Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Topband: Fw: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition

To: <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: Fw: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition
From: "Bruce" <k1fz@myfairpoint.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:18:34 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>
I agree with Herb. Also Haiti is on an earthquake fault. The quarter wave tower would have a better chance of survival and is safer.

73
Bruce-K1FZ



----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Schoenbohm" <herbs@vitelcom.net>
To: <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: AM broadcast tower and 160m dxpedition


Half wave verticals have been very disappointing to me over the years when I had the tall BC towers in my backyard to play with after midnight on 160. I have had much better result in hanging 1/2 wave center fed slopers of of high towers. Radio stations seem to prefer if they have extermely high towers like KSTP in St. Paul to split them with an insulated section and feed them as a Franklin design and pick up some additional gain along the ground. Some designs do not required two stacked half waves but achieve significant height by folding back the top and bottom sections with a cage or in fact using a top hat and an equivalent on the bottom. The proper phasing section is mounted in a box at the center split and the feedline is inside the tower. Why this should work any better than a straight 1/2 wave, as it seems to is available perhaps in those who can model and compare the two. It seems however that topbanders who expect good results with a bottom fed 1/2 over a traditional 1/4 wave over a good ground, seem to come away disappointed like myself.

Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ


_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>