Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Given caveats stated below, the short answer is I'd bet with odds it
wouldn't make much difference.

Long answer:

One of the benefits of an end-fed half-wave L on 80 meters is the hi Z
feed, tolerating ghastly ground systems, and having all the current up high
at the bend. Arguably, this makes the 80EFHWL the best single wire 80m
antenna for a mix of DX and local (therefore also contesting) operation.
The huge drawback for most is the need for an out-in-in-the-weather tuning
device as you cannot feed it directly with a run of coax. It also is fairly
narrow band, except for CW only operators. Those who need the entire band
need to so something not-simple at the ground feed to cover a significant
range of the 75-80m band.

The half square is two of those end to end, coming together in the middle
of the 1/2 wave horizontal. On 160 that's 539 feet of wire up in the air.
If you got the space and support for that and you want that broadside
direction, that's going to be a killer antenna.

Many of the half-square illustrations show a low Z feed at one of the upper
corners. That would avoid some of the issues at ground with high Z feed.
BUT the feedline would need to be broken up at the feed and halfway going
down, and at the bottom with VERY robust common mode current blocks. See
some of K9YC's new RG400 on #31 ferrite choke designs with 15K+ ohms of
blocking for something that would actually do the job with very minimal
power loss.

The other answer, as you have implemented to to deal with the high
impedance feed at one of the ends. This requires that at the end the
antenna looks like an electrical full wave wire.

Equal coils at the corners have sometimes allowed smaller physical
dimensions. But as soon as you start modifying the antenna, then questions
emerge which need modeling to answer. So there is no certain
one-size-fits-all answer to your question without model analysis of the
not-quite-half-square you have in the air. Versions with modified
dimensions have to be carefully designed to avoid dropping back into ground
involvement and possible related losses.

Given your 2000 ohm end to ground feed Z of the "modified" version you have
up, you have PROBABLY managed to avoid issues that would kill its ground
independence.

To answer the question far more completely, model it along with any
antennas and conductors within a 500 foot radius, INCLUDING TOWERS AND
FEEDLINES.

The half square is a great idea that can be screwed up with less than full
implementation, or like many other excellent designs, can be totally
screwed to the wall by unconsidered nearby conductors.

73, Guy K2AV.

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:45 PM Dick Bingham  wrote:

> Hello Guy (and the group)
>
> I just finished reading your reply/observations on 160-Meter verticals -
> L's, etc - and wonder what your thoughts may be for the so-called
> "Half-Square" antenna (H-S) where the high current point is at the top of
> the array and the antenna is high-voltage-fed at the bottom.
>
> I have a terrible QTH situation where ground conditions are very poor -
> basically river deposited gravel
> and sand sub-soaked by glacier and snow-melt water covered by several feet
> of organic matter. It is an electrically quiet area - S-0 or so - with
> noise basically all propagated non-man made noise.
>
> The H-S antenna I use (actually a sloping H-S with top phasing wire at
> ~90-feet) has 5ea 136-foot radials and performs very well in contests using
> 100-watts or less.
>
> My question is, given the low current at-ground feed point with Zo ~
> 2000-ohms or so, what sort of improvement might one expect if the radial
> field was significantly improved?
>
> 73 to all -  Dick/w7wkr at CN98pi
> =
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:07:16 -0500
> From: Guy Olinger K2AV 
> To: Todd Goins 
> Cc: TopBand List 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Apologies to all for delay in response.
>
> Losses related to ground and close dielectric materials remain the
> single monster gorilla in the room for improving TX performance of
> vertical antennas
> BIG SNIP
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Dick Bingham]

Hello Guy (and the group)

I just finished reading your reply/observations on 160-Meter verticals - L's, 
etc - and wonder what your thoughts may be for the so-called "Half-Square" 
antenna (H-S) where the high current point is at the top of the array and the 
antenna is high-voltage-fed at the bottom.

I have a terrible QTH situation where ground conditions are very poor - 
basically river deposited gravel 
and sand sub-soaked by glacier and snow-melt water covered by several feet of 
organic matter. It is an electrically quiet area - S-0 or so - with noise 
basically all propagated non-man made noise.

The H-S antenna I use (actually a sloping H-S with top phasing wire at 
~90-feet) has 5ea 136-foot radials and performs very well in contests using 
100-watts or less. 

My question is, given the low current at-ground feed point with Zo ~ 2000-ohms 
or so, what sort of improvement might one expect if the radial field was 
significantly improved?

73 to all -  Dick/w7wkr at CN98pi
=
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:07:16 -0500
From: Guy Olinger K2AV 
To: Todd Goins 
Cc: TopBand List 
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
Message-ID:
   
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Apologies to all for delay in response.

Losses related to ground and close dielectric materials remain the
single monster gorilla in the room for improving TX performance of
vertical antennas
BIG SNIP

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Wes Stewart]

I could give other advice but the best that I could offer is to check out 
Rudy's, N6LF, site: https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/  Regrettably, this isn't all 
that he's published so further searching might be in order.  QEX published a 
series in 2009-2010 of his stuff.


In my "Antennas" document folder on my hard drive I have a "Severns" subfolder 
with practically everything he's written saved.  This is a gold mine, only the 
gold is free.


In particular for your needs see LF-MF antenna notes.

Wes  N7WS

On 12/28/2018 4:35 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Hi, Grant.

Your original was posted to the reflector as well, and I'll let this
go there as well.

3:1 current imbalance, whether scalar or not, is grotesquely large
with 8 evenly spaced elevated equal length radials. I presume you have
already looked for connection issues at the center of the radials and
insulator issues out at the ends of the radials, and have walked the
radials looking for vegetation hanging on the radials. You would have
fixed that and moved on.

I think Kirchoff is overkill for the problem. I'm not sure he applies
at all with radials coupled inductively and capacitively to "infinite"
planetary size current sinks like ground viewed as a geographical
conductor. I think a lot of RF earth current (hence also radial
behavior) is better understood by the way charge moves around in a
lightning strike than by a circular radio circuit. The math is
dreadful for a radial analyzed as a single ended circuit, but that's
our problem, not nature's. We have a history of wanting to promote our
modeling programs to "natural" law, and somewhere in our unconscious
resist any addition of other factors to our calculations which can
create square law increases in problem and solution complexity.

Some practical things: Radial field screw-ups generally have almost no
effect on pattern at all. I modeled your antenna finally increasing to
200 ohm (!!!) loads inserted almost at the center into all the radials
on one side. This is a very large distortion of radial function, the
degree of unbalance required to produce three times the current in the
unloaded radials as loaded. This whale-sized distortion only makes the
azimuth pattern favor the unloaded side by about a dB. A counterpoise
hopefully will return 99% of the current forced into it, with minimal
energy sent to the far fields to distort the pattern of the aerial
wires. RF gone to counterpoise losses will not largely change pattern
any more than a parallel feed of antenna and dummy load will change
the antenna pattern.

So while the discovery of current imbalance in the radials may be
unnerving, it could be a result instead of a cause. And it does not
seem to reach the level of why you're getting thrashed in the
pile-ups.

What's more likely going on is akin to work done at N1LN where THREE
towers needed to be detuned to get clean pattern all around from his
two phased verticals. At the time only one vacuum variable was
available for the detuning. The closest tower was detuned with that.
The next closest tower was adjusted with that variable cap, measured
for value, and then returned to the first tower and reset. Using caps
rated for 100 watt transmitters, if that, the measured value was
constructed with a combination of fixed caps and put in place.

Detuning the towers made massive changes in the verticals' tuning.

A 160 contest was coming up in a few days and no chance to get a
variable in place. (Isn't it always? Do any of us ever do anything
sufficiently in advance?) As the story goes, a multi-op effort,
sometime 10 or 11 pm Friday night, one of the operators stepped out
the back door to smoke a cigarette, and noticed a strong acrid burning
smell. Not seeing a fire he ran in to get Bruce to find out what was
burning. Long story to short, the 1500 watts on the phased verticals
put enough current on the tower detuning to totally
smoke/roast/charcoal the detuning cap made up from fixed caps and
stink up the entire back acreage with the smoke therefrom.

The Acom 2000A had auto-tuned around the changing Z to the verticals
as the caps burned up, leaving the smokey back acreage as the only
tangible evidence of what was going on.

Without specific work to prevent it, RF current induced in a tower
will be driven into the dirt at the tower base, via the tower members
themselves, and via capacitive/inductive coupling of dirt from control
cables and coax shields. The circuit equivalent is a parallel feedline
to a big transformer (verticals inducing the tower) connected to a
huge big resistor made of dirt.

Since you have NEC 4.2, no excuse for not doing a whole property model
of all conductive materials and seeing where the current is flowing.
You can validate this by doing current measurements on every conductor
you can reach.

I did a whole property model for Bruce and it clearly showed a
completely unexpected high current on all the towers and conductors at
the base. It immediately pin-pointed the need for multiple detunings.
It also predicted severe far field pattern distortion that was
verified by measurements on a Potomac Instruments FIM-41 commercial
field strength meter at distances 2-5 miles in various directions.

A tower only 250 feet from a 160 vertical should be considered a
close-coupled transformer "winding".

Getting back to where you are

Can you supply the current reading and compass orientation of each of
the radials? There may be something suggested by that data. Also can
you run the following and report those results. (I'm including

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Rob Atkinson]

> It doesn't work very well. Last night it was much poorer on receive and
> transmit than my existing 43' vertical setup. I'm not sure what to think.

Your fundamental problem is a lack of understanding of how a monopole
works, specifically a base fed vertical with a ground system.  Anyone
who tries to use a ground system that converges on a point removed 10
or 20 feet from where the vertical element is excited does not really
understand how these antennas work.   You can't expect good
performance by distorting the geometry of the antenna to bring the
feed point to the counter poise convergence point.  You can't just
throw out physics.  it will radiate something, it just won't meet your
expectations, as you mentioned.  If I were you, I'd fall back and
start doing some reading.These antennas in their various forms
have been developed since the 1930s.  There's a pretty vast amount of
information about them, but what you will probably benefit most from,
is a college text book treatment, the kind of text used for a class on
radio broadcast engineering.  One such text is Radio-Electronic
Transmission Fundamentals by B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. 2nd ed.   It
has a few chapters on medium wave verticals, ground systems, radiation
resistance, current and field intensity but is written for students in
an easy to understand way.  Perhaps you can find a used copy on-line.
It's better to take your time and study these things, then use your
knowledge to correctly construct the antenna, even it it means waiting
until next fall to try it.

73

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Grant Saviers]

Guy,

I need some more db's on Tx.  For Rx I hear much better than heard into 
EU from Seattle area. It's a hard path and easy to believe EU QRN/QRM is 
the main culprit.  Your "loss list" is a great list, but I am thinking 
about a different potential problem with my T with eight 125' long 
elevated 10' radials, pretty much even in directions around the compass. 
 It has a good choke and buried feedline.


I have 3:1 measured current unbalance with an MFJ RF current meter I 
calibrated.  Perhaps unavoidable given the forest, lawn, towers, and 
buildings near where the radials run.  Plugging those values into Eznec 
4.2 as a source for each radial yields insignificant pattern distortion. 
 Kirchoff's law is ok on the actual values, sum of measured radial 
currents = vertical (85' to top of T, 33' each side top loading).


N6LF with his modeling shows that radials longer than 1/4wl can cause 
significant losses.  Now it occurs to me that the MFJ gave me scalar 
current values and those are not necessarily the actual i+jx radial 
currents.  I think Kirchoff is happy as long as the eight radial plus 
vertical i+jx radial values all add to j0 which was true at resonant 
frequency where I was measuring the currents.  So perhaps some of my 
radials are longer than 1/4wl RF and increasing the losses.


So my questions for the wizards of top band verticals are:

1. Am I correct with my non scalar interpretation of Kirchoff's law for 
radials?
2. What are easy ways to measure current phase for each radial? (I have 
a dual channel scope and was thinking of making current probes of some 
sort).
3. Was my 4.2 pattern/gain analysis correct for the modeling of the 
unbalanced scalar currents?
4. Since the summed measured RF currents were correct, am I overthinking 
this about potential losses?

5. Do other Topbanders have experience with measuring radial current phase?
6. Most of the literature gives strong admonitions to "equalize" radial 
current "within a few percent" (ON4UN and others).  Yet no analysis is 
given for why or how to do that.  My modeling seems to disagree.  My 
calculation of extra skin depth loss due to higher vs equal currents is 
only a few watts.


W8JI advises to think about antennas as systems that include everything, 
and the more I learn the more the complexity of the system unfolds.


Grant KZ1W
A db here and a db there and pretty soon its 3db or more.


On 1/7/2019 9:07 AM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:

Apologies to all for delay in response.

Losses related to ground and close dielectric materials remain the
single monster gorilla in the room for improving TX performance of
vertical antennas.

Setting aside content on k2av.com relating to the FCP, the other
issues in that web page’s "Loss List" section apply to any inverted L,
e.g. not having a tree inside the bend, avoiding proximity to
dielectric materials, quality of whatever counterpoise, etc

Simply having the RF current maximum on a vertical wire at the ground,
largely diminished at the top, is a loss issue, unless the in/on
ground radial system is EXCELLENT.

If you are considering beefing up your radial system in stages, then
by definition your radial system is NOT EXCELLENT. You already know
the deficiencies, those are what you haven't done yet and plan to do,
sometime.

The net effect of a collection of radial system deficiencies
separating you from EXCELLENT will be at minimum over Midwest USA
magic super dirt. Ground losses move in the direction of catastrophic
as ground quality deteriorates from super to average, to poor, very
poor, junk, awful, to unbelievably bad. The vast majority of the
country has ground quality that will make you pay if your radial
system is NOT EXCELLENT.

If you have that magic, super 30 millisiemens dirt, you can do
anything and get away with it. Please do not tell us, just keep it to
yourself. We already have enough things to make us jealous or feel
bad. Enjoy all your good results with schemes that blow up in ordinary
places. I have no problem with your good fortune, I just don't want to
be reminded over and over how poor NC dirt is for RF.

But please do not offer shortcut low-band advice, because you have no
idea what awful results your scheme might get in 2 millisiemens North
Carolina dirt, or even worse in the barely covered-over rubble that
sometimes passes for dirt in urban and some suburban building lots, or
in historic areas that have been built over previous ruins for
thirteen centuries, places where the skeletons of ancient kings have
been discovered buried in medieval church ruins found under
current-day parking lots.

The enemy of a vertical radiator is loss. Specifically, 1) dielectric
loss, RF exciting increased electron energy levels without electron
movement between atoms  and 2) resistive loss, RF inducing current in
conductive but resistive materials. Dirt usually has both. Further and
worse, UNLESS there is net field cancellation at the radial wire or
below (outcome of an EXCELLENT 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Apologies to all for delay in response.

Losses related to ground and close dielectric materials remain the
single monster gorilla in the room for improving TX performance of
vertical antennas.

Setting aside content on k2av.com relating to the FCP, the other
issues in that web page’s "Loss List" section apply to any inverted L,
e.g. not having a tree inside the bend, avoiding proximity to
dielectric materials, quality of whatever counterpoise, etc

Simply having the RF current maximum on a vertical wire at the ground,
largely diminished at the top, is a loss issue, unless the in/on
ground radial system is EXCELLENT.

If you are considering beefing up your radial system in stages, then
by definition your radial system is NOT EXCELLENT. You already know
the deficiencies, those are what you haven't done yet and plan to do,
sometime.

The net effect of a collection of radial system deficiencies
separating you from EXCELLENT will be at minimum over Midwest USA
magic super dirt. Ground losses move in the direction of catastrophic
as ground quality deteriorates from super to average, to poor, very
poor, junk, awful, to unbelievably bad. The vast majority of the
country has ground quality that will make you pay if your radial
system is NOT EXCELLENT.

If you have that magic, super 30 millisiemens dirt, you can do
anything and get away with it. Please do not tell us, just keep it to
yourself. We already have enough things to make us jealous or feel
bad. Enjoy all your good results with schemes that blow up in ordinary
places. I have no problem with your good fortune, I just don't want to
be reminded over and over how poor NC dirt is for RF.

But please do not offer shortcut low-band advice, because you have no
idea what awful results your scheme might get in 2 millisiemens North
Carolina dirt, or even worse in the barely covered-over rubble that
sometimes passes for dirt in urban and some suburban building lots, or
in historic areas that have been built over previous ruins for
thirteen centuries, places where the skeletons of ancient kings have
been discovered buried in medieval church ruins found under
current-day parking lots.

The enemy of a vertical radiator is loss. Specifically, 1) dielectric
loss, RF exciting increased electron energy levels without electron
movement between atoms  and 2) resistive loss, RF inducing current in
conductive but resistive materials. Dirt usually has both. Further and
worse, UNLESS there is net field cancellation at the radial wire or
below (outcome of an EXCELLENT radial system), dielectric material
within a few millimeters of radial field conductors INCREASES
dielectric loss.

RF fields at the feedpoint are huge, especially where a self-resonant
vertical radiator meets in/on ground radials. Radial deficiencies will
be costly close to vertical wire meeting counterpoise, further
multiplied by the "poorness factor" of the dirt underneath. That is
one of the gains of an elevated counterpoise, getting high fields away
from the damnable dirt where an EXCELLENT on/in ground counterpoise
just ain't possible.

Another way to reduce the fields at the ground is to quit using the
length of the vertical aerial wire as a cheap way to provide tuning
for matching to coax. If (on 160) you use an 88' foot wire as a start
for the L's horizontal, you will move the current max to 1/16 wave
down from the bend in the L. You will have done two good things, 1)
reduced the feedpoint current, hence also the RF field at the base,
reducing the power loss by the square of the field reduction, 2) put a
fairly uniform current on the *entire* vertical wire, further reducing
takeoff losses in trees, buildings, etc, by having a much larger
percentage of the total takeoff energy high enough get to sky without
encountering ANY dielectric losses.

How long to make the vertical wire? As long as you can while still
sufficiently avoiding dielectric and conductive materials. Losses from
higher current on a shorter vertical wire are outweighed significantly
by gains moving the feedpoint up in the air away from dreadful ground
losses only otherwise mitigated by EXCELLENT ground radial systems.

There are also questions about the efficiency of ground radials on top
of typical root content of "woodsy" locations. Roots are high loss
dielectric materials. Controversial, but an EXCELLENT *elevated*
radial system in the woods is going to outperform radials on ground.
Buried radials in the woods outright dismissed by many as impractical
at best.

The usual killer reason for abandoning or not adopting non-resonant
improvements to move current maximum well up on the vertical wire?
Desiring low SWR without tuning apparatus at the base of the vertical
wire. From the "Taming the exasperating Inverted L" section on
k2av.com:

**An Efficient Self-resonant Inverted L
is NOT a natural 50 ohm antenna**

Not even close. Think 20 to 35 ohms.
Varies with dimensions and environment.

**Lower SWR does NOT
predict improved performance**

A 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[chet moore]

Hi Guy

Disclaimer noted. That hoarding gene is much more common than most people
think  I had an SB101, SB-200. the SB101 is gone but the  SB 200 and 2 Drake
R4C's and T4Xc's are Still in residence.

My mp 1000 was indeed used at high power multi ops.  Mine was one of the 5
We used at every cq ww cw and SSB and Arrl CW and SSB contest up at W3PP
from
1995 until Dallas perished in that plane crash when taking off from
Charleston S C.  I was supposed to be on that plane which crashed leaving
Charleston SC for Florida and out to C6. After weeks of planning I had to
cancel out the day before the flight. 


I bought my MP-1000 new after using the MP's at W3PP it has the clix mod in
it courtesy of W3PP who spent a full day putting the mod
In all of 4 of his. It has just come back after being gone over by Byron
wa4geg,  I didn't know to have him check the choke but he did install the
new solid state freq readout and a new CAT board. It has every filter that
will fit In it including the w2jvn roofing filter.

I Have Known howie NY4A from when he was K4PQL and when his BIG antenna was
a TA-33 in a tree and all he had was wires through the woods. It sure wasnt
his qth in Lorton va that gave him a good signal as he was basically located
in a gulch.  We used to ride together to the PVRC meetings at the red
Cross building in Arlington Va. he was one of our main ops when I ran the
operation at K4CG along with Dallas K3WUW who later picked up W3PP.  Dallas
and I both worked for Vic Clark W4KFC. When I lived in Dale city, Howie was
the one who climbed the trees in my back yard to put up My 80 m dipole and
160m inverted vee. I climbed my own tower  as well as towers at W3PP but
trees..not so much.

As for K3-s  I operated 2 dx contests at NR4M.  I'm not a big 80M  op and I
planned to operate 10 or 15M because you almost need to go to a 1 week
school
To learn BIP, BOP and which antenna to use at what time of day with those 20
m stacks.  As it turns out the 80M op didn't  show up so they asked if I
Would fill the chair until the 80m  op came in. What a sweet setup. this was
4 or 5 years back but my first time with actual"hands on" a k3.  Actually,
there were 2 of them on 80M And the antennas were if I remember correctly a
5 or 6 element delta loop fixed on EU and a 4 square.  Diversity was turned
on and I had 3501 from the start Of the contest until my eyes slammed shut
around 0600 local the next morning as the 80m op never showed up.  I have
never heard anything like it, it was more akin to 20 meters. Big runs and
EU was loud. My only issue with the  K3's was what I considered  to be the
small knobs. I prefer big knobs on women and radios.  I attributed The high
performance on 80 to be the antennas not the radios. Who knew??  I was so
beat after 12 or 13 hours on 80 that  I slept  until about 3 In the
afternoon. I thought I might get on 160M the second night at NR4M but W4DR
and w4PRO were there. Compared to them  I cant even spell  "160",  I just
watched how the pro's do it. I never did get On 15 or 20. Visitor
accommodations at NR4M  with a pool table and a quiet place to sleep were
like a 5 star hotel compared to the Spartan conditions in the  bunkroom at
W3PP.As dallas would say, I hope you didn't come all this way to sleep.  the
diversity in the K3's was amazing.  I never gave any thought to the 1000 MP
until you mentioned the issues noted below. I will probably never look at my
MP-1000 the same again.  As you may know "CHAMPIONS ADJUST". I realize that
there are now other radios that are better than the MP-1000and I have been
very interested in K3ZO's reports on the Yaesu 5000, even though Fred
doesn't need filters, I do. I think there is at least One yaesu 5000 at
W3LPL  I would definitely want 250 and 500 cycle filters on any radio I
purchase. I  Have not done any multi op since NR4M except for SS CW when my
brother NW9X comes up here for SS.  I was thinking my 160m issues were
antenna related but now that's in question.  I will definitely  try to bring
my MP-1000 to a location with known good Antennas and a K3. It's still true
that no matter how much power you have,  if you can't hear em,  you can't
work em.

I read all your posts and recently discussed your FCP with Lar K7SV who
recently built one. 

Thanks  Guy I appreciate you  taking the time to bring me up to date.

73

Chet N4FX


-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Olinger K2AV
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 11:32 PM
To: chet moore
Cc: TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

Hi Chet,

Before we start, a disclaimer: I still have my MP, maybe I'm a radio
hoarder. I do have a 75A3 and a Johnson Ranger and Courier and an FT 101ZD.
The only long used radios I don't still have are my SB300 and SB400, and I
wish I hadn't sold those. So my MP bashing is technical and proven, and I
still love my MP enough to keep it. I hope its feeli

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

Thanks again everyone. I've read all your suggestions and advise and
although I won't be able to make some of the more difficult (or impossible
at my site) changes there are a few things I'm willing to try.

I read the w0btu.com webpage and I'm not really that far off from that
setup. Minus that tuning network. I'll order some FT240-31 ferrites to make
the feedline choke. Looks easy enough.  I have my elevated radials (135'
long) at about 10' above ground now, like the website describes. The
feedpoint is a little bit higher than that. The website does not say (or I
didn't see it) how high the feedpoint should be. Is 10'-12' okay? I can
easily move that higher and then the radials would slope downward from the
connection point.

Also, my total wire length is not 155', it is more like 135'. I'll add 20'
of length while waiting for the ferrites to arrive.  If this makes a huge
difference I'll be shocked and pleased. It works so poorly now compared to
the 43' version that except for my desire not to have this thing beat me it
really doesn't seem worth the effort. Last night I was easily coast to
coast from Seattle. East coast stations on PSK reporter were hearing me
well. I was heard in the Faulklands and in JA with the 43' antenna. With
the 100' version I was barely making it to Colorado!

I'm looking closely at a couple of BCB filters to help clean up my receive
situation too. I'd like to be able to use my antenna analyzer to get some
usable data.

I'm just frustrated that this thing stinks so badly and the 43' model that
I frankly threw together in about a day just for the ARRL 160 CW contest
has worked 45 states and some DX in almost no time but the 100' has worked
essentially nothing at all.  It looks more impressive though. Ugh!

I will keep providing updates and listen to any advise provided. Until I
wad the thing up into a ball...

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[David Olean]

d both of them with 100 watts. I called N6RK on both
antennas. On the inverted L I got an imi, and on the shunt fed tower no
response. Lots of qrm.  n6rk was not loud but he was the ONLY w6 I heard.
N2IC was loud from new mexico all night.

When I try to call cq I can hear partial calls and I know there are
stations
calling  me. I know I was called by an  EU4, 9A2 and a TF2 last night but I
couldn't pull any of them thru.

The shunt fed tower seems to radiate  pretty well on xmit but  on rx its an
alligator.  I definitely get out better than I hear but its  still pretty
discouraging  to call CQ and  to look at dx summit  and
see.spots like these from the europeans


N4FX   ?.
N4FX  no receiver
N4fx  don't waste your time calling,  rx broken
N4FX  No ears
N4FX  Unmanned beacon station??
N4FX  Big signal does not hear
N4fx  code reader failure???
N4FX  op asleep at key???
N4fx  where is he listening?? is he even listening?
N4FX   working crossband???

I have tried a 200 foot BOG which actually runs across the street and cars
drive over it. (I roll it out after dark but not a busy street). And roll
it
back up when I am finished) It works pretty well sometimes but last night
was not one of those times.  tried a W2UP rotatable Loop which lost all
directivity when I ran some radials out in its direction. A VE3DO loop (no
joy at all)

I just had my mp1000 tweaked and have a 756 pro II and don't think either
of
them has an rx problem.

Talked to Lee K7TJR about his antennas and because my tower sits almost
smack dab in the center of my lot  he didn't seem to think it would work
well even if
I were to detune the tower.  I'm not sure that a K9AY or SAL would work for
the same reasons.

Like you I think I will just take down the inverted L.  I learned quite a
bit from some of the comments you got. I  didn't fix anything but
definitely
know a lot of things that won't work. It was not particularly reassuring
that when AA1K was here last year, I asked him if he thought a choke at the
feed point would help anything?  He said he didn't think one was needed on
a
vertical. Then I asked what else I could do he suggested that I might want
to consider putting up a FOR SALE sign.

Thanks again for sharing your results.

73


Chet  N4FX   KP4EAJ, VP2A, ZD8W, VQ9Xx, KL7AIZ, KG4ZO, N6Zo/HH9
N6ZO/6Y5






-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Atkinson
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 9:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebuild your ground system so it converges
on a point below the bottom of the 100 foot tall wire right?  I mean,
you aren't using the 43 foot vert. ground system with the 100' wire?
A series fed vertical isn't rocket science so let's not over think
this.  If it doesn't work well it is probably inefficient.  I'd make
sure your ground system is adequate.  No, you can't use an existing
ground system that converges on a point 30 or 40 feet away from the
100' wire.  Yes, I've had people ask me if they can do that, so it is
worth mentioning.

You can go the elevated route, but it is _critical_ that it be
constructed correctly to adequately replace a full ground system at or
below grade.   You need four radials parallel to earth extending out
90 degrees from each other and their lengths must be equal and 90
degrees long (1/4 w.) at frequency.   The ends must be h.v. insulated.
They should be elevated 20 feet on 160 m. to completely de-couple from
earth.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
Reflector


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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


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


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

I'm not sure that a K9AY or SAL would work for
> the same reasons.
>
> Like you I think I will just take down the inverted L.  I learned quite a
> bit from some of the comments you got. I  didn't fix anything but
> definitely
> know a lot of things that won't work. It was not particularly reassuring
> that when AA1K was here last year, I asked him if he thought a choke at the
> feed point would help anything?  He said he didn't think one was needed on
> a
> vertical. Then I asked what else I could do he suggested that I might want
> to consider putting up a FOR SALE sign.
>
> Thanks again for sharing your results.
>
> 73
>
>
> Chet  N4FX   KP4EAJ, VP2A, ZD8W, VQ9Xx, KL7AIZ, KG4ZO, N6Zo/HH9
> N6ZO/6Y5
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob
> Atkinson
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 9:52 AM
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
>
> Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebuild your ground system so it converges
> on a point below the bottom of the 100 foot tall wire right?  I mean,
> you aren't using the 43 foot vert. ground system with the 100' wire?
> A series fed vertical isn't rocket science so let's not over think
> this.  If it doesn't work well it is probably inefficient.  I'd make
> sure your ground system is adequate.  No, you can't use an existing
> ground system that converges on a point 30 or 40 feet away from the
> 100' wire.  Yes, I've had people ask me if they can do that, so it is
> worth mentioning.
>
> You can go the elevated route, but it is _critical_ that it be
> constructed correctly to adequately replace a full ground system at or
> below grade.   You need four radials parallel to earth extending out
> 90 degrees from each other and their lengths must be equal and 90
> degrees long (1/4 w.) at frequency.   The ends must be h.v. insulated.
> They should be elevated 20 feet on 160 m. to completely de-couple from
> earth.
>
> 73
> Rob
> K5UJ
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[chet moore]

x  don't waste your time calling,  rx broken
N4FX  No ears
N4FX  Unmanned beacon station??
N4FX  Big signal does not hear
N4fx  code reader failure???
N4FX  op asleep at key???
N4fx  where is he listening?? is he even listening?
N4FX   working crossband???

I have tried a 200 foot BOG which actually runs across the street and cars
drive over it. (I roll it out after dark but not a busy street). And roll it
back up when I am finished) It works pretty well sometimes but last night
was not one of those times.  tried a W2UP rotatable Loop which lost all
directivity when I ran some radials out in its direction. A VE3DO loop (no
joy at all) 

I just had my mp1000 tweaked and have a 756 pro II and don't think either of
them has an rx problem.

Talked to Lee K7TJR about his antennas and because my tower sits almost
smack dab in the center of my lot  he didn't seem to think it would work
well even if
I were to detune the tower.  I'm not sure that a K9AY or SAL would work for
the same reasons.   

Like you I think I will just take down the inverted L.  I learned quite a
bit from some of the comments you got. I  didn't fix anything but definitely
know a lot of things that won't work. It was not particularly reassuring
that when AA1K was here last year, I asked him if he thought a choke at the
feed point would help anything?  He said he didn't think one was needed on a
vertical. Then I asked what else I could do he suggested that I might want
to consider putting up a FOR SALE sign.

Thanks again for sharing your results.

73


Chet  N4FX   KP4EAJ, VP2A, ZD8W, VQ9Xx, KL7AIZ, KG4ZO, N6Zo/HH9
N6ZO/6Y5






-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Atkinson
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2018 9:52 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebuild your ground system so it converges
on a point below the bottom of the 100 foot tall wire right?  I mean,
you aren't using the 43 foot vert. ground system with the 100' wire?
A series fed vertical isn't rocket science so let's not over think
this.  If it doesn't work well it is probably inefficient.  I'd make
sure your ground system is adequate.  No, you can't use an existing
ground system that converges on a point 30 or 40 feet away from the
100' wire.  Yes, I've had people ask me if they can do that, so it is
worth mentioning.

You can go the elevated route, but it is _critical_ that it be
constructed correctly to adequately replace a full ground system at or
below grade.   You need four radials parallel to earth extending out
90 degrees from each other and their lengths must be equal and 90
degrees long (1/4 w.) at frequency.   The ends must be h.v. insulated.
They should be elevated 20 feet on 160 m. to completely de-couple from
earth.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Peter Bertini]

Todd

If you are interested in experimenting, you could try a K2AV folded
counterpoise under that inverted L.  If installed as recommended, it will
provide a decent counterpoise system.  One advantage to the FCP is that it
is possible to also end fed the system, should that be a requirement.

I was using an inverted L against a tower with random grounding--antenna R
was up in the 80 ohm range.   Over the K2AV, and away from the tower the
antenna R dropped to 26 ohms.  It works good enough for now. I have very
poor ground conductivity, and running a large radial field would be hard
over rocky sandy soil.  I also fed the L over the FCP for  80 meters, an L
Network is switched in to match the antenna, and the FCP counterpoise  is
changed over to 80 meters using surplus Russian vacuum relays.
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

Hi Rob,

You ask some good questions and make some interesting observations.

Nope, it is the same radial system. I don't have a reasonable way
(time/money/effort) to create a whole new 50-60 wire buried radial system
for this experiment. I just disconnected the 43' vertical from the radial
mounting plate and connected the 100' vertical wire to the output of the
remote tuner. Simply replaced one radiator with the other.

The 100' tall wire's tree branch anchor is, at the apex, offset from the
center of the radial field by maybe 15'. So, being that it is wire, I just
angled it over and connected it. My figuring (probably bad) was that a 15'
horizontal run over a 100' drop isn't a very steep angle and I'd work with
what I had.  I suspected that could be an issue when it just didn't play at
all. That is when I rigged up the elevated radials. Several links folks
have pointed me to describe the elevated radials and I thought I'd give
that a try instead to salvage the operation.  Not a big deal since this is
really just a learning experience and even failure is learning.

At this point I can A/B antenna switch between the 43' using buried radials
and the 100' using the elevated radials.

The elevated radials don't meet your design criteria either. Only three of
them at roughtly equal spacing around the compass. I cut them at 135' long.
They aren't perfectly parallel to the earth's surface due to support points
being at uneven heights. They certainly aren't at 20' from the ground. The
wire is insulated but they are just tied off to supports at the ends.

All in all a complete mess of efficiency. Throwing up something temporary
in the winter rain/cold has some limitations that aren't conducive to good
160m operation, it appears. :-)

I did operate in the Stew Perry last night using both antennas to transmit
and the BOG to receive. The BOG worked better than I expected, notice I
didn't say "great". The 100' performed poorly compared to the 43' using
CONUS distances as a benchmark. No EU or JAs heard at my QTH...

I think I'll pull the 100' wire and supporting stuff down. It doesn't seem
worth the trouble since it isn't providing any additional benefit. Nothing
is easy at 160m. :-)  But it has been fun.

Thanks for the insight.
73,
Todd - NR7RR

>Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebuild your ground system so it converges
>on a point below the bottom of the 100 foot tall wire right?  I mean,
>you aren't using the 43 foot vert. ground system with the 100' wire?
>A series fed vertical isn't rocket science so let's not over think
>this.  If it doesn't work well it is probably inefficient.  I'd make
>sure your ground system is adequate.  No, you can't use an existing
>ground system that converges on a point 30 or 40 feet away from the
>100' wire.  Yes, I've had people ask me if they can do that, so it is
>worth mentioning.

>You can go the elevated route, but it is _critical_ that it be
>constructed correctly to adequately replace a full ground system at or
>below grade.   You need four radials parallel to earth extending out
>90 degrees from each other and their lengths must be equal and 90
>degrees long (1/4 w.) at frequency.   The ends must be h.v. insulated.
>They should be elevated 20 feet on 160 m. to completely de-couple from
>earth.

>73
>Rob
>K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Rob Atkinson]

Hmmmyou DID relocate or rebuild your ground system so it converges
on a point below the bottom of the 100 foot tall wire right?  I mean,
you aren't using the 43 foot vert. ground system with the 100' wire?
A series fed vertical isn't rocket science so let's not over think
this.  If it doesn't work well it is probably inefficient.  I'd make
sure your ground system is adequate.  No, you can't use an existing
ground system that converges on a point 30 or 40 feet away from the
100' wire.  Yes, I've had people ask me if they can do that, so it is
worth mentioning.

You can go the elevated route, but it is _critical_ that it be
constructed correctly to adequately replace a full ground system at or
below grade.   You need four radials parallel to earth extending out
90 degrees from each other and their lengths must be equal and 90
degrees long (1/4 w.) at frequency.   The ends must be h.v. insulated.
They should be elevated 20 feet on 160 m. to completely de-couple from
earth.

73
Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Brian Miller]

Hi Grant and Todd

I suggest there is also potential for a 4th problem - mutual coupling
between the vertical wire and supporting tree.  Any such coupling would be
smaller for the 43 ft vertical if it was located further away from the tree.

It would be interesting to see if there is any noticeable change in the SWR
curve and performance by increasing the distance between the vertical wire
and tree trunk. But I also appreciate that space and other factors may
preclude Todd from doing this. 

73, Brian VK3MI

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 09:00:03 -0800
From: Grant Saviers 
To: Todd Goins , TopBand List

Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 * 
1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance.  Are the elevated 
radials fully insulated from trees, not contacting foliage, etc?  Add 
three more.
Problem #2.  Your coiled coax choke may be making things worse.  Check 
out the just released designs from K9YC and build one.  17 turns RG400 
on one FT240-31.
Problem #3.  The increased gain of the T may be causing BCB desense of 
the 7300.  You need a BCB filter. Also the poor choke may be letting a 
lot of common mode noise into the antenna.

Grant KZ1W


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Mike Waters]

Exactly! You have a lot of loss in your ground (or something), Todd.

Perhaps it's the lack of a proper feedline choke.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018, 11:00 AM Grant Saviers  wrote:

> Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 *
> 1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance.  Are the elevated
> radials fully insulated from trees, not contacting foliage, etc?  Add
> three more.
> Problem #2.  Your coiled coax choke may be making things worse.  Check
> out the just released designs from K9YC and build one.  17 turns RG400
> on one FT240-31.
> Problem #3.  The increased gain of the T may be causing BCB desense of
> the 7300.  You need a BCB filter. Also the poor choke may be letting a
> lot of common mode noise into the antenna.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
>
>
> On 12/28/2018 19:39 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
> > A person emailed me to ask if I could take SWR readings at the rig
> without
> > a tuner. Since my antenna analyzer is non-op due to the AM station
> nearby.
> > The feedline is about 140' of LMR-240.
> >
> > Here is the indicated SWR at the 7300:
> > 1.810 1.2:1
> > 1.830 1.3:1
> > 1.850 1.5:1
> > 1.870 1.8:1
> > 1.900 2.3:1
> > 1.940 3.0:1
> >
> > Todd - NR7RR
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:30 PM Todd Goins  wrote:
> >
> >> Charlie,
> >>
> >> Yeah, I know the 100w is not ideal. This is night #2 with the elevated
> >> radials on the 100' vertical. I spent every day last week trying to use
> the
> >> 100' vertical against my buried radial field. It was horrible on
> transmit
> >> and mostly deaf (high noise) on receive. The attenuator didn't help, it
> >> just isn't hearing stations. My 43' vertical top loaded with 90' of
> >> horizontal wire is way, way more effective.
> >>
> >> I'm using a 230' BOG as my primary receive antenna right now but I can
> >> switch in the transmit antenna to listen just by throwing a switch.
> >>
> >> I'll stick with this 100' antenna for a while and try to use it this
> >> weekend on the Stew Perry but I have a feeling I'll be back with the 43'
> >> before it is over.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> 73
> >> Todd - NR7RR
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:19 PM charlie carroll  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Todd:
> >>> So, I might shorten the antenna up a bit to get the lowest SWR point a
> >>> bit higher in the band.  But, as it sits right now, your SWR is not
> >>> indicating a problem.  You're talking only a 100 watts which gives you
> at
> >>> least 1 strike.  I would play with it as is for a few days and get some
> >>> idea as to how well you are hearing and how well you are transmitting.
> >>>
> >>> Without detailing you, 160 is a place where you need patience and/or a
> >>> low-noise receiving antenna.  Plus, you also need to know whether you
> are
> >>> being affected by local noise sources.  Another reason why I encourage
> you
> >>> to spend more time evaluating the antenna.
> >>>
> >>> 73 charlie, k1xx
> >>>
> >>> On 12/28/2018 10:07 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Charlie,
> >>>
> >>> I can measure SWR at the rig. Feedline is about 140' of LMR240 coax.
> >>>
> >>> SWR at:
> >>> 1.810 1.2:1
> >>> 1.830 1.3:1
> >>> 1.850 1.5:1
> >>> 1.870 1.8:1
> >>> 1.900 2.3:1
> >>> 1.940 3.0:1
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't too worried about the choke situation but I connected in-line
> >>> what I had on hand, figured it wouldn't hurt. Mike had just asked what
> I
> >>> was using so I let him know. I'm not having any symptoms of RF in the
> shack
> >>> but I'm only running 100 watts.
> >>>
> >>> 73,
> >>> Todd - NR7RR
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:56 PM charlie carroll  wrote:
> >>>
>  Todd:
>  So, what do you expect the air-wound choke to do for you?  Many, many,
>  many antennas operate fine without a choke.  Don't get yourself
> wrapped
>  around the axle that the antenna won't work without a "correct" choke.
> 
>  What's SWR are you measuring at the transmitter?  How long is the
>  feedline?  Sure, it would be better to know what the Resistance and
>  reactance are.  But, SWR will give you some idea as to where you are
> at.  I
>  think right now, you don't really know what your ground truth is.
> Tell me
>  the SWR at 1.8, 1.85, 1.9, etc.
> 
>  73 charlie, k1xx
> 
> 
> 
>  On 12/28/2018 9:30 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
> 
>  Hi Mike,
> 
>  Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
>  160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged
> up
>  the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it
> in
>  line just in case.
> 
>  Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on those sites.
> 
>  The air-wound choke is what I'm using when I'm feeding the antenna
> using
>  the elevated radials. When I was testing using my buried radial field
> it is
>  a different setup. There I have a DX Engineering radial plate that
> neatly
>  ties everything (remote tuner, and DX 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 8:59 AM Grant Saviers  wrote:

> Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 *
> 1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance.  Are the elevated
> radials fully insulated from trees, not contacting foliage, etc?  Add
> three more.
> Problem #2.  Your coiled coax choke may be making things worse.  Check
> out the just released designs from K9YC and build one.  17 turns RG400
> on one FT240-31.
> Problem #3.  The increased gain of the T may be causing BCB desense of
> the 7300.  You need a BCB filter. Also the poor choke may be letting a
> lot of common mode noise into the antenna.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>

Hello Grant,

Thanks for the input.  I've made a couple of modifications this morning. I
can't make that choke today because I don't have the FT240-31 but I'll
check out that design and look into ordering the parts. Sounds easy enough
to build though.

Yes, the BCB signal on the large wire is intense. When attempting to use it
as a receiving antenna I have to run the attenuator and often dial out some
RF Gain as well. Nasty stuff. I'll see about getting a BCB filter if for
nothing else but to be able to use the antenna analyzer. I've looked at
many designs I could build but they almost all have a cutoff freq above the
160m band. Not what I need...

I raised the feedpoint to about 12' above ground surface and the radials
are similarly elevated for their 130' length. The radial wire is insulated
but it does use some (leafless) tree branches as supports. I have no way to
add three more elevated 130' radials at this time. Good idea though.

Raising the feedpoint did change the SWR readings at the rig. The 2:1 range
is quite a bit narrower, which is an improvement, I guess.  Here are the
new readings.

Indicated SWR at the 7300:
1.810 1.3:1
1.830 1.6:1
1.850 1.8:1
1.870 2.3:1
1.900 2.8:1
1.940 greater than 5:1

I'm looking forward to trying it out tonight in the Stew Perry. I still
have the 43' L to fall back on if the performance has not improved.

Thanks for the help.
73,
Todd - NR7RR

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Grant Saviers]

Problem #1. The swr indicates about a 140Khz plus < 2:1 bandwidth (2 * 
1880-1810) which implies a high radial resistance.  Are the elevated 
radials fully insulated from trees, not contacting foliage, etc?  Add 
three more.
Problem #2.  Your coiled coax choke may be making things worse.  Check 
out the just released designs from K9YC and build one.  17 turns RG400 
on one FT240-31.
Problem #3.  The increased gain of the T may be causing BCB desense of 
the 7300.  You need a BCB filter. Also the poor choke may be letting a 
lot of common mode noise into the antenna.


Grant KZ1W



On 12/28/2018 19:39 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

A person emailed me to ask if I could take SWR readings at the rig without
a tuner. Since my antenna analyzer is non-op due to the AM station nearby.
The feedline is about 140' of LMR-240.

Here is the indicated SWR at the 7300:
1.810 1.2:1
1.830 1.3:1
1.850 1.5:1
1.870 1.8:1
1.900 2.3:1
1.940 3.0:1

Todd - NR7RR

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:30 PM Todd Goins  wrote:


Charlie,

Yeah, I know the 100w is not ideal. This is night #2 with the elevated
radials on the 100' vertical. I spent every day last week trying to use the
100' vertical against my buried radial field. It was horrible on transmit
and mostly deaf (high noise) on receive. The attenuator didn't help, it
just isn't hearing stations. My 43' vertical top loaded with 90' of
horizontal wire is way, way more effective.

I'm using a 230' BOG as my primary receive antenna right now but I can
switch in the transmit antenna to listen just by throwing a switch.

I'll stick with this 100' antenna for a while and try to use it this
weekend on the Stew Perry but I have a feeling I'll be back with the 43'
before it is over.

Thanks,
73
Todd - NR7RR

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:19 PM charlie carroll  wrote:


Todd:
So, I might shorten the antenna up a bit to get the lowest SWR point a
bit higher in the band.  But, as it sits right now, your SWR is not
indicating a problem.  You're talking only a 100 watts which gives you at
least 1 strike.  I would play with it as is for a few days and get some
idea as to how well you are hearing and how well you are transmitting.

Without detailing you, 160 is a place where you need patience and/or a
low-noise receiving antenna.  Plus, you also need to know whether you are
being affected by local noise sources.  Another reason why I encourage you
to spend more time evaluating the antenna.

73 charlie, k1xx

On 12/28/2018 10:07 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

Hi Charlie,

I can measure SWR at the rig. Feedline is about 140' of LMR240 coax.

SWR at:
1.810 1.2:1
1.830 1.3:1
1.850 1.5:1
1.870 1.8:1
1.900 2.3:1
1.940 3.0:1

I wasn't too worried about the choke situation but I connected in-line
what I had on hand, figured it wouldn't hurt. Mike had just asked what I
was using so I let him know. I'm not having any symptoms of RF in the shack
but I'm only running 100 watts.

73,
Todd - NR7RR


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:56 PM charlie carroll  wrote:


Todd:
So, what do you expect the air-wound choke to do for you?  Many, many,
many antennas operate fine without a choke.  Don't get yourself wrapped
around the axle that the antenna won't work without a "correct" choke.

What's SWR are you measuring at the transmitter?  How long is the
feedline?  Sure, it would be better to know what the Resistance and
reactance are.  But, SWR will give you some idea as to where you are at.  I
think right now, you don't really know what your ground truth is.  Tell me
the SWR at 1.8, 1.85, 1.9, etc.

73 charlie, k1xx



On 12/28/2018 9:30 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

Hi Mike,

Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged up
the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it in
line just in case.

Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on those sites.

The air-wound choke is what I'm using when I'm feeding the antenna using
the elevated radials. When I was testing using my buried radial field it is
a different setup. There I have a DX Engineering radial plate that neatly
ties everything (remote tuner, and DX Engineering Maxi-core Feedline
Current Choke) together at the feed point.

Thanks for the comments and info.
73,
Todd - NR7RR


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:57 PM Mike Waters  
 wrote:


Hi Todd,

I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
Take at look athttp://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.

A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, 
fromhttp://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.

73, Mikewww.w0btu.com

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  
 wrote:


... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
not
be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Peter Bertini]

Those SWR readings seem to indicate a very large bandwidth, to the extent
it might suggest that your ground resistance losses are swamping the
antenna R radiation resistance.  It would be nice to know the R value at
resonance, where there is no J value.  Too bad the analyzer is overloading.
A simple BCB filter might help.

Pete k1zjh
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

A person emailed me to ask if I could take SWR readings at the rig without
a tuner. Since my antenna analyzer is non-op due to the AM station nearby.
The feedline is about 140' of LMR-240.

