Elecraft

Inverted L for 160 meters

Classic

List

Threaded

71 messages Options

1234

Vic Rosenthal

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

I forgot to add: two shortend, elevated radials, fed as described below,
is only slightly poorer (about 1 dB) than four.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
.
On 26/08/2020 14:36, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:

> Kevin,
>
> My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations."
> Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a
> level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length,
> about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an inductance
> in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps equalize the
> currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle low.
>
> Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of them.
> In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.
>
> 73,
> Victor, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> CWops no. 5
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> On 26/08/2020 3:31, kevinr wrote:
>> I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property. If they are
>> not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble. I plan to
>> bury them. This is something I've never done before which has its own
>> merit. I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the
>> non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances. I need
>> to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a
>> balun for the system to work. Once my main project is done I'll have
>> more time for modeling each method.
>>
>> Thanks for all the ideas guys,
>>
>> 73, Kevin. KD5ONS
>>
>>
>> On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
>>> You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF.
>>> (https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/) He has written more than you ever
>>> want to know about vertical antennas,
>>>
>>> More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be
>>> elevated? If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some
>>> effort should be made to get all of the currents the same. The last
>>> thing you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened
>>> vertical (which is what an L is). There is evidence that elevated
>>> radials are an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.
>>> Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up
>>> radiator height to raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury
>>> theirs and I don't have room for full length radials anyway in my
>>> cactus patch. See my QRZ page for evidence.
>>>
>>> My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the
>>> horizontal wire, but it's negligible.
>>>
>>> Wes N7WS
>>>
>>> On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
>>>> From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each
>>>> ~130 feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters. One
>>>> leg for the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna. Four
>>>> legs for the counterpoise (ground plane). There are many broken
>>>> wire antennas stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do
>>>> all of the legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or
>>>> can I substitute some shorter lengths? The feedpoint should
>>>> somewhere above 50 ohms impedance. As I add more radials that
>>>> number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
>>>>
>>>> I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with
>>>> the rest of it horizontal. Most of the radiation should take place
>>>> from the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point. But
>>>> there should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal
>>>> portion. How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion
>>>> effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system? My property
>>>> allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I
>>>> have plenty of options. Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road
>>>> used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of
>>>> this mountain. They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above
>>>> ground. Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the
>>>> road.
>>>>
>>>> Inquiring minds...
>>>>
>>>> Kevin. KD5ONS

Dave Sublette-2

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

The title is actually "HF Antennas For All Locations", not to be critical.
It is a classic and well worth having.

