On 17 Jan 2006 15:14:16 -0800, "Maarten"
wrote:

Hi,

I seek some help, advise or suggestions on HF antenna's. I've bought a
house with a plot of approx 330 x 80 ft / 100 x 23 mtr available for HF
antenna's.
But when I research HAM HF antenna's, home build or commercially
available, I only find a lot of small, smaller and smallest HF
antenna's (eg. wire antenna's, inverted V, T2DF) that don't take full
advantage of the size of my land available. On the other end of the
spectrum there are plans for very, VERY large antenna's like Rhombic
and Beverage. For this size of antenna's my plot is to small.

Do you have suggestions for HF antenna's I should check out? Let me
know in this forum or pm me. Thanx in advance. 73

Marteen, the reason for the gap from small to very large antennas is
mainly that the longer ones are developments of long wires and need to
be several wavelengths long at the lowest operating frequency.

However, it sounds like you block is large enough to accomodate a half
wave dipole on 160m... it all depends on the bands that are of
interest to you. Similarly, you migh be able to accomodate an Extended
Double Zepp for 80m, depending on orientation requirements, or an
array of verticals. Don't forget that guyed structures consume space
for the back guys. The space might allow you to erect several towers /
antennas without them all being tightly coupled as is the case with
smaller blocks. Whilst you are working at how to fill the space now, I
am guessing that it won't be too long before the space won't seem
large enough!

Owen
Maarten
maartenkoning2002 (at) yahoo.com
--

Owen Duffy wrote:
Don't forget that guyed structures consume space for the back guys.

A friend of mine in AZ solved that problem like this.

+---------------Antenna wire-----
G |\
U | \
Y | \
| \ Pole
W | \
I | \
R | \
E | \
+--------+--------Ground---------
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:06:04 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:

Owen Duffy wrote:
Don't forget that guyed structures consume space for the back guys.

A friend of mine in AZ solved that problem like this.
....

Ok. I am assuming that there is 1 back guy and two front guys (not
shown). If you do the structural analysis, you will see why that
configuration is not common.

Owen
--

Owen Duffy wrote:
Ok. I am assuming that there is 1 back guy and two front guys (not
shown). If you do the structural analysis, you will see why that
configuration is not common.

As I remember, my AZ friend had some sort of A-Frame support
about half-way down the pole. I don't recall more than one
guy wire at the top of the pole.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp