[Elecraft] Inverted L for 160 meters

[David Gilbert]

Excellent post.

K0BG's "WORKs" acronym is spot on, and I consider any anecdotal 
rationalization of any antenna to be without much merit.  Without a 
direct comparison anecdotes are simply anecdotes, and they do little to 
advance the hobby.

I have my own example of an antenna that "worked" great .............. 
once.  It was the night before Field Day and for pure expediency I put 
up a low, elongated rectangular loop fed on a vertical side.  I modeled 
it to be "usable" on both 20m and 40m (decent feed but marginal 
pattern), and I worked an FR5 on the other side of the world from here 
in Arizona on 20m with 5 watts on CW and Q5 reports both ways.  I 
thought I had a winner, but it subsequently turned out to give me one of 
the worst Field Day scores I ever had.

I have no problem at all with folks who for whatever reason elect to go 
with something that "works".  I do have a problem with them promoting to 
others it as being "good" without some supporting data other than "I 
worked such and such".

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 8/27/2020 7:04 PM, K8TE wrote:
> It's refreshing to read something based on science!  All of the anecdotes are
> interesting, but nothing more.  I would not jump on any of them without
> reading scientific documentation comparing them directly to a half-wave,
> flat top dipole at a half wavelength high, or as high as possible and
> specified.  Jim's point about the NVIS myth is well taken.  Most of the
> "literature" is bunk and with little to no backing in science.
>
> I strongly promote using WSPRLite on two antennas simultaneously to
> demonstrate the new antenna's performance over time.  Those results have
> meaning.
>
> I worked an Italian station on 20m SSB using my KX3 at five Watts into a
> mobile screwdriver antenna.  that was in 2016 near the second peak of Cycle
> 24.  Based on how others assert "This antenna works."  I should pull my
> dipoles down (283 DXCC entities from NM, mostly during Cycle 24) and just
> use the mobile antenna.
>
> Right!  BTW, my friend Alan, K0BG, calls "WORKs" an acronym for "WithOut
> Real Knowledge."  He is probably right 80-95% of the time about that.  So it
> worked, but that doesn't make it good, better, or even worse.
>
> Ward Silver, N0AX, wrote:  "The best antenna is one that is in the air."
> Kevin is trying to erect an antenna better than what he has now.  Anecdotes
> won't help him, IMHO.
>
> 73, Bill, K8TE
>
>
>> A low horizontal antenna has its place, for local work especially out to
>> a few hundred miles reliably.  Horses for courses and all that.
> That's an urban myth. A low horizontal antenna is very lossy, and has
> much weaker radiation at ALL angles, including high ones. The origin of
> the myth is that ARRL Antenna plots set the peak radiation to 0dB. But
> when plot the vertical field strength for all heights on the same scale,
> you get the family of curves beginning with slide 13.
>
> Study http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf
>
> There is an optimum range of heights for high angle radiation, and it
> isn't low. Slide 19 shows that the optimum height is about 55 ft on 80M,
> and high angle drop by only 2 dB at 90 ft. Divide those heights by 2 for
> 40M.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered to ab7echo at gmail.com