Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Inverted L redux

To: "'N4ZR'" <n4zr@comcast.net>, "'topband reflector'" <Topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Inverted L redux
From: <rgarrett5@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:33:12 -0400
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Pete,

Traditional wisdom is, if you have the choice of short or long radials, more 
shorter ones are preferred over a few long ones.  However, 50 60 foot radials 
are not considered long for 160 meters.  I have found that 50 to 60 radials 
will do a great job.  At least 30 is a good starting point.  73, Bob K3UL  

-----Original Message-----
From: Topband <topband-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of N4ZR
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 3:08 PM
To: topband reflector <Topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: Inverted L redux

More as an experiment and a thought-provoker than anything else, I've started 
adding 50-60-foot, on-the-ground radials to my 135-foot inverted L.  In the 
latest incarnation I'm up to 4 radials.  On my ancient MFJ-259B the lowest SWR 
is 1.3:1 at 1825 KHz, with an R of 77. X=0 (the 259B doesn't give the sign of 
j) from 1808 to1894, which I assume is roughly centered on the actual 
cross-over point.

With my rudimentary knowledge of such things, I'm guessing that there remains 
something on the order of 50 ohms of ground resistance to be reduced for 
efficiency,  through addition of radials.  Question is, would I profit most by 
adding another 4 50-60 foot radials, or 2 radials each 100-120 feet?

Comments appreciated.


-- 

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network
at <http://reversebeacon.net>, now
spotting RTTY activity worldwide.
For spots, please use your favorite
"retail" DX cluster.

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

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>