[Ipg-smz] Antenna

[Tom Henderson]

An end-fed dipole formed as an inverted V is the only real solution for 
a single pole antenna (or tree) to get reasonable radiance at 160M. The 
Cushcraft R9, and other verticals stop at 80M because the loading coil 
becomes ridiculously lossy. If you can run a modest radial field, there 
are other verticals that do pretty well..... but 160M will always be a 
compromise with trap/coil verticals-- albeit "tunable/matchable". "Metal 
In The Air" is the rule, and a 1/2wave is ~260' for 160M.

I've used the QSO-King end-fed dipole successfully at Field Day and in 
my own backyard(s) given a high enough launch into a tall tree or with a 
tall mast (as the inverted V). It needs a lot of coax (50'min) to act as 
the counterpoise and does have a comparatively high noise factor. I've 
done AM/SSB/CW/Digital modes on 160M with it with reasonable success. 
Not going to win any contests on 160.

The R9, along with 5BTV/6BTV verticals are interesting, and if you have 
mindless budget, the Stepp-IR verticals are the bomb (to your wallet). 
Their verticals are legendary for wallet-draining but yes, wicked 
efficiency because of their capacity to be tuned ON the mast physically 
for maximal radiance.

73 Tom W9YW

On 10/16/19 6:18 PM, Wayne Rash via Ipg-smz wrote:
> Question for my fellow hams on the list. I’m trying to figure out a 
> solution for an antenna that will cover 160-10. I have room for an OCF 
> dipole, but I don’t have a support structure for one of the ends. I 
> have plenty of room for a vertical. I don’t have a tower.
>
> I’d appreciate any thoughts.
>
> WR
>
> Sent from Wayne's mobile radio telephone device.
>
-- 
Tom Henderson
ExtremeLabs, Inc.
+1 317 250 4646
Twitter: @extremelabs
Skype: extremelabsinc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://netpress.org/pipermail/ipg-smz_netpress.org/attachments/20191017/ae44edcd/attachment.html>