The difference in an inverted L and a shunt-fed tower would have been overwhelmed by any differences in the ground/counterpoise systems underneath. How you deal with ground and radials/counterpoise on 160 is the 1000 pound gorilla in the room with no real competition.
Beyond that, if the bend of the L was supported by the tower, you may have been mostly using the tower anyway. One could not evaluate the change without some estimate of the interaction, particularly whether the *tower* had good radials when the L was in use, or whether the radials were only added when the tower was loaded. If if looked like a simple question, it's really drowned in complications with make or break outcomes. 73, Guy. On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Mike(W5UC) & Kathy (K5MWH) < w...@suddenlink.net> wrote: > Greetings fellow Topbanders: > > Please, an antenna question. For the last several years I have use a > Inverted L on 160. Rscently I became able to run more power (from 450 > watts up to 1 KW output. At that point it appeared that I had developed an > arc somewhere in my antenna system, so I abandoned the inverted L for shunt > feed of my tower(which many years ago, I used successfully), I have been > able to successfully match the Shunt Fed tower using a Omega Match' > > > So my question is: How effective is a Shunt Fed tower, AND, is it more > effective than the Inverted L? > > 73, > Mike, W5UC > _________________ > Topband Reflector > _________________ Topband Reflector
