eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands

K0FF (K0FF) on January 28, 2010
View comments about this article!

KØFF Homebrew Tips

 

KØFF on DX Effective Transmit

Antennas for the Low Bands

 

What is the "best" antenna to use for transmitting on 160 and 80 meters?

Well that depends on a lot of factors. If cost is one of the factors, you can rule out rotatable full sized beams. If your main activity is ragchewing with other stateside stations (assuming your are in the U.S.), nets. traffic handling, then you would want a high angle of takeoff antenna, or even a NVIS (Dr. Carl O. Jelinek, NVIS: Near Vertical Incidence Skywave).

 

For DX, it is pretty common to strive for a low angle antenna. Verticals meet this requirement but require a counterpoise.

 

The Inverted L 

 

This was my first attempt at a real 160M transmitting antenna. With abundant trees on our property, it was easy to build the radiator portion. Height for this antenna was set at about 66 feet, and then the horizontal top section was tuned for resonance.  With 4 tuned and insulated radials, the SWR was flat using 50-Ohm cable feeding the bottom. Adding more radials raised the SWR, as anticipated (Maxwell: Reflections: Low SWR for the Wrong Reasons).  Just as W2DU predicted, the lowest SWR was achieved through high ground impedance. Lowering the impedance by adding more radials lowered the ground impedance, but raised the SWR. Basically an inverted L over a "perfect" counterpoise simply is not a 50-Ohm antenna. On air results were mediocre at best, certainly not good enough to be a consistent pileup breaker.

As an aside, this antenna was later used as a platform to develop a multiband vertical featuring a single coax-wound trap at 66 feet then multiple vertical elements below that. More on this antenna in another article.

 

The Sloper

 

Next I tried a "sloper". Ultimately simple, it is a single piece of wire, tuned to ¼ wavelength, strung from and fed with 50 Ohm coax at the top of a tower, just below the top plate.

A 56-foot self-supporting crankup tower holding my VHF/UHF stack was fitted with such an antenna.  The 160-radiator element was cut long then trimmed to resonance......or so I thought.  I tried every conceivable length, angle, and combination possible with terrible results, both with instrumentation and on-the-air. A dismal failure from every aspect.

 

A Reprieve 

 

Having blown many hours and wasted many weekends on this 160M antenna, I gave up on it. With nothing to loose, it was decided to cut it all the way back to 80M.

Not only did it resonate perfectly the first try, the SWR was low.  Not too wide an SWR-Bandwidth though, so I kept cutting it for the 75M band, where I understand some hams operate from time to time.

Again, it came right in, looked good on the instruments and tuned up to the rig perfectly.  Since the difference between 75M and 80M in terms of length was only a few feet, it was decided to "multiband" the antenna by using large porcelain Fuse holder as the bottom insulator, with the needed extra few feet of wire on the other side. For 80M, a piece of copper water pipe is snapped into the fuseholder, for 75M it is removed. Fortunately the "switch" is easy to get at and not far from the operating position in this case. 

 

Fuseholder "Bandswitch" for 80/75M
 

 

Results were fantastic on both ends of the range. DX was easy to work and pileups were consistently smashed.

 

But why didn't it work on 160?

 

After thinking about this for a while, it became rather obvious that the tower/antenna was probably self-resonant very near the operating frequencies.

Notice that this tower is grounded, but no counterpoise (radials) is used.

             

So use a taller tower?

 

Of course that was the answer.  This time it was an 89-foot self-supporting crankup.

The antenna is attached as before, at the top plate and fed with 50-Ohm coax. Above the connection point is an HF stack, with a 5 element 20M monobander at the bottom position.

First the antenna was configured exactly like a scaled up version of the 80M success.

Unfortunately the results were dismal, however it did resonate easily, as expected.

The problem was the shallow angle from the tower the wire had to take because it was so long.

Remembering some earlier discussions with K7CA about 160 antennas, a very sharp angle was tried, but of course the wire hit the ground with 60 feet left over.

 

The Sloper-L

 

Next I tried kicking the end half of the antenna out horizontally, with various angles and heights above ground experimented with over a long winter season.

This yielded a lot of data, from which the final iteration was designed, installed, then never changed.

 

Antenna comes down at a steep angle from the top plate, goes though a LARGE porcelain insulator at the top of a 10-foot tall wooden post, placed 10 feet from the tower. The rest of the wire kicks out horizontally at the 10-foot level where it is terminated in another large porcelain insulator.

 

That?s it. No radials. No matching devices at all- direct fed with 50-Ohm coax. Nothing fancy.

 

Results:

These simple antennas were quickly responsible for the 160M and 80M portion of the first (and only) 160 through 6M DXCC from the Zero District.  The response seems to be omnidirectional.

I think the effectiveness of this antenna is mainly due to the fact that the current node is high in the air, away from ground losses.

 

 
The Top Fed 160M Sloper-L

 

Note: These antennas are used for transmitting. I use separate receive antennas.

Don't expect to hear much DX on any vertical, antenna.

 

CAUTION> The end of a top fed antenna is near the earth, and at a tremendously high Voltage (Voltage Node). Care should be taken in the selection of the end insulator, use glass or porcelain. Limit access to this area by pets or people!!

 

 

 

See you in the pileups!

Happy Homebrewing, Geo>K0FF 

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K9ZF on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Very cool:-)

Just wish I had a 90' support;-)

Keep up the good work!


73
Dan
--
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N8CMQ on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
While I experience fading of DX signals due to polarization rotation from skywave reception, I can always pick out the signal from the noise. A good vertical is as good receiver as transmitter of radio waves. Reciprocal operation in other words, it should receive as well as it transmits.
But I also run an RF choke to ground at the base of my verticals to drain away static buildup on the antenna, just a precaution though, check it after thunderstorms!
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by KB2DHG on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
It really comes down to the support system.
At least that is my problem.
When I had my house and tower, I had many wire antennas and never a problem. BUT moving to a condo, there is little or no support means for a wire antenna. My choice was to string up a G5RV and although it is not installed to spec. it operates fine on 80 -10 meters.
A very nice article another to save for my note book.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N2EY on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
N8CMQ writes: "A good vertical is as good receiver as transmitter of radio waves. Reciprocal operation in other words, it should receive as well as it transmits."

Yes and no.

The reason K0FF doesn't use these antennas for reception is noise. His receiving antennas (loops, Beverages, etc.) give a much better signal-to-noise ratio.

The trick is that, for DXing on a band like 160, a directional receive antenna (like a terminated Beverage) can often do a much better job than a vertical because the vertical picks up noise from all directions while the Beverage picks up noise from only one direction. The result is a much better received signal-to-noise ratio.

OTOH, for transmitting, the Beverage is horribly inefficient, so the big vertical does that job.

The "best" setup would be a directional antenna that could transmit and receive, but the size and height required on the lower bands are simply prohibitive.

(I know this is basic low-band-DX stuff but the statement about reciprocity indicates the person doesn't know it)

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by W6CAW on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
160 through 20 Meters. A Carolina Windom. Talk all over the world! http://www.craigwilliams.com/radio/shack/index.html
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by AE6RO on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Well I know I won't be getting on 160 for awhile. We can only go up to 35 feet so that low-flying conyers won't be discombobulated.

This was very discouraging. Back to two meters now.John
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N8RGQ on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
What should have been done is Insulate the bottom of the tower from Ground . Then pull out the good OLE Antenna Analyzer to figure out the ratio of UNUN you need . Feed the tower with The UNUN not A BALUN ! This is A unbalanced to unbalanced configuration . Then install A 1 MEGA Ohm resistor from the tower to ground . This is A great way to bleed off static noise on any low band Vertical antenna ! Just make shure you don't use A wire resistor , use A carbon resistor so it won't inter react with the Antenna .

For those without the Realastate or funding to do this another good ap roche is to use something like the MFJ-1965 64 feet Telescopic Aluminum Mast and MFJ-1900 Base Mount . Use the correct ratio UNUN to feed the Antenna and A 1 MEGA ohm resistor to bleed off the noise .

