Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Hi Gary, It would make a nice receiving antenna. Let's start with a question: Would you put up a loop for 20 meters that is 6 feet off the ground? Height for horizontal antennas must always be thought of in terms of _wavelength_. There is only one effective transmitting antenna for medium

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

I should have added that in some types of weather, a dipole may have more corona (which makes noise) off the ends than a loop. I have an EZNEC model of a low loop, if someone wants it. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > Model a low

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

You are misinterpreting the model data by looking at the shape of the pattern rather than the relative strength of the pattern at angles of interest. Example -- the so-called "take off angle" simply shows the vertical angle where the signal is the strongest. FAR more important to look at the

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Hi Rob (and gang), I would like to make one point that should be considered in this discussion. A true vertical which is what I use (not an inverted L) on 160 meters is sometimes horrible on 160 meters for skywave that originates from close in (200 miles or less as an example). During contests

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

160m is a band for vertical polarization. www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html I am a happy user of an inverted-L hung from a tree. Those that don't have room for resonant elevated radials like mine can use K2AV's compact counterpoise, or lay as much wire on the ground as your space permits.

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

On Wed,12/2/2015 11:02 AM, Don Kirk wrote: Therefore while I don't disagree that a vertical on 160 meters is a great antenna especially for DX work, for working stations in close it sometimes can be a disadvantage. Based on modeling it looks like a dipole only 15 feet off the ground on 160

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Forget I said all that. I looked at the model and found some possible mistakes. And I don't have any more time now to fix it. 73, Mike www.w0btu.com On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Mike Waters wrote: > > I have an EZNEC model of a low loop, if someone wants it. > > > On

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Well Rob, if you read Gary's email, you will find that he is interested in communicating "...with the hams I daily keep in touch with in the 500-600 mile range." The loop may be a great antenna for this but not, as you say, so much for DXing.   But there is, in my view, a deeper issue here.

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Hi Tom, You said "Compared to a vertical, there could be 10-30 dB difference in favor of a low dipole (less than 150 ft high) within a few hundred miles.", and I was pretty much trying to make the same point but indirectly since I don't have a dipole on 160 meters. The original poster mentioned

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Try putting a closed reflector wire under a 1 WL horizontal loop. Lay it on the ground or bury. Use insulated wire and size per typical loops…~+5% at design frequency. Experiment by listening to weak signals while opening and closing the ends of the reflector. At our latitude (64N) loops (and

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Kevin - I'm in a more tenuous position with Rob than you!!! I operate QRP on 160 you can bet if Rob gets wind of that he'll think I'm REALLY peeing in his Wheaties, 'eh 71.5/72 de Jim R. K9JWV From: Topband

Topband: adding another inverted l to the existing

Actually iam using an inverted L for 160 with few radials.I would like to build another one for 75 meters band. my questio are:1. How close they could be? 2. could i use the same radials existing from the 160 inverted L?Thankskp2bh/jimmy _ Topband Reflector Archives -

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

Thanks for all the replies, guess the consensus is it is not worth the effort to put up a 2wl loop over a 1wl. I know several mentioned verticals but I really was interested in the loop option. This is for QSO's with stations 500-600 miles from me, currently they report that my signal is

Re: Topband: 2 wl loop, worth the effort?

You said "Compared to a vertical, there could be 10-30 dB difference in favor of a low dipole (less than 150 ft high) within a few hundred miles.", and I was pretty much trying to make the same point but indirectly since I don't have a dipole on 160 meters. The original poster mentioned

Topband: Fwd: 20th Stew Perry TopBand DX Challange

Greetings to the Ditters and Dawters of the 160M Realm, The evil snow, ice, winds and politicians are all afoot now... but the bright spot is coming your way 1500Z Dec. 26 to 1500Z Dec. 27 in the form of the 20th Edition of The Stew Perry TopBand DX Challenge sponsored by The Boring Amateur

Re: Topband: adding another inverted l to the existing

James, You can add another inverted L in the same plane as the 160m one. If you keep 'm seperated 1 or 2 meters they 'll work great, they don' t "see" each other. You can put 'm on the same feedpoint and just add some more capacitance to an L network on 160m to match the antennas to the

Topband: 2WL loop

Nc3Z I use a 1wl vertical plane loop for DX on 80-20. It does about as well as the 80m inv V with apex at a little under twice the height. If I had room I'd try a 1WL on 160, even with the 50' height limitation. For local...I'm lazy. I'd try the 1WL before doing all the work to clear space for

Topband: 2nd inverted L

In the previous post i did not mention that the antennas will be feed individually.thanks kp2bh / jimmy _ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: adding another inverted l to the existing

I have a 80m free standing 1/4 vertical on 80m, over 60x 65' radials. A coil between the feed-point and the radial plate matches the antenna. Large ferrite beads were added to the feed-line at the feed point. The feed-line is about 250 feet of LMR-400-DB/ Last year I decided add an inverted L