Here is a follow up...
I got a few responses, mostly with people telling me to model it or giving me
examples of their antennas. I did not model it yet (I will eventually), but did
some more reading. I want to restate my issue. A few radials are ok, but
staying 2-dimensional would really help me to achieve my goals of adding
multiple mono band antennas (80 and 160) and also place them close to the
property line.....
Now, I came across N6LF's article
(http://rudys.typepad.com/ant/files/antenna_vertical_loaded.pdf) about the Lazy
H vertical. That article is a good read and includes modelling as well. It is
similar to the double L but should work better as one more radial and top wire.
Also, the article includes comparisons to half-wave and quarter-wave vertical
in terms of peak gain, peak angle, wire loss, and SWR.
Even though the article includes modelling and comparisons already, I would
still like to ask if anyone is using the Lazy H vertical? Are you happy with
it, do you work DX with it? DX and contesting is my main interest. Also, I
probably would be able to go as high as 80 feet for the vertical dimension (90
feet horizontal).
Thanks again for the great tips and information,
Andy,
KU7T
-----Original Message-----
From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Andreas
Hofmann
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 11:24 AM
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
|