Either way you will have A fantastic low band DX chasing Antenna that will work on 80 m / 160 m !

73 ,

Terry

N8RGQ
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by KB9CRY on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
The reason your inverted L did not work is because you didn't have a matching device at the feedpoint.

And you did not try to shunt feed the tower.

Nice article about your attempts but this is not the definitive resource on Low Band Antennas that work.

Try K1ZM's DXing on the Edge or ON4UN's Low Band book for better information.....and results.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N8CMQ on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
The trick is that, for DXing on a band like 160, a directional receive antenna (like a terminated Beverage) can often do a much better job than a vertical because the vertical picks up noise from all directions while the Beverage picks up noise from only one direction. The result is a much better received signal-to-noise ratio.

OTOH, for transmitting, the Beverage is horribly inefficient, so the big vertical does that job.

The "best" setup would be a directional antenna that could transmit and receive, but the size and height required on the lower bands are simply prohibitive.

(I know this is basic low-band-DX stuff but the statement about reciprocity indicates the person doesn't know it)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Agreed Jim, however, a steerable vertical array is well within reason, then more of your transmitted power goes in the desired direction.
But what I was trying to get at, is when you are working nets or contests, a vertical is perfect. While the big guns with steerable arrays are swinging round and round, I am making contacts.
Yes, basic low band stuff, and well understood by us that have been building antenna for a while!
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N8CMQ on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
AE6RO on January 28, 2010
Well I know I won't be getting on 160 for awhile. We can only go up to 35 feet so that low-flying conyers won't be discombobulated.

Don't be discouraged! A base loaded whip with a capacitance hat can still perform. Sevick built and used such antennas in the 70's. Look up the articles from QST.
You can do it, you just need a good ground plane! Pun intended...


CMQ
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N4JTE on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
I would guess that if you properly shunt fed your 90 ft. tower and used your 20 meter beam as a cap. hat your results would be even better on 160.
I would also stipulate that an inverted L at 66ft. with another 70 ft. or so horizontal section is a more practical antenna for most of us and will perform as well as your sloper at 90ft., which is probaly still coupling to your tower. The inv L has both a vertical and horizontal component and it will be a more useful antenna for a variety of geographic locations. (If I had a 90 ft. tower available I would explore a lot of better antenna ideas than a sloper).
Your inv L was subject to tower loading and when you tuned your horizontal portion for resonance it would seem that you were more likly mistuning and trying to match the mutual loading on the vertical portion.
Thank you for your relating your experiments.
Regards,
Bob
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N0AH on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
I had the high SWR problem too on my Inv L off a 75 foot tower when I went from a couple of radials to 120. I used an amidon UNUN and it worked very fb- (W0YG suggestion) The impedence mismatch was an interesting life experience. I din't shunt feed the tower-

I now use an Alpha Delta 55 foot DX-B 30-160M sloper and it works very well for stateside/VE...it hangs off my 50 foot tower and I have the end of the antenna on a 15 foot post with it about 20 feet off the ground. Before, it was only 5 feet off the ground. Putting it up higher improved everything- I think I might try running the end out horizontally- humm.....always something new to try-
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by KR4BD on January 28, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
I have had GREAT results using the simple Alpha-Delta DX-A Twin Sloper for 40-80-160. I have a 50' Rohn-25 tower with a tribander on top. The DX-A is mounted from about the 45' level. Running less than a kilowatt, I have confirmed over 100 countries both 75 and 40 SSB and have SSB WAS and 35 countries on 160. My lot is just 90 X 150. The tower sits about in the middle with the slopper legs falling off to a northerly and southerly direction.

Tom, KR4BD
Lexington, KY
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N2EY on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
N8CMQ writes: "however, a steerable vertical array is well within reason, then more of your transmitted power goes in the desired direction."

If you have the room and resources for one, yes. But for 160 or even 80, even a good four-square is a big project for a lot of hams.

N8CMQ: "But what I was trying to get at, is when you are working nets or contests, a vertical is perfect. While the big guns with steerable arrays are swinging round and round, I am making contacts."

