[Antennas] 160 Inverted L 160 Radials

[W3OA]

Jerry -

Sorry you were offended by the grammatical errors in the description at 
http://members.tripod.com/~KE4UYP/80m_160m_Antenna.html.
I was aware of the grammatical errors (at least some of them) and agree 
that their presence detracts from the author's credibility.  In spite of 
this, I think the idea of a 160 antenna with essentially the same foot 
print as an inverted L without radials is very attractive. I don't have 
enough experience/knowledge to evaluate the technical merits of the 
antenna and I haven't seen similar antennas described elsewhere. So I 
came to this list for help.

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?

Thanks for your interest.  Dick, W3OA

Jerry Forwood wrote:

>Frankly, I have a problem with people that post websites where they don't even know the difference between the words to and two! As in 2 two 1 SWR! :0(
>Learn to proof read before you post!  You are showing your intelligence , or lack of it, to the world!
>
>73 de Jerry, KØEJF
>E.J.(Jerry) Forwood
>
>-- W3OA <w3oa at adelphia.net> wrote:
>I'd like to put up a 160 antenna. I'm thinking of an inverted L.  The 
>vertical section would be 54 feet and I have room for a horizontal 
>section up to 157 feet long.  I am concerned about the radial field - 
>it's approximately square, about 90 feet on each side.  Is this 
>hopelessly small?  Should I try something like KE4UYP suggests at 
>http://members.tripod.com/~KE4UYP/80m_160m_Antenna.html?  I'd like to 
>hear of peoples success, or failure, trying his design.
>
>Thanks for any suggestions - Dick, W3OA
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Antennas mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
>Post: mailto:Antennas at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>
>
>  
>