I am interested in operation primarily on 160, 80, and 40.

I have space for a full-size dipole for 160 but I cannot get it up
very high, maybe 30 feet, higher than that only at great expense and
with great difficulty.

I will likely put up a 160-meter dipole at 30 feet and feed it with
ladder line and a tuner, and use it for NVIS work on 160-40.

For DX, though, I'm wondering if I will be happy with a vertical such
as the Voyager DX from Gap Antennas, or if I should bite the bullet
and go to the expense and difficulty of getting the dipole up 60-80
feet (which still won't be very high, compared with a wavelength, at
160 or 80).

What's your advice?

What's your advice?

Get a copy of ON4UN's low band DXing.

Search the Topband archives antennas.

Measure/estimate your ground conductivity and permittivity and get
comfortable with a modeling program.

And finally, experiment.

I don't mean to be glib but there's really no quick answer to what
antenna you'd be happy with for DX on 40,80 and 160. 30 feet for a
horizontal antenna *is* too low, generally.

Maybe someone can comment on the Voyager DX... I can't, specifically.
Verticals are good, short verticals are compromises and must be treated
with care.

- - - - - - - - -

This is what I use:

http://www.n3ox.net/projects/sixtyvert

I can certainly work more 40&80m DX on this than on the 30 foot high,
100 foot long centerfed wire I used to use on those bands. As far as
160m goes, this is the first time I can work 160 DX at all...

73,
Dan

Dan wrote:
http://www.n3ox.net/projects/sixtyvert

I can certainly work more 40&80m DX on this than on the 30 foot high,
100 foot long centerfed wire I used to use on those bands. As far as
160m goes, this is the first time I can work 160 DX at all...

73,
Dan

Hmm... very interesting... and do-able. I've been thinking myself about
erecting a vertical for 80/40 (but didn't want to waste my time). Thanks
Dan!

73,
Bryan WA7PRC

On 11 Jan 2007 22:29:52 -0800, "
wrote:

What's your advice?

Get a copy of ON4UN's low band DXing.

Search the Topband archives antennas.

Measure/estimate your ground conductivity and permittivity and get
comfortable with a modeling program.

And finally, experiment.

I don't mean to be glib but there's really no quick answer to what
antenna you'd be happy with for DX on 40,80 and 160. 30 feet for a
horizontal antenna *is* too low, generally.

Maybe someone can comment on the Voyager DX... I can't, specifically.
Verticals are good, short verticals are compromises and must be treated
with care.

- - - - - - - - -

This is what I use:

http://www.n3ox.net/projects/sixtyvert

I can certainly work more 40&80m DX on this than on the 30 foot high,
100 foot long centerfed wire I used to use on those bands. As far as
160m goes, this is the first time I can work 160 DX at all...

73,
Dan
Your sixtyvert antenna has me rethinking my vertical plans.

I have a forty foot utility pole laying on the ground while I plan the
details for a taller vertical.

In spite of my aversion to guys I think this pole is light enough to
be workable for me. My current vertical is a 45 foot wire off the
side of the tower tuned with an SGC-237. It seems to be working well
in spite of a minimal ground. It appears to me that the guy anchors
could be as simple as a few five gallon buckets of sand.

I sure hate to pay that much shipping though!

John Ferrell W8CCW

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:33:10 -0500, Rick
wrote:

What's your advice?

Hi Rick,

Choose your poison.

A 30 foot high 160M dipole is a notable ground hugging air cooled
resistor. A GAP is probably worse.

A combination of the two might be in order (which does NOT mean buy a
GAP to do this). Erect a 30 foot vertical and top load it with what
would have been the dipole.

I will leave to others what could be done in higher bands (with one
word of advice, GAPs don't usually perform very well on their lowest
band(s), but have been to be reported as good verticals otherwise).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:36:23 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

A 30 foot high 160M dipole is a notable ground hugging air cooled
resistor. A GAP is probably worse.

Good morning, Richard.

Actually, 30 feet is on the low side of "about right" on 160 and on
the high side of "about right" on 80, for NVIS work, of which I do a
lot. For DX, I agree that it's not of much use.

And yet...

My current antenna is an inverted V up about 35 feet in the center, 90
feet each leg, fed with ladder line. It started life as a
60-foot-high inverted V, full length for 160, in which configuration
it worked rather well. Then a storm came by and knocked a tree down
.... well, I digress... :-(

I had earlier put up the inverted V via one of those "expensive and
difficult" mechanisms I mentioned earlier (hired a 60-foot cherry
picker and operator). I couldn't do that again, so I hoisted what was
left of the antenna up to the top of my 35-foot tower, and trimmed the
legs so that they would stay within the property line. Kept the
ladder line feeder, and I tune it with an LDG RT-11 autotuner with the
LDG balun.

I use that antenna on all bands including 160, with a Yaesu FT-817
running a cloud-burning 5 watts, and it works amazingly well for the
power level.

But, as usual, I want more. :-)

Thanks to you and others here for the feedback on the GAP. I REALLY
wasn't up for spending almost half a grand for a vertical.

Rick wrote:
I am interested in operation primarily on 160, 80, and 40.

I have space for a full-size dipole for 160 but I cannot get it up
very high, maybe 30 feet, higher than that only at great expense and
with great difficulty.

I will likely put up a 160-meter dipole at 30 feet and feed it with
ladder line and a tuner, and use it for NVIS work on 160-40.

For DX, though, I'm wondering if I will be happy with a vertical such
as the Voyager DX from Gap Antennas, or if I should bite the bullet
and go to the expense and difficulty of getting the dipole up 60-80
feet (which still won't be very high, compared with a wavelength, at
160 or 80).

What's your advice?
Hi Rick,

As someone has said get a copy of ON4UN's Low band dxing..
I would not particularly recommend the Gap Antenna for Low Bands.

Than being said if you and put out a decent radial system for dx
Transmitting anyway I'd say you want some sort of vertical.

Why not try a Inverted L. Try to get as much vertical as possible.
Base tune it with a matching network- The SGC line works well for that
application. you can read more about Inverted L's in Cebik's write up at:

http://www.cebik.com/wire/ltv.html

Good Luck
73, Dave Kc1di

Rick wrote:
What's your advice?

Check out the Inverted-L antenna. Also check the
vertical Vs horizontal noise level at your QTH.
My 40m vertical had 2 S-units higher noise than
my 80m dipole rendering it useless for weak
signal DX.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:57:24 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Check out the Inverted-L antenna.

Doesn't the horizontal part of the inverted L need to be as high as
possible for best results? I'd run into the same problems I'm running
into in putting a dipole or inverted V up high enough.

Also check the
vertical Vs horizontal noise level at your QTH.
My 40m vertical had 2 S-units higher noise than
my 80m dipole rendering it useless for weak
signal DX.

I have a fairly high noise level around here on any of the horizontal
antennas I've tried.

But, I have an MFJ-1026 "Deluxe Noise Canceling Signal Enhancer" :-)
that does an amazing job of cutting down the noise IF the noise is
primarily from one general direction (which seems to be the case
around here although I haven't been able to pinpoint it).

That's one of the reasons I wanted to try some kind of a vertical and
see how that worked.

I read somewhere that ground mounted verticals with radials on or
buried in the ground tend to be noisier. Is that true? That's one of
the reasons I was considering the GAP Voyager DX... doesn't require an
extensive radial system.

Rick wrote:
Doesn't the horizontal part of the inverted L need to be as high as
possible for best results? I'd run into the same problems I'm running
into in putting a dipole or inverted V up high enough.

Not exactly. Make the vertical section of the Inv-L
as long as feasible. The vertical section is the
highest current section and therefore has the greatest
effect. Or instead of an Inv-L, make it a T antenna
with a vertical section and a symmetrical top hat.
The symmetrical top hat doesn't do much radiating.

Here's what EZNEC says using VERT1.ez as the reference.
40m 33' Vert1 has -0.04 dBi gain omnidirectional.

16.5'-16.5'Inv-L has 1.04 dBi gain with some directivity.

16.5'-23.5' T antenna has 0.19 dBi gain omnidirectional.
Note: 16.5' = vertical, 23.5' = horizontal top hat.

Performance wise, I don't think you could tell the real
vertical from the T except for the T's lower feedpoint
impedance.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp