
radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to 
point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of 
options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, 
and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  
They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar 
poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to jimw...@gmail.com 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Barry LaZar]

Kevin,

    Your instincts are right on. But, to answer your question the  
radials do not need to be 130' long, but it is better than a shorter 
set. The inverted L represents a 1/4 wave over ground and needs the 
other half, the radials. But, here is where it gets a little tricky. 5 
radials are not enough if they are on the ground, but elevate them and 5 
starts to represent a better counterpoise. I have a 132 feet of wire for 
an inverted L but, I only go vertical for ~61'. I, too, have only 5 
radials and they vary in length to fit my backyard; the horizontal 
section of my antenna goes over the house. The antenna does work well on 
160-40 meters, and 1/2 the time I use it on 30 and 1/2 the time  I use a 
20 meter vertical dipole on 30; it's a pattern thing.  And, I have only 
these two antennas.


    I do have a suggestion. That is feed your inverted L with a remote 
antenna tuner. This will allow your antenna to be used on other bands 
and keep loses low on the transmission line when high SWRs are present, 
and they will be. How much loss? that will depend on the feed line you use.


On 8/25/2020 7:58 PM, kevinr wrote:
Two reasons why I want to use an inverted L.  One) it fits my property 
well.  Two) I have never tried one before.


I currently have an extra long doublet.  I can't remember the exact 
length but seem to remember over 120 feet for each leg.  The tuner on 
my K3 just won't match it below 2:1.0 so I don't want to transmit on 
it.  It hears well enough but just won't match.


Reason number two pushes me onward :)

   73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just 
because it's fun.  I get that.


But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ 
(dipole) cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No 
radials needed.


Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 
160m (holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).


I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options. Between
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to barrylaz...@gmail.com 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

[Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[wa3afs]

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[kevinr]

I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property.  If they are 
not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble.  I plan to 
bury them.  This is something I've never done before which has its own 
merit.  I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the 
non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances.  I need 
to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a balun 
for the system to work.  Once my main project is done I'll have more 
time for modeling each method.


   Thanks for all the ideas guys,

   73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF. 
(https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever 
want to know about vertical antennas,


More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be 
elevated?  If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some effort 
should be made to get all of the currents the same.  The last thing 
you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened vertical 
(which is what an L is).  There is evidence that elevated radials are 
an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.  Mine are on the 
ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up radiator height to 
raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury theirs and I don't have 
room for full length radials anyway in my cactus patch.  See my QRZ 
page for evidence.


My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the horizontal 
wire, but it's negligible.


Wes  N7WS

On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for 
the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for 
the counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas 
stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the 
legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I 
substitute some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere 
above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add more radials that number will 
reach 50 ohms asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from 
the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there 
should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  
How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the 
radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to 
point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of 
options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by 
loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of this 
mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above 
ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to wes_n...@triconet.org 



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to kev...@coho.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Wes]

You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF.   
(https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/)  He has written more than you ever want to 
know about vertical antennas,


More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be elevated?  If 
so, they need to be the same length, in fact some effort should be made to get 
all of the currents the same.  The last thing you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint 
impedance with a shortened vertical (which is what an L is).  There is evidence 
that elevated radials are an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.  
Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up radiator 
height to raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury theirs and I don't have 
room for full length radials anyway in my cactus patch.  See my QRZ page for 
evidence.


My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the horizontal wire, but 
it's negligible.


Wes  N7WS

On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 feet 
long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the vertical 
and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the counterpoise (ground 
plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored in my shed which are 
fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 
wavelength or can I substitute some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should 
somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add more radials that number will 
reach 50 ohms asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the rest of 
it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the vertical part 
since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be some effect from 
the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly does the direction of 
the horizontal portion effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My 
property allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I 
have plenty of options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by 
loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  
They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and 
cranes clear out any dead limbs across the road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to wes_n...@triconet.org 



__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[kevinr]

I am hearing quite a difference between my inverted V and my 1/4 wave 
over a ground plane.  For the last few weeks I've been hearing less 
noise on the vertical.  Enough less to pull more ops out of the noise.  
When I try the inverted L I expect there to be a little more noise than 
the vertical, but less than the doublet. Now to test that hypothesis.


   Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 5:04 PM, David Gilbert wrote:


Pretty sure there are some significant pattern differences between ANY 
horizontal antenna and a vertical one on 160m ...  at least at heights 
practical for amateur radio purposes.


That's probably why.

Dave  AB7E


On 8/25/2020 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just 
because it's fun.  I get that.


But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ 
(dipole) cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No 
radials needed.


Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 
160m (holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).


I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options. Between
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to kev...@coho.net 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Michael K Bottles via Elecraft]

Interesting, I have a doublet 125 feet per leg and fed with 600 ohm true open 
ladder line (not window line) and the K-3 and KAT-500 both tune it to 1:1 160-6.

Feed point 40 feet up with ends at about 10 feet each. So inverted Vee.

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 16:59, kevinr  wrote:
> 
> Two reasons why I want to use an inverted L.  One) it fits my property well. 
>  Two) I have never tried one before.
> 
> I currently have an extra long doublet.  I can't remember the exact length 
> but seem to remember over 120 feet for each leg.  The tuner on my K3 just 
> won't match it below 2:1.0 so I don't want to transmit on it.  It hears well 
> enough but just won't match.
> 
> Reason number two pushes me onward :)
> 
>73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS
> 
> 
>> On 8/25/20 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
>> Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just because 
>> it's fun.  I get that.
>> 
>> But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ 
>> (dipole) cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No radials 
>> needed.
>> 
>> Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 160m 
>> (holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).
>> 
>> I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.
>> 
>> 73
>> Lyn, W0LEN
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
>> [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
>> To: Elecraft Reflector
>> Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters
>> 
>>  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
>> feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the
>> vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
>> counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored
>> in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
>> counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
>> lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
>> add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
>> 
>> I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
>> rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the
>> vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be
>> some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
>> does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
>> pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
>> 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between
>> 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
>> maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
>> antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
>> out any dead limbs across the road.
>> 
>> Inquiring minds...
>> 
>> Kevin.  KD5ONS
>> 
>> __
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com
>> 
> __
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to k...@icloud.com
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Pretty sure there are some significant pattern differences between ANY 
horizontal antenna and a vertical one on 160m ...  at least at heights 
practical for amateur radio purposes.


That's probably why.

Dave  AB7E


On 8/25/2020 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:

Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just because it's 
fun.  I get that.

But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ (dipole) 
cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No radials needed.

Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 160m 
(holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).

I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to ab7e...@gmail.com


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Why not model it?  It would be very easy to do using the free version of 
EZNEC that comes with the ARRL Antenna Book, and you'd be able to try 
various combinations (like the fact that you could probably get away 
with just one counterpoise wire like I do) to see the effects.


73,
Dave   AB7E



On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for 
the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas 
stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs 
for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute 
some shorter lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms 
impedance.  As I add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms 
asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from 
the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there 
should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  
How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the 
radiation pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to 
point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of 
options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, 
and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  
They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar 
poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Fred Jensen]

**interspersed ...

On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for 
the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas 
stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs 
for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute 
some shorter lengths?
**Radial elements on the ground can be of any length, longer [up to a 
point] is better.  Their purpose is to provide a lower loss path than 
the earth for the return circuit. Elevated radials should be tuned, 
usually 1/4 wave, to be effective.  You can think of them as the "other 
half" of the vertical radiator, and if you had room and could fold them 
down, you'd have a center-fed half wave antenna fed at 180 deg.
  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I add 
more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
**Radiation resistance will be somewhere in the 50 ohm ballpark.  
Generally, the radiators are not resonant due to physical constraints 
and there will be some reactance in the feedpoint impedance.  That is 
generally cancelled with a series capacitor [center conductor to 
radiator] or base inductive loading.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from 
the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point. 
**True.  For the most part, the horizontal part acts as a capacity hat.  
Shipboard antennas for 600 m were often one or more horizontal wires 
between two masts with a downlead to the transmitter.  Most [nearly all] 
of the radiation came from the downlead.
But there should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal 
portion.  How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion 
effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system?
**It will have a small effect.  So will the arrangement of the radials 
if they are asymmetric in spacing around the radiator or in length.  In 
every case I've seen, the "Fly Poop Axiom"++ applies: Unless you're a 
broadcast station seeking to maximize field strength at the limits of 
your effective coverage, the effect is way below the other vagaries of 
Top Band.
My property allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 
degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between 200 and 300 degrees 
there is a road used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers 
at the top of this mountain.  They can break any antenna lower than 80 
feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs 
across the road.
The effect of having one of them take down your antenna will be far, far 
greater than that produced by precisely aiming the horizontal wire over 
their territory.  Keep it away from the loggers ... with today's 
equipment, they rarely look up anyway.  It's the Fly Poop Axiom vs the 
Elephant Poop Axiom. [:-)


73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

++Effects and changes so small they are like trying to pick fly poop out 
of the pepper."  You can use your imagination for the elephants [:=)



Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Rick Robinson]

I use a L for all HF band . One wire going up about 60 feet then goes
horizontal about 85 feet or so. I use a somewhat equal length elevated
radial about 10-12 feet off the ground. I use a couple of auto couplers,
depending on the radio . A Icom AH-4 for my Icom radios and an SGC 230 for
anything else. I don’t run an amp on HF so these work great. I also have a
ICE discharge unit to bleed off static to the tuners. This cuts off at 30
MHZ, which is ok as I have separate 6 meter antennas. There are many
references to match the antenna and many around here in hilly WV use
elevated radials, usually only one to facilitate proper matching.
-- 
Rick Genesis 1-29
__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[kevinr]

Two reasons why I want to use an inverted L.  One) it fits my property 
well.  Two) I have never tried one before.


I currently have an extra long doublet.  I can't remember the exact 
length but seem to remember over 120 feet for each leg.  The tuner on my 
K3 just won't match it below 2:1.0 so I don't want to transmit on it.  
It hears well enough but just won't match.


Reason number two pushes me onward :)

   73,  Kevin.  KD5ONS


On 8/25/20 4:49 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:

Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just because it's 
fun.  I get that.

But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ (dipole) 
cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No radials needed.

Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 160m 
(holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).

I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

  From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com


__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Lyn Norstad]

Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?  OK, maybe just because it's 
fun.  I get that.

But as to operation, I have one (1) antenna, and it is a 360 foot EDZ (dipole) 
cut for 3.5 MHz.  It's great on all bands, 160 - 6m.  No radials needed.

Specifically I worked 47 of the 50 states in one 24 hour period on 160m 
(holdouts were AK, HI and NV - all picked up within a day or two).

I could 'splain more, if anyone is interested.

73
Lyn, W0LEN



-Original Message-
From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net 
[mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of kevinr
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 6:24 PM
To: Elecraft Reflector
Subject: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

 From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the 
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored 
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the 
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter 
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I 
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.

I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the 
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be 
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly 
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation 
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from 
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between 
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks 
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any 
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear 
out any dead limbs across the road.

Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to l...@lnainc.com 

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com 

[Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[kevinr]

From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each ~130 
feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters.  One leg for the 
vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna.  Four legs for the 
counterpoise (ground plane).  There are many broken wire antennas stored 
in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do all of the legs for the 
counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or can I substitute some shorter 
lengths?  The feedpoint should somewhere above 50 ohms impedance.  As I 
add more radials that number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.


I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with the 
rest of it horizontal.  Most of the radiation should take place from the 
vertical part since it is closer to the feed point.  But there should be 
some effect from the direction of the horizontal portion.  How strongly 
does the direction of the horizontal portion effect the radiation 
pattern of the antenna system?  My property allows me to point it from 
300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I have plenty of options.  Between 
200 and 300 degrees there is a road used by loggers, and the folks 
maintaining the towers at the top of this mountain.  They can break any 
antenna lower than 80 feet above ground.  Spar poles and cranes clear 
out any dead limbs across the road.


Inquiring minds...

Kevin.  KD5ONS

__
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com