George, Are you familiar with the Franklyn antenna design?
Some broadcasters swear by them and claim a 3 db increase over a 1/4
vertical radiator.
Herb, KV4FZ
On 9/22/2011 9:08 PM, GeorgeWallner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:17:58 -0400
> Guy Olinger K2AV<olinger@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I share the frustration over the very minimal amount of
>> data out there.
>>
>> However...
>> Erection of a 260 foot vertical in a testing
>> environment...
> G'Day Topbanders,
>
> I am not sure how general a conclusions could be drawn
> from my experience, but I have a set up that is somewhat
> relevant to this thread, and have done some on the air
> testing with it.
>
> I have two verticals, about 2 meters apart. One is 21
> meters tall and the other one is 28 meters tall with a
> high Q center loading inductor to make it resonate at 1900
> kHz (this is my 160 m antenna). This antenna is fed via a
> low loss antenna coupler. The two antennas share a common
> ground system, which is salt-water to the east and a
> buried field of 40 radials of varying length between 30
> and 120 feet long to the west. On 80 meters the shorter
> antenna is a 1/4 wave vertical, while the longer one could
> be considered to be a half-wave vertical.
>
> I have done extensive tests on 80 meters, comparing the
> two antennas towards the east. I have used the reverse
> beacon network, and a couple of friends' SDR-s in Europe
> for these comparisons. In tests from my Florida QTH,
> towards the east (towards Europe) and the side where the
> salt water is, the taller antenna has almost always been
> better by 2 to 3 dB. Towards the west (and the land side)
> I have not done enough testing to draw conclusive results,
> but I feel that the 1/2 wave vertical is better in that
> direction too.
>
> I understand the 80 meters is not 160 meters, but...
>
> I would be happy to set up a test sched with anyone to my
> west or north-west, who is interested in carrying these
> studies further.
>
> 73,
>
> George, AA7JV
>
> PS: BTW, I almost always use the 1/4 vertical on 80
> meters, even towards the east, as going through the
> coupler is a PITA (as Guy has pointed out).
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|