[GCARC] Club site 80-160M trap dipole

Tue Nov 10 16:37:52 EST 2020

That would probably work as well or better than the dipole.

Tony_K3TS

On Nov 10, 2020 3:28 PM, <ddole1 at aol.com> wrote:

> Tony, what a 1/4 wave sloper(s) off the tower. It could be high enough?
>
> Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Starr <tstarr1450 at gmail.com>
> To: Vinnie Sallustio <yankees_1996 at hotmail.com>; GLOUCESTER CLUB <
> gcarc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Mon, Nov 9, 2020 7:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [GCARC] Club site 80-160M trap dipole
>
> Vinnie,
>
> Correct on both counts.  Even the best built traps, if you could get them,
> would limit the VSWR bandwidth compared to a full size, non-trapped
> antenna.  And for DX on 160, verticals rule the roost.  Our best bet would
> probably be an inverted L, if DX is what we are looking for.  Any dipole on
> 160 that is less than 100 feet off the ground will radiate mostly up, and
> it doesn't matter which way the ends of the dipole are facing.
>
> Tony K3TS
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 7:39 PM Vinnie Sallustio <yankees_1996 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Traps appear to be out. Both companies (Unadilla and Spi-Ro) are out of
> > business.
> >
> > I would love a permanent 160M antenna. One that would do DXing.
> Apparently
> > the dipole would have limited DXing abilities.
> >
> > Vinnie N4NYY
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* JOHN HILL <john.e.hill at comcast.net>
> > *Sent:* Monday, November 9, 2020 7:33 PM
> > *To:* Vinnie Sallustio <yankees_1996 at hotmail.com>; WA2FZB, Tony Starr <
> > tstarr1450 at gmail.com>
> > *Cc:* kb2ayu at comcast.net <kb2ayu at comcast.net>
> > *Subject:* Re: [GCARC] Club site 80-160M trap dipole
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > Are you proposing a temporary or permanent 160m antenna?  If it's
> > permanent, it needs to be compatible with the Elecraft KPA1500 that I
> plan
> > on purchasing not too far in the future. It can handle a 3:1 SWR at rated
> > power, 10:1 with exciter pass-through.
> >
> > I am having problems visualizing the antennas discussed so far.
> >
> > 1) Regarding the "ladder line dipole", was the ladder line used for the
> > antenna, the feedline or both? How was the feedline routed? Was the
> antenna
> > tuner required at the base of the tower matching the balanced ladder line
> > to 50 ohm coax?
> >
> > 2) Regarding adding a pair of 1/4 wave 160m wires in parallel with the
> > existing 1/4 wave 80m wires, wat does "turning the wires so that they do
> no
> > face each other" mean?  Ideally, the 80m and 160 wires would be
> > perpendicular to each other in the plan view, right?  That would mean
> that
> > the 160m lobes would be roughly North and South, which wouldn't be ideal
> > for DX.
> >
> > 3) Personally, I think that traps would be the best option since the 80m
> > and 160m antennas would point in the same direction and a local antenna
> > tuner should not be required.  I would envision the two sides of the
> > antenna being primarily supported by ropes attached to the traps with a
> > second ropes attached to the ends.
> >
> > FYI, the present SWR observed by the IC-7300 is 1.8:1 on the 80m antenna.
> >
> > John W2HUV
> >
> > On 11/08/2020 9:35 PM Vinnie Sallustio < yankees_1996 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Tony,
> >
> > This is a better idea. The 2 trap companies are both out of business. A
> > fan dipole is a great idea.
> >
> > Vinnie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Tony Starr < tstarr1450 at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2020 9:32 PM
> > To: Vinnie Sallustio < Yankees_1996 at hotmail.com>
> > Cc: GCARC < gcarc at mailman.qth.net>
> > Subject: Re: [GCARC] Club site 80-160M trap dipole
> >
> > Vinnie,
> >
> > It would not be hard to do, if you had the traps, or could build them.
> The
> > problem is that a good pair of 80m traps is hard to come by, and if you
> do
> > find them, they may be heavy. The easy solution is just to add a pair of
> > wires to the feed point for 160m , making it into a dual-band dipole
> > similar to a fan dipole. This is what I did to my 40m dipole 4 years ago
> > when I wanted to get on 80 meters, and it has served me well ever since
> > then.
> >
> > If you turn the wires so that they are facing away from each other, you
> > will not even have much interaction between the two bands. This project
> > only requires 250 feet of wire, two insulators, and some rope. It would
> > offer a lot of return for a minimum of investment.
> >
> > Tony K3TS
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 8:53 PM Vinnie Sallustio <
> Yankees_1996 at hotmail.com
> > <mailto: Yankees_1996 at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> > Is there any way the current 80M dipole can be turned into a 80-160M trap
> > dipole? 160M is that elusive band for many people because of space
> > constraints. I don't use the clubhouse, but would bring my rig over there
> > to get on 160M. It's the only band I cannot get on at home. We seem to
> have
> > the space for one. Why don't we utilize it?
> >
> > Vinnie N4NYY
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > GCARC mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/gcarc
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto: GCARC at mailman.qth.net<mailto: GCARC at mailman.qth.net>
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > GCARC mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/gcarc
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto: GCARC at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> GCARC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/gcarc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:GCARC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>