Good Morning Herb;
In years past, when I was living about 30 miles north of Dallas, I had a
shunt fed tower, and it worked very well. However, when I tried the
same configuration here, I got my fanny kicked on a regular basis, and
that was why I decided to put up the Inverted L. Occasionally I am
tempted to re-establish the shunt fed configuration. I am about to
plunk down $200 for an instrument to measure the complex impedance at
the feed point of the "gamma" match, and at that point I may go back &
try the shunt configuration again. However, for the moment, I am 4 or 5
entities away from DXCC on 160, and untill I get that done I will stay
in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" Mode.
73,
Mike, W5UC
On 4/29/2012 7:09 AM, Herb Schoenbohm wrote:
> Mike, You would be much better off by feeding the tower with a shunt or
> cage feed. As K2AV so accurately pointed out...an inverted "L"
> supported by a metal tower is not the answer for an efficient system on
> 160. With the amount of radials you have at the base you could do much
> better by feeding the grounded tower. I presume the tower has a beam on
> the top and that will really make you system even more efficient by
> providing some good toploading. An inverted L supported by a steel
> tower is not the best solution. It is probably the worst of all compared
> to a Marconi "T" out in the clear even with the same tower used to
> support one end as far away a possible from the vertical wire.
>
>
> Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
>
>
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|