Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Radial question

To: towertalk reflector <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Radial question
From: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Reply-to: jim@audiosystemsgroup.com
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:46:34 -0800
List-post: <towertalk@contesting.com">mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
On Thu,3/3/2016 9:56 AM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
Hi Jim,

Further to your tutorial, particularly the reference to inductance at a current peak, I note with 
interest a reference I remember from the manual for my old HF6V (the OP’s antenna is the 
HF2V, IIRC): in it, Butternut claimed the lumped inductance at the base of the antenna was not 
“base loading”.

But if a lumped inductance at the base of an antenna isn’t base loading, what 
is it?

I don't know anything about the design of this antenna, so won't comment on it specifically. However -- the feedpoint Z of a short vertical is quite low, so one good matching technique might be a transformer (including an auto-transformer) that steps that low Z up to 50 ohms. On 160M, that auto-transformer might take the form of a tapped coil, with the coax connected between ends of the coil antenna connected between the tap and bottom of the coil.

My HF6V worked as expected for a vertical on 40 and up. On 80, I’d have had as 
much luck setting a dummy load in its place. I always got the impression the problem 
on 80 was the inductance was compressing the current peak to between the feedpoint and 
the coil and any radiation was primarily into the fence, shed and trees, rather than 
into the ether.

Again, I don't know enough to comment on the Butternut. But what do you have for a radial/counterpoise?

73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>