Dave, K4TO

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:40 AM Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I forgot to add: two shortend, elevated radials, fed as described below,
> is only slightly poorer (about 1 dB) than four.
>
> 73,
> Victor, 4X6GP
> Rehovot, Israel
> Formerly K2VCO
> CWops no. 5
> http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> .
> On 26/08/2020 14:36, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:
> > Kevin,
> >
> > My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations."
> > Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a
> > level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length,
> > about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an inductance
> > in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps equalize the
> > currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle low.
> >
> > Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of them.
> > In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.
> >
> > 73,
> > Victor, 4X6GP
> > Rehovot, Israel
> > Formerly K2VCO
> > CWops no. 5
> > http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
> > On 26/08/2020 3:31, kevinr wrote:
> >> I have to be very careful of raised wires on my property. If they are
> >> not above the height of an elk's antlers I am in trouble. I plan to
> >> bury them. This is something I've never done before which has its own
> >> merit. I have plenty of wire scrap from broken antennas so the
> >> non-resonant, buried radials work better for my circumstances. I need
> >> to calculate the feed point impedance to see if I need to design a
> >> balun for the system to work. Once my main project is done I'll have
> >> more time for modeling each method.
> >>
> >> Thanks for all the ideas guys,
> >>
> >> 73, Kevin. KD5ONS
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/25/20 5:23 PM, Wes wrote:
> >>> You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF.
> >>> (https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/) He has written more than you ever
> >>> want to know about vertical antennas,
> >>>
> >>> More specifically to your case, are you planning the radials to be
> >>> elevated? If so, they need to be the same length, in fact some
> >>> effort should be made to get all of the currents the same. The last
> >>> thing you want is a fifty ohm feedpoint impedance with a shortened
> >>> vertical (which is what an L is). There is evidence that elevated
> >>> radials are an improvement over on-the-ground or buried radials.
> >>> Mine are on the ground, mainly because 1) I didn't want to give up
> >>> radiator height to raise the radials, 2) all of the big guns bury
> >>> theirs and I don't have room for full length radials anyway in my
> >>> cactus patch. See my QRZ page for evidence.
> >>>
> >>> My modeling shows a little bit of directivity away from the
> >>> horizontal wire, but it's negligible.
> >>>
> >>> Wes N7WS
> >>>
> >>> On 8/25/2020 4:23 PM, kevinr wrote:
> >>>> From what I can find, and what I can calculate, five wires, each
> >>>> ~130 feet long, could make a nice inverted L for 160 meters. One
> >>>> leg for the vertical and horizontal portion of the antenna. Four
> >>>> legs for the counterpoise (ground plane). There are many broken
> >>>> wire antennas stored in my shed which are fodder for the radials. Do
> >>>> all of the legs for the counterpoise need to be 1/4 wavelength or
> >>>> can I substitute some shorter lengths? The feedpoint should
> >>>> somewhere above 50 ohms impedance. As I add more radials that
> >>>> number will reach 50 ohms asymptotically.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can get the vertical part up to 70 or 80 feet above ground with
> >>>> the rest of it horizontal. Most of the radiation should take place
> >>>> from the vertical part since it is closer to the feed point. But
> >>>> there should be some effect from the direction of the horizontal
> >>>> portion. How strongly does the direction of the horizontal portion
> >>>> effect the radiation pattern of the antenna system? My property
> >>>> allows me to point it from 300 degrees around to 200 degrees so I
> >>>> have plenty of options. Between 200 and 300 degrees there is a road
> >>>> used by loggers, and the folks maintaining the towers at the top of
> >>>> this mountain. They can break any antenna lower than 80 feet above
> >>>> ground. Spar poles and cranes clear out any dead limbs across the
> >>>> road.
> >>>>
> >>>> Inquiring minds...
> >>>>
> >>>> Kevin. KD5ONS
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Vic Rosenthal

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

Oops. Too lazy to go upstairs to look at it and too old to remember
correctly. But it really is a good book.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/

On 26/08/2020 15:07, Dave Sublette wrote:
> The title is actually "HF Antennas For All Locations", not to be
> critical. It is a classic and well worth having.
>
> Dave, K4TO
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by john@kk9a.com

Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative site.
Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book. And to
AB7E who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise systems
without a far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model the
difference between horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of both.

Lyn's expectations are modest. Many of us want to work 5,000 - 8,000
mile paths, which is what it takes to work 175 countries from W6 in 14
years -- it's FAR easier to work EU east of the MS river, and EU has FAR
more countries with active hams than AS and OC. I know -- I lived in IL.
One of my goals is QRP WAS. In about ten years, I still need VT and SC.
And I've got three 160M verticals, all using my tower as a passive
reflector to give me a few dB in three directions!

Here are slides for a talk I've done at Pacificon, Visalia, and to
several local clubs. It's mostly about antennas, mostly about
radial/counterpoise systems. None of it is my original work, but rather
summarizes the best work by others like N6LF.

http://k9yc.com/160MPacificon.pdf

WAS from east of the MS is also far easier than from W6 -- there are
only seven west coast states, all with superstations that are easy to
work -- CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, AZ, NV. There are also big stations in MT,
ID, NM, and UT.

73, Jim K9YC

On 8/25/2020 6:27 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> KD5ODS is not over thinking anything. He is on the right track, an inverted
> L is a much better top band antenna than a low all band horizontal wire.
> Kevin just needs to model his inverted L, he might be a little surprised to
> see which way the pattern skews.
>
> John KK9A
>
>
> Lyn W0LEN
>
> Good gracious. Why does everyone overthink 160m?

David Gilbert-2

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

When I made that suggestion (based upon his comment that he was only
going to have about 4 counterpoise wires), I thought that he was going
to be using elevated wires ... i.e., about ten feet high or so. NEC2
can model that reasonably OK. Four buried radials won't model well at
all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/26/2020 9:48 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
> Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative
> site. Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book.
> And to AB7E who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise
> systems without a far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model
> the difference between horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of
> both.

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

David Gilbert-2

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Vic Rosenthal

Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the
ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with the
current balance in the radials.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/26/2020 4:36 AM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:

Ronnie Hull

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

I have 100’ long wire up 30’ and am working good stuff on 160 nightly!!

Ron W5SUM

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 26, 2020, at 12:10 PM, David Gilbert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> When I made that suggestion (based upon his comment that he was only going to have about 4 counterpoise wires), I thought that he was going to be using elevated wires ... i.e., about ten feet high or so. NEC2 can model that reasonably OK. Four buried radials won't model well at all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
>> On 8/26/2020 9:48 AM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative site. Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book. And to AB7E who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise systems without a far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model the difference between horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of both.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

On 8/26/2020 10:07 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
> Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the
> ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with the
> current balance in the radials.

Right, but N6LF has shown that current balance in radials, especially
elevated ones, minimizes ground losses. Yes, elevated radials can be
modeled in less capable versions of NEC. All of this is addressed in my
slides.

In all cases, the model must use soil conductivity representative of the
QTH. This is selected from a menu. Soil conductivity affects us two
ways. First, losses underneath the antenna. Better radial/counterpoise
systems can reduce this a lot. Second, loss in the far field, over which
we have no control, and those losses can vary a lot if soil varies a lot
in different directions. For example, a vertical on a beach has much
less far field loss, and much more energy at low angles, in the
direction of the water and much more far field loss and higher angle
energy than in directions over land.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

David Gilbert-2

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

Yes, certainly current balance would minimize ground losses. I hadn't
thought much about it before, but I guess it's kind of intuitive in that
it's analogous to lower return resistance losses due to better use of
parallel ground paths.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/26/2020 10:42 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

> On 8/26/2020 10:07 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the
>> ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with
>> the current balance in the radials.
>
> Right, but N6LF has shown that current balance in radials, especially
> elevated ones, minimizes ground losses. Yes, elevated radials can be
> modeled in less capable versions of NEC. All of this is addressed in
> my slides.
>
> In all cases, the model must use soil conductivity representative of
> the QTH. This is selected from a menu. Soil conductivity affects us
> two ways. First, losses underneath the antenna. Better
> radial/counterpoise systems can reduce this a lot. Second, loss in the
> far field, over which we have no control, and those losses can vary a
> lot if soil varies a lot in different directions. For example, a
> vertical on a beach has much less far field loss, and much more energy
> at low angles, in the direction of the water and much more far field
> loss and higher angle energy than in directions over land.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC

john@kk9a.com

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by kevinr@coho.net

With only four radials he might be wasting 2/3 of his RF however I
would still take that inefficient inverted L over a 30' high dipole on
160m.

John KK9A

David Gilbert AB7E wrote:

Four buried radials won't model well at
all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.

73,
Dave AB7E

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

David Gilbert-2

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

Yes, I completely agree with that. I'm sure the folks with low EDZ's
and large horizontal loops and low dipoles make contacts on 160m, but
almost any half decent vertical will reach out further better.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/26/2020 11:32 AM, [hidden email] wrote:

> With only four radials he might be wasting 2/3 of his RF however I
> would still take that inefficient inverted L over a 30' high dipole on
> 160m.
>
> John KK9A
>
> David Gilbert AB7E wrote:
>
> Four buried radials won't model well at
> all in NEC2, but it also doesn't make a very good antenna.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Vic Rosenthal

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

Yes, but he can do something about current balance.

73,
Victor, 4X6GP
Rehovot, Israel
Formerly K2VCO
CWops no. 5
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
On 26/08/2020 20:07, David Gilbert wrote:

>
> Radiation angle for a vertical antenna is much more a function of the
> ground conductivity out several wavelengths than it has to do with the
> current balance in the radials.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 8/26/2020 4:36 AM, Victor Rosenthal 4X6GP wrote:
>> Kevin,
>>
>> My advice is to get Moxon's book, "Wire Antennas for All Locations."
>> Follow his advice, which is (roughly): use four elevated radials at a
>> level higher than an Elk's antlers. Make the radials equal in length,
>> about 0.15 wavelength long, connect them together, and add an
>> inductance in this common ground lead to resonate them. This helps
>> equalize the currents in the radials, which keeps your radiation angle
>> low.
>>
>> Do not use buried radials unless you have room for at least 16 of
>> them. In that case they can also be about 0.15 wl long.
>>
>> 73,
>> Victor, 4X6GP
>> Rehovot, Israel
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to [hidden email]

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

As a reference, I have an 80M 4-sq with 5 elevated radials at each feed point and use a Comtek box. The radials were 1/4 wave. The pattern was terrible. Very little F/S and F/B. I measured the current in each radial. It was all over the place. I followed N6LF's info and cut the radials to 42'. I connected all 5 radials together at each feed point then added a small coil between the 5 radials and the coax shield to retune the elements. Now the current is very close with each radial and the F/S and F/B is much, much better. Read N6LF's stuff and take a look at balancing elevated radials if you go that route.
73,
N2TK, Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 2:11 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

Yes, certainly current balance would minimize ground losses. I hadn't thought much about it before, but I guess it's kind of intuitive in that it's analogous to lower return resistance losses due to better use of parallel ground paths.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/26/2020 10:42 AM, Jim Brown wrote:

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Nate Bargmann

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

* On 2020 26 Aug 13:52 -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
>
> Yes, I completely agree with that. I'm sure the folks with low EDZ's and
> large horizontal loops and low dipoles make contacts on 160m, but almost any
> half decent vertical will reach out further better.

A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
a few hundred miles reliably. Horses for courses and all that.

Not everything in ham radio is about DX.

73, Nate, N0NB

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Josh Fiden

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Wes Stewart-2

N6LF is very impressive!

https://www.powerelectronics.com/technologies/power-electronics-systems/article/21858857/rudy-severns-lifetime-achievement-award-winner

73
Josh W6XU

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Wes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> You probably should get acquainted with Rudy Severns, N6LF. (https://www.antennasbyn6lf.com/) He has written more than you ever want to know about vertical antennas,
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Nate Bargmann

On 8/26/2020 4:20 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
> a few hundred miles reliably. Horses for courses and all that.

That's an urban myth. A low horizontal antenna is very lossy, and has
much weaker radiation at ALL angles, including high ones. The origin of
the myth is that ARRL Antenna plots set the peak radiation to 0dB. But
when plot the vertical field strength for all heights on the same scale,
you get the family of curves beginning with slide 13.

Study http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf

There is an optimum range of heights for high angle radiation, and it
isn't low. Slide 19 shows that the optimum height is about 55 ft on 80M,
and high angle drop by only 2 dB at 90 ft. Divide those heights by 2 for
40M.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lyn WØLEN

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

Jim, K9YC wrote:

> Lyn's expectations are modest. Many of us want to work 5,000 - 8,000
> mile paths, which is what it takes to work 175 countries from W6 in 14
> years -- it's FAR easier to work EU east of the MS river, and EU has FAR
> more countries with active hams than AS and OC. I know -- I lived in IL.
> One of my goals is QRP WAS. In about ten years, I still need VT and SC.
> And I've got three 160M verticals, all using my tower as a passive
> reflector to give me a few dB in three directions!

Well Jim, I should never object to being called "modest." It could be a lot
worse.

But as an update to your Illinois recollections, propagation has changed
just a bit since your residency here in the '60s, '70s, '80s, etc. The
Society of Midwest Contesters (https://www.w9smc.com/) recognizes the
Midwest ... lovely as it may be ... to be the infamous "Black Hole" when it
comes to dx-ing. Virtually any coastal location runs circles around us when
it comes to the ease of making those exotic contacts (in fact many of our
SMC members spend a great deal of time in such locations in order to pursue
that rare DX).

That being said, when working within a limited budget (ham radio IS
important to me but it's not my whole life) and limited antenna options due
to HOA restrictions, I think my Extended Double Zepp performs exactly as I
hoped it would and pretty much maximizes the use of the space available. At
its design frequency, it produces 4.7 dbi gain with exactly the radiation
pattern I want, namely N-S NVIS on 80 meters for statewide EmCOMM purposes,
E-W for 40m, Increasing numbers of lobes as we go up to 6 meters and thusly
becoming more omni. All are as desired.

How does that compare to your Inverted-L? (Serious question ...)

I managed to work 125 countries (confirmed on LoTW) in less than 2 years,
and mostly with 50 watts or less. I also managed to WAS on 160, 80, 40, 30
and 20 meters in the same time period.

My total cash outlay was less than $600, and my annual maintenance consists
of trimming a few over-eager tree branches. I feel good about that.

73
Lyn, W0LEN
"From The Black Hole"

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
> The
> Society of Midwest Contesters (https://www.w9smc.com/) recognizes the
> Midwest ... lovely as it may be ... to be the infamous "Black Hole" when it
> comes to dx-ing. Virtually any coastal location runs circles around us when
> it comes to the ease of making those exotic contacts (in fact many of our
> SMC members spend a great deal of time in such locations in order to pursue
> that rare DX).

As it did when I was a member of SMC from 2003-2006, operating from a
city lot. If you think that's a Black Hole, try your antenna in NorCal.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Lyn WØLEN

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

If I could afford a couple acres in No Cal, I would be happy to do so!''

(I don't recall hearing Jim, W6LG complain about it.)

73
Lyn, W0LEN

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:06 PM
To: Reflector Elecraft
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
> The
> Society of Midwest Contesters (https://www.w9smc.com/) recognizes the
> Midwest ... lovely as it may be ... to be the infamous "Black Hole" when
it
> comes to dx-ing. Virtually any coastal location runs circles around us
when
> it comes to the ease of making those exotic contacts (in fact many of our
> SMC members spend a great deal of time in such locations in order to
pursue
> that rare DX).

As it did when I was a member of SMC from 2003-2006, operating from a
city lot. If you think that's a Black Hole, try your antenna in NorCal.

73, Jim K9YC
______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]

Rick Bates, NK7I

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Lyn WØLEN

I will interject here that when I lived in Mordor, er, CA, I also used a
low (35' max height) EDZ (370', window line fed dipole). I was able to
work 200+ countries on all bands (I used a J pole on 6M) within an HOA
environment (I put it up on a weekday when no one was home, it was
'invisible'). Then I came to my senses and left the state.

For the first two years here, I used an 80M Sloper (was originally a
dipole, but a branch took out one end, in the middle of winter snow) and
a 160M Inverted L which I used on all other bands (except 6M). In many
ways, that was better than the EDZ (not enough trees to reuse that) but
mostly due to the lower noise floor (dropped by ~40 dB in the move).

Now I use a SteppIR DB 36/80 at 60' (and the L on 160M) and it easily
blows everything I've used out of the water, always in resonance too.
Not only does it hear better (by nulling out noises, favoring the
intended direction) it provides gain as well. A HUGE difference to the
untuned (but matched) Inverted L (what was unheard, is now workable).
(Adding a proper grounding system also lowered the noise floor another
20 dB on average; the house Ufer ground, while legal, was not
sufficient. At many times, the floor is at the MDS of the K3.)

The Inverted L at 500 watts out, talked better than it could hear (on
the K3), frustrating everyone, proving that mismatch losses cost in both
directions (and costing me a lot of DX). After installing a proper
grounding system AND bonding EVERYTHING; the next challenge is to lower
the noise floor further (remove or reduce all noise sources). I can now
hear a little more than I can work (the 'other' side has noise to deal
with) but will add an array for low band RX.

So you're both right, everyone is limited by what is available on the
property and budget; I've used all the antennas mentioned in this
thread. And that, is the rest of the story (and even in the low range
of the solar cycle, I have added some ATNO and numerous band slots).

Jim, I'd submit that not only is 160M more challenging on the left
coast, but 6M is worse since it tends to be N/S much of the time and
even the coastline leans left so not many stations are south. ;-P 6M
like 160, also 'spotlights' but in pinpoints. I have managed DXCC on
160M since the move, 6M is still a greater challenge (up to 6 so far,
it's a start).

I'm pleased your place has survived the fires (please do your PRC 4291
'homework' to continue that good fortune).

73,
Rick NK7I

On 8/27/2020 9:43 AM, Lyn Norstad wrote:

> That being said, when working within a limited budget (ham radio IS
> important to me but it's not my whole life) and limited antenna options due
> to HOA restrictions, I think my Extended Double Zepp performs exactly as I
> hoped it would and pretty much maximizes the use of the space available. At
> its design frequency, it produces 4.7 dbi gain with exactly the radiation
> pattern I want, namely N-S NVIS on 80 meters for statewide EmCOMM purposes,
> E-W for 40m, Increasing numbers of lobes as we go up to 6 meters and thusly
> becoming more omni. All are as desired.
>
> How does that compare to your Inverted-L? (Serious question ...)

1234