I played with it a bit and found that converting it to a T from an L
actually reduced the overall gain at 30 deg elevation and did not improve it
below that. I ended up with 73' on each side of the center for the T,
slightly inverted. In fact, I took the inverted L in one of my files
(already constructed) and just added the 2nd wire. I, did, of course shorten
the vertical section to the 42' that I have available.

It did eliminate the overhead radiation, but did not significantly improve
the low angle (which seems impossible), but I'll play some more. So far, it
looks like the Inverted L is the better choice, even for more power at lower
launch angles than the "T". (It is also easier to construct...for a quick
throw it up antenna, you only need a long piece of wire and an insulator at
the top, pullling as much wire as you can get to go vertical and stretching
out the rest.) Then, the real work comes, putting down a good radial field
before the frost.

Thanks for the tip. 73

....hasan, N0AN
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
hasan schiers wrote:
Now that is interesting, Roy. I was going to put up a 160 m inverted L
this summer. I am limited to only being able to go up about 45 feet, so I
would need about another 90 feet horizontal.

Are you suggesting that it might be a better arrangement to go up the 45'
and then put up the top "T"?

It might be. You might benefit from the radiation from the horizontal
portion of an L, and you might not. But if it's quite low, the radiation
will be mostly straight up, and a fair amount will be expended warming up
the ground. Neither will occur with a T.

If so, roughly how long should the top part of the T be (each side of
center) to get me to 160?

That's just what antenna modeling programs are for! Dust off your EZNEC
and you'll have the answer in minutes.

. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL