Ooops, sorry about the cut and paste error. This link should work.
http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.htm
________________________________
From: Topband <topband-bounces+w7tmt=outlook.com@contesting.com> on behalf of
W7TMT - Patrick <W7TMT@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:41:34 PM
To: Roger Kennedy <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>; topband@contesting.com
<topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question
Called a Double L. This is the earliest article on it I remember. Others out
there as well.
http://www.yccc.org/http://www.yccc.org/Articles/double_l.ht/double_l.htm
Patrick, W7TMT
________________________________
From: Topband <topband-bounces+w7tmt=outlook.com@contesting.com> on behalf of
Roger Kennedy <roger@wessexproductions.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:33:53 PM
To: topband@contesting.com <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Topband: New Subject: 160M array feedline question
Guy (K2AV) - I really liked your explanation about the function of a radial
field on a 160m vertical . . . and how the radials don't actually radiate.
But I've often thought about the other extreme . . . I have a homebrew 2m
Ground Plane on top of my mast . . . just a quarter wave vertical . . . and
3 quarter wave radials sloping down about 45 degrees.
Now if those radials were vertical, it would really be a vertical Dipole . .
. i.e. the radials would be radiating. Whereas if they were horizontal, I
guess they wouldn't be.
You get my question . . . what really is the difference between the 3
different radial situations?
And here's another question . . . rather than all the issues of radials and
matching, has anyone ever used a Vertical Dipole on 160m ?
Sure, you're not going to have a 260 ft vertical . . . but suppose you had a
100ft support, so that you could have 50 ft vertical legs either side of the
coax feeder, and then just bend the legs at right angles at the top and
bottom to make up the length (linear loading) - maybe running in opposite
directions.
I would have though that would be quite an efficient antenna? And
presumably (just like any dipole) it would work even better if the ground
underneath it was very poor (in my opinion)
Roger G3YRO
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|