Hi Art,Yes, I have done that and am doing that. I use tall trees as supports
and the 160 inverted L goes up one side of the tree then bent over horizontally
to another tree over yonder. From the same feed point, the 80 meter section
goes up the other side of the same tree and the top actually folds over an
upper limb down to the tie point. I have had the antennas separate and had them
from the same feed point as I do now and I have not seen much, if any
difference in performance. With 600 watts output I have about 165 countries on
160 and about 220 on 80 from a small suburban lot in Houston. I just installed
the same antenna in TN and it has worked quite well there. I feed it through a
ferrite bead balun and I have one elevated (up about 20') per band.Hope this
helps. 73, Mike WA5POK
On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:17 AM, Art Snapper <art@nk8x.net> wrote:
I was considering adding a second vertical element to my 160 inverted L.
This one would be roughly a quarter wave tall for use on 80.
I tried modelling in Eznec, but wasn't comfortable with the results. I may
have screwed it up.
Has anyone tried it for real? Is it a big compromise on either band? Would
a switch at the feedpoint have any benefit?
My inverted L has about 50 radials.
73
Art NK8X
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
|