Re: Topband: INV-L Radiation Patterns: 15 years of experiments with one

[Rob Atkinson]

50 foot high inv. L here; total length 120 feet; 101 radials on
ground, but lengths vary from 10 feet to around 100 feet with most in
the 20, 30, 50 foot lengths.  Also I have an aluminum sided garage
that I strapped into the ground system.  Minimal reactance is at 1840
(I forget, but I think around 10 ohms).  Real component of the Z on
that frequency is 11 ohms.

Rob
K5UJ

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

Re: Topband: INV-L Radiation Patterns: 15 years of experiments with one L, one tree, and 3 acres.

[Jim Brown]

Multiple misunderstandings here. First, the earth is a big resistor, so 
the only function of that ground rod is lightning protection, and it 
ought to be at the shack, not at the antenna.


Second, the function of radials is NOT to couple to the resistive earth, 
but the SHIELD the antenna's field from the lossy earth, and to provide 
a low resistance path for return current.


Third, SWR is NOT a measure of antenna performance.

Fourth, the feedpoint Z of a vertical at resonance is a function of its 
vertical height. That Z is a combination of loss in the return (radials, 
counterpoise) and the radiation resistance; radiation resistance 
increases with vertical height, starting out quite low for short 
heights, reaching values in the range of 30 ohms around a quarter wave. 
For low heights, ground losses combine with radiation resistance to 
yield low SWR. Adding radials and/or increasing height can reduce SWR, 
then as more are added, increase SWR again.


There's a discussion about all of this in this set of slides for talks 
I've done at Pacificon, Visalia, and to several clubs.


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

Again, SWR is NOT a measure of antenna performance. Neither is how much 
DX we work -- that's far more dependent on propagation, and on RX noise 
at both ends of the QSO.


73, Jim K9YC

On 1/15/2024 11:13 AM, w3...@roadrunner.com wrote:

But based on 15 years of reading and personal observations with my 1/4
wave INV-L ( that has grown ( vertically through a black walnut tree)
from 15 ft tall to 52 ft tall, and from one ground rod and zero
radials to the same ground rod and 26 radials, here is what I can say:



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

Re: Topband: INV-L Radiation Patterns: 15 years of experiments with one L, one tree, and 3 acres.

[W3HKK]

That's a good question - especially since it relates to your arid soil
- vs my "average" Midwest soil here in Ohio.

Ive done no pattern calculations.

But based on 15 years of reading and personal observations with my 1/4
wave INV-L ( that has grown ( vertically through a black walnut tree)
from 15 ft tall to 52 ft tall, and from one ground rod and zero
radials to the same ground rod and 26 radials, here is what I can say:

1. Have heard of a fat lobe with up to 3 dB gain in the direction
opposite the horizontal/sloping wire. ( For me, that direction is W
towards 6/7-land. I do very well that way, out into the Pacific ( KH6
and VK/ZL.)
2. I did surprisingly well with no radials and just a 15 ft vertical
leg, running 100w. Wkd LZ/4X4/JA my first winter from this qth when I
didnt think it was possible. 
3. Adding a kw amp (10 db) made the biggest improvement in dxing,
compared to anything I did with the L.
4. The L seems to be omnidirectional as you would expect. 
5. As I began to add radials, the swr went down for the first 10-12
radials, then slowly increased until I reached 26 radials, after-which
it plateaued. So I stopped adding radials. 
6. Although arid soil isnt supposed to work well with verticals, there
are some big sigs from guys in AZ so I assume many/more radials make
up for the poor conductivity soil. Probably a lot more than I need. 
7. My current INV-L has been good for >1000 Q's when I put in the time
in 160 contests, and 164 confirmed DX entities to date. 
8. My yard is former farm land, sloping less than 10 degrees. 
9 In contests I have no trouble working N-S-E-W. It varies quite a bit
from contest to contest.
10. I use a SAL-30 rx antenna. No Beverages or short vertical arrays. 

Id be interested in hearing how the addition of radials affects your
swr. What your radial lengths are. Wire type? And what you are
working/directionality?

The lengths of my 26 radials vary due to my sole walnut tree not being
in the center of a 200x700 ft lot. Its off to one side so my radials
vary from 30-130' in length, consisting of #12 & 14 (Cu) and #17 (Al)
wire. Most are bare Al cheap fence wire. All are on the grass. I need
to roll them up for lawn mowing season. If I dont, then I eventually
do, around the tractor blades.

Bob

-From:
topband-requ...@contesting.com
To: topband@contesting.com
Cc: 
Sent: Monday January 15 2024 12:00:56PM
Subject: Topband Digest, Vol 253, Issue 18

 Send Topband mailing list submissions to
 topband@contesting.com

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
 /> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 topband-requ...@contesting.com

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 topband-ow...@contesting.com

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."

 Today's Topics:

 1. Inv L Radiation Patterns? (Steve Harrison)
 2. Re: Inv L Radiation Patterns? (Charles Morrison)
 3. Re: Inv L Radiation Patterns? (Rob Atkinson)

 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2024 17:59:22 -0800
 From: Steve Harrison 
 To: topband@contesting.com
 Subject: Topband: Inv L Radiation Patterns?
 Message-ID: 
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

 Has anybody plotted the radiation patterns for inverted Ls on 160?
I'm
 particularly interested in those for relatively-low antennas, say 40
ft
 max, over fairly-poor ground such as desert sand with the water table
 perhaps 120 feet down.

 TNX,

 Steve K0XP

 On 1/2/2024 6:56 AM, VE6WZ_Steve wrote:
 > Today I uploaded a short 6 minute video showing how to use the Kiwi
radios located all over the world to test your transmit antenna.
 >
 > How is the front-to-back on your 4 square really performing?
 > It the dipole or the vertical performing better on the DX path?
 > Make an azimuth polar plot of your Yagi and see how it compares to
modelling. How does the pattern change across the band?
 >
 > This is not a new thing, but in this video I describe the method
for those that may not be familiar with it.
 > No test equipment is needed. All that?s required is a PC sitting
beside your radio.
 >
 > Using the ?S-meter? function on the Kiwi radios makes it quick and
easy to record signal levels from your transmit antenna.
 > This method is far more accurate than trying to estimate a signal
level while watching a bouncing analog or digital S-meter.
 >
 > https://youtu.be/_BMeVJQ_cwI [1] 
 /> >
 > 73, es HNY to all
 > Steve, VE6WZ
 > _
 > Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband [2] -
Topband Reflector
 --
 NO on ARRL Bylaw 46!!! See my QRZ.com page at
*https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*
 />
 ------

 Messag

Re: Topband: Inv L Radiation Patterns?

[Rob Atkinson]

A bit more field intensity extends in the direction opposite the
direction of the horizontal part of the inverted L element.

73

Rob
K5UJ

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

Re: Topband: Inv L Radiation Patterns?

[Charles Morrison]

The modeling i’ve seen plus my own has been +\~ 1 to 2dB for 50 - 70 ft
vertical sections

-Charlie N1RR

401-742-7240 <(401)%20742-7240>  8AM - 9PM

*E-mail*: n...@n1rr.com

*Website*: www.n1rr.com

*Youtube channel*: NovemberOne RomeoRomeo

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPDzEf57Ad80cVKOiLZLB7w/videos


On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 8:59 PM Steve Harrison  wrote:

> Has anybody plotted the radiation patterns for inverted Ls on 160? I'm
> particularly interested in those for relatively-low antennas, say 40 ft
> max, over fairly-poor ground such as desert sand with the water table
> perhaps 120 feet down.
>
> TNX,
>
> Steve K0XP
>
>
> On 1/2/2024 6:56 AM, VE6WZ_Steve wrote:
> > Today I uploaded a short 6 minute video showing how to use the Kiwi
> radios located all over the world to test your transmit antenna.
> >
> > How is the front-to-back on your 4 square really performing?
> > It the dipole or the vertical performing better on the DX path?
> > Make an azimuth polar plot of your Yagi and see how it compares to
> modelling.  How does the pattern change across the band?
> >
> > This is not a new thing, but in this video I describe the method for
> those that may not be familiar with it.
> > No test equipment is needed.  All that’s required is a PC sitting beside
> your radio.
> >
> > Using the “S-meter” function on the Kiwi radios makes it quick and easy
> to record signal levels from your transmit antenna.
> > This method is far more accurate than trying to estimate a signal level
> while watching a bouncing analog or digital S-meter.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/_BMeVJQ_cwI  
> >
> > 73, es HNY to all
> > Steve, VE6WZ
> > _
> > Searchable Archives:http://www.contesting.com/_topband  - Topband
> Reflector
> --
> NO on ARRL Bylaw 46!!! See my QRZ.com page at *
> https://www.qrz.com/db/K0XP*
> _
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
> Reflector
>
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Jim Brown]

On 9/27/2021 4:37 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:

Place an engineer and mathematician on one goal line of a football
field with a comely cheerleader on the other goal line.  If you tell
the engineer and mathematician the can go to her but can only go half
the distance at a time, the mathematician will walk off the field
saying "I can't get there".  The engineer will walk toward the
cheerleader saying "I can get close enough!"


I first heard that story in EE school in the early '60s as an 
engineering student and math student at one end of a bar, the lovely 
young thing at the other, and after each drink could move half the 
distance between them. The engineering student got close enough for 
practical purposes.


73, Jim K9YC
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Reminds me of the Engineers' interpretation of the glass being half
> empty or half full - It's actually larger than it needs to be.

Or the difference between an engineer and mathematician ...

Place an engineer and mathematician on one goal line of a football
field with a comely cheerleader on the other goal line.  If you tell
the engineer and mathematician the can go to her but can only go half
the distance at a time, the mathematician will walk off the field
saying "I can't get there".  The engineer will walk toward the
cheerleader saying "I can get close enough!"

73,

   ... Joe, W4TV


On 2021-09-27 4:30 PM, Gene Smar via Topband wrote:

Gents:

      I've heard Engineering described as the art of approximation. 
Reminds me of the Engineers' interpretation of the glass being half 
empty or half full - It's actually larger than it needs to be.



73 de
Gene Smar  AD3F, PE




THAT'S what good engineering is all about! It's not about esoteric 
details of theoretical concepts, but rather applying fundamentals to 
our own individual problems and resources.


73, Jim K9YC



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

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Gene Smar via Topband]

Gents:

     I've heard Engineering described as the art of approximation. 
Reminds me of the Engineers' interpretation of the glass being half 
empty or half full - It's actually larger than it needs to be.



73 de
Gene Smar  AD3F, PE




THAT'S what good engineering is all about! It's not about esoteric 
details of theoretical concepts, but rather applying fundamentals to 
our own individual problems and resources.


73, Jim K9YC
_




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

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Rob Atkinson]

My hunch is that your problem is the wire you are using.   My inv. L
is strung with hard drawn 7 strand bare AWG 14 copper.  Multi-strand
or solid soft drawn will probably break on you eventually.

73

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

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Jim Brown]

On 9/26/2021 12:05 AM, Jim Monahan wrote:

On my property, I have an endless number of trees so
I try to use the largest trees which will sway less to
minimize stress on the installation.


This correctly considers the options available to each of us afforded by 
the details of our own real estate, whether a sprawling forest or 
meadow, or a suburban or urban lot. I had an urban lot, now I have a 
sprawling forest, and I've assisted several local hams in assessing 
their options and fitting practical antennas into them.


THAT'S what good engineering is all about! It's not about esoteric 
details of theoretical concepts, but rather applying fundamentals to our 
own individual problems and resources. What skyhooks are available, and 
how might we use them? Where might I locate RX antennas, and which types 
of RX antennas work well in those surroundings? (See W3LPL's excellent 
talks on this).


73, Jim K9YC
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv L corner insulator

[Jim Monahan]

The pulley system is probably the best way to go as
others have noted.

As an option, perhaps, I use springs selected from Home
Depot that are about 6 inches long. I put a loop
of dacron between each end of the spring just in case
of failure.

They are installed at each end of the supports between
two trees.

The spring rate is subjective as you don't want it to
stretch too easily or be to stiff.

On my property, I have an endless number of trees so
I try to use the largest trees which will sway less to
minimize stress on the installation.