Here is the indicated SWR at the 7300:
1.810 1.2:1
1.830 1.3:1
1.850 1.5:1
1.870 1.8:1
1.900 2.3:1
1.940 3.0:1

Todd - NR7RR

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:30 PM Todd Goins  wrote:

> Charlie,
>
> Yeah, I know the 100w is not ideal. This is night #2 with the elevated
> radials on the 100' vertical. I spent every day last week trying to use the
> 100' vertical against my buried radial field. It was horrible on transmit
> and mostly deaf (high noise) on receive. The attenuator didn't help, it
> just isn't hearing stations. My 43' vertical top loaded with 90' of
> horizontal wire is way, way more effective.
>
> I'm using a 230' BOG as my primary receive antenna right now but I can
> switch in the transmit antenna to listen just by throwing a switch.
>
> I'll stick with this 100' antenna for a while and try to use it this
> weekend on the Stew Perry but I have a feeling I'll be back with the 43'
> before it is over.
>
> Thanks,
> 73
> Todd - NR7RR
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:19 PM charlie carroll  wrote:
>
>> Todd:
>> So, I might shorten the antenna up a bit to get the lowest SWR point a
>> bit higher in the band.  But, as it sits right now, your SWR is not
>> indicating a problem.  You're talking only a 100 watts which gives you at
>> least 1 strike.  I would play with it as is for a few days and get some
>> idea as to how well you are hearing and how well you are transmitting.
>>
>> Without detailing you, 160 is a place where you need patience and/or a
>> low-noise receiving antenna.  Plus, you also need to know whether you are
>> being affected by local noise sources.  Another reason why I encourage you
>> to spend more time evaluating the antenna.
>>
>> 73 charlie, k1xx
>>
>> On 12/28/2018 10:07 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
>>
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> I can measure SWR at the rig. Feedline is about 140' of LMR240 coax.
>>
>> SWR at:
>> 1.810 1.2:1
>> 1.830 1.3:1
>> 1.850 1.5:1
>> 1.870 1.8:1
>> 1.900 2.3:1
>> 1.940 3.0:1
>>
>> I wasn't too worried about the choke situation but I connected in-line
>> what I had on hand, figured it wouldn't hurt. Mike had just asked what I
>> was using so I let him know. I'm not having any symptoms of RF in the shack
>> but I'm only running 100 watts.
>>
>> 73,
>> Todd - NR7RR
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:56 PM charlie carroll  wrote:
>>
>>> Todd:
>>> So, what do you expect the air-wound choke to do for you?  Many, many,
>>> many antennas operate fine without a choke.  Don't get yourself wrapped
>>> around the axle that the antenna won't work without a "correct" choke.
>>>
>>> What's SWR are you measuring at the transmitter?  How long is the
>>> feedline?  Sure, it would be better to know what the Resistance and
>>> reactance are.  But, SWR will give you some idea as to where you are at.  I
>>> think right now, you don't really know what your ground truth is.  Tell me
>>> the SWR at 1.8, 1.85, 1.9, etc.
>>>
>>> 73 charlie, k1xx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/28/2018 9:30 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mike,
>>>
>>> Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
>>> 160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged up
>>> the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it in
>>> line just in case.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on those sites.
>>>
>>> The air-wound choke is what I'm using when I'm feeding the antenna using
>>> the elevated radials. When I was testing using my buried radial field it is
>>> a different setup. There I have a DX Engineering radial plate that neatly
>>> ties everything (remote tuner, and DX Engineering Maxi-core Feedline
>>> Current Choke) together at the feed point.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the comments and info.
>>> 73,
>>> Todd - NR7RR
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:57 PM Mike Waters  
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Todd,
>>>
>>> I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
>>> Take at look athttp://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.
>>>
>>> A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, 
>>> fromhttp://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
>>> written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.
>>>
>>> 73, Mikewww.w0btu.com
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
>>> not
>>> be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
>>> wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted
>>> in
>>> the shack.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>> Todd - NR7RR
>>>
>>>
>>> _
>>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

Hi Mike,

Oh, I would totally believe that the air-wound choke is ineffective at
160m. It just happens to be what I had available to use when I rigged up
the elevated radials in the cold rain yesterday. I figured I'd put it in
line just in case.

Thanks for the choke links, I will read the info on those sites.

The air-wound choke is what I'm using when I'm feeding the antenna using
the elevated radials. When I was testing using my buried radial field it is
a different setup. There I have a DX Engineering radial plate that neatly
ties everything (remote tuner, and DX Engineering Maxi-core Feedline
Current Choke) together at the feed point.

Thanks for the comments and info.
73,
Todd - NR7RR


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:57 PM Mike Waters  wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
> I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
> Take at look at
> http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.
>
> A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, from
> http://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
> written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.
>
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  wrote:
>
>> ... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
>> not
>> be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
>> wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted
>> in
>> the shack.
>>
>> 73,
>> Todd - NR7RR
>>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Mike Waters]

Hi Todd,

I'll bet the farm (if I had one) that your air-core choke is ineffective.
Take at look at
http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/chokes to see what I mean.

A very, very good common mode choke is the one I have on mine, from
http://audiosystemsgroup.com/RFI-Ham.pdf. There is no better material
written on this subject, either in print or on the Internet.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 7:34 PM Todd Goins  wrote:

> ... I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may
> not
> be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
> wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted in
> the shack.
>
> 73,
> Todd - NR7RR
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear in my post. The elevated radials are not
connected to the buried radial field. They are two separate entities. Now
the elevated radials do sit above or cross some the buried radials in some
places so I'm sure they do interact but they aren't directly connected
together.

I only have a finite space to work with and the tree limb I'm using to
support the wire "is where it is". Everything I'm doing at this scale is a
huge kludge or compromise but I'm just trying to optimize my situation as
best I can. The BOG however sits nowhere near the radials.

So, the 100' vertical has only ever been hooked to just the buried radials
or the elevated radials at any one moment during my testing.

I do have a common mode choke at (near) the feed point. It may or may not
be effective at 160m. It does work on 10-80m. It is about 25' of RG-8 coax
wrapped around a 4" PVC pipe as a form. Perhaps not ideal... No RF noted in
the shack.

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Mike Waters]

Hello Grant,

Your advice is spot-on! Elevated radials MUST NOT be connected to ground.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Todd's inverted-L is working so
poorly.

Another important thing is to have a GOOD choke balun right at the
feedpoint. *We need to keep the current off of the feedline shield.*

 This is how I made my own inverted-L work, per the advice of many
Topbanders a whole lot smarter than me:
http://www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html (scroll down).
It describes the common-mode choke. There are photos there (click the
links).

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM Grant Saviers  wrote:

> Modeling I've done shows it a bad idea to have in ground and elevated
> radials connected together, but that is not clear from what you
> described.  Then with the elevated separate, moving the feedpoint up at
> least 8', to 12' is better and elevated radials run out at that height.
> I think it is a tossup if the "flying V" feed is used - ie gain some
> vertical wire length by feeding near ground and then angle the wires to
> the the elevated ones say at 45 degrees.  It doesn't hurt to have the
> buried radials below the elevated but doesn't help either according to
> NEC4.2 models I've tried.  The elevated ones shield the currents enough
> from the ground in the near field.
>
> Check out what N6LF has to say about elevated radials (if you haven't
> already)  antennasbyn6lf.com
>
> Then develop an swr curve with 5 watts from your rig.  Better than nothing.
>
> Borrow a different antenna analyzer to try or put a quality BCB filter
> on the input.  You need one anyway.  A two port VNA can calibrate out
> the filter.
>
> It is also hard to compare antennas unless the A/B testing is real time.
>   This week proves that on 160, one night nada to EU, Thur night was
> pretty good and I missed the killer opening on Wed according to PNW
> reports.
>
> Grant KZ1W
>
> On 12/28/2018 15:35 PM, Todd Goins wrote:
> > I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
> > who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.
> >
> > So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
> > **horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is
> much,
> > much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the
> 43'
> > vertical with the 90' horizontal.
> >
> > Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
> > receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the
> transformer
> > and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
> > (S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say
> it
> > was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better
> chance
> > to evaluate it.
> >
> > Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
> > buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
> > performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
> > elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130'
> elevated
> > (also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a
> little
> > better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.
> >
> > Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the
> feed
> > point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
> > analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
> > that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has
> been
> > fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
> > the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.
> >
> > So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
> > antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can
> elevate
> > the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
> > make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
> > distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing
> my
> > tail?
> >
> > Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
> > 73,
> > Todd - NR7RR
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Grant Saviers]

Modeling I've done shows it a bad idea to have in ground and elevated 
radials connected together, but that is not clear from what you 
described.  Then with the elevated separate, moving the feedpoint up at 
least 8', to 12' is better and elevated radials run out at that height. 
I think it is a tossup if the "flying V" feed is used - ie gain some 
vertical wire length by feeding near ground and then angle the wires to 
the the elevated ones say at 45 degrees.  It doesn't hurt to have the 
buried radials below the elevated but doesn't help either according to 
NEC4.2 models I've tried.  The elevated ones shield the currents enough 
from the ground in the near field.


Check out what N6LF has to say about elevated radials (if you haven't 
already)  antennasbyn6lf.com


Then develop an swr curve with 5 watts from your rig.  Better than nothing.

Borrow a different antenna analyzer to try or put a quality BCB filter 
on the input.  You need one anyway.  A two port VNA can calibrate out 
the filter.


It is also hard to compare antennas unless the A/B testing is real time. 
 This week proves that on 160, one night nada to EU, Thur night was 
pretty good and I missed the killer opening on Wed according to PNW 
reports.


Grant KZ1W

On 12/28/2018 15:35 PM, Todd Goins wrote:

I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.

So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the 43'
vertical with the 90' horizontal.

Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the transformer
and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
(S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say it
was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better chance
to evaluate it.

Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130' elevated
(also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a little
better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.

Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the feed
point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has been
fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.

So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can elevate
the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing my
tail?

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Ralph Bellas]

Two 100 x 3 ft rolls of chicken wire were added this fall.  I have about 45 
radials, good conductivity, clear view, and the sump pump dumps out nearby.  It 
is quiet in the country  but the beverages are better.  I am putting up a 
SAL30. It will be better for USA contests. The F/B is good enough that you can 
tell someone is calling.

K9ZO


From: Topband  on behalf of Todd Goins 

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 5:35:53 PM
To: TopBand List
Subject: Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.

So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the 43'
vertical with the 90' horizontal.

Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the transformer
and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
(S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say it
was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better chance
to evaluate it.

Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130' elevated
(also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a little
better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.

Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the feed
point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has been
fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.

So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can elevate
the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing my
tail?

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Topband: Inverted L improvement question - Part 2

[Todd Goins]

I originally started this thread and I want to once again thank everyone
who provided input and advise both privately and on the reflector.

So the 100' tall vertical with the 30' horizontal loading wire works
**horribly**. I have about a week with it now every evening and it is much,
much poorer transmitting (and receiving, as expected I guess) than the 43'
vertical with the 90' horizontal.

Since everyone was united in the opinion that I needed a dedicated
receiving antenna I put out a 200' BOG (pointing east) with the transformer
and terminating resistor from DXEngineering. The BOG is really quiet
(S1-S2) compared to the verticals and it hears "okay" but I wouldn't say it
was great by any means. The Stew Perry tomorrow will give me better chance
to evaluate it.

Back to the 100' vertical. Since it wasn't working being tied into the
buried radial field I was using for the 43' (PSK Reported showed dreadful
performance) I decided to take a different approach and made it have an
elevated feed point at about 7' above ground and I ran three 130' elevated
(also around 6' to 7' high) counterpoise wires. This antenna works a little
better but still not nearly as good as the 43'.

Several people asked me to make R/Z measurements of the antenna at the feed
point. I'd love to provide that info but my Comet CAA-500 MarkII antenna
analyzer is being totally killed on 160m by a 27.5KW AM broadcast station
that is about 2 miles from my QTH. It will not work. The analyzer has been
fine on 6-40m and sometimes works on 80m but 160 is no-go. So I can't get
the reactance and resistance values you all wanted.

So, here is my question. The one easy modification I can make to the
antenna, now that I have elevated radials connected, is that I can elevate
the feed point. I can raise it to about any height necessary. Would this
make any difference? I would lengthen the horizontal wire by whatever
distance I raised the feed point, right? Any ideas or am I just chasing my
tail?

Thanks for reading and any advise you can give.
73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Cecil Acuff]

I would have kept mine if I had seen that kind of performance. Either I have a 
very low noise floor, I had degraded performance of the RX antenna for some 
reason or I was doing something wrong.  When I saw a difference in SNR it was 
very minor and wouldn’t have been the deciding factor in making the contact. It 
had a bit less loss than my K9AY but there was more wire in the air.  Difficult 
to erect...wife helped but fell once before we got it right.

I don’t expect my experience was typical so not wanting to dissuade 
others...the SAL antennas are good antennasbut I didn’t see the performance 
displayed on the Array Solutions web site video at this location.

