INVERTED-L QUESTIONS
 

nbr wrote:
1) How to feed the antenna and be able to run legal limit, all bands?

Put your matching network at the base of the antenna. Feed your matching
network with coax.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:50:04 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

nbr wrote:
1) How to feed the antenna and be able to run legal limit, all bands?

Put your matching network at the base of the antenna. Feed your matching
network with coax.

Thanks for your reply to my message, but this is not feasible. The
antenna is 120' from the shack, unblanaced transmatch in the shack.
Looking for matching network at the base of the antenna (or apex,
maybe), perhaps balun (???), but needs to be broadband so antenna can
operate multiband.
Thanks and 73
dan

hey there
i am planning on a similar antenna here is the website for it
http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/invertedl.html

according the the person who did this website if you feed it at the
ground you can feed it with 50 ohm coax
good luck and let me know how it turns out

nbr wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:50:04 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

nbr wrote:
1) How to feed the antenna and be able to run legal limit, all bands?

Put your matching network at the base of the antenna. Feed your matching
network with coax.

Thanks for your reply to my message, but this is not feasible. The
antenna is 120' from the shack, unblanaced transmatch in the shack.
Looking for matching network at the base of the antenna (or apex,
maybe), perhaps balun (???), but needs to be broadband so antenna can
operate multiband.

Cecil's right - it can't be done without a matching network at the base,
because the feedpoint impedance varies too much between bands.

Your antenna is about a twice-size version of mine. I have a 35ft
vertical, with a 35ft horizontal section followed by a "switch" that can
connect another 65ft (all dimensions approximate). It's fed through
matching networks at the bottom of the vertical, against a large number
of radials.

The extra length of horizontal is only used for Top Band
(quarter-wavelength, low Z, needs those radials) and for 80m short-skip
(half-wavelength, mostly horizontal, voltage fed so doesn't use the
radials much).

With the "switch" open, it's simply a 35ft vertical, 35ft horizontal
inverted-L.

Top Band: 1/8-wave, inefficient but long enough to be usable for easy
QSOs.

80m: bent quarter-wave, surprisingly effective for DX, but low-Z feed
and needs those radials.

40m: voltage-fed half-wave, half vertical and half horizontal - from the
UK it's good for mixed European/DX working, but obviously receives the
European signals even when you don't want them. High-Z feed.

Higher bands: too long - wastes power in lots of little lobes pointing
in useless directions. Gets worse and worse as the frequency goes up,
and even a simple dipole is better. Mostly high-Z feed.

As Cecil says, there's no choice but to feed it at the base through
matching networks on most bands. Trying to feed it from the shack end
through the long run of coax is a non-starter, except on the bands where
it's a low-Z feed. On all the other bands the SWR is too high and the
losses in the coax are crippling.

For many years I used a conventional T-match ATU out there in a
waterproof box. Band-changing was possible, but a chore. Then I tried
custom switchable networks, but that became too complex. At present I'm
using a military auto-ATU that is 1kW rated and works like a dream.

I would certainly recommend the 35+35ft along inverted-L with an
auto-ATU for any small backyard. The extra horizontal length is fine if
you can get it - and the advantage of using the auto-ATU is that it can
be *any* practicable length; you don't have to worry about matching any
more. The only problem is that amateur auto-ATUs are limited to medium
power.

Your system is twice as big as mine, so you can shift all the above
comments down one band. It should go like a rocket on Top Band, but even
on 40m it's getting over-long. If you have other antennas for the higher
bands, think of the inverted-L only as your "low-band special" - then
two or three remotely switched, pre-tuned matching networks will be all
you need.

In your situation I would also consider a remote switch at the top of
the vertical, to disconnect the horizontal part completely. You'll then
have a very effective DX antenna for 40m. Take a look at N6RK's site,
which has some information about switching out the upper sections of
antennas for the bands where they are "over-tall".


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Put an SGC at the base and feed it with 12 volts and RF via Co-ax.

Nick

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 02:47:19 GMT, Dennis Kaylor
wrote:

hey there
i am planning on a similar antenna here is the website for it
http://www.bloomington.in.us/~wh2t/invertedl.html

according the the person who did this website if you feed it at the
ground you can feed it with 50 ohm coax
good luck and let me know how it turns out

This was an easy experiment...tried it and couldn't load the antenna
from the shack. Put an MFJ analyzer on it, and the impedance was all
over the place. I got the sense that while my trasnmatch might make my
transceiver happy, there was very little RF radiation going on. I've
seen the article you mention...in my case, my INV-L dimensions were
different, I am trying to operate multiband, plus 120' of buried coax
to the shack had us comparing apples to oranges.
Thanks for your comments...stay tuned!
73
Dan (K0DAN)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:53:51 +0100, "froggers"
wrote:

Put an SGC at the base and feed it with 12 volts and RF via Co-ax.

Nick


Yes I have considered this. However my original post says that I wish
to be able to run legal limit. No such SGC matching network.
73
Dan (K0DAN)

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:19:26 -0500, nbr
wrote:

I've put up an inverted-L, which consists of approx. 135' horizontal
leg, and approx. 70' vertical leg. I can shorten the overall length of
the antenna, but cannot lengthen it. There are about 4 ground rods
within about 10' of the base ofthe vertical element, plus about 25
square feet of chickenn wire to serve as a ground plane. I can feed
the antenna right at ground level, or can arrange to feed it up to
6-10' above ground. There is about 120' of buried coax to the shack,
which must feed this antenna. I'd like to use this inverted-L on
160-10M (will settle for 80-10M).
1) How to feed the antenna and be able to run legal limit, all bands?
Current or voltage balun? Won't a balun disspiate power and decrease
efficiency? WIll a balun at ground level increase ground losses?
2) How is the inverted-L said to be a vertically polarized antenna,
when a major portion of its radiating element is horizontal?
3) For Field Day we added another vertical leg to this antenna to make
it into a half-square, and had decent results on 40M/20M. How is the
half-square described as "two verticals in phase", when again, there
is a major part of the antenna (the so-called "phasing element") which
is horizontal?
Thanks and 73
Dan (K0DAN)


Thanks for the recent comments on my previous post. They have been
interesting and informative.

The "antenna voodoo" is still bothering me about the theory of some of
these antennas (e.g. inverted-L, half-square, etc.). I understand that
the horizontal leg of the "L" is considered an "inductor at the top of
the vertical" element, but why not the reverse? Why is this not a
"bent horizontal" with segments which radiate both in the horizontal
and vertical planes? Why is the horizontal sengment of a 1/2-square
considered a "phasing line" and not a radiator?

73
Dan (K0DAN)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:57:42 -0700, W5DXP
wrote:

nbr wrote:
Why is the horizontal sengment of a 1/2-square
considered a "phasing line" and not a radiator?

The center of the "phasing line" on a half-square is a
maximum voltage point but there is nothing to keep that
horizontal wire from radiating. At a TOA of about 65 degrees
the broadside horizontal radiation and vertical radiation of
a half-square are about equal at about -9 dBi.

I don't think you're suggesting the horizontal component is cancelled
out??? So in truth the 1/2-square may perform DX best at low angle TOA
broadside to the two verticals, but may also have high angle lobes
from the horizontal wire (effective close-in cloud-warmer)?

nbr wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:50:04 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:


nbr wrote:

1) How to feed the antenna and be able to run legal limit, all bands?

Put your matching network at the base of the antenna. Feed your matching
network with coax.

Thanks for your reply to my message, but this is not feasible. The
antenna is 120' from the shack, unblanaced transmatch in the shack.
Looking for matching network at the base of the antenna ...

This is what I suggested but it will have to be switchable or tunable
for each band, maybe a stub for each band. There is no single fixed
network or balun that will do the job. The impedance on some bands
will be sky high and cause sky high SWRs on your coax.

(or apex,
maybe), perhaps balun (???), but needs to be broadband so antenna can
operate multiband.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

nbr wrote:
Yes I have considered this. However my original post says that I wish
to be able to run legal limit. No such SGC matching network.

You can probably switch stubs in and out to accomplish the loading.
Start with one band, get it right, and go on to the next.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:21:12 -0700, W5DXP
wrote:

nbr wrote:
W5DXP wrote:
The center of the "phasing line" on a half-square is a
maximum voltage point but there is nothing to keep that
horizontal wire from radiating. At a TOA of about 65 degrees
the broadside horizontal radiation and vertical radiation of
a half-square are about equal at about -9 dBi.

I don't think you're suggesting the horizontal component is cancelled
out??? So in truth the 1/2-square may perform DX best at low angle TOA
broadside to the two verticals, but may also have high angle lobes
from the horizontal wire (effective close-in cloud-warmer)?

Yes, above a TOA of about 65 degrees, the radiation is primarily
horizontally polarized and there is enough to make some NVIS
contacts on the lower bands. You get an interesting pattern if
you feed it 1/3 of the way down the horizontal wire. You get some
fairly good high angle radiation that can help fill in the nulls
in the half-square patternm i,e, the coverage doughnut gets bigger.

Interesting, I think this could be what happened during our Field Day
ops. We worked virtually NO DX, but did decent with this antenna to
most parts of the USA. The design of the 1/2-square was "wrong" by
conventional design notes, ie the verticals were too long (approx 45'
and 65' each) and were separated by WAY too much horizontal (about
130'). If we were radiating low vertical TOA, the propagation wasn't
supporting it (or the noise level was too high). However the decent
stateside performance suggests we were warming the clouds. Our QTH was
mid-USA (Missouri) and broadside to the horizontal wire was E/W; we
worked about 40 states.
73
Dan (K0DAN)

nbr wrote:
Why is the horizontal sengment of a 1/2-square
considered a "phasing line" and not a radiator?

The center of the "phasing line" on a half-square is a
maximum voltage point but there is nothing to keep that
horizontal wire from radiating. At a TOA of about 65 degrees
the broadside horizontal radiation and vertical radiation of
a half-square are about equal at about -9 dBi.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

nbr wrote:
W5DXP wrote:
The center of the "phasing line" on a half-square is a
maximum voltage point but there is nothing to keep that
horizontal wire from radiating. At a TOA of about 65 degrees
the broadside horizontal radiation and vertical radiation of
a half-square are about equal at about -9 dBi.

I don't think you're suggesting the horizontal component is cancelled
out??? So in truth the 1/2-square may perform DX best at low angle TOA
broadside to the two verticals, but may also have high angle lobes
from the horizontal wire (effective close-in cloud-warmer)?

Yes, above a TOA of about 65 degrees, the radiation is primarily
horizontally polarized and there is enough to make some NVIS
contacts on the lower bands. You get an interesting pattern if
you feed it 1/3 of the way down the horizontal wire. You get some
fairly good high angle radiation that can help fill in the nulls
in the half-square patternm i,e, the coverage doughnut gets bigger.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

This isn't tough. You have the makings of a fine 160-10 meter antenna.

Step 1 - add wire to run the vertical leg back up toward the top to make it
a total of 135 feet long. (linear loading)

Step 2 - feed it at the top center with 450 ohm ladder line (no radials or
ground plane needed now) Run the ladder line away at an angle to be
equidistant from the legs of the antenna and put a twist in the line about
once every two feet.

Step 3 - run the ladder line back to a 1:1 current balun as close to the
shack as you can (Centaur had some nice big ones)

Step 4 - coax to the tuner in the shack. You may not even need the tuner on
160.

Step 5 - enjoy. I do.

--
Radio K4ia
Craig "Buck"
Fredericksburg, VA USA
FISTS 6702 cc 788 Diamond 64

nbr wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 19:19:26 -0500, nbr
wrote:

I've put up an inverted-L, which consists of approx. 135' horizontal
leg, and approx. 70' vertical leg. I can shorten the overall length of
the antenna, but cannot lengthen it. There are about 4 ground rods
within about 10' of the base ofthe vertical element, plus about 25
square feet of chickenn wire to serve as a ground plane. I can feed
the antenna right at ground level, or can arrange to feed it up to
6-10' above ground. There is about 120' of buried coax to the shack,
which must feed this antenna. I'd like to use this inverted-L on
160-10M (will settle for 80-10M).
1) How to feed the antenna and be able to run legal limit, all bands?
Current or voltage balun? Won't a balun disspiate power and decrease
efficiency? WIll a balun at ground level increase ground losses?
2) How is the inverted-L said to be a vertically polarized antenna,
when a major portion of its radiating element is horizontal?
3) For Field Day we added another vertical leg to this antenna to make
it into a half-square, and had decent results on 40M/20M. How is the
half-square described as "two verticals in phase", when again, there
is a major part of the antenna (the so-called "phasing element") which
is horizontal?
Thanks and 73
Dan (K0DAN)


Thanks for the recent comments on my previous post. They have been
interesting and informative.

The "antenna voodoo" is still bothering me about the theory of some of
these antennas (e.g. inverted-L, half-square, etc.). I understand that
the horizontal leg of the "L" is considered an "inductor at the top of
the vertical" element, but why not the reverse?

Myself, I tend to consider it capacitance rather than inductance. IE:
one leg of a top hat.

Why is this not a
"bent horizontal" with segments which radiate both in the horizontal
and vertical planes?

In a way it is, but the vertical radiation overshadows the horizontal
when using a 1/4 wave long inv L. Maximum current is at the base if
you are feeding it at the base. The thing with your antenna is it's
longer than a 1/4 wave on even 160 meters. So you will have more
radiation from the horizontal wire than you would a shorter antenna.
But on some bands, this may not be a bad thing. To run on 160m with
power, it's fairly simple. Use a big variable cap in series at the
base to tune out the reactance. The match should be usable. And the
antenna will work well for mid range use. Better close in than the 1/4
wave L. The max current point is well up the vertical part from the
base, and ground losses are reduced. But it might not be as simple on
the other bands. You almost need a tuner at the base. A simple L
network should do the job. It would be much simpler for all band use
if you had a 135 ft center fed dipole fed with ladder line to a tuner
in the shack. The overall performance on most bands would be better.
If your run of coax to the antenna were real short, and you used good
fat coax, you could tune the L with a good tuner at the shack and have
a usable signal. But I think you said you had 120 ft. Thats a bit long
for very high SWR use. And being it's buried, the expected likely
common mode currents that could be usefully radiated, will be wasted
heating earthworms...:/ MK

nbr wrote:
When I get into these antenna mysteries, the thing for me to remember
is to focus on where the likely voltage and current points are on the
element(s), and from there I have a better chance of prediciting the
characteristics of the antenna at a given frequency. Otherwise it's
pure voodoo. (I need to tattoo a couple graphs on my hand.)

You could probably learn a lot by using a modeling program like EZNEC,
which is available in a free demo version at http://www.eznec.com
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:12:16 -0500, W5DXP
wrote:

nbr wrote:
When I get into these antenna mysteries, the thing for me to remember
is to focus on where the likely voltage and current points are on the
element(s), and from there I have a better chance of prediciting the
characteristics of the antenna at a given frequency. Otherwise it's
pure voodoo. (I need to tattoo a couple graphs on my hand.)

You could probably learn a lot by using a modeling program like EZNEC,
which is available in a free demo version at http://www.eznec.com

You know, I've been meaning to do exactly that. A few years ago tried
a free demo (might have been early version of EZNEC?) and was scared
away from it because I found it extremely difficult to input the
antenna data....a simple dipole in free space was no big deal, but the
oddball antennas I like to experiment with (goofy lengths, bends and
angles,(in real world environment...near tower, metal barn etc.!) were
practically impossible to input.Garbage in, garbage out. Will give it
another try.
Tnx & 73
Dan (K0DAN)

I see that most of your questions about inverted L antennas have been
answered.

The questions you asked (quoted below) illustrate the danger of trying
to oversimplify antenna operation. For example, the problem with the
"inductor at the top of the vertical" is simply that the horizontal leg
isn't just an "inductor at the top of the vertical". If you consider it
one, you end up with dilemmas like you've encountered. Likewise,
dividing wires into two separate and distinct classes of "phasing lines"
and "radiators" gives you no room for wires which do both simultaneously
(let alone deal with "phasing lines" whose phase shift doesn't equal the
electrical length of the line, which often happens).

You'll have to develop a more basic understanding of antenna operation,
and avoid trying to pigeonhole antenna characteristics into a convenient
handful of categories, if you're ever to have antennas make sense and
cease being "voodoo". The EZNEC demo is a way many people have found to
help learn what's going on. If you do download the demo, be sure to go
through the "Test Drive" tutorial to get started. If you don't find
EZNEC to be your cup of tea, there are now a number of free antenna
analysis programs available, and you'll probably find one that's to your
liking.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

nbr wrote:

Thanks for the recent comments on my previous post. They have been
interesting and informative.

The "antenna voodoo" is still bothering me about the theory of some of
these antennas (e.g. inverted-L, half-square, etc.). I understand that
the horizontal leg of the "L" is considered an "inductor at the top of
the vertical" element, but why not the reverse? Why is this not a
"bent horizontal" with segments which radiate both in the horizontal
and vertical planes? Why is the horizontal sengment of a 1/2-square
considered a "phasing line" and not a radiator?

73
Dan (K0DAN)

As to this particular project, I've received several interesting
suggestions, some modifying the shape/size, some adding a tuner at the
base. I'm probably gonna try both. I have a line on an extra tuner,
which I'm gonna try to weatherproof and install (single band)

Dan, I homebrewed a remote controlled tuner that would work with your antenna,
and you could change bands without ever leaving the shack. It uses a motor
driven roller inductor and variable capacitor in an "L" network. I also have a
relay switching scheme to reconfigure the "L" network. With this tuner at the
base of a vertical or inv. L you can match a wide range of impedances. The L
and C in this tuner are rated at legal limit.
Obviously the only thing standing in the way of you using something like this
is obtaining the parts and building it. The inductor is surplus, about 30 uH.
MFJ sells one that they use in their 1 kw tuner, around $65. The capacitor is
a Ten Tec 500pf variable cap. kit, around $45. The drive motors came out of a
kids battery operated car, 12vdc around .5 to 1 revs/sec that can be changed
with the supply voltage. The hard part is coupling the motors to the L and C.
The control cable is 100' of 8 cond.#20 shielded industrial control cable,
about $45. Forward and reversing was done with relay logic.
This was not a weekend project, but it wasn't that bad either. If you want
some more details, email.


73 Gary N4AST

JGBOYLES wrote:
As to this particular project, I've received several interesting
suggestions, some modifying the shape/size, some adding a tuner at the
base. I'm probably gonna try both. I have a line on an extra tuner,
which I'm gonna try to weatherproof and install (single band)

Dan, I homebrewed a remote controlled tuner that would work with your antenna,
and you could change bands without ever leaving the shack. It uses a motor
driven roller inductor and variable capacitor in an "L" network. I also have a
relay switching scheme to reconfigure the "L" network. With this tuner at the
base of a vertical or inv. L you can match a wide range of impedances. The L
and C in this tuner are rated at legal limit.
Obviously the only thing standing in the way of you using something like this
is obtaining the parts and building it. The inductor is surplus, about 30 uH.
MFJ sells one that they use in their 1 kw tuner, around $65. The capacitor is
a Ten Tec 500pf variable cap. kit, around $45. The drive motors came out of a
kids battery operated car, 12vdc around .5 to 1 revs/sec that can be changed
with the supply voltage. The hard part is coupling the motors to the L and C.
The control cable is 100' of 8 cond.#20 shielded industrial control cable,
about $45. Forward and reversing was done with relay logic.
This was not a weekend project, but it wasn't that bad either. If you want
some more details, email.

A few more thoughts, in case they're useful to Dan or anyone else:

* It's sometimes possible to make an automatic two-band network. For
example, the same 33ft end-fed vertical can be matched as both a
half-wave on 20m *and* a quarter-wave on 40m, with one network and no
switching. The same goes for a 66-footer (vertical or inverted L) on
40/20, or a 130-footer on 160/80.

* Remember that the remote network doesn't have to give a perfect match.
If the SWR on the coax is below about 3, the extra losses won't be
significant (except in extreme cases) and you can always do the final
"flattening" to 50R in the shack.

* Instead of remote rotary switches, consider latching vacuum relays
which don't require power to hold them closed. There are surplus vac
relays at very reasonable prices at:
http://www.mgs4u.com/#president

* You can reduce the number of control lines by sending cunning
combinations of positive and negative DC, AC out from the control box,
and using steering/blocking/rectifying diodes at the remote end.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White, G3SEK wrote:

A few more thoughts, in case they're useful to Dan or anyone else:

* It's sometimes possible to make an automatic two-band network. For
example, the same 33ft end-fed vertical can be matched as both a
half-wave on 20m *and* a quarter-wave on 40m, with one network and no
switching. The same goes for a 66-footer (vertical or inverted L) on
40/20, or a 130-footer on 160/80.
. . .

Wes Hayward, W7ZOI, published either a QST article or a Technical
Correspondence piece about doing this, many (10? 15?) years ago. A
search of the QST CDs should turn it up. If I recall correctly, he
concluded that either a two-band solution could always be found, or that
he wasn't able to find a combination that he couldn't find a two-band
solution for.

Just by observing this newsgroup, though, it seems like very few hams
are any longer interested in matching an antenna to a feedline,
preferring to buy ladder line and a tuner instead.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:15:30 +0100, "Ian White, G3SEK"
wrote:

Excellent suggestions, Ian...I sure like the K.I.S.S. method! Gonna
try the dual band approach with a tuner and mybe try some stubs. (I
also liked the homebrew remote tuner using the kids' car
motors....perhaps one day when my projects to-do list drops to the
single digits!)
73
dan (k0dan)

A few more thoughts, in case they're useful to Dan or anyone else:

* It's sometimes possible to make an automatic two-band network. For
example, the same 33ft end-fed vertical can be matched as both a
half-wave on 20m *and* a quarter-wave on 40m, with one network and no
switching. The same goes for a 66-footer (vertical or inverted L) on
40/20, or a 130-footer on 160/80.

* Remember that the remote network doesn't have to give a perfect match.
If the SWR on the coax is below about 3, the extra losses won't be
significant (except in extreme cases) and you can always do the final
"flattening" to 50R in the shack.

* Instead of remote rotary switches, consider latching vacuum relays
which don't require power to hold them closed. There are surplus vac
relays at very reasonable prices at:
http://www.mgs4u.com/#president

* You can reduce the number of control lines by sending cunning
combinations of positive and negative DC, AC out from the control box,
and using steering/blocking/rectifying diodes at the remote end.

JGBOYLES wrote:
A few years back, I reduced the number of control lines to zero with a wireless
link.

When I was at Texas A&M, I did a Mother's Day experiment where I had six
switches, seven wires, and six lamps. Each switch would light a different
individual lamp. I could disconnect the wires one by one and still light
the correct lamps. When it got down to lighting the lamps over one wire,
you would be surprised at how many engineering students couldn't figure
out how it was done. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
A few more thoughts, in case they're useful to Dan or anyone else:
* It's sometimes possible to make an automatic two-band network. For
example, the same 33ft end-fed vertical can be matched as both a
half-wave on 20m *and* a quarter-wave on 40m, with one network and no
switching. The same goes for a 66-footer (vertical or inverted L) on
40/20, or a 130-footer on 160/80.
. . .

Wes Hayward, W7ZOI, published either a QST article or a Technical
Correspondence piece about doing this, many (10? 15?) years ago. A
search of the QST CDs should turn it up.

Yes, that's the one.

I possibly have a photocopy somewhere, but don't recall seeing these
extra details, which Roy may have hard directly from Wes:

If I recall correctly, he concluded that either a two-band solution
could always be found, or that he wasn't able to find a combination
that he couldn't find a two-band solution for.



Just by observing this newsgroup, though, it seems like very few hams
are any longer interested in matching an antenna to a feedline,
preferring to buy ladder line and a tuner instead.

If anybody's interested in this "two bands, one coax, no switches"
solution, I'll try to put a PDF together over the weekend (it isn't a
good subject for ASCII art). It also struck me that this may be a good
subject for an Excel spreadsheet, or one of Reg's programs.



--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

If anybody's interested in this "two bands, one coax, no switches"
solution, I'll try to put a PDF together over the weekend (it isn't a
good subject for ASCII art). It also struck me that this may be a good
subject for an Excel spreadsheet, or one of Reg's programs.

Ian, count me in. While "all band" operation is always desirable, when
you get right down to it 160/80 or 80/40 are the gaps I'm really
trying to fill. And while many of the other solutions proposed are
innovative and tempting to perform, the "keep it simple" approach has
very strong appeal.
Tnx & 73
Dan (K0DAN)