Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: low inv-vee
From: Wes Stewart <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 21:38:21 -0700
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Could be. An effective balun on 160 isn't trivial, but then the questions are at least twofold. 1) How ineffective is it and what are the relative currents on the intended radiator compared to the incidental radiator and 2)  what constitutes the ground plane?  On my cactus patch I'm working my tail off to get an effective ground plane laid down under my "real" inverted L.  I would be saddened to know that 120 feet of Heliax laying on the ground from the antenna to the shack would be all I need. :-)

Wes  N7WS

On 3/28/2018 6:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
One thing about an inverted vee on 160 that can
confusing:  if you don't go to a lot of trouble to
have a really effective balun, you end up having
feedline radiation.  In the case, you really have
an inverted L.  This is related to articles written
about so called "loop skywires" where they say:
do NOT use a balun.  That's because they are really
counting on the feedline to be the vertical radiator
on 160 meters and the loop is just top loading.

Therefore, low inverted vee "success stories" may
not mean what you think they mean.

Rick N6RK
_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband


_________________
Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>