Called a Double L. This is the earliest article on it I remember. Others out there as well.
http://www.yccc.org/http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.ht/double_l.htm Patrick, W7TMT ________________________________ From: Topband <[email protected]> on behalf of Roger Kennedy <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:33:53 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question Guy (K2AV) - I really liked your explanation about the function of a radial field on a 160m vertical . . . and how the radials don't actually radiate. But I've often thought about the other extreme . . . I have a homebrew 2m Ground Plane on top of my mast . . . just a quarter wave vertical . . . and 3 quarter wave radials sloping down about 45 degrees. Now if those radials were vertical, it would really be a vertical Dipole . . . i.e. the radials would be radiating. Whereas if they were horizontal, I guess they wouldn't be. You get my question . . . what really is the difference between the 3 different radial situations? And here's another question . . . rather than all the issues of radials and matching, has anyone ever used a Vertical Dipole on 160m ? Sure, you're not going to have a 260 ft vertical . . . but suppose you had a 100ft support, so that you could have 50 ft vertical legs either side of the coax feeder, and then just bend the legs at right angles at the top and bottom to make up the length (linear loading) - maybe running in opposite directions. I would have though that would be quite an efficient antenna? And presumably (just like any dipole) it would work even better if the ground underneath it was very poor (in my opinion) Roger G3YRO _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
