Both Inductive and Capacitive Loading for 160m Antenna (
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- Jim, N7ENI, is building the antenna from QST in the march 2014 section. He is confused about the bottom loaded vertical. Watch to learn more about the antenna in the march 2014 section page 38 and on the loaded vertical.
Subscribe: / davecasler .
Giveaway Info: dcasler.com/gi...
Edited and Videographed by Aidan Jakeman
To learn more about me, visit: dcasler.com/home/
To support my channel financially: dcasler.com/su... (offers several options)
To pose an Ask Dave question: www.dcasler.com... or www.ke0og.net/a...
Theme music is "Sour Tennessee Red," by John Deley and the 41 Players, courtesy CZcams Music Library. You can listen to the entire song here: • Sour Tennessee Red - J...
I use drawings from OpenClipArt.org, including the "walking man"
Technician training videos, see www.ke0og.net/t...
General training videos, see www.ke0og.net/g...
Amateur Extra training videos, see www.ke0og.net/e...
Thanks to my sweet wife, Loretta, KBØVWW, for both audio and video assistance! (Her website is www.aldea-art.com.)
My primary website: www.dcasler.com
The ham radio part of my website (direct link): www.ke0og.net
My publishing website: www.mtsneffelsp..., where you can find my fantasy and science fiction books.
My Amazon author page, which lists my print and Kindle books: www.amazon.com/....
Twitter: @dcasler
For a few years our group was lucky to have a ham friend that was chief engineer of an AM station that only transmitted during the daytime and then would switch to a different site (many miles away) at night....so, our 160 contest group would operate using his 48' tower as a 160 vertical at night then disconnect well before the AM station would come bk on the air...we had a very potent signal back then...73/K6SDW
Also appreciated the explanation of the ARRL publication library.
@David Casler Please correct me if I am wrong. An antenna loading employs inductance to lower antenna resonance (by lengthening the electrical length) at the cost of reduced bandwidth. However, when using a capacitance hat and a loading coil, these components may counterbalance the bandwidth changes while establishing the antenna's resonance within the 160m band. In contrast, a capacitance hat raises resonance (by shortening the electrical length, necessitating more wire) and widens the bandwidth. Additionally, incorporating extra radiating elements (like doubling wire with a ladder line and multiple capacitance elements at the top) can decrease the antenna's resistance, thus improving its efficiency.
Correct about the coil at the base. It “lengthens” the antenna. So does top loading with a capacity hat. Both work in the same direction. A small improvement would be a coil in the center, but one would need more inductance than when base loading. So, the wire resistance and wire capacitance would diminish the benefits. But it would still be an improvement on antenna efficiency. Talking about efficiency… with some rough calculations, one can expect this quite compromised antenna to have an efficiency just about 10% on good ground. Hence the title, 160m or bust. Due to the too short physical length the radiation angles will be high in the far field plot. That pretty much cancels the benefits of a vertical while even a compromised horizontal (with loading coils) would be more efficient with a likewise radiation pattern. A full wave loop around the house at fence hight might be interesting too with about the same efficiency and pattern, but way less complex than coils, capacity hat and awkwardly long ground radials.
I'm not sure why many seem to make getting on 160 such a chore ?
I was able to use a 126 foot inverted
" L " with a very short 35 foot vertical portion !
With the rest of the antenna sloping down to 10 feet or so, to a telephone pole.
Granted that I installed a few random length radials, and tied to a cyclone fence and a Cold water pipe !
Worked nearly every U.S. State to include Alaska and Hawaii, plus a station in France !
All being land locked in the Midwest !
And this was back in the 80's when operators were much less plentiful than today's Ops !
It may take some effort, but it can be done rather simply !
IMHO !
Amazing info about antennas, I didn't knew that the top part will behave as a capacitor, thank you!
Thanks, Dave. 73
Very clear explanation of an important antenna principle. Thanks Dave.
This is pretty much what we used to use on 160m. G5RV with the open wire shorted and fed against earth through a tuner. The inductor was in the tuner. G5RV is 102 feet top.
I knew W1 that ran a 3 tower array on 160 to work across the pond. A more practical antenna for a backyard is a square/loop 65 feet per side, yes high angle but efficient, makes up for for the angle.
Hey Dave, I’m new to radio and really enjoy all the content you put out. If you ever wanna come to alaska and be an Elmer for a few days, you’d be welcome.
Perhaps the offshore host, is why the ARRL paid a One Million Dollar ransom, after being hacked a short while ago ?
🤔......?
Your cheated when you searched QST by using his call sign. The ARRL still has not provided a way to do compound searches of QST, other than the old pdf system. Why the League continues to have such poor web technology I don’t understand, or for that matter continue to use a non U.S. based company to host the QST platform. 13:28
This is a stupid antenna. Use the top 100+ feet horizontal wire with big, and I mean big, loading coils with low loss R, you will have a better antenna that might work well. All these dumb magic weirdo antennas don't work well but hams seem to like them anyway.
It's not some new novel gimmick antenna or something like that. It's a rather well proven vintage antenna called a T antenna. They are/were very common on bands lower than 2 MHz where the height of a true vertical becomes extremely impractical. For stations on say the 630 and 2200m bands they're even more common.
I wouldn’t call it stupid. Sometimes you gotta make it work with what you got (material/real estate). But I can see what you’re trying to say.
A small improvement would be a coil in the center, but one would need more inductance than when base loading. So, the wire resistance and wire capacitance would diminish the benefits. But it would still be an improvement on antenna efficiency. Talking about efficiency… with some rough calculations, one can expect this quite compromised antenna to have an efficiency just about 10% on good ground. Hence the title, 160m or bust. Due to the too short physical length the radiation angles will be high in the far field plot. That pretty much cancels the benefits of a vertical while even a compromised horizontal (with loading coils) would be more efficient with a likewise NVIS radiation pattern at less than a 1/2 wave above ground. A full wave loop around the house at fence hight might be interesting to consider instead with about the same 10% efficiency and pattern, but way less complex than coils, capacity hat and very long ground radials in weird shapes within the property but folding around the house.
Thanks. N0QFT