Hi, Andreas
Well, it's interesting. I could try modeling it in EZNEC, Have you tried
that?
I wonder a bit about how good the cancellation is between the horizontal
wires, when the lower one is only 10' off the ground, but a model might
provide some insight! (I'd wonder a bit too about the proximity of the
vertical portion to the tower!)
Good luck with it!
73,
Charlie, K4OTV
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Andreas
Hofmann
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:24 PM
To: 'topband@contesting.com'
Subject: Topband: Double L antenna as an alternative for the
radial-challenged?
Hi,
I am looking into what it would take to put a decent 160m antenna up. I got
many large trees, but also rather thick woods, and the radials are always
something that I do not enjoy much. Also, I cannot see myself to do 16
radials. 4 elevated radials may be tough as well. Terrain is just not as
easy to get around.
Now, I am looking at options that do not require radials and still have a
decent radiation angle for DX. I am looking at this antenna
http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm, the double L antenna. Has anyone
experience with it? What is the pattern of it and can it be compared to a
quarter wave vertical? I would assume since it somehow resembles a vertical
dipole and therefore does not require any radials, that its efficiency
should be much better than a quarter wave vertical with less than adequate
number of radials... Are my assumptions correct, and are there any other
gotchas?
Thanks and cu soon on topband
Andy,
KU7T
_________________
Topband Reflector
_________________
Topband Reflector
|