And, I use fishing arrows (which have weighted tips) with
a bow to shoot fishing line into the trees then 100 lb nylon
line to pull up the dacron rope.

This has worked quite well for over 20 years for me.

Jim, K1PX
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: INV L matching

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

On 5/14/2020 9:26 AM, Tom | SP5XO wrote:

d,
wideband match. Since short vertical inv L over reasonable ground should
have roughly 20 OHm impedance that could work here as well.


The matching network that will maximize bandwidth
is an autotransformer wound on a 2.4 inch diameter
ferrite core.  For example, a transformer with a
3:2 turns ratio will transform 50 ohms to 22.2 ohms.
I use a homebrew autotransformer on my 90 foot
vertical which has around 25 ohms drive impedance.
See Jerry Sevick's book on RF transformers for
info on "un-uns".

Rick N6RK
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: INV L matching

[Tom | SP5XO]

Hello OMs Topbbanders
As I'm planning to put up inverted L antenna for next season i will face
the matching vs bandwidth struggle I know there is a cure for short
vertical section and low impedance (with reasonable radial system) and I
already tested some extended horizontal section and matching capacitor in
the feeedpoint

However i was considering some other impedance matching methods and came
across DK7ZB matching transformers. For example to get good match for 28Ohm
yagi there is 1/4 wave 75Ohm parallel feedlines transformer used with good,
wideband match. Since short vertical inv L over reasonable ground should
have roughly 20 OHm impedance that could work here as well.

 Sure it is 2 x quarter wave 75 OHM coax (shortened by VF) but is there any
wideband "gain" for such feeding method? It would be still easier than
switching remotely some caps each 10kHz or something.

Is there anybody who tried this one?
Thanks
Tom
sp5xo
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv L improvements question

[F Z_Bruce]

Unlike raised radials or a counterpoise...however,.


Its better if the radials, if only a few, under ground are not resonant as the 
high impedance/ high voltage end  can loose a lots of energy to ground.

It is quite well known that a 'fat' (large diameter) antenna is lower Q,  is 
wider in  frequency , and depending upon physical width, is much lower 
impedance  and voltage at the top end. 


Similar to the fat antenna, An  'in ground' radial field can be made 'fat' by 
increasing the number of radials, avoiding the resonant length, and reducing 
the Q.    A perimeter wire around the far end of the radials can lower the 
impedance and voltage loss.

73
Bruce-k1fz
https://www.qsl.net/k1fz/beverage_antenna.html



On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 11:40:04 + (UTC), John Randall via Topband wrote:

Can a radial(s) buried a couple of inches under the ground be tuned via an 
inductor and Can the radial all be connected to said inductor if they are the 
same length. Infact can it be done and is there any gain by doing this ?
73John - M0ELS
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
 
_
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv L with FCP Tuning

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Hi, Julio,

Sorry for delay. I didn't see this post when it hit the reflector.

Around 2009 before publishing the FCP design, the change to polyimide
coated wire and Teflon sleeve brought a string of toroid device failures to
a sudden and permanent halt and turned previously "fragile" devices into
build-it-once-keep-it-for-life items.

At root this specific choice (sleeving and coating) relates to:

1) Availability: The polyimide wire (used in automotive products) and
Teflon tubing are fairly common.

2) Hardiness: Teflon sleeving protects polyimide from nicks and abrasion in
construction and installation

3) Lightning: Since these transformers are used outdoors and near or on
lightning fodder like trees and towers, enough insulation is needed to
withstand surges from nearby lightning strikes. 55 kVDC combined insulation
between primary and secondary in isolation transformer appears to be more
than enough except in direct strikes. Nothing you can do will **guarantee**
protection from damage in a direct strike. May improve odds, but no
guarantee.

4) Static voltage: 55 kVDC is enough insulation to withstand wind static in
winter.

While not being destroyed running 1500 watts certainly is a helpful
outcome, 1) 2) 3) 4) above have a larger insulation requirement with their
higher voltages, and **apply equally to QRP, LP and QRO.**

Not breaking down at QRO gets a free ride if you have solved 1) 2) 3) 4).
Historically our principal problem with QRO power per se had to with
attempting to use ferrite and its high mu in highly reactive situations,
and in generally unsuitable antenna/feed designs with very high common mode
voltages.

If the polyimide wire is not sleeved, then easily made nicks can and
probably will break down and start carbon tracks at 100 watts. The
polyimide withstands heat and voltage well, but is fragile and easy to nick
if mishandled.

Double polyimide #14 and teflon tubing is the specific choice used by
W2FMI(SK) for cause as explained in his balun book for items with this kind
of stress. {"Understanding, Building, and Using Baluns and Ununs -- Theory
and Practical Designs for the Experimenter."  Jerry Sevick W2FMI (SK),
Copyright 2003 CQ Communications, Hicksville, NY}

You can't lay coated wire directly on cores. Cores can have tiny little
sharp places which will penetrate/nick the coating as it is being wound. Or
a drop will bang the wound wire hard on the core. Been there, done that.
This is NOT speculation. It has to be protected with something. Polyimide
coated wire, if it is never ever nicked, before or after winding, will
function until an arc to the core.

Teflon sleeving, immediately pulled over the polyimide wire before winding
and exposure to environment, is protection against nicks and ordinary
handling. This creates an isolation transformer that withstands induced
voltages from nearby lightning and so will not send those surge voltages
down the center conductor to the shack.

In the beginning W0UCE and I tried all the cheepy short cuts (which turned
out to be long-cuts), but thankfully eventually learned from our dumb
mistakes.

Verbal out-takes from the FCP development saga, we were really bad...

"Wow, I didn't know we could destroy anything that fast."
"Why is the SWR curve so flat?"
"He's asking if we are running low power (we weren't)."
"That really blew up into a lot of pieces. Make a good rattle."
"When did you buy this coax?"
"This isn't soldered and it's full of water."
"Jack, your utility building is smoking. Really, it's smoking."
"Wasn't this core supposed to be painted red? Maybe the fire changed it's
color? Uh, I think that's ferrite and the wrong size core. When did we make
this? Is this one of ours? (It was)."
"We're going to have to order it and wait. In the meantime let's try this
stuff."
"Didn't we do this same thing last year?"

73 All,
Guy K2AV

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM VE3FH via Topband 
wrote:

> Jim,
> Did you build the isolation transformer exactly as described in K2AV's
> article?? By exactly I mean using "teflon sleeved double polyimide
> insulated" wire. I'm not planning on using it with more than 100W...
> 73,Julio VE3FH
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android over Bell Mobility Network.
>
>   On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 12:44, James Denneny<57jndenn...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> Gary, I use an inv L with K2AV FCP and matching balun.  I purchased a
> RigExpert AA-30 to tune out the reactance.  It worked great.  No tuning cap
> or inductor were needed.  It took just a couple cuts to dial it in.  My L
> is now 126 ft long with a 65 ft vertical leg standing a few feet off a tree
> trunk. The SWR is now much sharper as it should be.
>
> We live on a small lakefront lot and there was not sufficient room for a
> decent TB ground radial system.  Our location is semi-rural.  So, man-made
> noise is not a frequent issue. The FCP and trimming of the antenna has
> produced a major improvement in the L’s performance.  It enabled me to
> reach TB DXCC  this past season

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[vk2wf]

HiMy vertical is fed with 60m of underground hardline coax to put it as far in 
the open my property allows. I have been removing all the smaller trees and 
undergrowth continually. Unless conditions are poor getting RBN pings in the US 
or Canada happens every night. The ARRL antenna handbook is right on this 
issue.73Adrian vk2wf 


Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy S7 on the Telstra Mobile Network
 Original message From: vk3io  Date: 
4/10/18  9:56 pm  (GMT+10:00) To: Brian Campbell , 
topband@contesting.com Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree 
Hi Brian and others.

Brian should have added with his comment, that he has made numerous 
qso's to VK (that is with me and other VK's) with his "poor antenna" on 
top band overs the past years and when and if he can move the wire away 
from the tree trunk, then he will no doubt make many more qso's.

What a difference one S point can make or even a half an S point, when 
you move the wire away from the tree, by 2 or 3 feet, if possible.

When I consider the number of dx qso's I "almost made" over the past 30 
years or so, on Top Band and what I could have worked, if only for one S 
point, on TX and or RX.

If only I had the drive or time to make such a small improvement to my 
antenna system.

Cheers from Ron, vk3io.


On 04-Oct-18 9:22 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> Ed, Gary and All,
>
> Seeing as I have had my Inverted L ( 85' / 27M  vertical ) against my tree's 
> trunk ( actually touching it - oops ) since I installed it, and as I  also 
> have tress in the elbow, I may have to try and move it out some after reading 
> all the suggested articles. The only reason it is like it is, is for 
> convenience, as I have no towers ( or trees in the right location ) to hang 
> it off of atm so it was either that or no Inverted L.
>
> All I can and will say is that just "anecdotally" speaking and nothing else, 
> it will still work, not as good as one that is stood off a few feet I am sure 
> but better than nothing if it gets you on the air. Or to put it another way, 
> a poor antenna is much better than no antenna at all.
>
> Good Luck and remember YMMV
>
> 73,
> Brian
> VE3MGY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________
> From: Topband  on behalf of Gary Smith 
> 
> Sent: October 3, 2018 9:27 PM
> To: Topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree
>
> Ed,
>
> FWIW, I'm using what used to be an INV-L.
> I laid out a radial bed as well as
> possible, next to a marsh. I am in a
> hurricane area and with the winds, the
> trees have fallen over. I originally shot
> a line over a tall branch with a spud gun
> I made (see it on my QRZ page, at the
> bottom), at that time it was an "L".
>
> The branch came down and I used another
> branch, albeit farther away. With
> attrition, I am now using a tree maybe 30'
> away from straight up. Doing it the way I
> did allows me to have a radial bed away
> from the trunk of a tree. I can't move the
> bed so the type of antenna had to change.
> I am using WD-1A field telephone wire for
> my antennas, with its SS solid core it is
> incredibly strong and it is so thin it is
> very hard to see.
>
> It's not nearly as good of an antenna as
> many here use but it is quite good, even
> as a sloper. I was able to work 9X0T on
> 160 tonight and could barely hear him with
> the QRN & RFI but he heard me. Point being
> that a sloper works very well on 160, you
> don't "have to have" an INV-L.
>
> Whatever you go with, I wouldn't run the
> antenna next to the trunk. I would keep it
> some distance to the trunk and as long as
> you have enough length for radials &
> antenna & I'd use some method of getting a
> stealthy wire like WD-1A up over & into
> the tree-top and down to the radial plate.
>
> 73,
>
> Gary
> KA1J
>
>> Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?
>>
>> Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os
>> my neighbor's :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ed NI6S
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>

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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[F Z_Bruce]

Its mostly about doing what you can with what you have with local conditions 
that exist.
WD-1A is very strong , difficult to see, and the loss is not all that bad, so 
it can be a good choice  sometimes.

In the early days of this reflector there was mid-western DXer that moved to a 
neighborhood with rows of close houses.  Well after dark  he ran a BOG antenna
often down the lawns of his neighbors, then picked it up before anyone awoke 
for the day.  Had a few close calls but , got a lot of DX.

There was a tale of a DXer in a skyscraper of New York city that used the 
apartment copper plumbing  for his ground and a wire down the plastic sewer 
line for his antenna.

In NYC,   I  sold a BOG transformer to a resident that ran the "on ground wire" 
 down an alley between tall buildings. I have no idea how he achieved a ground, 
but he said he worked  DX, but did give specifics.
  
As they used to say "hang in there and have fun" ! 

73
Bruce-k1fz




 On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:56:20 +1000, vk3io  wrote:


Hi Brian and others.

Brian should have added with his comment, that he has made numerous 
qso's to VK (that is with me and other VK's) with his "poor antenna" on 
top band overs the past years and when and if he can move the wire away 
from the tree trunk, then he will no doubt make many more qso's.

What a difference one S point can make or even a half an S point, when 
you move the wire away from the tree, by 2 or 3 feet, if possible.

When I consider the number of dx qso's I "almost made" over the past 30 
years or so, on Top Band and what I could have worked, if only for one S 
point, on TX and or RX.

If only I had the drive or time to make such a small improvement to my 
antenna system.

Cheers from Ron, vk3io.


On 04-Oct-18 9:22 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:
> Ed, Gary and All,
>
> Seeing as I have had my Inverted L ( 85' / 27M  vertical ) against my tree's 
> trunk ( actually touching it - oops ) since I installed it, and as I  also 
> have tress in the elbow, I may have to try and move it out some after reading 
> all the suggested articles. The only reason it is like it is, is for 
> convenience, as I have no towers ( or trees in the right location ) to hang 
> it off of atm so it was either that or no Inverted L.
>
> All I can and will say is that just "anecdotally" speaking and nothing else, 
> it will still work, not as good as one that is stood off a few feet I am sure 
> but better than nothing if it gets you on the air. Or to put it another way, 
> a poor antenna is much better than no antenna at all.
>
> Good Luck and remember YMMV
>
> 73,
> Brian
> VE3MGY
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________
> From: Topband  on behalf of Gary Smith 
> Sent: October 3, 2018 9:27 PM
> To: Topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree
>
> Ed,
>
> FWIW, I'm using what used to be an INV-L.
> I laid out a radial bed as well as
> possible, next to a marsh. I am in a
> hurricane area and with the winds, the
> trees have fallen over. I originally shot
> a line over a tall branch with a spud gun
> I made (see it on my QRZ page, at the
> bottom), at that time it was an "L".
>
> The branch came down and I used another
> branch, albeit farther away. With
> attrition, I am now using a tree maybe 30'
> away from straight up. Doing it the way I
> did allows me to have a radial bed away
> from the trunk of a tree. I can't move the
> bed so the type of antenna had to change.
> I am using WD-1A field telephone wire for
> my antennas, with its SS solid core it is
> incredibly strong and it is so thin it is
> very hard to see.
>
> It's not nearly as good of an antenna as
> many here use but it is quite good, even
> as a sloper. I was able to work 9X0T on
> 160 tonight and could barely hear him with
> the QRN & RFI but he heard me. Point being
> that a sloper works very well on 160, you
> don't "have to have" an INV-L.
>
> Whatever you go with, I wouldn't run the
> antenna next to the trunk. I would keep it
> some distance to the trunk and as long as
> you have enough length for radials &
> antenna & I'd use some method of getting a
> stealthy wire like WD-1A up over & into
> the tree-top and down to the radial plate.
>
> 73,
>
> Gary
> KA1J
>
>> Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?
>>
>> Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os
>> my neighbor's :-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ed NI6S
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>

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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[vk3io]

Hi Brian and others.

Brian should have added with his comment, that he has made numerous 
qso's to VK (that is with me and other VK's) with his "poor antenna" on 
top band overs the past years and when and if he can move the wire away 
from the tree trunk, then he will no doubt make many more qso's.


What a difference one S point can make or even a half an S point, when 
you move the wire away from the tree, by 2 or 3 feet, if possible.


When I consider the number of dx qso's I "almost made" over the past 30 
years or so, on Top Band and what I could have worked, if only for one S 
point, on TX and or RX.


If only I had the drive or time to make such a small improvement to my 
antenna system.


Cheers from Ron, vk3io.


On 04-Oct-18 9:22 PM, Brian Campbell wrote:

Ed, Gary and All,

Seeing as I have had my Inverted L ( 85' / 27M  vertical ) against my tree's 
trunk ( actually touching it - oops ) since I installed it, and as I  also have 
tress in the elbow, I may have to try and move it out some after reading all 
the suggested articles. The only reason it is like it is, is for convenience, 
as I have no towers ( or trees in the right location ) to hang it off of atm so 
it was either that or no Inverted L.

All I can and will say is that just "anecdotally" speaking and nothing else, it 
will still work, not as good as one that is stood off a few feet I am sure but better 
than nothing if it gets you on the air. Or to put it another way, a poor antenna is much 
better than no antenna at all.

Good Luck and remember YMMV

73,
Brian
VE3MGY







From: Topband  on behalf of Gary Smith 

Sent: October 3, 2018 9:27 PM
To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

Ed,

FWIW, I'm using what used to be an INV-L.
I laid out a radial bed as well as
possible, next to a marsh. I am in a
hurricane area and with the winds, the
trees have fallen over. I originally shot
a line over a tall branch with a spud gun
I made (see it on my QRZ page, at the
bottom), at that time it was an "L".

The branch came down and I used another
branch, albeit farther away. With
attrition, I am now using a tree maybe 30'
away from straight up. Doing it the way I
did allows me to have a radial bed away
from the trunk of a tree. I can't move the
bed so the type of antenna had to change.
I am using WD-1A field telephone wire for
my antennas, with its SS solid core it is
incredibly strong and it is so thin it is
very hard to see.

It's not nearly as good of an antenna as
many here use but it is quite good, even
as a sloper. I was able to work 9X0T on
160 tonight and could barely hear him with
the QRN & RFI but he heard me. Point being
that a sloper works very well on 160, you
don't "have to have" an INV-L.

Whatever you go with, I wouldn't run the
antenna next to the trunk. I would keep it
some distance to the trunk and as long as
you have enough length for radials &
antenna & I'd use some method of getting a
stealthy wire like WD-1A up over & into
the tree-top and down to the radial plate.

73,

Gary
KA1J


Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?

Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os
my neighbor's :-)

Thanks,
Ed NI6S
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband





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



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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[Brian Campbell]

Ed, Gary and All,

Seeing as I have had my Inverted L ( 85' / 27M  vertical ) against my tree's 
trunk ( actually touching it - oops ) since I installed it, and as I  also have 
tress in the elbow, I may have to try and move it out some after reading all 
the suggested articles. The only reason it is like it is, is for convenience, 
as I have no towers ( or trees in the right location ) to hang it off of atm so 
it was either that or no Inverted L.

All I can and will say is that just "anecdotally" speaking and nothing else, it 
will still work, not as good as one that is stood off a few feet I am sure but 
better than nothing if it gets you on the air. Or to put it another way, a poor 
antenna is much better than no antenna at all.

Good Luck and remember YMMV

73,
Brian
VE3MGY







From: Topband  on behalf of Gary Smith 

Sent: October 3, 2018 9:27 PM
To: Topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

Ed,

FWIW, I'm using what used to be an INV-L.
I laid out a radial bed as well as
possible, next to a marsh. I am in a
hurricane area and with the winds, the
trees have fallen over. I originally shot
a line over a tall branch with a spud gun
I made (see it on my QRZ page, at the
bottom), at that time it was an "L".

The branch came down and I used another
branch, albeit farther away. With
attrition, I am now using a tree maybe 30'
away from straight up. Doing it the way I
did allows me to have a radial bed away
from the trunk of a tree. I can't move the
bed so the type of antenna had to change.
I am using WD-1A field telephone wire for
my antennas, with its SS solid core it is
incredibly strong and it is so thin it is
very hard to see.

It's not nearly as good of an antenna as
many here use but it is quite good, even
as a sloper. I was able to work 9X0T on
160 tonight and could barely hear him with
the QRN & RFI but he heard me. Point being
that a sloper works very well on 160, you
don't "have to have" an INV-L.

Whatever you go with, I wouldn't run the
antenna next to the trunk. I would keep it
some distance to the trunk and as long as
you have enough length for radials &
antenna & I'd use some method of getting a
stealthy wire like WD-1A up over & into
the tree-top and down to the radial plate.

73,

Gary
KA1J

> Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?
>
> Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os
> my neighbor's :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Ed NI6S
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>




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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[Gary Smith]

Ed,

FWIW, I'm using what used to be an INV-L. 
I laid out a radial bed as well as 
possible, next to a marsh. I am in a 
hurricane area and with the winds, the 
trees have fallen over. I originally shot 
a line over a tall branch with a spud gun 
I made (see it on my QRZ page, at the 
bottom), at that time it was an "L". 

The branch came down and I used another 
branch, albeit farther away. With 
attrition, I am now using a tree maybe 30' 
away from straight up. Doing it the way I 
did allows me to have a radial bed away 
from the trunk of a tree. I can't move the 
bed so the type of antenna had to change. 
I am using WD-1A field telephone wire for 
my antennas, with its SS solid core it is 
incredibly strong and it is so thin it is 
very hard to see.

It's not nearly as good of an antenna as 
many here use but it is quite good, even 
as a sloper. I was able to work 9X0T on 
160 tonight and could barely hear him with 
the QRN & RFI but he heard me. Point being 
that a sloper works very well on 160, you 
don't "have to have" an INV-L.

Whatever you go with, I wouldn't run the 
antenna next to the trunk. I would keep it 
some distance to the trunk and as long as 
you have enough length for radials & 
antenna & I'd use some method of getting a 
stealthy wire like WD-1A up over & into 
the tree-top and down to the radial plate. 

73,

Gary
KA1J

> Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L? 
> 
> Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os
> my neighbor's :-)
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed NI6S
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> 




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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[Mike Furrey]

Hi Ed,
Yes, many times. When in Houston, TX on a 60' x90' lot I had one that was in 
between two 70'+ pine trees (about 5' from each tree at the feed point). I had 
one elevated radial up 15' that was shaped like an L to fit on the property. 
150+ countries with 600 watts. The big issue was receive. On leg of my K9AY 
loop was 6' from the elevated radial. I had to beef up the termination 
resistors in the loop and detune the inverted L on receive. Currently in Oak 
Ridge, TN I have an 1/8 wavelength vertical in the middle of an 85' oak tree 
and an 1/8 wavelength elevated radial. This is stuffed on a 1/5 acre lot. 
actually I am making this antenna dual band ... 80/160 ... and I am very 
pleased with the results so far. With 100 watts I have worked Europe and into 
the pacific on 160. I built this antenna just a few month ago. still tinkering 
with it to get it farther away from the trunk (about 10' now). 

Both of the above antennas were isolated from ground and fed through a ferrite 
choke balun. There were just enough losses that the feed point impedance was 50 
ohms.

The inverted L that gave me the best results was suspended between two large 
oak trees and I had four 81' elevated radials up about 20'. The radials were 
tuned and the impedance was about 25 ohms. A hair pin match fixed that. I did 
have access to an acre of land to put that one up. This is straight out of the 
ON4UN book.

There are models and debates (all I have studied and read) as to how to manage 
wires in trees and I will suggest to try it. An antenna analyzer will be your 
best friend. Enjoy!

73, Mike WA5POK 

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 1:40 AM, Edward via Topband 
 wrote:
 

 Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L? 

Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os my 
neighbor's :-)

Thanks,
Ed NI6S
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[Edward via Topband]

Thank you!

Ed

> On Sep 23, 2018, at 6:22 AM,  
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Guy and Ed
> 
> STEALTH 80 METER ANTENNA
> 
> Just read your emails ref antenna wires in trees which I found interesting.
> 
> For some 14 years I was able to use an overhanging branch in a Scots pine in 
> the land behind my garden (yard) to support both 160 meter and 80 meter 
> systems at some 80 feet.  When the land was sold recently the situation 
> changed and I m now using a 50 foot Holly tree to provide for an 80 meter 
> vertical.
> 
> My method has been to use a 40 foot fibre glass pole (mine is from from 
> 'Spiderbeams' but any would work), I run a 66 foot wire into the pole with 
> the remainder trailing from the larger end.  I use a pulley system comprising 
> thin marine line, pulleys and a small winch (driven by golf cart battery) 
> relay controlled from the shack to raise the pole THROUGH the Holly tree so 
> as to be a full quarter wave 80 meter vertical.  The antenna is only raised 
> to full height when required i.e. mainly from just before sunset to just 
> after so covering grey line and night periods.  I also use a FCP system as I 
> have found this much more effective and easy to resonate than a mediocre 
> radial system.
> 
> Even though the main radiating portion is within the tree this set up out 
> performs, on DX, a low level sloped loop and works reasonably without being 
> raised to full height.
> 
> I have found over some 45 years of holding a transmitting license that all 
> you can do is your best and as Guy says 'muse and invent'.
> 
> Hope this note provides some ideas.
> 
> Best regards to you both and the Reflector group.
> 
> Chris G4BGM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message- From: Guy Olinger K2AV
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 11:06 AM
> To: navydude1...@yahoo.com
> Cc: TopBand List
> Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree
> 
> Hi, Ed,
> 
> Taking the vertical wire up next to the tree trunk will be fairly lossy.
> That usually also means that some part of the horizontal wire is going
> through the tree canopy, which will be further lossy. See k2av.com . Click
> on the green index button "Place an Inverted L". Also read "Design an
> Inverted L", "Place an FCP" and "The Loss List". Note the issue with not
> having trees (or parts of them) "inside the bend" of the L. Read them all
> with an eye to understanding the loss issues.
> 
> There certainly are situations where a variety of local constraints will
> make the most efficient method otherwise inadvisable, e.g. wire in
> neighbor's tree not being seen. :>))  Oh, what an enormous advantage are
> great relations with the neighbors!
> 
> But, while you are the only one who really knows what you can and can't get
> away with, if you know what causes RF loss in an antenna, then you are also
> the only one who can muse on the problem for a while and invent a variation
> in the arrangement that stays within your local restraints **and** avoids
> most or all of the loss.
> 
> Let me know off-reflector if you want to discuss this over the phone. That
> is sometimes a lot more direct and far less time consuming than email.
> 
> In any event, good luck with it & 73,
> 
> Guy K2AV
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 1:39 AM Edward via Topband 
> wrote:
> 
>> Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?
>> 
>> Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os my
>> neighbor's :-)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ed NI6S
>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>> 
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 

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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[chris]

Hi Guy and Ed

STEALTH 80 METER ANTENNA

Just read your emails ref antenna wires in trees which I found interesting.

For some 14 years I was able to use an overhanging branch in a Scots pine in 
the land behind my garden (yard) to support both 160 meter and 80 meter 
systems at some 80 feet.  When the land was sold recently the situation 
changed and I m now using a 50 foot Holly tree to provide for an 80 meter 
vertical.


My method has been to use a 40 foot fibre glass pole (mine is from from 
'Spiderbeams' but any would work), I run a 66 foot wire into the pole with 
the remainder trailing from the larger end.  I use a pulley system 
comprising thin marine line, pulleys and a small winch (driven by golf cart 
battery) relay controlled from the shack to raise the pole THROUGH the Holly 
tree so as to be a full quarter wave 80 meter vertical.  The antenna is only 
raised to full height when required i.e. mainly from just before sunset to 
just after so covering grey line and night periods.  I also use a FCP system 
as I have found this much more effective and easy to resonate than a 
mediocre radial system.


Even though the main radiating portion is within the tree this set up out 
performs, on DX, a low level sloped loop and works reasonably without being 
raised to full height.


I have found over some 45 years of holding a transmitting license that all 
you can do is your best and as Guy says 'muse and invent'.


Hope this note provides some ideas.

Best regards to you both and the Reflector group.

Chris G4BGM





-Original Message- 
From: Guy Olinger K2AV

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 11:06 AM
To: navydude1...@yahoo.com
Cc: TopBand List
Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

Hi, Ed,

Taking the vertical wire up next to the tree trunk will be fairly lossy.
That usually also means that some part of the horizontal wire is going
through the tree canopy, which will be further lossy. See k2av.com . Click
on the green index button "Place an Inverted L". Also read "Design an
Inverted L", "Place an FCP" and "The Loss List". Note the issue with not
having trees (or parts of them) "inside the bend" of the L. Read them all
with an eye to understanding the loss issues.

There certainly are situations where a variety of local constraints will
make the most efficient method otherwise inadvisable, e.g. wire in
neighbor's tree not being seen. :>))  Oh, what an enormous advantage are
great relations with the neighbors!

But, while you are the only one who really knows what you can and can't get
away with, if you know what causes RF loss in an antenna, then you are also
the only one who can muse on the problem for a while and invent a variation
in the arrangement that stays within your local restraints **and** avoids
most or all of the loss.

Let me know off-reflector if you want to discuss this over the phone. That
is sometimes a lot more direct and far less time consuming than email.

In any event, good luck with it & 73,

Guy K2AV

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 1:39 AM Edward via Topband 
wrote:


Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?

Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os my
neighbor's :-)

Thanks,
Ed NI6S
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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


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

Re: Topband: Inv L in Tree

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Hi, Ed,

Taking the vertical wire up next to the tree trunk will be fairly lossy.
That usually also means that some part of the horizontal wire is going
through the tree canopy, which will be further lossy. See k2av.com . Click
on the green index button "Place an Inverted L". Also read "Design an
Inverted L", "Place an FCP" and "The Loss List". Note the issue with not
having trees (or parts of them) "inside the bend" of the L. Read them all
with an eye to understanding the loss issues.

There certainly are situations where a variety of local constraints will
make the most efficient method otherwise inadvisable, e.g. wire in
neighbor's tree not being seen. :>))  Oh, what an enormous advantage are
great relations with the neighbors!

But, while you are the only one who really knows what you can and can't get
away with, if you know what causes RF loss in an antenna, then you are also
the only one who can muse on the problem for a while and invent a variation
in the arrangement that stays within your local restraints **and** avoids
most or all of the loss.

Let me know off-reflector if you want to discuss this over the phone. That
is sometimes a lot more direct and far less time consuming than email.

In any event, good luck with it & 73,

Guy K2AV

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 1:39 AM Edward via Topband 
wrote:

> Has anybody snaked a wire up a tall tree trunk to make an Inv L?
>
> Any interaction?  Success??  Has to be stealthy because the tree os my
> neighbor's :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Ed NI6S
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: Inv L with FCP Tuning

[VE3FH via Topband]

Jim,
Did you build the isolation transformer exactly as described in K2AV's 
article?? By exactly I mean using "teflon sleeved double polyimide insulated" 
wire. I'm not planning on using it with more than 100W...
73,Julio VE3FH

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android over Bell Mobility Network. 
 
  On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 12:44, James Denneny<57jndenn...@comcast.net> wrote:   
Gary, I use an inv L with K2AV FCP and matching balun.  I purchased a RigExpert 
AA-30 to tune out the reactance.  It worked great.  No tuning cap or inductor 
were needed.  It took just a couple cuts to dial it in.  My L is now 126 ft 
long with a 65 ft vertical leg standing a few feet off a tree trunk. The SWR is 
now much sharper as it should be.

We live on a small lakefront lot and there was not sufficient room for a decent 
TB ground radial system.  Our location is semi-rural.  So, man-made noise is 
not a frequent issue. The FCP and trimming of the antenna has produced a major 
improvement in the L’s performance.  It enabled me to reach TB DXCC  this past 
season.

Best Luck

Jim K7EG

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Re: Topband: Inv L Config

[Donald Chester]

My base insulated tower is 127' of Rohn 25G. An 80m half-wave dipole is 
attached at the 119' level, the ends of which droop down to about 100' at each 
end, with runs of Phillystran from the ends of the dipole to wooden poles in 
opposite directions, each about 350' away from the tower. End insulators over 
300' long!  Extensive buried radial ground system consists of several thousand 
feet of #12 copper.  The dipole is fed with open wire tuned feeders, and used 
on 80m and 40m, but works quite well when tuned to 160m as a quarter-wave 
dipole.  When using the tower as a vertical, the end of the OWL near the base 
of the tower is opened with a knife switch and left floating. The OWL runs up 
to the dipole through the interior of the tower, fixed in position with 
plexiglass spacers every 10 feet, maintaining the line conductors symmetrically 
about the geometric centre of the triangle for the entire length of the 
feedline.

Strictly speaking, this antenna is closer to a vertical tee than to a simple 
quarter-wave vertical.  Due to the proximity of the feed line to the tower 
along the full length, the dipole is close-coupled to the tower even though 
there is no metallic connection between the dipole or feeders to the tower at 
any point.  The measured base impedance is about 180 ohms resistive and a 
little more than 300 ohms inductively reactive, as opposed to the expected 
36-plus ohms and negligible reactance of a simple quarter-wave vertical.

Interestingly, with the bottom end of the OWL connected to the tower (which is 
accomplished using a knife  switch when the antenna is not in use, for any 
lightning protection it might offer), the base impedance of the tower drops 
much lower, exactly 50 ohms at 1812 kHz as indicated at 1:1 on a SWR bridge.  I 
once tried grounding the bottom end of the OWL directly to the radial system, 
and the measured base impedance of the tower dropped even lower, between 10 and 
20 ohms IIRC.  I run the antenna with the OWL floating, since that's what my 
ATU is designed for, but have never tried comparing field strengths between the 
OWL floating and bonded to the tower at the base.  The  system is usable all 
the way from 1800  to 2000 kHz by adjusting the single resonating capacitor in 
the ATU.  The measured base impedance varies across the band but remains within 
the range of the tuner, which consists of a simple parallel tuned circuit, one 
end  grounded to the radial system and a tap on th
 e coil leading to the base of the  tower.  The number of turns on the coupling 
coil were carefully adjusted by trial-and-error for the best match to a 450-ohm 
untuned OWL running from the shack to the dog-house at the tower, with no 
additional variable capacitors or inductors between the OWL and the coupling 
coil.  The resonant frequency of the ATU at the base of the tower is adjusted 
using a reversible DC motor and worm drive, controlled from the shack.

The prototype of the ATU was built with whatever scrap  pieces of coil stock I 
could find around the shack.  Some of it  consisted of much-degraded pieces of 
air-core coil stock with corroded wire and deteriorated plastic insulation.  
When I got it working to my satisfaction, I replaced the junky coils in the 
prototype with top-grade silver plated edge-wound coil stock and proper coil 
clips, salvaged from discarded broadcast equipment. To my surprise (and 
disappointment?), the final version of the tuner with the good quality coil 
stock worked exactly the same as the prototype made of pieces of junk coil.  
With identical DC input to the transmitter final for each measurement, the 
measured base current at the tower was exactly the same with either tuner.

Don k4kyv




From: donov...@starpower.net 
Sent: 06 December 2016 05:28
To: REFLECTOR: Topband
Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L Config

A very important caution about the performance of T-verticals
vs. Inverted-L verticals.



If the performance of your 40 meter antennas is important to
you and your T-vertical is within 300 feet of your 40 meter
antenna, its important that the top of your T should be less
than 55 feet long or more than 80 feet long.


Why? If the T-top is 55-66 feet long it will act as a 40 meter
director. If its 66-80 feet long it will behave as a 40 meter
reflector. Don't ask me how I discovered this...


If the top of a T-vertical needs to be 55-80 feet long and within
300 feet of a 40 meter antenna that you don't want to degrade,
its better to use an inverted-L vertical, which has little or no
affect on nearby higher frequency antennas.


73
Frank
W3LPL




- Original Message -

From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" 
To: "Jerry Keller" 
Cc: "REFLECTOR: Topband" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:05:37 AM
Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L Config

The horizontal section also radiates, more or less than the vertical
depends on the specifics. Easy t

Re: Topband: Inv L Config

[Charles Shaw]

On 2016-12-06 04:37, Jerry Keller, K3BZ, wrote:

or is it enough to "fatten" the vertical
(radiating) section ?  How much BW will 3" diameter spacers give me?


	About 16 years ago I modified an ordinary inverted L (with c60 feet 
vertical) using 4 vertical #14 wires spaced in a one-foot square--hoping 
to broaden the TX band width.  No sign of improved bandwidth could be 
observed!  I was using the same groundplane of thirty-six 65-foot-long 
wires about 2 inches into the soil and the same horizontal loading-wire.


	Then I built a 86 foot tall, T-topped vertical with a 4-wire gull-wing 
groundplane at 20 feet which I'm still using. Its bandwidth is a little 
better than the L had.


73, Charles - N5UL
Hobbs, NM

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

Re: Topband: Inv L Config

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I just went over the RBN data for W0MU spots on Dec 3 and Dec 4. Dec 3rd 
I had a top loaded Cushcraft MA-160.  Dec 4th Inverted L about 50ft 
vertical and the end pointing northish and going up toward 60 to 65 ft 
in trees.


The only DX that spotted me was on the 4th PJ2T.Other than that I 
can find no great improvement in the data other than I was not calling 
CQ very much on the 4th


I wish I could have them both up at the same time but they share the 
same radial field.


W0MU


On 12/5/2016 9:37 PM, Jerry Keller wrote:
Is it advantageous to make both the vertical and the horizontal 
sections "fat" (for improved bandwidth), or is it enough to "fatten" 
the vertical (radiating) section ?  How much BW will 3" diameter 
spacers give me?


73,  K3BZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: Inv L Config

[donovanf]

A very important caution about the performance of T-verticals 
vs. Inverted-L verticals. 



If the performance of your 40 meter antennas is important to 
you and your T-vertical is within 300 feet of your 40 meter 
antenna, its important that the top of your T should be less 
than 55 feet long or more than 80 feet long. 


Why? If the T-top is 55-66 feet long it will act as a 40 meter 
director. If its 66-80 feet long it will behave as a 40 meter 
reflector. Don't ask me how I discovered this... 


If the top of a T-vertical needs to be 55-80 feet long and within 
300 feet of a 40 meter antenna that you don't want to degrade, 
its better to use an inverted-L vertical, which has little or no 
affect on nearby higher frequency antennas. 


73 
Frank 
W3LPL 




- Original Message -

From: "Guy Olinger K2AV"  
To: "Jerry Keller"  
Cc: "REFLECTOR: Topband"  
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 5:05:37 AM 
Subject: Re: Topband: Inv L Config 

The horizontal section also radiates, more or less than the vertical 
depends on the specifics. Easy to see in a very simple NEC model. If you 
are opposed to radiation from the horizontal on principle, then put up a T. 
But the radiation from an L's horizontal fills in the doughnut hole in the 
pattern, essentially getting the energy for that by taking it away from 
ground losses. Assuming that on 160 one has RX antennas because TX antennas 
are notoriously noisy, then you only care about what happens to TX. Filling 
in the doughnut hole helps to minimize or eliminate skip zones, and help 
keep a run frequency running low power. 

The effect of a particular change to wires applies more to where the 
current is more. Given that, doubling the vertical wire is what you do. But 
I would model that and see what it buys you. Do the change both in free 
space and over ugly dirt. 

73, Guy K2AV 

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jerry Keller  wrote: 

> Is it advantageous to make both the vertical and the horizontal sections 
> "fat" (for improved bandwidth), or is it enough to "fatten" the vertical 
> (radiating) section ? How much BW will 3" diameter spacers give me? 
> 
> 73, K3BZ 
> _ 
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 
> 
_ 
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband 

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

Re: Topband: Inv L Config

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

I had plenty of bandwidth with my L.  Maybe that means I have plenty of 
loss too.  :(  I had no issues working nearly everyone I heard.   I 
wonder what making a "cage" on the vertical section would do.  Someday I 
guess I should really learn how to model stuff.


W0MU


On 12/5/2016 9:37 PM, Jerry Keller wrote:
Is it advantageous to make both the vertical and the horizontal 
sections "fat" (for improved bandwidth), or is it enough to "fatten" 
the vertical (radiating) section ?  How much BW will 3" diameter 
spacers give me?


73,  K3BZ
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: Inv L Config

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

The horizontal section also radiates, more or less than the vertical
depends on the specifics. Easy to see in a very simple NEC model. If you
are opposed to radiation from the horizontal on principle, then put up a T.
But the radiation from an L's horizontal fills in the doughnut hole in the
pattern, essentially getting the energy for that by taking it away from
ground losses. Assuming that on 160 one has RX antennas because TX antennas
are notoriously noisy, then you only care about what happens to TX. Filling
in the doughnut hole helps to minimize or eliminate skip zones, and help
keep a run frequency running low power.

The effect of a particular change to wires applies more to where the
current is more. Given that, doubling the vertical wire is what you do. But
I would model that and see what it buys you. Do the change both in free
space and over ugly dirt.

73, Guy K2AV

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jerry Keller  wrote:

> Is it advantageous to make both the vertical and the horizontal sections
> "fat" (for improved bandwidth), or is it enough to "fatten" the vertical
> (radiating) section ?  How much BW will 3" diameter spacers give me?
>
> 73,  K3BZ
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Hardy Landskov]

Hi All
I have never had a problem with N Connectors. Had soldering problems with
UHF plus there are a lot of nice switches that have N connectors, that are
good bargains. Don't go to XYZ9 for your switches.
My 2 cents
N7RT

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Charles
Moizeau
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 5:34 PM
To: Topband
Subject: Re: Topband: inv. L

Before putting any kind of tape, gunk or goo on a fitting or soldered
connection with the expectation of weatherproofing it in an outdoor
environment, I ALWAYS do this first:  I wrap the item with two layers of
half-inch wide 3-M blue tape used by painting contractors and widely
available.  This product has very little tensile strength, but that is not
needed in this application.  Its virtue is that, unlike almost every other
tape, the adhesive never separates from the tape backing, with the result
that even after years the protected item will be kept squeaky clean and
uncontaminated by whatever was placed on top of it during the initial
weatherproofing treatment.


I learned this after suffering the vexations of using liquid solvents in
often unsuccessful attempts to fully clean up and disassemble a fitting or
soldered joint covered with a variety of weatherproofing products, parts of
which had migrated into the connection, mechanical or soldered.


73,


Charles, W2SH



From: Topband  on behalf of Art Snapper

Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:16 AM
To: 160
Subject: Re: Topband: inv. L

I had a few hours free yesterday afternoon, so I began the dual 80/160
radiator inv. L project.

In the process, I found that water had entered the coaxial center insulator
that was used at the feedpoint of the antenna.

Does anyone have a favorite solution for a weatherproof, coaxial feedpoint
for this type of antenna???

The radials are attached to several load center ground  bars, that are
screwed into a copper pipe that is driven into the ground.

The pipe gives me a rigid mounting point for some kind of insulator or
standoff.

BTW, after a temporary fix, I ran some quick SWR tests. There appears to be
very little interaction between the elements. At least from an SWR
perspective.

de Art NK8X

?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Art Snapper  wrote:

> I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>
> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I 
> may have screwed it up.
>
> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? 
> Would a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>
> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>
> 73
> Art NK8X
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online
Home<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...


>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online
Home<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...

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

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

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Charles Moizeau]

Before putting any kind of tape, gunk or goo on a fitting or soldered 
connection with the expectation of weatherproofing it in an outdoor 
environment, I ALWAYS do this first:  I wrap the item with two layers of 
half-inch wide 3-M blue tape used by painting contractors and widely available. 
 This product has very little tensile strength, but that is not needed in this 
application.  Its virtue is that, unlike almost every other tape, the adhesive 
never separates from the tape backing, with the result that even after years 
the protected item will be kept squeaky clean and uncontaminated by whatever 
was placed on top of it during the initial weatherproofing treatment.


I learned this after suffering the vexations of using liquid solvents in often 
unsuccessful attempts to fully clean up and disassemble a fitting or soldered 
joint covered with a variety of weatherproofing products, parts of which had 
migrated into the connection, mechanical or soldered.


73,


Charles, W2SH



From: Topband  on behalf of Art Snapper 

Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:16 AM
To: 160
Subject: Re: Topband: inv. L

I had a few hours free yesterday afternoon, so I began the dual 80/160
radiator inv. L project.

In the process, I found that water had entered the coaxial center insulator
that was used at the feedpoint of the antenna.

Does anyone have a favorite solution for a weatherproof, coaxial feedpoint
for this type of antenna???

The radials are attached to several load center ground  bars, that are
screwed into a copper pipe that is driven into the ground.

The pipe gives me a rigid mounting point for some kind of insulator or
standoff.

BTW, after a temporary fix, I ran some quick SWR tests. There appears to be
very little interaction between the elements. At least from an SWR
perspective.

de Art NK8X

?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Art Snapper  wrote:

> I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>
> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
> have screwed it up.
>
> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
> a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>
> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>
> 73
> Art NK8X
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online Home<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...


>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
Topband Archives - Contesting Online Home<http://www.contesting.com/_topband>
www.contesting.com
Topband Mailing List Archives. Search String: [How to search] Display: ...

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

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Art Snapper]

I did not use a switch. They are both permanently connected at the
feedpoint.
73
Art NK8X

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Marc Wullaert ON4MA <
marc.wullae...@telenet.be> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Do you use a switch for this antenna? Of you use the same feedpoint?
>
>
> 73
> Marc on4ma
> - Original Message - From: "Art Snapper" 
> To: "160" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 3:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Topband: inv. L
>
>
> I had a few hours free yesterday afternoon, so I began the dual 80/160
>> radiator inv. L project.
>>
>> In the process, I found that water had entered the coaxial center
>> insulator
>> that was used at the feedpoint of the antenna.
>>
>> Does anyone have a favorite solution for a weatherproof, coaxial feedpoint
>> for this type of antenna???
>>
>> The radials are attached to several load center ground  bars, that are
>> screwed into a copper pipe that is driven into the ground.
>>
>> The pipe gives me a rigid mounting point for some kind of insulator or
>> standoff.
>>
>> BTW, after a temporary fix, I ran some quick SWR tests. There appears to
>> be
>> very little interaction between the elements. At least from an SWR
>> perspective.
>>
>> de Art NK8X
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Art Snapper  wrote:
>>
>> I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
>>> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>>>
>>> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I
>>> may
>>> have screwed it up.
>>>
>>> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band?
>>> Would
>>> a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>>>
>>> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> Art NK8X
>>> _
>>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>>
>>> _
>> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>>
>
>
> ---
> Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Art Snapper]

I had a few hours free yesterday afternoon, so I began the dual 80/160
radiator inv. L project.

In the process, I found that water had entered the coaxial center insulator
that was used at the feedpoint of the antenna.

Does anyone have a favorite solution for a weatherproof, coaxial feedpoint
for this type of antenna???

The radials are attached to several load center ground  bars, that are
screwed into a copper pipe that is driven into the ground.

The pipe gives me a rigid mounting point for some kind of insulator or
standoff.

BTW, after a temporary fix, I ran some quick SWR tests. There appears to be
very little interaction between the elements. At least from an SWR
perspective.

de Art NK8X

ᐧ

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Art Snapper  wrote:

> I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>
> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
> have screwed it up.
>
> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
> a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>
> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>
> 73
> Art NK8X
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Rob Atkinson]

I have a 50 foot aluminum mast on my property, guyed at 32 feet and
mounted on a 6" x 6" pressure treated pine post. I put a 15 foot
stinger of aluminum tubing at the top to give it a height of 65 feet
and hung an arm on it at 50 feet that extends out 3 feet.  This holds
the vertical part of my 160 m. inverted L,  which is positioned over a
ground system of 101 radials.  It's resonant frequency (where X is
minimal) is around 1840.  The resistive component at that point is
around 11 ohms.  This is with the mast grounded.  I can also put the
mast on a feedline using the wood post as a base insulator and use it
as a 1/4 w. vertical on 75 meters.  You can co-locate two verticals
with a shared ground system and it works okay.   I've always grounded
the 75 m. vertical  when using the inverted L on 160 because that
results in the low feedpoint impedance at the inverted L I'd expect to
see on 160.   It's been a long time and I don't clearly remember what
happens when I float the 75 m. vertical above ground except that the
160 m. impedance changes (goes up I think).  I should experiment with
someone within groundwave distance and see if grounding/floating the
support mast changes the efficiency of the inverted L.

73

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

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Carl Braun]

Art

I use two 65' verticals on 40/80/160.  HALF WAVE tall (electrically) and 
spacing on 40m with LC network at the base to tune...QUARTER WAVE tall on 80 
with same spacing and EIGHTH WAVE tall and spacing on 160m.  

Both verticals are fed in phase on 160 now but I have plans to add an LC phaser 
that should allow for some directivity.  Current pattern seems to be omni with 
the verticals being so close to one another.  I did try inserting a delay line 
into the scheme with some (2-3 db) directivity seen and may continue to 
experiment with that angle until I build the LC Phaser.

AG6X



-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Art Snapper
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 8:17 AM
To: 160
Subject: Topband: inv. L

I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.

I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may have 
screwed it up.

Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would a 
switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?

My inverted L has about 50 radials.

73
Art NK8X
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Art Snapper]

Thanks everyone. I plan to try it this weekend.

73

Art NK8X
ᐧ

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Ray Benny  wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: Mike Furrey 
> To: Art Snapper , 160 
> Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:32:20 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: Topband: inv. L
>
> Hi Art,Yes, I have done that and am doing that. I use tall trees as
> supports and the 160 inverted L goes up one side of the tree then bent over
> horizontally to another tree over yonder. From the same feed point, the 80
> meter section goes up the other side of the same tree and the top actually
> folds over an upper limb down to the tie point. I have had the antennas
> separate and had them from the same feed point as I do now and I have not
> seen much, if any difference in performance. With 600 watts output I have
> about 165 countries on 160 and about 220 on 80 from a small suburban lot in
> Houston. I just installed the same antenna in TN and it has worked quite
> well there. I feed it through a ferrite bead balun and I have one elevated
> (up about 20') per band.Hope this helps. 73, Mike WA5POK
>
>
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:17 AM, Art Snapper 
> wrote:
>
>
>  I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>
> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
> have screwed it up.
>
> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
> a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>
> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>
> 73
> Art NK8X
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
> Art,
>
> I do the same. I have a 75 ft irrigation pipe vertical w/top hat wires and
> use an base inductor to match it on 160m. I also have a 14 inch standoff
> arm attached at the 67 ft point and run a #10 ga drop wire, I call it, to
> the base. This wire is not attached to the standoff arm, so it becomes a
> 1/4 wave vertical for 80m. It is held away from the irrigation pipe with
> flat fiberglass insulators.
>
> I feed this wire thru a separate feed line and inductor to match it on
> 80m. I do have plenty of ferrites on both coax feed lines. Before operating
> on 80m, I do have to short the irrigation pipe (160m vertical) to ground.
> As of now, I have to go to the base and physically short the vertical with
> a ground jumper.
>
> I have about 100 radials at the base of the vertical(s) and feel I have a
> good signal working DX on both bands.
>
> Ray,
> N6VR
>
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[NC3Z Gary]

Art, I put one up this spring with the encouragement on this list. The 
L's are back to back, e.g. the 160M L points north while the 80M points 
south. The vertical sections are 45' and the spacing is about 18". Fed 
with a decoupling choke at the base over 32 65' radials.

My amp tunes up with no need for a tuner or matching network and I have 
been very pleased with the performance, even for local stuff out 300-600 
miles all during the summer.

Did a lot of comparison using WSPR mode into EU and OC and the L on both 
bands trounced the resonate dipoles, on both TX and RX, so they have 
since come down.

I am considering adding a 40M element.


Gary Mitchelson
NC3Z/4 Pamlico County, NC FM15

On 17-Oct-16 11:16, Art Snapper wrote:
> I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>
> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
> have screwed it up.
>
> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
> a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>
> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>
> 73
> Art NK8X
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
> .
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Ray Benny]

- Original Message -
From: Mike Furrey 
To: Art Snapper , 160 
Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:32:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Topband: inv. L

Hi Art,Yes, I have done that and am doing that. I use tall trees as supports 
and the 160 inverted L goes up one side of the tree then bent over horizontally 
to another tree over yonder. From the same feed point, the 80 meter section 
goes up the other side of the same tree and the top actually folds over an 
upper limb down to the tie point. I have had the antennas separate and had them 
from the same feed point as I do now and I have not seen much, if any 
difference in performance. With 600 watts output I have about 165 countries on 
160 and about 220 on 80 from a small suburban lot in Houston. I just installed 
the same antenna in TN and it has worked quite well there. I feed it through a 
ferrite bead balun and I have one elevated (up about 20') per band.Hope this 
helps. 73, Mike WA5POK
 

On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:17 AM, Art Snapper  wrote:
 

 I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.

I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
have screwed it up.

Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?

My inverted L has about 50 radials.

73
Art NK8X
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Art,

I do the same. I have a 75 ft irrigation pipe vertical w/top hat wires and use 
an base inductor to match it on 160m. I also have a 14 inch standoff arm 
attached at the 67 ft point and run a #10 ga drop wire, I call it, to the base. 
This wire is not attached to the standoff arm, so it becomes a 1/4 wave 
vertical for 80m. It is held away from the irrigation pipe with flat fiberglass 
insulators. 

I feed this wire thru a separate feed line and inductor to match it on 80m. I 
do have plenty of ferrites on both coax feed lines. Before operating on 80m, I 
do have to short the irrigation pipe (160m vertical) to ground. As of now, I 
have to go to the base and physically short the vertical with a ground jumper.

I have about 100 radials at the base of the vertical(s) and feel I have a good 
signal working DX on both bands.

Ray,
N6VR 
   
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

This comment applies only to a counterpoise which is a good to excellent
ground radial field for 160, and resonant L's. It does not apply to L's
over FCP's or elevated radials resonant on 160.

To make a double L work over the aforementioned good to excellent 160 meter
ground radials, feed the two L wires in parallel, and leave them in
parallel. On 160 the 160L will show 20-40 ohms resistive, and the 80 L will
present a highly reactive Z, 5-10 ohms resistive and 400-800 ohms reactive.
The current will vastly prefer the 160 wire.

On 80, the 160 wire will show a feed Z which can a resistive component
anywhere from 600-3000 ohms resistive depending on frequency. The current
will flow to the 20-40 ohm resistive 80 L.

When you get away from the resonance center, the behavior will depend on
other factors because the voltages and currents will be so strange. To
examine that, a careful modeling of everything conductive around will be
needed to make enlightened SWAG.

This arrangement will not work for other high-performing non-resonant L
solutions for 160 and 80, and cannot be used in any simple configuration
(without relay switching of counterpoise and connected L wires) with FCP's
or simple 160 elevated radials.

73, Guy K2AV


On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Mike Furrey  wrote:

> Hi Art,Yes, I have done that and am doing that. I use tall trees as
> supports and the 160 inverted L goes up one side of the tree then bent over
> horizontally to another tree over yonder. From the same feed point, the 80
> meter section goes up the other side of the same tree and the top actually
> folds over an upper limb down to the tie point. I have had the antennas
> separate and had them from the same feed point as I do now and I have not
> seen much, if any difference in performance. With 600 watts output I have
> about 165 countries on 160 and about 220 on 80 from a small suburban lot in
> Houston. I just installed the same antenna in TN and it has worked quite
> well there. I feed it through a ferrite bead balun and I have one elevated
> (up about 20') per band.Hope this helps. 73, Mike WA5POK
>
>
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:17 AM, Art Snapper 
> wrote:
>
>
>  I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
> This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
>
> I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
> have screwed it up.
>
> Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
> a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
>
> My inverted L has about 50 radials.
>
> 73
> Art NK8X
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
>
>
> _
> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
>
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Mike Furrey]

Hi Art,Yes, I have done that and am doing that. I use tall trees as supports 
and the 160 inverted L goes up one side of the tree then bent over horizontally 
to another tree over yonder. From the same feed point, the 80 meter section 
goes up the other side of the same tree and the top actually folds over an 
upper limb down to the tie point. I have had the antennas separate and had them 
from the same feed point as I do now and I have not seen much, if any 
difference in performance. With 600 watts output I have about 165 countries on 
160 and about 220 on 80 from a small suburban lot in Houston. I just installed 
the same antenna in TN and it has worked quite well there. I feed it through a 
ferrite bead balun and I have one elevated (up about 20') per band.Hope this 
helps. 73, Mike WA5POK
 

On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:17 AM, Art Snapper  wrote:
 

 I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.

I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
have screwed it up.

Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?

My inverted L has about 50 radials.

73
Art NK8X
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


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

Re: Topband: inv. L

[Clive GM3POI]

Yes Art,
 a relay on both will stop interaction between the antennas also it will
help prevent noise being induced into any RX antenna.
73 Clive GM3POI

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Art
Snapper
Sent: 17 October 2016 15:17
To: 160
Subject: Topband: inv. L

I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.

I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
have screwed it up.

Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would a
switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?

My inverted L has about 50 radials.

73
Art NK8X
_
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

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

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Gary Smith]

> 40 works on 40 & 17 meters


Correction. 40 works on 40 & 15 meters...

Gary
KA1J
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Gary Smith]

Fellows,

Thanks for  the many replies off and on list. I appreciate the 
thoughts and the suggestions for wire and the liability of signal 
loss and fragility of this kind of L.

While it might be possible to somehow get a pulley up via being 
knotted to a rope, there's just no practical way for me to attach 
both ends. There is a dense forest cover that is so thick I can not 
see more than 30' in most directions. The only area I can get a clear 
view of the the sky to send the "spud" through is very small, perhaps 
8' at the widest. The wide open salt marsh offers no trees and I am 
using what is for me, the best system I can make. The vertical 
component has to be at an angle, maybe 75-80 degrees and none of the 
surrounding trees are very tall. Being on the coast, tall trees do 
not last long at the tree line thanks to Sandy like hurricane winds. 

The Spud gun I have made was based on one in QST and the sprinkler 
valve is a 3" one I found on Ebay. I added a larger open face fishing 
reel and made an eye for the 50 pound test monofilament line to run 
through. With no line attached I can get a 2.5" x 5" spud to 
disappear from view, it has this much power. I use a spud that is 
2.5" x 10" and has reflective tape so I can find it in the dense 
foliage. With the line attached there is enough drag that the 
distance is reduced. With 20 pumps of the tire pump it is perfect for 
getting the 160 Inv L over the tops of the highest trees nearby and 
in the air long enough to get it over the next few trees that it is 
at least as high as it can be. I envy good antenna installations but 
with my 60 130' radials on the salt marsh, I still do well. Better is 
never enough though...

I have the 160 inv-L, an 80 Inv-L, and a 40, 30 and 20 meter 
verticals all attached to the radial plate. A remote coax switch 
allows me to select which I wish. I have no tuner and select the best 
antenna based on the strength of the received signal. With the valid 
antenna selections my worst SWR is 2-1 which the K3 & amp have no 
problems with.

160 works on 160, 15, 12, 10, and 6 meters.
80 works on 80, 17 and 12 meters.
40 works on 40 & 17 meters
30 only works on 30
20 only works on 20.

All considering, I need no tuner and though I don't beat the big 
guns, with only a few exceptions I've been able to work every new DX 
on 160 I could hear and I've only missed a few ATNO on other bands 
that either couldn't hear me or responded to louder signals instead.

One thing I have but didn't think to use is flooded 75 ohm cable. I 
bought a long length of it for the HI-Z Triangle array and have quite 
a few hundred feet of it left. It has a smooth and rugged jacket and 
the center is copperweld of sorts. If I were to affix a lug at the 
end and short the cable/wire together it might be slippery enough to 
handle the motion and strong enough to be break resistant. Not sure 
how I would best attach the ring end but I need to think about this.

Thanks again for all the thoughtful replies.

73,

Gary
KA1J

> My Inv-l came down again. Went out to see what happened and another
> storm weakened tree came down & it's upper branches brought my 
> antenna down with it. I really need to use a better wire than 8 
> strand computer cable for the antenna. This CAT-8 wire comes down at
> least 2-3 times a year.
> 
> Since I use a spud gun with fishing reel attached to get the antenna
> up through the trees I am limited in what wire I can use to get up
> there. I don't have pulleys available with what I have to do & the
> wire is subject to the constant friction of moving limbs & the 
> insulation wears away soon enough. I hesitate to buy expensive wire
> as once the insulation wears away there will be arcing to a branch.
> Years ago I used to use old telephone wire, the heavily insulated 
> solid conductor zip cord like drop wire but that's not available to
> me any more.
> 
> Any suggestion as to a good rugged wire? 
> 
> 73,
> 
> Gary
> KA1J
> _
> Topband Reflector
> 



_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Les Kalmus]

I do the same thing except I hang a 4" plastic clothes line pulley from 
the rope. The antenna wire runs through the pulley.
Ended all the abrasion issues and I can easily lower the pulley if 
necessary.

The actual antenna wire is from DavisRF.