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Dec 28, 2018, at 10:21 AM,   wrote:
> 
> Wes you're right
> 
> The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio. 
> The RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the 
> improvement on signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db 
> below noise with the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.
> 
> ..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single FLAG, 
> The clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the most 
> complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not change 
> the directivity. 
> 
> You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can phase two 
> K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it is 
> impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.
> 
> 73
> JC
> N4IS
> -Original Message-
> From: Topband  On Behalf Of Wes Stewart
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:50 AM
> To: Arthur Delibert ; Jeff Woods 
> Cc: topband 
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question
> 
> I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, 
> to the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.
> 
> That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
> not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could 
> be totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and 
> frankly I haven't kept up.
> 
> Wes  N7WS
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
>> You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from 
>> Array Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a 
>> SAL-12, and I love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  
>> I can switch the antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm 
>> often surprised to find that the DX is coming from a direction different 
>> from what I would expect.
>> Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is 
>> pointed in the right direction, and I really would not have had any 
>> copy if I couldn't point in that direction.
>> 
>> The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and 
>> higher. The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I 
>> recall right, the
>> SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 
>> meters. Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.
>> 
>> These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, 
>> the
>> SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the 
>> same direction.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Art Delibert, KB3FJO
>> 
>> --
>> --
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[n4is]

Wes you're right

The SAL is a good antenna, any directivity increases signal to noise ratio. The 
RDF is 2 to 3 bd better than the vertical antenna, it means the improvement on 
signal to noise ratio is about 6db.  You can dig signals 6 db below noise with 
the SAL  that you cannot hear with the inverted L.

..but the SAL  has the same performance of a K9AY, or EWE or a single FLAG, The 
clamed 10 db RDF was never confirmed or measured, The SAL  is the most 
complicated K9AY you can build. The separation in two loops does not change the 
directivity. 

You can phase 2 FLAGS to increase RDF to 11.5 DB, as well you can phase two 
K9AY or 4  if you want, but the SAL phasing system is complicated and it is 
impractical to phase two SAL to increase RDF.

73
JC
N4IS
-Original Message-
From: Topband  On Behalf Of Wes Stewart
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 10:50 AM
To: Arthur Delibert ; Jeff Woods 
Cc: topband 
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to 
the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.

That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could be 
totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and frankly 
I haven't kept up.

Wes  N7WS



On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
> You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from 
> Array Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a 
> SAL-12, and I love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  
> I can switch the antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm 
> often surprised to find that the DX is coming from a direction different from 
> what I would expect.
> Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is 
> pointed in the right direction, and I really would not have had any 
> copy if I couldn't point in that direction.
>
> The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and 
> higher. The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I 
> recall right, the
> SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 
> meters. Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.
>
> These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, 
> the
> SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the 
> same direction.
>
> Regards,
> Art Delibert, KB3FJO
>
> --
> --

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

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

I was an early participant in the SAL yahoo group and introduced Dan, AC6LA, to 
the group.  He has provided a lot of modeling tools.


That said, I lost interest after feeling that the design was too complicated, 
not well understood and suffered from a dizzying number of changes.  I could be 
totally wrong about this, but that was my assessment some time ago and frankly I 
haven't kept up.


Wes  N7WS



On 12/27/2018 4:15 PM, Arthur Delibert wrote:
You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from Array 
Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I 
love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  I can switch the 
antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm often surprised to find 
that the DX is coming from a direction different from what I would expect.  
Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is pointed 
in the right direction, and I really would not have had any copy if I couldn't 
point in that direction.


The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and higher.  
The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I recall right, the 
SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 meters.  
Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.


These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, the 
SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the same 
direction.


Regards,
Art Delibert, KB3FJO




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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Cecil Acuff]

It’s fun chasing pirates.  I had an SAL-30...worked great for BCB dxing.  Not 
sure what’s up at my place but I haven’t found an RX antenna yet that hears any 
better on 160 than my inverted L. Used K9AY, SAL-30, BOG no avail...can’t get 
to the next layer.

Won’t give up though.

Cecil
K5DL

Sent using recycled electrons.

> On Dec 27, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Mike Waters  wrote:
> 
> Shortwave broadcasting in 2018?! I thought there was hardly any English SW
> stations left, no?
> 
> 73, Mike
> www.w0btu.com
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:16 PM Arthur Delibert  wrote:
>> 
>> ... I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60-
>> and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  ... KB3FJO
>> 
>> 
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Mike Waters]

Shortwave broadcasting in 2018?! I thought there was hardly any English SW
stations left, no?

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 5:16 PM Arthur Delibert  wrote:

> ... I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60-
> and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  ... KB3FJO
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Arthur Delibert]

You may also want to check out the SAL-12, -20 or -30 antennas from Array 
Solutions.  My yard is pretty small, but I was able to put up a SAL-12, and I 
love it.  (I do mostly 49-, 60- and 90-meter SWBC DX.)  I can switch the 
antenna to any one of 8 different directions, and I'm often surprised to find 
that the DX is coming from a direction different from what I would expect.  
Often there's a very pronounced peak in the signal when the antenna is pointed 
in the right direction, and I really would not have had any copy if I couldn't 
point in that direction.

The SAL-12 isn't especially good on 160, but is good from 3 MHz and higher.  
The SAL-20 and -30 are reportedly very good on 160.  If I recall right, the 
SAL-20 is directional up to 20 meters; the SAL-30 is good up to 40 meters.  
Check the Array Solutions website to confirm.

These aren't as cheap as putting up your own pennant, but above 3 MHz, the 
SAL-12 aimed NE almost always outperforms my pennant pointed in the same 
direction.

Regards,
Art Delibert, KB3FJO


From: Topband  on behalf of Wes Stewart 

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 11:34 AM
To: Jeff Woods
Cc: topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

Jeff, et.al.

1)  Yes, I am on 1.7 acres (2 AC - easements).  Some guys would love this much
land, to farmers it's just enough room for the barn.  Regardless, considering I
also have a house, a tower and a vertical antenna to share it with, I don't have
room for Beverages, at least not an effective ones that point in desired
directions. The latter can be akin to those guys who say, a 3/2 wavelength
dipole has gain over a dipole, but never consider whether that gain is in a
useful direction.

2)  Adding to my self-imposed challenges, I run, relatively speaking QRP, 500W,
with the whole station running on one 120 V 20A service.  Pragmatically, heroic
efforts to hear another level or two lower signals might be fruitless, although
clearly, I'm not adverse to challenges, which is why I'm on the band.

3)  I'm in southern Arizona, not Maine or the Florida peninsula, propagation is
different (read more difficult) here.

4)  I have researched, studied and modeled  many many other receive antennas,
passive and active.  I doubt that there are any that I haven't looked at, at
least casually. We have very poor ground here.  IMHO, ground-dependent antennas
are a no-go.  Ones that require a bunch of radials are especially unattractive.
I have enough to do to get a decent radial field under the TX antenna. (See my
QRZ page) Any of these left to consideration have very broad (~100 deg) patterns
that get their benefits by rejecting signals from the rear.  As stated at the
outset, that isn't my big issue.  Although your experience seems to differ, I
don't believe one of these beaming to England (30 deg) is going to do much to
attenuate signals from NY (50 deg), for example.

Regards,

Wes  N7WS

5)  On 12/26/2018 3:31 PM, Jeff Woods wrote:
> Wes,
>
> A sure sign that your RX antennas are good enough is when DX stations that are
> Q5 copy repeatedly CQ in your face.
>
> What Mike's saying is true; trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear
> that is a TX vertical is a losing game. Waller Flags, K9AYs, EWEs, etc. are
> all cheap and can easily be constructed to fit a 1.7 acre lot.  A short
> beverage may even feasible in that space, depending on the layout.
>
> When you speak of "QRM from the east," are you talking about being unable to
> overpower it on TX so the DX can hear you (my problem here), or are you
> speaking of RX QRM?  On RX at your QTH, it doesn't appear that the proverbial
> East Coast Wall should affect you much.  The azimuth to Europe from Tucson is
> ~30 degrees.  That GC path runs across the upper Midwest and Ontario.   Even a
> mediocre K9AY will provide adequate attenuation to signals from the US east 
> coast.
>
> My NW RX antenna is centered at 42 degrees.  Here in Iowa, it hears much
> better to Europe than to Boston or New York. Indeed, it's nearly useless in
> the ARRL 160 contest because of that pattern unless I'm in Province hunting 
> mode.
>
> -Jeff (W0ODS)
>
>

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

Jeff, et.al.

1)  Yes, I am on 1.7 acres (2 AC - easements).  Some guys would love this much 
land, to farmers it's just enough room for the barn.  Regardless, considering I 
also have a house, a tower and a vertical antenna to share it with, I don't have 
room for Beverages, at least not an effective ones that point in desired 
directions. The latter can be akin to those guys who say, a 3/2 wavelength 
dipole has gain over a dipole, but never consider whether that gain is in a 
useful direction.


2)  Adding to my self-imposed challenges, I run, relatively speaking QRP, 500W, 
with the whole station running on one 120 V 20A service.  Pragmatically, heroic 
efforts to hear another level or two lower signals might be fruitless, although 
clearly, I'm not adverse to challenges, which is why I'm on the band.


3)  I'm in southern Arizona, not Maine or the Florida peninsula, propagation is 
different (read more difficult) here.


4)  I have researched, studied and modeled  many many other receive antennas, 
passive and active.  I doubt that there are any that I haven't looked at, at 
least casually. We have very poor ground here.  IMHO, ground-dependent antennas 
are a no-go.  Ones that require a bunch of radials are especially unattractive. 
I have enough to do to get a decent radial field under the TX antenna. (See my 
QRZ page) Any of these left to consideration have very broad (~100 deg) patterns 
that get their benefits by rejecting signals from the rear.  As stated at the 
outset, that isn't my big issue.  Although your experience seems to differ, I 
don't believe one of these beaming to England (30 deg) is going to do much to 
attenuate signals from NY (50 deg), for example.


Regards,

Wes  N7WS

5)  On 12/26/2018 3:31 PM, Jeff Woods wrote:

Wes,

A sure sign that your RX antennas are good enough is when DX stations that are 
Q5 copy repeatedly CQ in your face.


What Mike's saying is true; trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear 
that is a TX vertical is a losing game. Waller Flags, K9AYs, EWEs, etc. are 
all cheap and can easily be constructed to fit a 1.7 acre lot.  A short 
beverage may even feasible in that space, depending on the layout.


When you speak of "QRM from the east," are you talking about being unable to 
overpower it on TX so the DX can hear you (my problem here), or are you 
speaking of RX QRM?  On RX at your QTH, it doesn't appear that the proverbial 
East Coast Wall should affect you much.  The azimuth to Europe from Tucson is 
~30 degrees.  That GC path runs across the upper Midwest and Ontario.   Even a 
mediocre K9AY will provide adequate attenuation to signals from the US east coast.


My NW RX antenna is centered at 42 degrees.  Here in Iowa, it hears much 
better to Europe than to Boston or New York. Indeed, it's nearly useless in 
the ARRL 160 contest because of that pattern unless I'm in Province hunting mode.


-Jeff (W0ODS)




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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Jeff Woods via Topband]

 Wes,
A sure sign that your RX antennas are good enough is when DX stations that are 
Q5 copy repeatedly CQ in your face. 

What Mike's saying is true; trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear 
that is a TX vertical is a losing game.  Waller Flags, K9AYs, EWEs, etc. are 
all cheap and can easily be constructed to fit a 1.7 acre lot.  A short 
beverage may even feasible in that space, depending on the layout. 
When you speak of "QRM from the east," are you talking about being unable to 
overpower it on TX so the DX can hear you (my problem here), or are you 
speaking of RX QRM?  On RX at your QTH, it doesn't appear that the proverbial 
East Coast Wall should affect you much.  The azimuth to Europe from Tucson is 
~30 degrees.  That GC path runs across the upper Midwest and Ontario.   Even a 
mediocre K9AY will provide adequate attenuation to signals from the US east 
coast.

My NW RX antenna is centered at 42 degrees.  Here in Iowa, it hears much better 
to Europe than to Boston or New York.  Indeed, it's nearly useless in the ARRL 
160 contest because of that pattern unless I'm in Province hunting mode.
-Jeff (W0ODS)

On Saturday, December 22, 2018, 6:09:23 PM CST, Mike Waters 
 wrote:  
 
 How about a Waller flag? Better than a Beverage, since you can rotate it!

Search for *Waller* or *Waller flag* in the Topband archives. Lots of
information there, with a link to the N4IS page about them.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 4:20 PM Wes Stewart  wrote:

> I just drove down to the local convenience store and bought some Powerball
> tickets.  If I win, there's a nice 80 acre parcel across the street from me
> that I would buy.  Until then, I'm stuck on a 1.7 acre plot with no room
> for beverages.
>
> Wes  N7WS
>
> On 12/22/2018 1:20 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
> Hi Wes,
>
> Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't
> hearing the weak ones that called you. ;-) See
> http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
  
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Mike Waters]

How about a Waller flag? Better than a Beverage, since you can rotate it!

Search for *Waller* or *Waller flag* in the Topband archives. Lots of
information there, with a link to the N4IS page about them.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 4:20 PM Wes Stewart  wrote:

> I just drove down to the local convenience store and bought some Powerball
> tickets.  If I win, there's a nice 80 acre parcel across the street from me
> that I would buy.  Until then, I'm stuck on a 1.7 acre plot with no room
> for beverages.
>
> Wes  N7WS
>
> On 12/22/2018 1:20 PM, Mike Waters wrote:
>
> Hi Wes,
>
> Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't
> hearing the weak ones that called you. ;-) See
> http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[David Olean]

Hello Wes,

    I tried 160 back in the early 70's when my brother was active from 
CO and we skedded on weekends. I used a long wire about 650 ft long for 
both TX and RX.  Working Europe was special with that setup.  I had a 
75A4 RX and a t-368 RF deck with 1000 volts on the 4-400 to net me 80 
watts output! LORAN was a big problem then. Things were dormant here on 
160 for years until recently when I resurrected the long wire. It stunk, 
so I put up an inverted VEE with the apex at 80 ft and the ends at about 
25 or 30 ft. I worked about 90 countries with that setup but I had to 
work at it. I did nab VK, ZL, UA0 and JA with that antenna but it was a 
struggle. In all my time on 160 I was never spotted on DX Summit.  I 
think I had the vee up for two winters and I am sure, I could easily 
work 100 countries with it if I were more active. Still I was at the 
bottom of any pileup.


So I determined that my inverted VEE was not so hot and I desired 
something better.  I ripped apart an old Rohn 25 80 ft tower removing 
all the VHF feedlines etc and loaded it as a gamma matched vertical for 
160 with top loading. I remember trying to tune it up during CQ WW CW 
and I had the SWR at about 3:1 as it got dark.  I had a BC band variable 
across it for tuning, and when I listened, I heard HK2NA way over S9. I 
figured the cap might withstand about ten or fifteen watts, so called 
him with low power in a pileup and he came right back! Instantly I knew 
that the vertical was the way to go.  The next day, I got the VSWR flat 
at 1810 and I was off to the races! I started to see that I was being 
spotted on DX Summit quite often. I have a quiet location with night 
time noise on the vertical at about -113 dBm typically.  I could tell I 
needed better hearing, so made a beverage, but the wire went rather 
close to one of my guy anchors and I did not think that the beverage was 
working all that well. I remember asking about it as I did not detect 
any huge drop in noise and the S/N ratio was not much better than with 
the vertical.


I discovered the guy anchor problem and its solution while driving down 
the hill from my VHF shack on the top of my little hilltop. I have a 130 
ft Rohn 45 up there for 144 MHz and a guy anchor is set right next to my 
woods road.  As I drove by it in my truck, I had the AM radio on and 
tuned to WABC in NYC a few hundred miles away. This was at noontime and 
I did not realize the radio was even turned on, but when driving by the 
guy anchor, WABC peaked up out of the noise and was good copy on the car 
radio. The proverbial lightbulb went on in my brain as I figured that 
all the noise from my tower was getting into that beverage wire that ran 
right past the guy wire. I left that beverage in place, then made an 
exact duplicate to it but located it about 400 ft away from my tower. I 
could switch between the two antennas. What a difference! Not only was 
the new wire very quiet at better than -130 dBm, but the signals from EU 
were about 5 dB better on it on an absolute basis. In short, the S/N 
ratio difference was earth shaking!  I ripped out the old beverage and 
have been having fun ever since.


Bottom line is that an active array,  a beverage, or other directional 
array is the best way to hear things no matter how quiet your QTH is.  
See the following article by K9LA:


https://k9la.us/May16_Notes_on_Low-Noise_Receive_Antennas.pdf

I have been playing with about seven beverages and my worst one 
typically is the SW wire. I see a -120 dBm noise level on my P3 at the 
narrowest span during evening hours after sunset. I had to invest in a 
BC band filter to get rid of strong BC stations as well as install 
ferrites on everything here to make the beverages behave. All have 
contributed to better receiving.



Dave K1WHS


On 12/22/2018 8:20 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Hi Wes,

Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't hearing
the weak ones that called you. ;-) See
http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 8:05 AM Wes Stewart  wrote:


Although licensed for 60 years I'm a relative newby on topband.  (I did
work VE7
in 1959 but that's another story).  I decided to semi-seriously take up
the band
to acquire my 9th DXCC band award.

As I've described before, pardon the redundancy, I worked my first 70
entities
using an inverted-vee dipole with the apex at about 45 feet and the ends
down
around six feet.  Of course conventional wisdom says that this couldn't
possibly
work for anything but local contacts.  A year ago, I replaced the dipole
with an
inverted-L, 55 feet vertical, the rest horizontal, over a skimpy radial
field of
about (so far) 20 insulated radials each 55 feet long laying on the desert
dirt.  I both transmit and receive on this antenna, as I did the dipole
before
it.  I've since worked 40+ stations, completing DXCC plus a few.

Perhaps I'm blessed with a relatively quiet location, although unlike 

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

I just drove down to the local convenience store and bought some Powerball 
tickets.  If I win, there's a nice 80 acre parcel across the street from me that 
I would buy.  Until then, I'm stuck on a 1.7 acre plot with no room for beverages.


Wes  N7WS

On 12/22/2018 1:20 PM, Mike Waters wrote:

Hi Wes,

Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't hearing 
the weak ones that called you. ;-) See

http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com 


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Mike Waters]

Hi Wes,

Once you try a Beverage, you'll realize that those antennas weren't hearing
the weak ones that called you. ;-) See
http://www.w0btu.com/Beverage_antennas.html.

73, Mike
www.w0btu.com

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 8:05 AM Wes Stewart  wrote:

> Although licensed for 60 years I'm a relative newby on topband.  (I did
> work VE7
> in 1959 but that's another story).  I decided to semi-seriously take up
> the band
> to acquire my 9th DXCC band award.
>
> As I've described before, pardon the redundancy, I worked my first 70
> entities
> using an inverted-vee dipole with the apex at about 45 feet and the ends
> down
> around six feet.  Of course conventional wisdom says that this couldn't
> possibly
> work for anything but local contacts.  A year ago, I replaced the dipole
> with an
> inverted-L, 55 feet vertical, the rest horizontal, over a skimpy radial
> field of
> about (so far) 20 insulated radials each 55 feet long laying on the desert
> dirt.  I both transmit and receive on this antenna, as I did the dipole
> before
> it.  I've since worked 40+ stations, completing DXCC plus a few.
>
> Perhaps I'm blessed with a relatively quiet location, although unlike some
> I'm
> not miles from civilization, but not in a subdivision either.  I have made
> zero
> effort to silence noise sources in my house, but do work with the local
> co-op
> power utility to silence obvious noise sources. (Their sleuth is a ham)
> Although I'm considering an RX-only antenna, and it might be eyeopening,
> I'm not
> yet convinced of that.  Anything I would use on RX would probably have a
> broad
> peak and get its noise rejection from the rear.
>
> Examining where most of the unworked DX is from here (EU, ME and central
> AS) the
> paths are mostly over the (noisy) continental land mass of NA (and the
> polar
> region) at my SS or early evening.  The null of any RX antenna pointing at
> these
> areas would be looking at the sunlit Pacific Ocean.  At my SR, the
> converse
> would be true.
>
> So all things considered, using only 500W (10dB too few according to one
> of my
> friends), I already hear as well as I'm heard.  My bigger obstacle is QRM
> from
> the east. Nevertheless, I'm willing to try an RX antenna, if I can be
> convinced
> it will be of benefit, so I'm open to suggestions.
>
> Wes   N7WS
>
>
>
>
> On 12/19/2018 7:13 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> > If your inverted L is any good at all it will suck as a receiving
> > antenna.  This is one of the key things to accept about medium wave
> > but many casual 160 m. operators can't wrap their heads around it.   A
> > flame throwing tx antenna will probably have a completely unacceptable
> > noise level on receive.  Tx/rx reciprocity works on HF but not as well
> > on medum wave.   Separate rx antenna(s) are mandatory.A
> > significant irritant on 160 are the operators with poor antennas that
> > hear great, therefore they expect to be heard equally well, and can't
> > be made to believe they are piss weak when they transmit.
> >
> > Rob
> > K5UJ
>
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Wes Stewart]

Although licensed for 60 years I'm a relative newby on topband.  (I did work VE7 
in 1959 but that's another story).  I decided to semi-seriously take up the band 
to acquire my 9th DXCC band award.


As I've described before, pardon the redundancy, I worked my first 70 entities 
using an inverted-vee dipole with the apex at about 45 feet and the ends down 
around six feet.  Of course conventional wisdom says that this couldn't possibly 
work for anything but local contacts.  A year ago, I replaced the dipole with an 
inverted-L, 55 feet vertical, the rest horizontal, over a skimpy radial field of 
about (so far) 20 insulated radials each 55 feet long laying on the desert 
dirt.  I both transmit and receive on this antenna, as I did the dipole before 
it.  I've since worked 40+ stations, completing DXCC plus a few.


Perhaps I'm blessed with a relatively quiet location, although unlike some I'm 
not miles from civilization, but not in a subdivision either.  I have made zero 
effort to silence noise sources in my house, but do work with the local co-op 
power utility to silence obvious noise sources. (Their sleuth is a ham)   
Although I'm considering an RX-only antenna, and it might be eyeopening, I'm not 
yet convinced of that.  Anything I would use on RX would probably have a broad 
peak and get its noise rejection from the rear.


Examining where most of the unworked DX is from here (EU, ME and central AS) the 
paths are mostly over the (noisy) continental land mass of NA (and the polar 
region) at my SS or early evening.  The null of any RX antenna pointing at these 
areas would be looking at the sunlit Pacific Ocean.  At my SR, the converse 
would be true.


So all things considered, using only 500W (10dB too few according to one of my 
friends), I already hear as well as I'm heard.  My bigger obstacle is QRM from 
the east. Nevertheless, I'm willing to try an RX antenna, if I can be convinced 
it will be of benefit, so I'm open to suggestions.


Wes   N7WS




On 12/19/2018 7:13 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:

If your inverted L is any good at all it will suck as a receiving
antenna.  This is one of the key things to accept about medium wave
but many casual 160 m. operators can't wrap their heads around it.   A
flame throwing tx antenna will probably have a completely unacceptable
noise level on receive.  Tx/rx reciprocity works on HF but not as well
on medum wave.   Separate rx antenna(s) are mandatory.A
significant irritant on 160 are the operators with poor antennas that
hear great, therefore they expect to be heard equally well, and can't
be made to believe they are piss weak when they transmit.

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband Reflector



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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Rob Atkinson]

If your inverted L is any good at all it will suck as a receiving
antenna.  This is one of the key things to accept about medium wave
but many casual 160 m. operators can't wrap their heads around it.   A
flame throwing tx antenna will probably have a completely unacceptable
noise level on receive.  Tx/rx reciprocity works on HF but not as well
on medum wave.   Separate rx antenna(s) are mandatory.A
significant irritant on 160 are the operators with poor antennas that
hear great, therefore they expect to be heard equally well, and can't
be made to believe they are piss weak when they transmit.

I'll pass along one idea I got from a friend of mine regarding your
tree holding inverted L.  Since the tree is probably a substantial
support, I'd lower the L (this is assuming you have a pulley on a rope
over the branch, through the pulley another rope attached to an
insulator through which the top of the inverted L transfers from
vertical to horizontal, all to facilitate raising and lowering) and
bolt three more copper wires to the current wire, near the point at
the insulator, with one wire continuing on through the insulator.  The
3 new wires should be long enough to drape down to the ground.  Now
pull it back up and spread your four wires so that near ground, each
one is in the corner of a square with 6 to 12 feet on a side, each
wire attached to an insulator which in turn is attached to a rope that
proceeds on to an anchor stake of some sort.  Next, run a ring of wire
around the square you have made so all four vertical wires are bonded
to each other, the square wire being around two feet off the ground.
Bring in your feedline and connect it, or your matching network if you
have one out there, to the ground system and the square ring wire.
I'd use awg 14 7 strand hard drawn bare copper wire for all of this.

What you will have done is a wire simulation of a free standing tower
insulated from ground with a 6 to 12 foot face around 100 feet tall.
You should have a very flat impedance curve with this which will
greatly simplify covering the band with minimal matching network
adjustment, and at much less cost than what a 100 foot 12 foot wide
skirt fed tower would cost.  If I had a tree like what you must have,
this would take me all of two seconds to decide to do.

Rob
K5UJ
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Sam Josuweit]

Hi Todd,

I'm somewhat new to serious TopBand as well, but the 2 things that have
helped me the most are a good receiving antenna(s) and changing my inverted
L to be as vertical as possible. When I installed my first Beverage antenna
it opened up a whole world or signals I didn't even know were there. After
changing my Inverted L to 1/4 wave with as much vertical as possible, I've
been able to work a lot more countries with just 100W. 

Sam (N3XZ)

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Todd
Goins
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 3:55 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

Hello,

Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I have
CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on 160m. I
participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time. I will also
be particiapating in the Stew and the CQ contests in January.  I'd like
some opinions or thoughs on making my modest antenna a little better. I
have worked and confirmed 40 states in a couple of weeks on CW and FT-8 but
the DX (both hearing and transmitting to by PSK Reporter stats) has been
elusive.

So, here's my setup. I made an inverted L using a DX Engineering 43'
vertical and I attached a 90' horizontal wire (that slopes up a little) to
the top. I have a radial field of 60-70 radials with varying lengths from
125' to around 40' with the overall average being about 60' in length. I
have a remote tuner at the base of the vertical. Also, I'm only running 100
watts, so that may be an issue. Furthest I've completed and confirmed a QSO
is South Africa but nothing to Europe. I am in the Seattle, WA area.
Overall, I guess I'm happy it works at all but I'm ready for some ideas on
improvement.

My situation/question is this: I could, with minimal effort, attach a
vertical wire to a tree limb at about 100' height right over the existing
radial field. That would then replace the DX Engineering vertical and I
would run a horizontal capacitance hat wire from the top of the 100' tall
wire. My plan would be to use the existing radial field, disconnect the
current vertical and connect the new wire to the tuner/radial field instead.

Would you wise and experienced Topbanders expect any performance increase
from the increased vertical length or should I just stick  with what I have
now? Also, if I do this, what length of wire would be recommended for the
top horizontal section?

Any ideas or thoughts would be great. Be gentle...

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Todd Goins]

So, Mirko brings up an interesting point. I can run out far more than 35'
horizontally. Should I make the wire a lot longer in that dimension? I was
working with the 130' (approx) total length I'd read about using for the
43' vertical's top loading wire. I know, I should be modeling this myself.
 :-(

But if adding extra wire in the horizontal might help then that would be an
easy modification.

Any opinions?

Thanks,
Todd - NR7RR


On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:22 AM S57AD  wrote:

> Hello Todd,
>
> my experiences were pretty limited, but I would suggest you about 150' of
> wire (to 100' height, the rest horizontally), with air variable capacitor
> in series with the wire to cancel inductive reactance. Some 500 - 800 pF
> would be OK,  It will tune antenna nicely without any need for external
> tuners and such a stuff. Beware that inverted L is noisy antenna and you
> will need receiving one (ones).  And do not expect huge EU pile-ups with
> your 100W, HI
>
> 73,  Mirko, S57AD
>
> V V pon., 17. dec. 2018 ob 21:55 je oseba Todd Goins 
> napisala:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I
>> have
>> CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on 160m. I
>> participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time. I will also
>> be particiapating in the Stew and the CQ contests in January.  I'd like
>> some opinions or thoughs on making my modest antenna a little better. I
>> have worked and confirmed 40 states in a couple of weeks on CW and FT-8
>> but
>> the DX (both hearing and transmitting to by PSK Reporter stats) has been
>> elusive.
>>
>> So, here's my setup. I made an inverted L using a DX Engineering 43'
>> vertical and I attached a 90' horizontal wire (that slopes up a little) to
>> the top. I have a radial field of 60-70 radials with varying lengths from
>> 125' to around 40' with the overall average being about 60' in length. I
>> have a remote tuner at the base of the vertical. Also, I'm only running
>> 100
>> watts, so that may be an issue. Furthest I've completed and confirmed a
>> QSO
>> is South Africa but nothing to Europe. I am in the Seattle, WA area.
>> Overall, I guess I'm happy it works at all but I'm ready for some ideas on
>> improvement.
>>
>> My situation/question is this: I could, with minimal effort, attach a
>> vertical wire to a tree limb at about 100' height right over the existing
>> radial field. That would then replace the DX Engineering vertical and I
>> would run a horizontal capacitance hat wire from the top of the 100' tall
>> wire. My plan would be to use the existing radial field, disconnect the
>> current vertical and connect the new wire to the tuner/radial field
>> instead.
>>
>> Would you wise and experienced Topbanders expect any performance increase
>> from the increased vertical length or should I just stick  with what I
>> have
>> now? Also, if I do this, what length of wire would be recommended for the
>> top horizontal section?
>>
>> Any ideas or thoughts would be great. Be gentle...
>>
>> 73,
>> Todd - NR7RR
>> _
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>>
>
>
> --
> Mirko S57AD
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Dan]

One thing to remember is that one night on topband is not enough to judge an 
antenna. Condx are to variable to compare from one night to the next. Any 
antenna on 160 with about 70 or more vertical feet worked against a good 
ground will be a good antenna over the long run.


Dan W8CAR (inverted L 70' vertical 100' sloping away horizontally fed with 
series cap against about 40 radials of unknown pedigree)


-Original Message- 
From: Todd Goins

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:07 AM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the help. I got the new wire in place roughly as you described.
It is a few feet lower to give good clearance from the anchoring branch.

It doesn't work very well. Last night it was much poorer on receive and
transmit than my existing 43' vertical setup. I'm not sure what to think.
Maybe the light of day will reveal a clue, but it was fairly quick and easy
to construct and kinda tough to mess up but who knows...

I'll put an analyzer on the feedpoint this morning and see if it looks out
of whack. I was expecting it to be a least a little better but it clearly
wasn't.

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector 


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

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[S57AD]

Hello Todd,

my experiences were pretty limited, but I would suggest you about 150' of
wire (to 100' height, the rest horizontally), with air variable capacitor
in series with the wire to cancel inductive reactance. Some 500 - 800 pF
would be OK,  It will tune antenna nicely without any need for external
tuners and such a stuff. Beware that inverted L is noisy antenna and you
will need receiving one (ones).  And do not expect huge EU pile-ups with
your 100W, HI

73,  Mirko, S57AD

V V pon., 17. dec. 2018 ob 21:55 je oseba Todd Goins 
napisala:

> Hello,
>
> Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I have
> CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on 160m. I
> participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time. I will also
> be particiapating in the Stew and the CQ contests in January.  I'd like
> some opinions or thoughs on making my modest antenna a little better. I
> have worked and confirmed 40 states in a couple of weeks on CW and FT-8 but
> the DX (both hearing and transmitting to by PSK Reporter stats) has been
> elusive.
>
> So, here's my setup. I made an inverted L using a DX Engineering 43'
> vertical and I attached a 90' horizontal wire (that slopes up a little) to
> the top. I have a radial field of 60-70 radials with varying lengths from
> 125' to around 40' with the overall average being about 60' in length. I
> have a remote tuner at the base of the vertical. Also, I'm only running 100
> watts, so that may be an issue. Furthest I've completed and confirmed a QSO
> is South Africa but nothing to Europe. I am in the Seattle, WA area.
> Overall, I guess I'm happy it works at all but I'm ready for some ideas on
> improvement.
>
> My situation/question is this: I could, with minimal effort, attach a
> vertical wire to a tree limb at about 100' height right over the existing
> radial field. That would then replace the DX Engineering vertical and I
> would run a horizontal capacitance hat wire from the top of the 100' tall
> wire. My plan would be to use the existing radial field, disconnect the
> current vertical and connect the new wire to the tuner/radial field
> instead.
>
> Would you wise and experienced Topbanders expect any performance increase
> from the increased vertical length or should I just stick  with what I have
> now? Also, if I do this, what length of wire would be recommended for the
> top horizontal section?
>
> Any ideas or thoughts would be great. Be gentle...
>
> 73,
> Todd - NR7RR
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>


-- 
Mirko S57AD
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Todd Goins]

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the help. I got the new wire in place roughly as you described.
It is a few feet lower to give good clearance from the anchoring branch.

It doesn't work very well. Last night it was much poorer on receive and
transmit than my existing 43' vertical setup. I'm not sure what to think.
Maybe the light of day will reveal a clue, but it was fairly quick and easy
to construct and kinda tough to mess up but who knows...

I'll put an analyzer on the feedpoint this morning and see if it looks out
of whack. I was expecting it to be a least a little better but it clearly
wasn't.

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Gary Smith]

Mt 2 pence is I'd do the vertical wire to 
the 100' limb and if possible, get the 
remaining 30 or so feet out as horizontal 
as possible to make an inverted L, you 
have a nice vertical component with 100'.

I have a sloper using a radial bed 
somewhat like yours and it works very 
nicely. I don't need a tuner anymore and I 
think I get out pretty well, all 
considering.

73 and good luck,

Gary
KA1J

> Hello,
> 
> Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I
> have CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on
> 160m. I participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time.
> I will also be particiapating in the Stew and the CQ contests in
> January.  I'd like some opinions or thoughs on making my modest
> antenna a little better. I have worked and confirmed 40 states in a
> couple of weeks on CW and FT-8 but the DX (both hearing and
> transmitting to by PSK Reporter stats) has been elusive.
> 
> So, here's my setup. I made an inverted L using a DX Engineering 43'
> vertical and I attached a 90' horizontal wire (that slopes up a
> little) to the top. I have a radial field of 60-70 radials with
> varying lengths from 125' to around 40' with the overall average being
> about 60' in length. I have a remote tuner at the base of the
> vertical. Also, I'm only running 100 watts, so that may be an issue.
> Furthest I've completed and confirmed a QSO is South Africa but
> nothing to Europe. I am in the Seattle, WA area. Overall, I guess I'm
> happy it works at all but I'm ready for some ideas on improvement.
> 
> My situation/question is this: I could, with minimal effort, attach a
> vertical wire to a tree limb at about 100' height right over the
> existing radial field. That would then replace the DX Engineering
> vertical and I would run a horizontal capacitance hat wire from the
> top of the 100' tall wire. My plan would be to use the existing radial
> field, disconnect the current vertical and connect the new wire to the
> tuner/radial field instead.
> 
> Would you wise and experienced Topbanders expect any performance
> increase from the increased vertical length or should I just stick 
> with what I have now? Also, if I do this, what length of wire would be
> recommended for the top horizontal section?
> 
> Any ideas or thoughts would be great. Be gentle...
> 
> 73,
> Todd - NR7RR
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
> 



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

Topband: Inverted L improvement question

[Todd Goins]

Hello,

Yes, I'm a 160m newbie but have been licensed and active since 1990. I have
CW/Phone experience on HF but I'm just getting my feet wet on 160m. I
participated in the ARRL 160 CW contest and had a great time. I will also
be particiapating in the Stew and the CQ contests in January.  I'd like
some opinions or thoughs on making my modest antenna a little better. I
have worked and confirmed 40 states in a couple of weeks on CW and FT-8 but
the DX (both hearing and transmitting to by PSK Reporter stats) has been
elusive.

So, here's my setup. I made an inverted L using a DX Engineering 43'
vertical and I attached a 90' horizontal wire (that slopes up a little) to
the top. I have a radial field of 60-70 radials with varying lengths from
125' to around 40' with the overall average being about 60' in length. I
have a remote tuner at the base of the vertical. Also, I'm only running 100
watts, so that may be an issue. Furthest I've completed and confirmed a QSO
is South Africa but nothing to Europe. I am in the Seattle, WA area.
Overall, I guess I'm happy it works at all but I'm ready for some ideas on
improvement.

My situation/question is this: I could, with minimal effort, attach a
vertical wire to a tree limb at about 100' height right over the existing
radial field. That would then replace the DX Engineering vertical and I
would run a horizontal capacitance hat wire from the top of the 100' tall
wire. My plan would be to use the existing radial field, disconnect the
current vertical and connect the new wire to the tuner/radial field instead.

Would you wise and experienced Topbanders expect any performance increase
from the increased vertical length or should I just stick  with what I have
now? Also, if I do this, what length of wire would be recommended for the
top horizontal section?

Any ideas or thoughts would be great. Be gentle...

73,
Todd - NR7RR
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector