Hi Kelly,
The big picture here is that I am optimizing not only for gain, F/B, etc. but
also for time. There are 684 very long miles between CT and my station in VE3.
So I always consider how long would it take to do this and that project and if
I will ever have the time to complete it.
The K8UR array was the very first option I considered. I ruled it out thinking
that it will take a long time to tune the dipoles.
So the elevated radials seem like a good shortcut. I really didn't feel like
clearing the bush and trees around the tower to lay the radials.
I also considered going with aluminum from the very beginning. A fairly
straightforward project. Again, didn't want to clear the forest to make room
for a standalone array so decided to use the tower and string the wires. I also
made the mistake to share my plans with my European friends who somehow managed
to talk me out of aluminum (it's quite expensive and not quite readily
available in telescoping sizes).
So this is how I ended up with wires and raised radials. For now I will keep
the wires, but lay ground radials. Perhaps will hire the kids to help :-).
Unfortunately I won't have the time to do so until next spring and VC3I will
have a mediocre 80 m antenna for CQ WW RTTY and CW. I hope it's at least as
good as the inv V at 90' I took down last week.
Rudy N2WQ
Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
autocorrect.
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 8:25 PM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Rudy,
>
> Sounds like you have a conundrum!
>
> The vertical dipole idea may still have merit: the legs of the dipole need
> not be straight. Nor do T or L sections need to be perpendicular to the
> vertical elements.
>
> As mentioned, it removes the ground plane issue, it also moves the current
> maxima higher, which always helps.
>
> Could you, for instance, run catenaries from the top of the tower to
> insulators that would hold an end of each T-bar, then affix a vertical
> element down to a feedpoint, with the other side of the feedpoint dropping
> vertically to the 10 foot level where it would meet the lower T-bar?
>
> Folks have had success creating both vertical dipoles and vertical-dipole
> four squares using this idea, with towers similar to yours.
>
> Worth a thought?
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 18:20, Rudy Bakalov via TowerTalk
>> <towertalk@contesting.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, it's an option, but you need the height for this arrangement. In the
>> case of 80, assuming you have the bottom of the dipole 10' from the ground,
>> you need a ~105' tower. What you are describing is the K8UR array.
>>
>> Rudy N2WQ
>>
>> Sent using a tiny keyboard. Please excuse brevity, typos, or inappropriate
>> autocorrect.
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 7:01 PM, Hans Hammarquist via TowerTalk
>>> <towertalk@contesting.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gentlemen,
>>>
>>> I wonder if it could be a good idea to use vertical dipoles instead of 1/4
>>> w verticals and groundplanes. That way you would do away with the
>>> groundplane (that seems to cause issues). My idea was to "hang" up four
>>> full size dipoles or maybe shorted such.
>>>
>>> Just a thought.
>>>
>>> 73 de,
>>>
>>> Hans N2JFS
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TowerTalk mailing list
>>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|