73, Les W2LK



On 7/23/2013 4:55 AM, Gary Smith wrote:

My Inv-l came down again. Went out to see what happened and another
storm weakened tree came down & it's upper branches brought my
antenna down with it. I really need to use a better wire than 8
strand computer cable for the antenna. This CAT-8 wire comes down at
least 2-3 times a year.

Since I use a spud gun with fishing reel attached to get the antenna
up through the trees I am limited in what wire I can use to get up
there. I don't have pulleys available with what I have to do & the
wire is subject to the constant friction of moving limbs & the
insulation wears away soon enough. I hesitate to buy expensive wire
as once the insulation wears away there will be arcing to a branch.
Years ago I used to use old telephone wire, the heavily insulated
solid conductor zip cord like drop wire but that's not available to
me any more.

Any suggestion as to a good rugged wire?

73,

Gary
KA1J
_
Topband Reflector




_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Shoppa, Tim]

I use RF Connection "Polystealth 18" in the trees and bushes at the edge of my 
lot. Very lightweight. 117 pounds breaking strength, way stronger than your Cat 
5. It is stranded copper-clad steel with a fairly thick and robust and 
low-friction/slippery polyethylene jacket and is very flexible and really deals 
well with going around tree trunks and over limbs and deer running into the 
wires etc.

I think the same stuff is sold by a different name by other ham vendors, e.g. I 
think Wireman 532 is the same stuff.

The copper plating on the this stuff is quite easy to solder to. The 18 gauge 
stuff is easily tied in knots etc. if you don't want to solder loops at the 
end, I have use this in experiments to make it easy to change antenna length.

There is also a 13-gauge variant if you really think you want heavy duty stuff. 
I have a 130-foot doublet made out of the 13 gauge stuff that has been up for 
many years now; it is kept tensioned with a pulley and a gallon of sand. I way 
overengineered that, it would have done just fine with the 18 gauge stuff. You 
could probably lift a car with the 13 gauge stuff.

Tim N3QE

-Original Message-
From: Topband [mailto:topband-boun...@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:29 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Inv-L joy


 Any suggestion as to a good rugged wire? Gary

 WD-1A military field phone wire is strong, lightweght and very
 inexpensive.  It is available on E-bay.   ___Herb__



I used WD-1A for one, two direction Beverage antenna along a "neighbor 
sensitive" boundry. Did not want insulators showing, so just ran it through the 
dense tree line with no insulators. Thought it may last a year, but three years 
later it still works fine.

www.qsl.net/k1fz/beveragenotes.html

73
Bruce-K1FZ

 

_
Topband Reflector
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Arthur Delibert]

I use an EZ-Hang slingshot to throw rope over the tree limbs, and then use that 
to pull the wire antenna into place.  I remove a length of the outer insulation 
from an old piece of coax and, once I see where the rope crosses the tree limb, 
I slide the coax insulation onto that part of the rope.  It's pretty good and 
long-lasting protection against wear and tear.  And like Herb, I use a 
counterweight, rather than tying the rope tight -- not perfect, but it absorbs 
some blows without the antenna coming down. 

Art Delibert
KB3FJO


  
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Gary Smith]

> Gary, WD-1A military field phone wire is strong, lightweght and very
> inexpensive.  It is available on E-bay.  Be sure to use a spring and
> a 
> counter weight at one end to absorb the movement of the branches and
> reduce the friction. This method will also mitigate somewhat the 
> tendency for a tree limb to envelope the wire and cause additional
> problems with wind and moving branches.
> 
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
> 

Hi Herb,

Yes it is light & rugged and it may be the right solution. I used to 
have some for my beverage although it's gone now. The WD-1A I had was 
hard to solder well, it was not shiny wire and seemed to have this 
oxide layer on it I had to work with. Think it was from the Vietnam 
era. 

I just can't use springs or pulleys where I'm at. The radial plate is 
350' from the house & at the edge of a salt marsh and I have to shoot 
with that spud gun, through small openings in the heavy foliage to 
just get the wire up there. There's just no place to run a pulley or 
spring up so I can't have a counterweight at the end. What I have to 
do is tie the rope at the end to a long thin branch on the ground, 
one big enough to pretty much stay in place but light enough it can 
pull upwards a bit with wind blowing the trees. No way to isolate the 
wire from the tree branches & movement at all. All considering I get 
a pretty fair signal out but the antenna conditions are pretty 
Spartan.

73,

Gary
KA1J
_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L joy

[Herb Schoenbohm]

On 7/23/2013 4:55 AM, Gary Smith wrote:

My Inv-l came down again. Went out to see what happened and another
storm weakened tree came down & it's upper branches brought my
antenna down with it. I really need to use a better wire than 8
strand computer cable for the antenna. This CAT-8 wire comes down at
least 2-3 times a year.

Since I use a spud gun with fishing reel attached to get the antenna
up through the trees I am limited in what wire I can use to get up
there. I don't have pulleys available with what I have to do & the
wire is subject to the constant friction of moving limbs & the
insulation wears away soon enough. I hesitate to buy expensive wire
as once the insulation wears away there will be arcing to a branch.
Years ago I used to use old telephone wire, the heavily insulated
solid conductor zip cord like drop wire but that's not available to
me any more.

Any suggestion as to a good rugged wire?

73,

Gary
KA1J
_
Topband Reflector


Gary, WD-1A military field phone wire is strong, lightweght and very 
inexpensive.  It is available on E-bay.  Be sure to use a spring and a 
counter weight at one end to absorb the movement of the branches and 
reduce the friction. This method will also mitigate somewhat the 
tendency for a tree limb to envelope the wire and cause additional 
problems with wind and moving branches.


Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ

_
Topband Reflector

Re: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

Wireman #531 or #547 both are black PE sheathed. #531 is stranded
copperweld. #547 is fine stranded copper.  73, Guy.

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Shoppa, Tim  wrote:
>> Copperclad would probably be more durable but the contact with the tree
>> branches on exposed wire would be no good. Enamelled copperclad would soon
>> have the enamel worn off & there would be direct metal contact to the 
>> branches.
>> I can't find any of the old copperclad two element telephone wiring around 
>> here
>> with UV proof & durable insulation as the phone company won't give it or sell
>> it privately when they take it down. I looked at the wire Home Depot has and
>> the stranded wire doesn't seem to have a tough insulation.
>
> The RF Connection (therfc.com) sells stuff they call "polystealth" that is 
> stranded copper clad steel with a pretty decent plastic insulation. I think 
> Wireman sells similar stuff but with a different moniker.
>
> It isn't "real copperweld" but it does seem pretty durable (admittedly I've 
> never used it where extended tree branch abrasion was an issue but I've had 
> it in trees for 4 years with no problems.)
>
> The stranded stuff is a zillion times easier to handle than solid copperclad 
> steel (does not encase you like a snake!!!)
>
> Tim.
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches

[Shoppa, Tim]

> Copperclad would probably be more durable but the contact with the tree
> branches on exposed wire would be no good. Enamelled copperclad would soon
> have the enamel worn off & there would be direct metal contact to the 
> branches.
> I can't find any of the old copperclad two element telephone wiring around 
> here
> with UV proof & durable insulation as the phone company won't give it or sell
> it privately when they take it down. I looked at the wire Home Depot has and
> the stranded wire doesn't seem to have a tough insulation.

The RF Connection (therfc.com) sells stuff they call "polystealth" that is 
stranded copper clad steel with a pretty decent plastic insulation. I think 
Wireman sells similar stuff but with a different moniker.

It isn't "real copperweld" but it does seem pretty durable (admittedly I've 
never used it where extended tree branch abrasion was an issue but I've had it 
in trees for 4 years with no problems.)

The stranded stuff is a zillion times easier to handle than solid copperclad 
steel (does not encase you like a snake!!!)

Tim.
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches

[Jim Brown]

On 9/28/2012 8:45 AM, Gary Smith wrote:

All that to say; since I have no choice
but to run the wire over the tree tops,
what would be a better wire?


I'm near the Pacific coast, and also get some pretty good winds. K2RD 
showed me a really nice method of dealing with your problem. It takes 
more work to get it done, but it stays up.  First, launch fairly small 
diameter line or rope over your high branch, then use it to pull up some 
of the nice support rope that DXE and others sell. I use the 5/16-in 
diameter size. My neighbor, W6GJB, an aeronautical engineer who works in 
the space program, recommends Vectran rope, which you can buy from 
sailing supply stores. It's pretty pricey, but quite strong. Use enough 
of that rope to make a continuous loop, secure a pulley (a marine 
pulley) to it, put your antenna wire through it, and pull the pulley up 
to the top. Put an insulator at the far end and tie down at a suitable 
point. Somewhere in that system, use a weight to control the tension on 
the wire so that it can move in the wind.   Now, when the trees move, 
the motion is at the pulley, and there's relatively little rub on the 
rope going over the branch.


In my 160M Tee vertical, I have a "mechanical fuse" at the base in the 
form of mating banana plug and jack.  There's a bottom insulator tied 
down with a length rope that is slack under normal conditions, but which 
secures the wire when the wind opens the fuse.


BTW -- my current favorite wire for high antennas that see a lot of 
stress is #10 THHN.  It will stretch with a lot of tension on it, but 
that's easy to deal with if it's up with pulleys. Every few years I 
lower my 80/40 fan and trim the 80M elements.


73, Jim K9YC

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

For a nasty application like that, look at Wireman #531 and Wireman
#547.  The coating is black PE, rather than the less durable PVC on
other wires.  If you use these wires you MUST prevent water ingress at
the ends, or using them across constant abrasion points.

If you have part of a pull up going through leaves, then use teflon
insulated #12 silvered copper available at times on eBay, but this
wire is not nearly as durable as the wireman stuff  around bends or
under large horizontal stress.  But it will keep the leaves and
branches from shorting you out. The silver/teflon wire is intended to
be laid in place and never again stressed, not really designed for
antennas. Using it for the vertical pull of an L keeps the stress
lengthwise and minimal, and does not subject it to bending. Also the
silvered strands maintain contact in the most current heavy part of
the antenna, and do not go bad with water ingress.  You can solder the
fool out of the first inches, and you won't melt the teflon
insulation.

73, Guy

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Jim F.  wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> I have had good luck with #14 ga. teflon coated, silver plated, stranded wire
> from a flea market.  Would like to find more of this as it loves treetops.
>
> I tie a supple branch or make a rope inverted "T" configuration between to 2 
> supple
> branches at the antenna far end which acts as a shock absorber for the the
> endfed wire when the mighty wind blows and the heavy ice coats, as it 
> frequently
> does here in the hills of NH.
>
> 73
>
> jim / W1FMR
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 9/28/12, Gary Smith  wrote:
>
>
> From: Gary Smith 
> Subject: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Date: Friday, September 28, 2012, 11:45 AM
>
>
> I'm fortunate to have a nice radial
> assembly of aprox 50 130' radials & half
> of them on a salt marsh with the rest over
> boggy ground. Unfortunately I have no way
> to put up a pulley system with relief on
> one end and the antenna in open air.
>
> I use 6 & 8 strand ribbon "CAT wire" which
> was used indoors for running computer and
> phone wire. I got several miles of it at a
> cheap price on ebay. I used that for my
> radial wires, soldered at both ends and I
> also use it for my elements. I have an
> inv-L for 160, an almost full length
> vertical for 80, a 40M & 30M vertical all
> using the same radial bed. I used to have
> a butternut for 20-10 meters but found I
> heard and transmitted better using one of
> the aforementioned wires instead for the
> higher bands. I use a PVC cannon to shoot
> a projectile over the tallest tree and
> raise the antennae that way.
>
> The verticals are no issue, they remain up
> and give no problem. The problem is on 160
> where the best I can do is aim for a hole
> in the tree tops and shoot the projectile
> through it & over the tallest tree I can
> get to. I tie down the distant end with
> the entirety of the wires elevation
> resting on tree branches. Being on the
> ocean's edge there is considerable tree
> movement all the time and yearly the wire
> frays and breaks close to midway. It came
> down this week. I'm guessing the plastic
> layer of the ribbon is not UV proof and
> that allows the outer insulation to peel
> off exposing the 24 gauge solid wires to
> the sun and their insulation to wear &
> break off. The CAT wire is quite sturdy
> when first used but it is made of many
> fragile parts.
>
> All that to say; since I have no choice
> but to run the wire over the tree tops,
> what would be a better wire?
>
> Copperclad would probably be more durable
> but the contact with the tree branches on
> exposed wire would be no good. Enamelled
> copperclad would soon have the enamel worn
> off & there would be direct metal contact
> to the branches. I can't find any of the
> old copperclad two element telephone
> wiring around here with UV proof & durable
> insulation as the phone company won't give
> it or sell it privately when they take it
> down. I looked at the wire Home Depot has
> and the stranded wire doesn't seem to have
> a tough insulation.
>
> I'm putting another 8 element wire back up
> today as there's some pacific DX I need on
> 160 that's coming to a close but I need to
> put something better up that I don't have
> to keep replacing 1-2 times a year.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gary
> KA1J
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches

[Jim F.]

Hi Gary,
I have had good luck with #14 ga. teflon coated, silver plated, stranded wire
from a flea market.  Would like to find more of this as it loves treetops.
 
I tie a supple branch or make a rope inverted "T" configuration between to 2 
supple
branches at the antenna far end which acts as a shock absorber for the the 
endfed wire when the mighty wind blows and the heavy ice coats, as it frequently
does here in the hills of NH.
 
73
 
jim / W1FMR
 


--- On Fri, 9/28/12, Gary Smith  wrote:


From: Gary Smith 
Subject: Topband: Inv-L wire in contact with tree branches
To: topband@contesting.com
Date: Friday, September 28, 2012, 11:45 AM


I'm fortunate to have a nice radial 
assembly of aprox 50 130' radials & half 
of them on a salt marsh with the rest over 
boggy ground. Unfortunately I have no way 
to put up a pulley system with relief on 
one end and the antenna in open air.

I use 6 & 8 strand ribbon "CAT wire" which 
was used indoors for running computer and 
phone wire. I got several miles of it at a 
cheap price on ebay. I used that for my 
radial wires, soldered at both ends and I 
also use it for my elements. I have an 
inv-L for 160, an almost full length 
vertical for 80, a 40M & 30M vertical all 
using the same radial bed. I used to have 
a butternut for 20-10 meters but found I 
heard and transmitted better using one of 
the aforementioned wires instead for the 
higher bands. I use a PVC cannon to shoot 
a projectile over the tallest tree and 
raise the antennae that way. 

The verticals are no issue, they remain up 
and give no problem. The problem is on 160 
where the best I can do is aim for a hole 
in the tree tops and shoot the projectile 
through it & over the tallest tree I can 
get to. I tie down the distant end with 
the entirety of the wires elevation 
resting on tree branches. Being on the 
ocean's edge there is considerable tree 
movement all the time and yearly the wire 
frays and breaks close to midway. It came 
down this week. I'm guessing the plastic 
layer of the ribbon is not UV proof and 
that allows the outer insulation to peel 
off exposing the 24 gauge solid wires to 
the sun and their insulation to wear & 
break off. The CAT wire is quite sturdy 
when first used but it is made of many 
fragile parts.

All that to say; since I have no choice 
but to run the wire over the tree tops, 
what would be a better wire? 

Copperclad would probably be more durable 
but the contact with the tree branches on 
exposed wire would be no good. Enamelled 
copperclad would soon have the enamel worn 
off & there would be direct metal contact 
to the branches. I can't find any of the 
old copperclad two element telephone 
wiring around here with UV proof & durable 
insulation as the phone company won't give 
it or sell it privately when they take it 
down. I looked at the wire Home Depot has 
and the stranded wire doesn't seem to have 
a tough insulation.

I'm putting another 8 element wire back up 
today as there's some pacific DX I need on 
160 that's coming to a close but I need to 
put something better up that I don't have 
to keep replacing 1-2 times a year.

Thanks

Gary
KA1J
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L Issues - Still no luck

[Paul Dulaff]

Dan

A little hard to tell what you mean by "port". Do you mean the RCS-10 port or a 
port on the transceiever ?

I understand you to mean that when you bypass the RSC-10 antenna switch and 
feed the inverted-L directly,  the inverted-L works OK on 160 meters ?

I mentioned back on 12/31 that RF at 1.8 Mhz may be getting into the control 
lines and causing the switch to malfunction (hot switch) under load.

A suggestion would be to look for RF on the control lines at the shack when 
transmitting on 160 meters. Go to the lowest power the transciever can deliver 
that doesn't hurt the transceiever (if possible).

Is the control line connected directly to the transceiever ?
This could explain why the transceiever is behaving erratically when operting 
at 160 meters with the switch. RF is getting into the control lines and in the 
transceiever through the control port.
Are you getting a microporcessor reset at the transceiver when the 1 minute 
blanking occurs ?

>From your previous e-mails in December, wasn't this syetm working OK at 100 
>watts (barefoot) but would malfunction with the amplifier ?

Best 73's

Paul - WB2NMI








- Original Message -
From: Dan Bookwalter 
To: topband@contesting.com
Sent: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:48:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Topband: Inv-L Issues - Still no luck

Ok , I am having a real problem here that I haven't been able to solve yet.

I have an inverted L out at the tower that is about 160' long , 70ft vertical 
the rest sort of horiz , slopes down I have one run of RG213 to the RCS-10 
remote antenna switch which is at the tower , it was very close to the L , so i 
moved it so that it is now about 4 ft away from the L, I also grounded it. what 
is happening is that when i transmit , even 1 dit at about 10 watts something 
happens out at the switch , the radio goes silent , then after a minute or two 
it usually starts to come back. it only affects the port that the L is attached 
to , my Windom is on port 2 and it works fine , so it isnt the radio , the L 
also works just fine on other bands , I replaced 2 PL-259's and changed the 
coax that goes from the switch to the L , I do not know what else to do at this 
point other than at night when i want to use 160 go out to the tower and 
connect the feedline directly to the L. It happens no matter what port i have 
the L connected to...

any ideas ?

Dan
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L Issues - Still no luck - Solved , I think

[Dan Bookwalter]

Well I think i may have solved the issue...

it all started when I started running the amplifier , i got to thinking about 
it and decided to look at the feed point area. When I put this antenna up I 
just looped the wire around an eye bolt , when running barefoot it was fine , 
but , when i loaded up the amplifier it burned through the insulation and 
shorted to the eye bolt , which as it happens is connected to the radial plate 
and ground system. So I now have the wire looped around an insulator that is 
attached to the eye bolt and things seem to be back to normal , well for now 
anyhow...

as soon as i get an enclosure I will rework the feed system again so that it 
isn't so susceptible to issues such as this...

Dan N8DCJ



 From: Dan Bookwalter 
To: "topband@contesting.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:48 PM
Subject: Topband: Inv-L Issues - Still no luck
 
Ok , I am having a real problem here that I haven't been able to solve yet.

I have an inverted L out at the tower that is about 160' long , 70ft vertical 
the rest sort of horiz , slopes down I have one run of RG213 to the RCS-10 
remote antenna switch which is at the tower , it was very close to the L , so i 
moved it so that it is now about 4 ft away from the L, I also grounded it. what 
is happening is that when i transmit , even 1 dit at about 10 watts something 
happens out at the switch , the radio goes silent , then after a minute or two 
it usually starts to come back. it only affects the port that the L is attached 
to , my Windom is on port 2 and it works fine , so it isnt the radio , the L 
also works just fine on other bands , I replaced 2 PL-259's and changed the 
coax that goes from the switch to the L , I do not know what else to do at this 
point other than at night when i want to use 160 go out to the tower and 
connect the feedline directly to the L. It happens no matter what port i have 
the L connected to...

any ideas ?

Dan
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L Issues - Still no luck

[Mike & Coreen Smith]

Dan,

What happens when you *DO* connect the L directly to your coax run and use 
your radio?
IE: is SWR ok?  The antenna works? (you make contacts easily).

Sounds like RF getting into the Remote switch.

Mike
AA

Mike, Coreen & Corey Smith
699 Rte 616 Keswick Ridge
NB
Canada
E6L 1T1
  - Original Message - 
  From: Dan Bookwalter
  To: topband@contesting.com
  Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:48 PM
  Subject: Topband: Inv-L Issues - Still no luck


  Ok , I am having a real problem here that I haven't been able to solve 
yet.

  I have an inverted L out at the tower that is about 160' long , 70ft 
vertical the rest sort of horiz , slopes down I have one run of RG213 to 
the RCS-10 remote antenna switch which is at the tower , it was very close 
to the L , so i moved it so that it is now about 4 ft away from the L, I 
also grounded it. what is happening is that when i transmit , even 1 dit at 
about 10 watts something happens out at the switch , the radio goes silent , 
then after a minute or two it usually starts to come back. it only affects 
the port that the L is attached to , my Windom is on port 2 and it works 
fine , so it isnt the radio , the L also works just fine on other bands , I 
replaced 2 PL-259's and changed the coax that goes from the switch to the L 
, I do not know what else to do at this point other than at night when i 
want to use 160 go out to the tower and connect the feedline directly to the 
L. It happens no matter what port i have the L connected to...

  any ideas ?

  Dan
  ___
  UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK


--



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4162 - Release Date: 01/23/12 
19:34:00
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L swr changing when adding radials

[Nathan Moreschi]

Dan,

This is a good thing. Your system is becoming more efficient - this is what 
you want. If you desire a better match, you will need to use some sort of 
matching system at the base of the antenna. The SWR will continue to rise as 
you add more radials, however you will reach a point of diminishing returns. 
If you can get to about 16 radials you'll have a decent setup that will 
result in fun on topband. Even eight will work with good results.

73,

Nate/N4YDU

-Original Message- 
From: Dan Bookwalter
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 6:36 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: Inv-L swr changing when adding radials

I installed an Inv-L for 160 of about 134ft , ~72 feet vertical , when i 
checked the SWR initially it was about 1.2:1 , then when i connected the 
ground rods it rose to 1.5:1 , today I added the first  2 radials and the 
SWR is now 2:1. The antenna is being fed directly , my question is basically 
what is this telling me ?  I assume I need to change the way I am feeding 
the antenna and possibly change its length.

any help appreciated...

Dan N8DCJ
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK 

___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L swr changing when adding radials

[Guy Olinger K2AV]

The Inv L over a very dense, excellent radial field will have a feed Z of
in the neighborhood of 20 or so ohms, NOT 50.  It usually requires a unun
to bring it up to 50.

When you first put it up, your counterpoise system was, to put it bluntly,
awful, and apparently a very lossy series resistance around 30 ohms. If I
read your text correctly, your counterpoise system consisted of the outside
of your feed coax shield.   As you are improving your counterpoise system
by adding radials and grounds, the 30 ohms plain loss is shrinking,
improving radiation, but making SWR worse, as the SUM of 20 ohms radiation
resistance AND the loss resistance of the counterpoise system becomes less
and less moving toward 20.

One of the many circumstances where low SWR is not an indicator of quality.

73, Guy.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Dan Bookwalter  wrote:

> I installed an Inv-L for 160 of about 134ft , ~72 feet vertical , when i
> checked the SWR initially it was about 1.2:1 , then when i connected the
> ground rods it rose to 1.5:1 , today I added the first  2 radials and the
> SWR is now 2:1. The antenna is being fed directly , my question is
> basically what is this telling me ?  I assume I need to change the way I am
> feeding the antenna and possibly change its length.
>
> any help appreciated...
>
> Dan N8DCJ
> ___
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK

Re: Topband: Inv-L with single elevated radial

[Glen Reid]

I use an inverted L with 4 elevated radials.  The vertical part of the L is
about 25 feet; the remaining horizontal part is about 30 feet high.  The
radials run more or less at 90 degrees from each other and are 120 feet long
and 7-10 feet off the ground.

Running CW at 80 watts out, I have worked many states coast to coast,
several Canadian provinces and the Caribbean and Central America from Texas.
I use the L for both RX and TX.

I only get on 160 only during contests.

It is obviously not the DX King, Antenna of 160, but it works well and fits
my style.

gr


GLEN REID
Austin
k...@arrl.net 
You can always tell a Texan---but, not much!
 
 
 


___
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK