Elecraft

Inverted L for 160 meters

Classic

List

Threaded

71 messages Options

1234

Lyn WØLEN

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

Rick -

FWIW, we worked on 160m in the early morning (late night?) hours last December according to my log.

At a bearing of 298º WNW and a distance of 1426 miles, you are pretty much dead centered in the Western null of my EDZ (which becomes a center fed 5/8 wave on 160m).

While I appreciate the common opinion that 160m 'means' vertical, the fact that I worked all states on 160 over a weekend, without breaking a sweat, leads me to believe that I would benefit little by going that route.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Rick Bates, NK7I
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 2:27 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

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 ...)

______________________________________________________________
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]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

On 8/27/2020 1:42 PM, Lyn Norstad wrote:
> While I appreciate the common opinion that 160m 'means' vertical, the fact that I worked all states on 160 over a weekend, without breaking a sweat, leads me to believe that I would benefit little by going that route.

A study of the ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book is worthwhile. Likewise,
ON4UN's "Low Band DXing," also publishe by ARRL. Also, N6BT's "Array of
Light," which includes his experiment of working all continents loading
a light bulb, proving that everything "works," but that some things work
far better than others.

My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get
better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.
I did very different things from my childhood home in WV to a dorm room
at U of Cincy to two different Chicago city lots to a lot of property in
NorCal. I have a 1960 QSL from K4BVD for a QSO on a long wire from that
dorm room; Rusty later settled near San Francisco, now near Seattle.
He's W6OAT.

Verticals DO rule on 160M, simply because any horizontal antenna that
can be rigged for that band is a very low dipole (in terms of electrical
height), and therefore very LOSSY (meaning that most of the TX power
heats the soil). To deny that is to deny the fundamental laws of
physics. But if we cannot rig a vertical, we do what we can and call CQ.

In Chicago, my best antenna for both 80 and 160 was a 40M dipole with
loading coils to resonate it on 80M. Initially I fed it with coax, but
changed to vintage Belden KW twinlead that I had found "new old stock"
at the Milwaukee hamfest 20 years earlier. For 80 and 160, it worked far
better with both sides of the feedline tied together and fed against a
big wrought-iron fence that ran around the front of our yard. The
feedline did the radiating, the horizontal dipole wires served as
top-loading to increase efficiency. That top-loaded vertical was not a
good antenna above 80M.

There are photos in this set of slides. The shack was on the second
floor, and the vertical wires running from three down to the fence were
part of the antenna. The photos show that the antenna was sloped more
than vertical. :)

http://k9yc.com/LimitedSpaceAntennasPPT.pdf

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]

k6dgw

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Rick Bates, NK7I

But, was HC8N ever loud over that all water path!!

73,

Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

On 8/27/2020 12:26 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:
> 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

______________________________________________________________
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]

Bill Frantz

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by David Gilbert-2

When I lived in California, I had a 160M dipole which went up in
the spring of 2013. It was almost full size, with one end
hanging down about 10 feet rather than go into the tree holding
that end.

I managed 47 confirmed states, missing ME, VT, and RI. I also
had 14 confirmed DXCCs.

The antenna also worked reasonably well on higher bands. 15M was
particularly good and I made a couple of FT8 QSOs to QC on 6M.
Modeling showed a pattern with a lot of fingers instead of a
single lobe. This kind of pattern made contacts more a matter of
luck than of planning.

73 Bill AE6JV

On 8/26/20 at 2:50 PM, [hidden email] (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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | Government is not reason, it is not
eloquence, it is force; like
408-348-7900 | a fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful
master. Never for a
www.pwpconsult.com | moment should it be left to irresponsible
action. Geo Washington

______________________________________________________________
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]

K8TE

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Jim Brown-10

It's refreshing to read something based on science! All of the anecdotes are
interesting, but nothing more. I would not jump on any of them without
reading scientific documentation comparing them directly to a half-wave,
flat top dipole at a half wavelength high, or as high as possible and
specified. Jim's point about the NVIS myth is well taken. Most of the
"literature" is bunk and with little to no backing in science.

I strongly promote using WSPRLite on two antennas simultaneously to
demonstrate the new antenna's performance over time. Those results have
meaning.

I worked an Italian station on 20m SSB using my KX3 at five Watts into a
mobile screwdriver antenna. that was in 2016 near the second peak of Cycle
24. Based on how others assert "This antenna works." I should pull my
dipoles down (283 DXCC entities from NM, mostly during Cycle 24) and just
use the mobile antenna.

Right! BTW, my friend Alan, K0BG, calls "WORKs" an acronym for "WithOut
Real Knowledge." He is probably right 80-95% of the time about that. So it
worked, but that doesn't make it good, better, or even worse.

Ward Silver, N0AX, wrote: "The best antenna is one that is in the air."
Kevin is trying to erect an antenna better than what he has now. Anecdotes
won't help him, IMHO.

73, Bill, K8TE

> 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

--
Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
______________________________________________________________
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

6M E-skip

In reply to this post by Rick Bates, NK7I

On 8/27/2020 12:26 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:
> 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).

NC6K has made some interesting posts concerning how 6M Sporadic-E
propagation is related to upper level winds, which in turn is strongly
related to topography. He's explained some events by studying upper
atmosphere weather plots.

Most of my hamming from late April to early August is spent on 6M, in
pursuit of new grids. Yes, Sporadic E (Es) can be very "spot-lighty,"
especially for double-hop openings, which is what it takes to reach
beyond about 1800 miles, and even more so to hit Japan. For double-hop
to happen, two Es hot spots must exist AND line up; it's quite common to
make multiple QSOs into a single grid, then 10-20 minutes later in an
adjacent grids as the spotlight moves. And, of course, to make those
QSOs there must be stations there on the other end.

This season, there was a week-long expedition to a rare grid in the
Northern Peninsula of MI; they were workable from NorCal for a few hours
on two days. I managed to work one expedition to a grid a few hundred
miles inland from the Gulf Coast that was there for several days, but
missed one to another grid.

Es prop peaks around the summer solstice, and is pretty good for a month
or so either side, falling off gradually. Year round, and for distances
less than about 1200 miles, meteor scatter and ionospheric scatter are
effective with good antennas, power, and persistence. I picked up about
8 new grids this season with MS.

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]

marvwheeler

Re: 6M E-skip

In 58 years of amateur radio operation, I had never been on 6 meters until last year. I was told about the Fred Fish Award and the rarity of CN77 on 6 meters I decided to dive it. I did not get on the band until late July last year but was able, this year, to confirm 2261 contacts this year. It has been fun.

Marv
KG7V
CN77

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jim Brown
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 7:43 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Elecraft] 6M E-skip

On 8/27/2020 12:26 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:
> 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).

NC6K has made some interesting posts concerning how 6M Sporadic-E propagation is related to upper level winds, which in turn is strongly related to topography. He's explained some events by studying upper atmosphere weather plots.

Most of my hamming from late April to early August is spent on 6M, in pursuit of new grids. Yes, Sporadic E (Es) can be very "spot-lighty,"
especially for double-hop openings, which is what it takes to reach beyond about 1800 miles, and even more so to hit Japan. For double-hop to happen, two Es hot spots must exist AND line up; it's quite common to make multiple QSOs into a single grid, then 10-20 minutes later in an adjacent grids as the spotlight moves. And, of course, to make those QSOs there must be stations there on the other end.

This season, there was a week-long expedition to a rare grid in the Northern Peninsula of MI; they were workable from NorCal for a few hours on two days. I managed to work one expedition to a grid a few hundred miles inland from the Gulf Coast that was there for several days, but missed one to another grid.

Es prop peaks around the summer solstice, and is pretty good for a month or so either side, falling off gradually. Year round, and for distances less than about 1200 miles, meteor scatter and ionospheric scatter are effective with good antennas, power, and persistence. I picked up about
8 new grids this season with MS.

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]

______________________________________________________________
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 K8TE

Excellent post.

K0BG's "WORKs" acronym is spot on, and I consider any anecdotal
rationalization of any antenna to be without much merit. Without a
direct comparison anecdotes are simply anecdotes, and they do little to
advance the hobby.

I have my own example of an antenna that "worked" great ..............
once. It was the night before Field Day and for pure expediency I put
up a low, elongated rectangular loop fed on a vertical side. I modeled
it to be "usable" on both 20m and 40m (decent feed but marginal
pattern), and I worked an FR5 on the other side of the world from here
in Arizona on 20m with 5 watts on CW and Q5 reports both ways. I
thought I had a winner, but it subsequently turned out to give me one of
the worst Field Day scores I ever had.

I have no problem at all with folks who for whatever reason elect to go
with something that "works". I do have a problem with them promoting to
others it as being "good" without some supporting data other than "I
worked such and such".

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/27/2020 7:04 PM, K8TE wrote:

> It's refreshing to read something based on science! All of the anecdotes are
> interesting, but nothing more. I would not jump on any of them without
> reading scientific documentation comparing them directly to a half-wave,
> flat top dipole at a half wavelength high, or as high as possible and
> specified. Jim's point about the NVIS myth is well taken. Most of the
> "literature" is bunk and with little to no backing in science.
>
> I strongly promote using WSPRLite on two antennas simultaneously to
> demonstrate the new antenna's performance over time. Those results have
> meaning.
>
> I worked an Italian station on 20m SSB using my KX3 at five Watts into a
> mobile screwdriver antenna. that was in 2016 near the second peak of Cycle
> 24. Based on how others assert "This antenna works." I should pull my
> dipoles down (283 DXCC entities from NM, mostly during Cycle 24) and just
> use the mobile antenna.
>
> Right! BTW, my friend Alan, K0BG, calls "WORKs" an acronym for "WithOut
> Real Knowledge." He is probably right 80-95% of the time about that. So it
> worked, but that doesn't make it good, better, or even worse.
>
> Ward Silver, N0AX, wrote: "The best antenna is one that is in the air."
> Kevin is trying to erect an antenna better than what he has now. Anecdotes
> won't help him, IMHO.
>
> 73, Bill, K8TE
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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 9:14 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
> I have no problem at all with folks who for whatever reason elect to go
> with something that "works". I do have a problem with them promoting to
> others it as being "good" without some supporting data other than "I
> worked such and such".

Same here. We've ALL used what we could for all sorts of reasons. But
the whole basis for the work I've done, both studying and teaching, is
to make folks aware of the options, and some are 15-20 dB better than
others. 15 dB is 32x the power, 20 dB is 100x the power -- that is, the
difference between 10W and 1,000W.

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, in part:

>My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get
better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.

Bingo! We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.

In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
physical and aesthetic.

So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.

Done.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

______________________________________________________________
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: 6M E-skip

In reply to this post by marvwheeler

Great, Marv. And I'm sure your presence has been appreciated! I was on
6M in my high school days in WV in '57-'59, which included the F2
openings from the sunspot max in '58. Otherwise, I mostly worked CW, so
I was prepared for Aurora openings, and had a lot of fun there too.

73, Jim K9YC

On 8/27/2020 7:59 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> In 58 years of amateur radio operation, I had never been on 6 meters until last year. I was told about the Fred Fish Award and the rarity of CN77 on 6 meters I decided to dive it. I did not get on the band until late July last year but was able, this year, to confirm 2261 contacts this year. It has been fun.
>
> Marv
> KG7V
> CN77
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jim Brown
> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 7:43 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Elecraft] 6M E-skip
>
> On 8/27/2020 12:26 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:
>> 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).
>
> NC6K has made some interesting posts concerning how 6M Sporadic-E propagation is related to upper level winds, which in turn is strongly related to topography. He's explained some events by studying upper atmosphere weather plots.
>
> Most of my hamming from late April to early August is spent on 6M, in pursuit of new grids. Yes, Sporadic E (Es) can be very "spot-lighty,"
> especially for double-hop openings, which is what it takes to reach beyond about 1800 miles, and even more so to hit Japan. For double-hop to happen, two Es hot spots must exist AND line up; it's quite common to make multiple QSOs into a single grid, then 10-20 minutes later in an adjacent grids as the spotlight moves. And, of course, to make those QSOs there must be stations there on the other end.
>
> This season, there was a week-long expedition to a rare grid in the Northern Peninsula of MI; they were workable from NorCal for a few hours on two days. I managed to work one expedition to a grid a few hundred miles inland from the Gulf Coast that was there for several days, but missed one to another grid.
>
> Es prop peaks around the summer solstice, and is pretty good for a month or so either side, falling off gradually. Year round, and for distances less than about 1200 miles, meteor scatter and ionospheric scatter are effective with good antennas, power, and persistence. I picked up about
> 8 new grids this season with MS.
>
> 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]
>

Edward R Cole

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by kevinr@coho.net

Originally, I was looking to hang a half-square on 80m as accidently
ended up with two 50-foot towers spaced 130-foot apart. But then
around 2011, I got interested and joined the ARRL 600m Experimental
Group and was looking at 600m antennas. With just under 2-acres
(200x300 foot). there was just not enough horizontal room for an LF antenna.

Revising my plans I made a 43x122 foot inverted-L. I tripled the
vertical wires and doubled the horizontal wires to get a bit more
bandwidth (5-KHz at 495-KHz). I laid out three radials on the ground
using 2-foot wide chicken wire and fourth radial was shield of my
120-foot run of 1-5/8 inch Heliax to the tower holding the vertical
section. All much shorter than 1/4 WL.
<http://www.kl7uw.com/630m.htm>http://www.kl7uw.com/630m.htm

Efficiency at 475-KHz is terrible (4%) with such a short vertical but
it hears well using basically ground-wave prop out to
1100-miles. I've copied Rudy-N6LF several times over much longer
path into Oregon from AK (1647 miles).

I tried a BOG but though a lot quieter also signals were much less
(500-foot not long enough to work well as a Beverage on 600m)

With some changes on my base loading coil the invert-L could be used
on 160m (maybe some day??).

Sidenote to 6m ops: My dual 7-element LFA yagi array is functional
for FT8 (Es) or JT65 (eme) or MSK-144 (ms); will have 1000w QRV in
few more days (after testing).

73, Ed - KL7UW
http://www.kl7uw.com
Dubus-NA Business mail:
[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]

Bill K9YEQ

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Lyn WØLEN

Exactly spot on in my opinion. What "works" in my backyard, perhaps will not in yours. What seems to be a great antenna in my yard, doesn't make it movable and working elsewhere. That's the fun of antennas IMHO. Love to experiment and don't take too seriously all the suggestions. I like talking about antennas but not pontificating about one over another.

73,
Bill
K9YEQ

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Lyn Norstad
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:41 AM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:

>My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get
better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.

Bingo! We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.

In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
physical and aesthetic.

So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.

Done.

73
Lyn, W0LEN

______________________________________________________________
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]

Rick Bates, NK7I

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

For the record, I agree but as I made no series of qualifying tests; all
I was able to state in my previous comments was that the inverted L was
more efficient (heard by more) and I heard better when I went vertical.

Both of which can be my change in location; this locale is loads
quieter, one of the points I reviewed before purchase. Although moving
800 miles north in NA rarely helps propagation (I didn't move here for
the fast internet or easy prop). I can state that I have another 80 or
so ATNO since the move (because I can HEAR now!); sitting at 304 worked
(but I really have to work on getting more QSL cards).

What I have now works <grin>; I mostly work what I hear (and with a K3,
that ain't bad). Will it work better with stacked arrays and/or taller
towers? We'll never know. ;-) Soon I'll be down to one antenna per
band (total 2 for HF). While that makes 'single point failure'
possible, I like simple... and I have other endeavors should the
antenna/s fail.

73,
Rick NK7I
FAR North Idaho

On 8/28/2020 4:13 PM, Bill Johnson wrote:

> Exactly spot on in my opinion. What "works" in my backyard, perhaps will not in yours. What seems to be a great antenna in my yard, doesn't make it movable and working elsewhere. That's the fun of antennas IMHO. Love to experiment and don't take too seriously all the suggestions. I like talking about antennas but not pontificating about one over another.
>
> 73,
> Bill
> K9YEQ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Lyn Norstad
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:41 AM
> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters
>
> Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:
>
>> My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get
> better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.
>
> Bingo! We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
> each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.
>
> In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
> rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
> system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
> physical and aesthetic.
>
> So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.
>
> Done.
>
> 73
> Lyn, W0LEN
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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]

Elecraft mailing list

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

For those of you who have limited real estate, like I do, and have HOA/CC&R issues, AND want to get on 160 meters, you might want to do some reading on the Folded CounterPoise (FCP). Do a Google search and you’ll uncover several hits and links to this unusual and workable compromise “radial” system.

I live on a small California city lot and am not allowed towers, beams, etc. I do have several redwoods on the property that allow me to string thin, stealthy wires. With a large patio and an in-ground pool, there is absolutely no place for conventional 160 meter radials.I came across the FCP several years ago. Built one for an 80 meter Inverted L and another for a 160 meter Inverted L. Both work very well - they are mounted on the upper part of the fences around our property. One hundred percent not seen outside of our property. The antenna wire is nearly impossible to see. Can I easily get DXCC on 160 meters? Heck no. But I did complete WAS and have about 25 countries (all CW) confirmed on Top Band.

If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the FCP.

Jim / W6JHB

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 4:38 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> For the record, I agree but as I made no series of qualifying tests; all I was able to state in my previous comments was that the inverted L was more efficient (heard by more) and I heard better when I went vertical.
>
> Both of which can be my change in location; this locale is loads quieter, one of the points I reviewed before purchase. Although moving 800 miles north in NA rarely helps propagation (I didn't move here for the fast internet or easy prop). I can state that I have another 80 or so ATNO since the move (because I can HEAR now!); sitting at 304 worked (but I really have to work on getting more QSL cards).
>
> What I have now works <grin>; I mostly work what I hear (and with a K3, that ain't bad). Will it work better with stacked arrays and/or taller towers? We'll never know. ;-) Soon I'll be down to one antenna per band (total 2 for HF). While that makes 'single point failure' possible, I like simple... and I have other endeavors should the antenna/s fail.
>
> 73,
> Rick NK7I
> FAR North Idaho
>
> On 8/28/2020 4:13 PM, Bill Johnson wrote:
>> Exactly spot on in my opinion. What "works" in my backyard, perhaps will not in yours. What seems to be a great antenna in my yard, doesn't make it movable and working elsewhere. That's the fun of antennas IMHO. Love to experiment and don't take too seriously all the suggestions. I like talking about antennas but not pontificating about one over another.
>>
>> 73,
>> Bill
>> K9YEQ
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Lyn Norstad
>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 8:41 AM
>> To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters
>>
>> Jim, K9YC wrote, in part:
>>
>>> My approach to ham radio has never been mediocrity, but rather to get
>> better at everything within the limits of my real estate and resources.
>>
>> Bingo! We would all like to build the "perfect" antenna for each band and
>> each intended usage, but more often than not, there are limitations.
>>
>> In my case, a vertical of any significance would not be permitted by HOA
>> rules (visible from street), nor would installation of a suitable radial
>> system be possible due to septic drain field and other considerations - both
>> physical and aesthetic.
>>
>> So we do what we can and try to maximize the performance thereof.
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> 73
>> Lyn, W0LEN
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft <http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm <http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm>
> Post: mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net <http://www.qsl.net/>
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html <http://www.qsl.net/donate.html>
> Message delivered to [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Rick Bates, NK7I

On 8/28/2020 4:38 PM, Rick Bates, NK7I wrote:
> For the record, I agree but as I made no series of qualifying tests;

I've done both building and modeling. When I first moved to W6 in 2006,
I had a 160M dipole up about 110 ft redwoods AND a Tee vertical about 80
ft vertical with enough top to resonate it, and about 50 radials on the
ground, varying length. I worked a lot of contests over several years,
always A/B comparisons. The vertical almost always won, often by a lot.
With legal limit, I could reliably work good stations 800 miles or so
two hours before sunset on the vertical, not even a "QRZ?" on the
dipole. And that dipole was more than twice as high as most hams could
rig. When I lost the horizontal dipole in a storm I didn't consider
repairing and re-rigging it.

Modeling predicts the vertical outperforms at most vertical angles.

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]

Jim Brown-10

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:
> If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the FCP.

Yes, two of my friends have had success with it, and it's one of many
options in the 160M slide show that I posted a day or two ago in this
thread. k9yc.com/publish.htm Scroll down to find it.

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]

W2xj

Re: Inverted L for 160 meters

Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts.

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 28, 2020, at 8:14 PM, Jim Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:
>> If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the FCP.
>
> Yes, two of my friends have had success with it, and it's one of many options in the 160M slide show that I posted a day or two ago in this thread. k9yc.com/publish.htm Scroll down to find it.
>
> 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

In reply to this post by Elecraft mailing list

Another possibility for a compact counterpoise is what N6BT calls an
"open ring" as part of his VOR (Vertical, Open Ring) concept. It's
basically a horizontal, elevated, single turn 1/4 wavelength length of
wire wrapped around the base of the vertical ... one end open and the
other end running to the feedpoint at the base of the vertical at the
center of the counterpoise loop. Mechanically, if the lines holding up
the vertical are non-conductive, spaced and positioned properly, the
counterpoise wire can be supported above ground by the lines. I've
modeled several antennas with it (including versions where the
counterpoise is comprised of two wires spaced several inches apart for
better bandwidth) and the concept looks viable.

N6BT wrote an article on it in an issue of the NCJ about 18 months ago
if anyone wants more details.

73,
Dave AB7E

On 8/28/2020 4:58 PM, James Bennett via Elecraft wrote:
> For those of you who have limited real estate, like I do, and have HOA/CC&R issues, AND want to get on 160 meters, you might want to do some reading on the Folded CounterPoise (FCP). Do a Google search and you’ll uncover several hits and links to this unusual and workable compromise “radial” system.
>
> I live on a small California city lot and am not allowed towers, beams, etc. I do have several redwoods on the property that allow me to string thin, stealthy wires. With a large patio and an in-ground pool, there is absolutely no place for conventional 160 meter radials.I came across the FCP several years ago. Built one for an 80 meter Inverted L and another for a 160 meter Inverted L. Both work very well - they are mounted on the upper part of the fences around our property. One hundred percent not seen outside of our property. The antenna wire is nearly impossible to see. Can I easily get DXCC on 160 meters? Heck no. But I did complete WAS and have about 25 countries (all CW) confirmed on Top Band.
>
> If you have limited property and still want to operate 160, take a look at the FCP.
>
> Jim / W6JHB
>

______________________________________________________________
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 W2xj

On 8/28/2020 6:25 PM, W2xj wrote:
> Your website could use larger and easier to read fonts.

Use <CTRL>< +> to zoom window or go to settings in your browser to zoom
in or out. Has worked fine on my browsers for 25 years. Yours is the
first complaint.

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]

1234