A good analysis of all this can be found from IV3PRK as he planned his antenna for his new QTH in HC land.
http://www.iv3prk.it/user/image/site2-inverted-l-vs-vertical-t.pdf 73...Stan, K5GO Sent from my iPad On Feb 16, 2015, at 6:14 AM, Tom W8JI <[email protected]> wrote: >> Tom, Thanks for the details on the "Z" for TB. On a related matter I have >> been looking for comparisons between a "L" and a "T" firmly believing that a >> "T" would be better as in 65' up and 135' horizontal fed in the exact >> center. However there are so many TB'ers using "L" rather than "T"s which >> begs the question....why? You need two supports for the "L" but how much do >> you gain by converting this to a "T" with even a modest ground plain of 6-12 >> radials? Or is it just a matter of convenience and lot size? > > There is almost no difference between the T and L. It is mostly a matter of > what someone can fit. > > When I lived on a city lot, I had restricted antenna room. I installed a > "G5RV" between two tall pines. I dropped the feedline vertically to the > ground. I fed the entire thing as T on 160, and I managed to work many JA's, > VU, UA0's, VS6, and even a JT on 160. An L I tried was no different, but too > many wires cluttered an area and makes an RF mess out of things. The G5RV > gave me a good 160 antenna (fed as a T) and a pretty good 80-10 antenna, with > just one wire and one feedline, using a tuner right where the feeder came to > ground level. > > I installed a 100 ft vertical later, and it was no better than the G5RV "T". > As a matter of fact I just phased the 100ft tower against the G5RV to make a > two element 160 vertical array with four patterns. > >> Again my question: How much better is a "T" over an "L" on 160? > > No one would notice, it is not even worth one dB. We are actually lucky to > notice 6 dB unless we A B test something. > > You would likely notice the out and up and out half wave, though. It is far > more like a messed up dipole than a good vertical. The one I tried lost > several dB on groundwave over a base loaded vertical. It kept getting better > and better as I made it more and more like an "inverted L". > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