Depends on the situation.

For nets out to about a thousand miles, but farther than ground-wave, a vertical is a disadvantage because of the too-low-angle radiation.

For contests, the folks with really good antennas will work DX you can't even hear on a vertical.

---

One of the big things about HF radio is its enormous "dynamic range". Meaning that, for any particular path and frequency, you'll see incredible variation in what it takes to work a station. That's why anecdata (TNX N3OX) are unreliable.

For example, just this month I've worked an MD0 and a UR8 on 80 CW and gotten at least 589 reports. I was running 100 watts to an 80/40 trapped inverted V at 40 feet. Great QSOs, got 'em both on the first buzz. Some years back, while testing an HW-101 that was being restored, I snagged a ZA8 on 40 with the same antenna, again on the first call. Does that mean a low inverted V is a magical DX antenna? Not to me; I just got lucky a couple times.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by NZ0T on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
I have also had great success with the Alpha Delta twin sloper. It's at about the 35' level of my 40' Rohn 25 tower with a 3 element tribander and HB 3 element 6 meter beam above it. The antenna barely fits in my city lot but works very well on 160, 80 and 40. I can also use it on 30 and 17 with a tuner. It would be easy to HB an antenna like this as long as one can wind a coil to shorten the 160/40M leg.
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N0AH on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
The thing about the 1/4 wave multiband sloper, like the Alpha Delta, is that you need a larger (minimum tribander) on top of the tower to make it work well. A tower, tall enough to get the antenna pulled out a bit and still remain 10-20 feet off the ground, (using a post, etc) seems to be ideal for a variety of reasons. Te Alpha Delta site is excellent to research this on- Lots of info-.....again, this is their low band models, DX-A and DX-B.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by W4VR on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Just about anything will work if you have an adequate ground screen.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by KE7FD on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Not to be out-done, I think the horizontal loop should be looked at along with the slopper discussed here. According to antenna modeling, one is persuaded to discount the loop for anything beyond say 400 miles since the majority of the energy is radiated into the sky right above it (hence the alias, "cloud warmer", "cloud burner", etc...). However, in practice since very few of us have the ideal installation setup that is assumed in modeling, the major lobe of energy from the loop gets bumped in various ways that can cause it to fall far outside the model. Case in point: My 80m loop. It is not square; nor circular. It passes through trees and is on the side of a hill, nor is it all that high off the ground (15 feet to 25 feet). Over the years I've used both a Z100 tuner at the radio to feed it and most recently an SGC at the antenna feedpoint. Both configurations allowed me to work anywhere from 80m - 10m (I should try 160m I guess) with good matches at the radio. There is a 1:1 balun (looped coax) ahead of the SGC as there was in the earlier fed loop. I routinely operate into South and Central America and into Europe. I can work stations to the west and to the east. The loop is great for both receiving and transmitting. It works so well that I've replaced other HF antennas for 80/40. I will use it to find DX stations for 20m and above, then switch over to my small beam for those. I recently worked a station 1,000 miles away when I was putzin' in the shack working on another project and hear some guy calling CQ. I replied and he answered. He was a 59+ with his 40m dipole and kilowatt amp. I was only a 58 with my loop. After we finished the QSO and I went back to my project I glanced at the screen (Ham Radio Deluxe) and saw that I was still using my PSK power level from earlier, all of 24 watts!

So, for those of us who don't have towers we can put up, but can manage to snake 272 feet of wire around our back yards, the loop is a much better antenna than the antenna books lead you to believe they are.

But still, another great article from K0FF. Thanks Geo.

Glen - KE7FD
www.ke7fd.com
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K5TEN on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
With my old call KA9SOX in the IL/IA Quad Cities I used an Alpha Delta Double Sloper. I had no tower but had it in a tree at 65' and used the ground connection to run #12 stranded down to a ground rod and then a number of #12 stranded radials just under the turf.

That antenna with no tower and no beam as a capacitance hat was still an AWESOME antenna and I wrote the manufacturer and told them so.

On a late night 40m net I worked all states in about three months and confirmed about 40 countries or so on 40m alone, everything from run of the mill Europe to rare South Pacific islands and DX-peditions all barefoot.

I wish I had one now. : (

Bruce
K5TEN
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K0FF on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
The inverted L was wired from a wodden support, not near any towers. It "woked" in that the SWR was low. It did not "work" as a DX plileup buster.

"working" means DXCC, WAZ and 3Y0 on 160.

Anyone who worked 3Y0 with a "Carolina windom", or worm warmer.......errrrrr.... I mean low mounted horizintal loop, raise your hand.

Geo>K0FF
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by AE6RO on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
We should be talking up Top Band so as to get more hams on it. 73 John
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by WS4E on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
I understand that 160 is best at solar mins, and once the sun picks back up it will be mostly unworkable.

Is that true?
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N7WR on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
I use an Alpha Delta 160/80/40 twin sloper with the apex @ 90 on a tower with a large tribander. Since I have some acerage the ends of the antenna are a good 50 ft in the air. Works extremely well on 40, pretty good on 75 though the 2:1 freq spread is only about 45 khz. On 160 it works fair with the 2:1 points being only about 15 khz apart. A tuner gets the job done though it does take some effort to tune it on 160.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N8CMQ on January 29, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
geo, would that include a DDR?

I used 6 inch galvanized exhaust tube for mine! But it was on 80 meters...

Worm warmer indeed!

CMQ
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K0FF on January 30, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
K8CMR said: "geo, would that include a DDR?

I used 6 inch galvanized exhaust tube for mine! But it was on 80 meters...

Worm warmer indeed!

CMQ "

Wow, now that is cool! I always wanted to do a DDR, and an HF discone too. Please link to pictures and post results?

Geo>K0FF
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K0FF on January 30, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
N4JTE said "I would guess that if you properly shunt fed your 90 ft. tower and used your 20 meter beam as a cap. hat your results would be even better on 160.
I would also stipulate that an inverted L at 66ft. with another 70 ft. or so horizontal section is a more practical antenna for most of us and will perform as well as your sloper at 90ft., "

Hi Bob. Thanks for your comments. Yes a shunt fed 90 foot tower makes a monster 160 transmit antenna, IF IT HAS a bunch of radials. This antenna has no radials. It was not meant as a how to project for everyone on every lot. A top fed antenna like I'm showing has the current node wa up in the air, far from the ground. In my opinion, this is why this antenna works so well.

I did the inverted L, it loaded great, worked normal contacts fine, like WAS in a weekend, but it was not a pilup buster.

One more thing, this is from a Zero to a W4- propagation back here in the middle of the country is not as good as it is closer to the coast. We suffer on 160 and on 6M compared to the costal stations. So far there has been only one DXCC on 160 thu 6m from zero land.

Geo>K0FF
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K0FF on January 30, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
That should read N8CMQ- sorry.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by W4VR on January 30, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Lots of folks shunt feed their towers by running a wire on the outside of the tower, or run a wire as part of an inverted L. The inverted L, as you found out, is greatly influenced by the tower's presence. A good friend of mine, AA2NN, does it a little differently and gets very good results...you should hear his signal on 160. Here's how he does it. He has an 80-foot, self-supporting tower with a 17 meter 3-element beam on top of it. He runs coax to the top of the tower and feeds a 1/4-wave 160 meter horizontal wire at the top of the tower..this wire is NOT connected to the tower. The center of the coax feeds the horizontal wire and the braid is attached to the top of the tower. He complements this setup with a ground screen consisting of sixty grass-buried 1/4-wave radials. If you model this on EZNEC, you'll see that the tower does the radiating.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by N8CMQ on January 30, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
OOPS! (blush) Ment a DRR... A 20 foot circle of 6 inch tubing 18 inches off the ground, one end grounded, the other open...Chicken wire ground plane...

Discontinuity Ring Radiator...

HF Discone was one I would also like to have!

BTW, it rusted up and lost efficiency fast. Is there stainless chicken wire out there? And how much cost per square foot?
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by AE6RO on January 30, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
WS4E: I've never actually worked on 160. However, what I've read says yeah, it is best at Solar Minimum. The D-layer of the ionosphere is weaker so there is less absorbtion. So it works much better.

At Solar Max it won't work as well but it will still work. Since Cycle 24 is really late starting, 160 should be fun for a long time to come. 73, John
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by WD4ELG on January 31, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
K0FF:

The inverted L was wired from a wodden support, not near any towers. It "woked" in that the SWR was low. It did not "work" as a DX plileup buster.

"working" means DXCC, WAZ and 3Y0 on 160.

Anyone who worked 3Y0 with a "Carolina windom", or worm warmer.......errrrrr.... I mean low mounted horizintal loop, raise your hand.

Geo>K0FF

*********************************************

Geo, thanks for sharing your experiences! With all due respect...it would seem that pileup busters won't come from an inverted L. Only something like a 4 square or other directional beast would achieve that. I'm amazed with my inverted L, but with it and 100 watts I don't forsee any chance to do much more than DXCC on 160.
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K0FF on January 31, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
W4VR said:" AA2NN, does it a little differently and gets very good results.... He has an 80-foot, self-supporting tower with a 17 meter 3-element beam on top of it. He runs coax to the top of the tower and feeds a 1/4-wave 160 meter horizontal wire at the top of the tower..this wire is NOT connected to the tower. The center of the coax feeds the horizontal wire and the braid is attached to the top of the tower. He complements this setup with a ground screen consisting of sixty grass-buried 1/4-wave radials. If you model this on EZNEC, you'll see that the tower does the radiating. "

?? This is nearly identical to the antenna I am describing. Yes the tower is part of the radiator.
The current node, the radiation part, is up high away from the earth. I use no radials at all.

Geo>K0FF
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K9MI on January 31, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Geo, is the antenna fed at the top or the bottom? Is it fed at the top or bottom? When I first looked at it, I thought you had the wire going up to the top of the tower connected to the tower, and your wire at the bottom is a low 1/4 wave wire that is 10ft about the ground. Sorry, maybe too many pain pills today.

73 - Mike K9MI
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by W4VR on January 31, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Geo: But I thought your wire was sloping. It seems to work better with the wire horizontal. Don't know for sure what the radials do for the antenna, but it would be worthwhile modeling to find out what the difference is w/ and w/o radials. AA2NN is an antenna design engineer, so I'm sure he did not go through the labor of laying down radials if he thought they would not contribute to the efficiency of the radiator. Ron, W4VR
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by W4ZV on February 3, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
To George K0FF: I've been looking for something like this to complement my main 160 array. What sort of bandwidth (SWR 2:1) do you see?

73, Bill W4ZV
 
RE: K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by K0FF on February 3, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
"To George K0FF: I've been looking for something like this to complement my main 160 array. What sort of bandwidth (SWR 2:1) do you see?

73, Bill W4ZV "

Hi Bill, this was tuned for the CW DX window on 160 and used without a tuner or other means of matching, fed with 50 Ohm cable ( 1 1/4" Heliax).

The bandwith is similar to any natural unloaded dipole.

Where the edges are I don't remember, would have to look at my notes.

What is your 160 array? The best array I ever ran was a 5 element vertical beam. Sweet. Set up with 4 in a square and the DE in the middle. Probably had gain of a 3 element vert. beam in any direction. No Beverages needed, the noise off the back and sides just dissapeared!

That's what I worked China on. TX and RX both. On battery power no less......

K7CA's design, wish he would write it up, bigtime.

73 Geo>K0FF
 
K0FF on DX Effective Transmit Antennas for the Low Bands  
by AA6VB on February 3, 2010 Mail this to a friend!
Great article, and thanks for all the other great articles you have written. Very interesting. Wonderful stuff. Keep up the good work. Much appreciated.

73,

Bob/AA6VB
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other How To Articles
Measuring a Solid-State PA’s Zs
How to Help in an Emergency...Tools
6-Meter Square Copper Dipole