Good Morning Herb; In years past, when I was living about 30 miles north of Dallas, I had a shunt fed tower, and it worked very well. However, when I tried the same configuration here, I got my fanny kicked on a regular basis, and that was why I decided to put up the Inverted L. Occasionally I am tempted to re-establish the shunt fed configuration. I am about to plunk down $200 for an instrument to measure the complex impedance at the feed point of the "gamma" match, and at that point I may go back & try the shunt configuration again. However, for the moment, I am 4 or 5 entities away from DXCC on 160, and untill I get that done I will stay in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Mode.
73, Mike, W5UC On 4/29/2012 7:09 AM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote: > Mike, You would be much better off by feeding the tower with a shunt or > cage feed. As K2AV so accurately pointed out...an inverted "L" > supported by a metal tower is not the answer for an efficient system on > 160. With the amount of radials you have at the base you could do much > better by feeding the grounded tower. I presume the tower has a beam on > the top and that will really make you system even more efficient by > providing some good toploading. An inverted L supported by a steel > tower is not the best solution. It is probably the worst of all compared > to a Marconi "T" out in the clear even with the same tower used to > support one end as far away a possible from the vertical wire. > > > Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ > > _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
