[Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[Jim Brown]

Right on, John! Also N7WS, who urges study of N6LF's authoritative site. 
Rudy is a major contributor to ARRL Handbook and Antenna Book. And to 
AB7E who urges modeling. You can't model radial/counterpoise systems 
without a far more capable version of NEC, but you CAN model the 
difference between horizontal and vertical antennas and heights of both.

Lyn's expectations are modest. Many of us want to work 5,000 - 8,000 
mile paths, which is what it takes to work 175 countries from W6 in 14 
years -- it's FAR easier to work EU east of the MS river, and EU has FAR 
more countries with active hams than AS and OC. I know -- I lived in IL. 
One of my goals is QRP WAS. In about ten years, I still need VT and SC. 
And I've got three 160M verticals, all using my tower as a passive 
reflector to give me a few dB in three directions!

Here are slides for a talk I've done at Pacificon, Visalia, and to 
several local clubs. It's mostly about antennas, mostly about 
radial/counterpoise systems. None of it is my original work, but rather 
summarizes the best work by others like N6LF.

http://k9yc.com/160MPacificon.pdf

WAS from east of the MS is also far easier than from W6 -- there are 
only seven west coast states, all with superstations that are easy to 
work -- CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, AZ, NV. There are also big stations in MT, 
ID, NM, and UT.

73, Jim K9YC


On 8/25/2020 6:27 PM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
> KD5ODS is not over thinking anything.  He is on the right track, an inverted
> L is a much better top band antenna than a low all band horizontal wire.
> Kevin just needs to model his inverted L, he might be a little surprised to
> see which way the pattern skews.
> 
> John KK9A
> 
> 
> Lyn W0LEN
> 
> Good gracious.  Why does everyone overthink 160m?