Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 221, Issue 7

To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 221, Issue 7
From: Richard McLachlan <richard@rodsley.net>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 19:45:25 +0100
List-post: <mailto:topband@contesting.com>
Roger 

Roger VE3CZ/ G3RBP uses one.

Regards

Richard

> On 8 May 2021, at 17:01, TOPBAND-request@contesting.com wrote:
> 
> Send Topband mailing list submissions to
>    topband@contesting.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    topband-request@contesting.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    topband-owner@contesting.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Topband digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters (John Crovelli)
>   2. Re: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters (Jim Brown)
>   3. Re: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters (Richard (Rick) Karlquist)
>   4. Re: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters (charlie carroll)
>   5. Hygain hytower on 160 (WW3S)
>   6. Hygain hytower on 160 (Rob Atkinson)
>   7. Re: Hygain hytower on 160 (Tree)
>   8. Re: Hygain hytower on 160 (Guy Olinger K2AV)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 17:31:21 +0000
> From: John Crovelli <w2gd@hotmail.com>
> To: "topband@contesting.com" <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters
> Message-ID:
>    
> <BN8PR05MB65959F08B260ECC50BB9917689579@BN8PR05MB6595.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
>    
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> For those who have limited space and are unable to lay out an effective 
> ground system, the vertical dipole offers a very worthwhile alternative to an 
> Inverted-L or low Inverted-V.
> 
> It is relatively easy to build, install, and tune.  The K2KQ article has been 
> followed by hundreds with success.
> 
> Vertical dipoles on 160 meters have been in place at P40W and P40L for a 
> decade or more.  Small footprint, vertical polarization and no ground system 
> were the design parameters that prevailed.
> 
> 73, John W2GD/P40W/P44W
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 12:14:05 -0700
> From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters
> Message-ID:
>    <7cf8659a-a056-9880-481a-7bdd6567d047@audiosystemsgroup.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
>> On 5/7/2021 10:31 AM, John Crovelli wrote:
>> For those who have limited space and are unable to lay out an effective 
>> ground system, the vertical dipole offers a very worthwhile alternative to 
>> an Inverted-L or low Inverted-V.
> 
> Yes, and so is the end-loading technique shown in the K2KQ design. N6BT 
> has used it extensively in his designs, and W6GJB and I have used it for 
> portable designs for county expeditions and Field Day. The Hy-Gain 
> AV-series and Cushcraft R-series antennas are loaded and trapped 
> vertical dipoles.
> 
> VK4YB's 630m end-fed, end-loaded designs for 630m are an even more 
> innovative design -- I helped W6GJB tailor one of those designs to his 
> real estate, and Glen has worked Roger on that band. See VK4YB's qrz page.
> 
> The key to these designs is realizing that it's current that does the 
> radiating, and maximizing the current in vertical section of the 
> antenna. I do this in NEC by studying the display of current in the View 
> Antenna window.
> 
> 73, Jim K9YC
> 
>> It is relatively easy to build, install, and tune.  The K2KQ article has 
>> been followed by hundreds with success.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 13:54:10 -0700
> From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>
> To: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com, topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters
> Message-ID: <b879325d-ef64-a6bb-5f51-7ec976eb6827@karlquist.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
>>> On 5/7/2021 10:31 AM, John Crovelli wrote:
>>> For those who have limited space and are unable to lay out an 
>>> effective ground system, the vertical dipole offers a very worthwhile 
>>> alternative to an Inverted-L or low Inverted-V.
> 
> I think of this as essentially an inverted-L with one elevated
> radial ... driven at the second harmonic.  It seems to me it
> would work work better with 2 or 4 radials, and with 2 or 4
> top loading wires.  And it can be driven with a common mode
> choke at the bottom of the vertical section.
> 
> Rick N6RK
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 18:01:35 -0400
> From: charlie carroll <k1xx@k1xx.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: Topband: Vertical Dipoles on 160 Meters
> Message-ID: <eec10209-5099-c8ab-1997-7b507652f244@k1xx.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> We use the K2KQ inspired vertical dipole at PJ4K for 160.? Top's at 
> about 135 feet and bottom at 30 feet.? We opted for this approach so 
> that there's no fighting the cactus to install ground-mounted radials.? 
> If we can ever get back to the island, we have all the pieces ready to 
> put up a phased pair of these antennas.
> 
> If you decide to go with this antenna, make sure you consider effects of 
> the vertical supports.? We ended up de-tuning our 140-foot towers.
> 
> 73 charlie, k1xx
> 
>> On 5/7/2021 1:31 PM, John Crovelli wrote:
>> For those who have limited space and are unable to lay out an effective 
>> ground system, the vertical dipole offers a very worthwhile alternative to 
>> an Inverted-L or low Inverted-V.
>> 
>> It is relatively easy to build, install, and tune.  The K2KQ article has 
>> been followed by hundreds with success.
>> 
>> Vertical dipoles on 160 meters have been in place at P40W and P40L for a 
>> decade or more.  Small footprint, vertical polarization and no ground system 
>> were the design parameters that prevailed.
>> 
>> 73, John W2GD/P40W/P44W
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 22:10:28 -0400
> From: WW3S <ww3s@zoominternet.net>
> To: topBand List <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Topband: Hygain hytower on 160
> Message-ID: <5F176187-BC41-42C2-8A06-1BBEC1D99C80@zoominternet.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Seems like the base loading coil lc-160q is about worthless, especially with 
> greater than 100 watts....anyone have direct experience with the other option 
> , loading wire from near the top.....any other options or mods to consider? 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 05:11:57 -0500
> From: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
> To: topband@contesting.com
> Subject: Topband: Hygain hytower on 160
> Message-ID:
>    <CALWD7Z5C7h=g-w5vMSkirQ=r5pdxUUtmV+ka039_1c3PgAQVnQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> No personal experience but I've heard repeatedly over the years that
> the inverted L kit works way better than the loading coil.  This makes
> sense.   I think the inverted L kit consists of a trap you hang off
> the top of the BX section.  You probably supply the wire but on that
> I'm not sure.  I don't know if this kit is still being made or not but
> you might be able to fabricate a trap yourself.
> 
> Rob
> K5UJ
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 06:17:30 -0700
> From: Tree <tree@kkn.net>
> To: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
> Cc: 160 <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Hygain hytower on 160
> Message-ID:
>    <CAKF9Hha4LXyCYuczskqC-N88_WS1wK72OaTsSE2k4MoVx+K3JQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> Another change to relate this story - used a unmodified hytower with about
> 500W and after an hour - we noticed the insulator was on fire.
> 
> I have heard of people getting a better insulator and perhaps extending the
> whip some.
> 
> N7NG used to have a trap at the top of his 80M vertical with a horizontal
> wire that worked very well for him (he has since moved to Montana).
> 
> Tree N6TR
> 
>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 3:12 AM Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> No personal experience but I've heard repeatedly over the years that
>> the inverted L kit works way better than the loading coil.  This makes
>> sense.   I think the inverted L kit consists of a trap you hang off
>> the top of the BX section.  You probably supply the wire but on that
>> I'm not sure.  I don't know if this kit is still being made or not but
>> you might be able to fabricate a trap yourself.
>> 
>> Rob
>> K5UJ
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 10:57:15 -0400
> From: Guy Olinger K2AV <k2av.guy@gmail.com>
> To: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>
> Cc: topband <topband@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: Topband: Hygain hytower on 160
> Message-ID:
>    <CANckpc1eL5pFs=Nhb+nntZcBygp0xMo5gBayZrkUxV-_XnxzeQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
> I haven?t run a model on a hytower recently but helped one soul out of a
> quandary with one a while back. Items that required attention:
> 
> 1) Coax connection SO239 at base and its mounting device metal, etc, had to
> be entirely replaced due to metallic corrosion.
> 
> 2) Radials  were awful. Needed serious work to get past the ?terrible?
> rating up to ?really poor but that will have to do?. Property had fairly
> severe irregular elevation and boundaries.
> 
> 3) When 1), 2) dealt with, 160 SWR got worse because feed R wasn?t anywhere
> near 50 any more.
> 
> 4) Cheep skinny coax had to be replaced.
> 
> 5) Owner's opinion, results clearly better but still not good. It still was
> a short vertical *without* a full size, dense, uniform length and spacing
> radial field.
> 
> I don?t recall the coil being an issue, other than the SWR bandwidth was
> narrowing down with repairs/improvements.
> 
> He did try an L off the hytower top later which improved things a bit more.
> But at root it was still a short 160 vertical over a necessarily poor
> radial field.
> 
> For the umpity-umpth time, for 160, the two ton elephant in the room is the
> counterpole to whatever will be the aerial radiator.  We whack down a
> DI-pole to a monopole which now needs a substitute pole for the missing
> pole, a counterpole, usually referred to as radials or counterpoise. If
> that counterpole is inferior, so will be your results.
> 
> First solve the radial/counterpoise elephant efficiently. Then do a tuning
> something or other to handle the physical law that efficient shortened
> antennas have reduced band width.
> 
> Someone posted about a vertical dipole. Absent discussion about size, cost,
> difficulty of construction, support, feed method, survivability in weather,
> yada, yada, it DOES solve the counterpole problem. At least for as long as
> it stays up.
> 
> If all that was adequately solved by something durable off the shelf or
> easily constructed, everyone would have a vertical dipole on 160. But we
> all can count the number of 160 vertical dipoles around.
> 
> There ARE a few of those on the AM broadcast band. They are all
> unbelievable MONSTER antennas that make your jaw drop if you ever get to
> see one in person.  They DO work very well. And they occupy monster acreage
> for the guy lines, etc.
> 
> See k2av.com for one answer to a necessarily poor radial field.
> 
> 73, Guy K2AV
> 
> 
>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 6:12 AM Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> No personal experience but I've heard repeatedly over the years that
>> the inverted L kit works way better than the loading coil.  This makes
>> sense.   I think the inverted L kit consists of a trap you hang off
>> the top of the BX section.  You probably supply the wire but on that
>> I'm not sure.  I don't know if this kit is still being made or not but
>> you might be able to fabricate a trap yourself.
>> 
>> Rob
>> K5UJ
>> _________________
>> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband
>> Reflector
>> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Topband mailing list
> Topband@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Topband Digest, Vol 221, Issue 7
> ***************************************

_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: Topband: Topband Digest, Vol 221, Issue 7, Richard McLachlan <=