[Antennas] 160 Inverted L 160 Radials

Thu Nov 17 19:22:42 EST 2005

Danny- Your last paragraph indicates two things:
1. You have far too much spare time.
2. This thread is past its period of usefulness.
Bye-Bill-W4BSG
Dan Richardson wrote:
> At 04:41 PM 11/16/2005, you wrote:
>>> Did you get a chance to evaluate what the author said as opposed to 
>> how he said it? What do you think? Is it reasonably good for my 
>> first 160 antenna?
>>> Reading over KE4UYP's information there is several of his statements 
> that are not correct. For example his statement that a vertical's 
> efficiency is less than 50% for twenty-meters and above and less than 
> 20% efficiency on forty-meters and below is nonsense. Brown, Lewis and 
> Epstein's studies more than five-decades ago discredits that statement.
>> He goes on to say the an adjoining mast can be metal on non-metallic 
> as it "It really does not matter" then, later in his document, 
> contradicts that statement stating different bandwidths for a metal 
> tower vs. tree mounting for his antenna.
>> In that I had a little time this morning to mess around I modeled his 
> antenna using NEC4 (Although NEC2 give almost identical results) 
> comparing his so called vertical with a standard ½-wave dipole and a 
> ¼-wave vertical. I used KE4UYP's recommended height for the 
> eighty-meter version of his design (25-feet). This same height was 
> used for a ½-wave dipole reference. For those who might be interested 
> I've placed the total gain elevations plots on my web site and they 
> can be view at: http://k6mhe.com/sub/KE4UYP_Vertical.gif
>> As to those comments regarding spelling and grammar I offer the 
> following:
>> I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was 
> rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a 
> rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the 
> ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and 
> lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and 
> you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn 
> mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. 
> Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.
>>> 73,
> Danny, K6MHE
>>>>>>>>
-- 
Bill Aycock W4BSG
Woodville, Alabama