Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

Seems like the consensus is the L.  I think I will try that over the 
radial field of the existing Cushcraft.  Having it separate from the 80 
also allows me to run two radios at the same time if need.  More 
flexibility.



Thanks all for your suggestions.  See you in the Test starting Friday!


W0MU


On 11/30/2016 6:16 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:

Hi Mike,

An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than
a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth
is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high
voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're
running high power.

73
Frank
W3LPL



*From: *"Don Kirk" 
*To: *"W0MU Mike Fatchett" 
*Cc: *"topband" 
*Sent: *Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
*Subject: *Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

HI Mike,

I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried
ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials).  I only run 100 watts and
located near Indianapolis.  I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base
loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but
having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and
most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor
condition.
Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters.

For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading
coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus 
your

33 foot vertical.  You can use part of the loading coil you install on the
full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to
form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great).  This would
allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas.
Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base
loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center
conductor of my feedline.  I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my
loading coil / L network.

But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have
said above and just install the Inverted-L.

Don (wd8dsb)

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

> I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft 
vertical

> for 160.  The Cushcraft gets out but not great.
>
> I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that 
I use
> for the 160.  It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen 
where

> people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160.  I think I recall people are
> not overly excited about bottom loading the 80.  The 80 is unguyed 
so the

> top cannot support anything.
>
> I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet.
>
> Any feelings one way or another?  I can make a switching system for 
the 80
> vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution.  I 
have a

> rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal.
>
> W0MU
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 15:22 +0100, Maciej Wieczorek wrote:
> Hi ,
> 
> did anyone try to match such 160m vertical /L or /T on 80m?
> How about efficiency?
> 
> After my 31m tall vertical broke last sunday (now it's 23m only) my
> idea is 
> to add 2 x15m top loading wires, making a T-vertical. 160m is a
> priority in 
> this case and I know it will work OK,  but I'd like to use it also on
> 80m.

The easiest thing to do might be to add a second
wire for 80m. Lifting a (fiberglass?) spreader to
keep that second wire at a distance should not
add all that much weight.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[Bob Cutter via Topband]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; } You will not be sorry with the L. 
I worked most of my 160 QRP DXCC(over 30+ years) using one. 
72, Bob KI0G 


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, 9:27 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  
wrote:

Seems like the consensus is the L.  I think I will try that over the 
radial field of the existing Cushcraft.  Having it separate from the 80 
also allows me to run two radios at the same time if need.  More 
flexibility.


Thanks all for your suggestions.  See you in the Test starting Friday!


W0MU


On 11/30/2016 6:16 AM, donov...@starpower.net wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than
> a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth
> is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high
> voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're
> running high power.
>
> 73
> Frank
> W3LPL
>
>
> 
> *From: *"Don Kirk" 
> *To: *"W0MU Mike Fatchett" 
> *Cc: *"topband" 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
>
> HI Mike,
>
> I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried
> ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials).  I only run 100 watts and
> located near Indianapolis.  I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base
> loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but
> having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and
> most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor
> condition.
> Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters.
>
> For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading
> coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus 
> your
> 33 foot vertical.  You can use part of the loading coil you install on the
> full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to
> form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great).  This would
> allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas.
> Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base
> loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center
> conductor of my feedline.  I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my
> loading coil / L network.
>
> But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have
> said above and just install the Inverted-L.
>
> Don (wd8dsb)
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:
>
> > I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft 
> vertical
> > for 160.  The Cushcraft gets out but not great.
> >
> > I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that 
> I use
> > for the 160.  It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen 
> where
> > people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160.  I think I recall people are
> > not overly excited about bottom loading the 80.  The 80 is unguyed 
> so the
> > top cannot support anything.
> >
> > I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet.
> >
> > Any feelings one way or another?  I can make a switching system for 
> the 80
> > vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution.  I 
> have a
> > rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal.
> >
> > W0MU
> >
> > _
> > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> >
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[Alan Swinger]

As an example with excellent performance, I use and recommend a COAX Inverted-L 
with elevated 100 ft radials (I use 7, but 4 will work). Since the 65 ft 
vertical Coax shield is not connected at the top where center conductor 
connects to the horizontal wirw (or sloped in my case), no matching system is 
needed at the base - it is a resonant ant . . . and will also perform well on 
80 by moving the Grd connection from below the Line Isolator (connects the feed 
line to the Vertical Coax) to above it. Tuning stubs on the wire portion take 
care of where in the bands you want resonance.

I adapted Scott Harwood's (K4VWK) design published in the Mar 2012 QST - go 
there for details. If you can deal with 4-6 Elevated radials, this beats the 
heck out of buries or on grd 30+ radials.
Alan - K9MBQ


-Original Message-
>From: donov...@starpower.net
>Sent: Nov 30, 2016 5:16 AM
>To: topband 
>Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L
>
>Hi Mike, 
>
>
>An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than 
>a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth 
>is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high 
>voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're 
>running high power. 
>
>
>73 
>Frank 
>W3LPL 
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>
>From: "Don Kirk"  
>To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett"  
>Cc: "topband"  
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM 
>Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L 
>
>HI Mike, 
>
>I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried 
>ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials). I only run 100 watts and 
>located near Indianapolis. I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base 
>loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but 
>having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and 
>most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor 
>condition. 
>Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters. 
>
>For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading 
>coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus your 
>33 foot vertical. You can use part of the loading coil you install on the 
>full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to 
>form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great). This would 
>allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas. 
>Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base 
>loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center 
>conductor of my feedline. I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my 
>loading coil / L network. 
>
>But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have 
>said above and just install the Inverted-L. 
>
>Don (wd8dsb) 
>
>On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote: 
>
>> I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical 
>> for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great. 
>> 
>> I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use 
>> for the 160. It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where 
>> people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160. I think I recall people are 
>> not overly excited about bottom loading the 80. The 80 is unguyed so the 
>> top cannot support anything. 
>> 
>> I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet. 
>> 
>> Any feelings one way or another? I can make a switching system for the 80 
>> vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution. I have a 
>> rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal. 
>> 
>> W0MU 
>> 
>> _ 
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
>> 
>_ 
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
>
>_
>Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[Don Kirk]

HI Mike,

I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried
ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials).  I only run 100 watts and
located near Indianapolis.  I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base
loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but
having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and
most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor
condition.
Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters.

For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading
coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus your
33 foot vertical.  You can use part of the loading coil you install on the
full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to
form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great).  This would
allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas.
Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base
loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center
conductor of my feedline.  I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my
loading coil / L network.

But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have
said above and just install the Inverted-L.

Don (wd8dsb)

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:

> I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical
> for 160.  The Cushcraft gets out but not great.
>
> I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use
> for the 160.  It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where
> people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160.  I think I recall people are
> not overly excited about bottom loading the 80.  The 80 is unguyed so the
> top cannot support anything.
>
> I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet.
>
> Any feelings one way or another?  I can make a switching system for the 80
> vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution.  I have a
> rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal.
>
> W0MU
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[donovanf]

Hi Mike, 


An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than 
a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth 
is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high 
voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're 
running high power. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 



- Original Message -

From: "Don Kirk"  
To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett"  
Cc: "topband"  
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM 
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L 

HI Mike, 

I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried 
ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials). I only run 100 watts and 
located near Indianapolis. I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base 
loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but 
having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and 
most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor 
condition. 
Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters. 

For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading 
coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus your 
33 foot vertical. You can use part of the loading coil you install on the 
full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to 
form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great). This would 
allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas. 
Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base 
loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center 
conductor of my feedline. I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my 
loading coil / L network. 

But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have 
said above and just install the Inverted-L. 

Don (wd8dsb) 

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote: 

> I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical 
> for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great. 
> 
> I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use 
> for the 160. It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where 
> people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160. I think I recall people are 
> not overly excited about bottom loading the 80. The 80 is unguyed so the 
> top cannot support anything. 
> 
> I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet. 
> 
> Any feelings one way or another? I can make a switching system for the 80 
> vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution. I have a 
> rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal. 
> 
> W0MU 
> 
> _ 
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
> 
_ 
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Power line noise and Contest conditions during CQWW

[JC]

Hi topband lovers

 

I would like to share with the group my experience living in a city lot and
working on 160m. Florida Power Light used  to fix power line noise in few
week, but  one noise just started few days before the contest last weekend.

 

The WF was able to remove most of the noise and I decided to shot a quick
video about it.

 

https://top-beam.com/contest/power-line-noise-during-contest-no-problem-for-
wf300-system-on-160m/

 

When you control commom node noise a vertical loop can save the weekend.

 

Regards

JC

N4IS

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Topband: Topband vertical

[Drew Vonada-Smith]

Mike,

One thing that I used to do is put a 80M trap between the top of the vertical 
and the L wire to use it on two bands.  I know yours is not guyed and can’t 
support top weight.  Mine was the same; here is how I approached it.

If two supports are available, in my case a high tower support and a lower tree 
support, I run the wire sloping down rom the high support to a bit past the 
vertical, insulate it, and then run rope to the lower support so the wire is 
secure on its own.  I then attach a floating wire from the top of the vertical 
up to the L wire.  No torque on the vertical, in fact, it is even a bit held in 
place.  Of course, you need to lower the wire to fold over the vertical, but 
that is easily done.

Just a thought if you happen to have the needed supports.

73,
Drew K3PA
--

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:33:41 -0700
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett 
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: 160 vertical/L
Message-ID: <37bd96b0-0f95-3f03-7e76-be1ff2901...@w0mu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical for 
160.  The Cushcraft gets out but not great.

I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use for 
the 160.  It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where people 
have loaded the 80m vertical on 160.  I think I recall people are not overly 
excited about bottom loading the 80.  The 80 is unguyed so the top cannot 
support anything.

I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet.

Any feelings one way or another?  I can make a switching system for the
80 vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution.  I have a 
rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal.

W0MU



--
***

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

[Maciej Wieczorek]

Hi ,

did anyone try to match such 160m vertical /L or /T on 80m?
How about efficiency?

After my 31m tall vertical broke last sunday (now it's 23m only) my idea is 
to add 2 x15m top loading wires, making a T-vertical. 160m is a priority in 
this case and I know it will work OK,  but I'd like to use it also on 80m.


TNX

73's
Mac SP2XF / SN2M


- Original Message - 
From: 

To: "topband" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L



Hi Mike,


An inverted-L with 50-60 feet vertical is a far superior choice than
a bottom loaded vertical. Its much more efficient, its bandwidth
is much broader and you don't have to deal with the very high
voltages at the base of the loaded vertical, especially if you're
running high power.


73
Frank
W3LPL



- Original Message -

From: "Don Kirk" 
To: "W0MU Mike Fatchett" 
Cc: "topband" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 12:32:26 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: 160 vertical/L

HI Mike,

I use a 68 foot based loaded vertical on 160 meters with 55 short buried
ground radials (2500 feet of ground radials). I only run 100 watts and
located near Indianapolis. I would prefer an Inverted-L over the base
loaded vertical on 160 meters (the L would be much more efficient), but
having said that I did acquire my 160 meter DXCC last year (all CW) and
most of the contacts were during years when 160 meters was in very poor
condition.
Note: I do use small pennant antennas for RX on 160 meters.

For starters it sure would be easy to temporarily install a base loading
coil to test out your full size 80 meter vertical on 160 meters versus 
your

33 foot vertical. You can use part of the loading coil you install on the
full size 80 meter vertical with a fixed high voltage silver mica cap to
form a simple L network (that's what I do and it works great). This would
allow you to easily compare your two TX antennas.
Note: neither end of my base loading coil is connected to ground (my base
loading coil is between the bottom of my 68 foot vertical and the center
conductor of my feedline. I use an MFJ 404-0669 air wound coil as my
loading coil / L network.

But if you can install an Inverted-L easily, than I would skip what I have
said above and just install the Inverted-L.

Don (wd8dsb)

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:33 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett  wrote:


I have a full sized 80m vertical and a Top loaded Cushcraft 33ft vertical
for 160. The Cushcraft gets out but not great.

I was thinking about using an inverted L over the radial field that I use
for the 160. It is 30ish radials of various lengths or I have seen where
people have loaded the 80m vertical on 160. I think I recall people are
not overly excited about bottom loading the 80. The 80 is unguyed so the
top cannot support anything.

I can get the vertical part of the L up 50-60 feet.

Any feelings one way or another? I can make a switching system for the 80
vert if people think this is a reasonable transmitting solution. I have a
rcv array, so I am hoping to improve my xmit signal.

W0MU

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband



_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband