Callsign
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Minimum height for a full wave loop

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-rl
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-innov
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-sarc
ad: l-tentec
ad: l-gcopper
  1. #1

    Default Minimum height for a full wave loop

    I'm thinking about taking on the challenge of putting up a full wave loop for 160M and I'm curious what the minimum height should be. Is it worth the time and money to put one up if I can only get it 20-30 feet off the ground? I know I won't work much DX on 160 at that height, but it will be feed with ladder line, so I will be using it on other bands as well. Also, this loop would encircle my other antennas and I need to know how they will interact. How far away from the loop do they need to be? I'd like to be able to share supports to keep the cost down.

    Thanks.

  2. #2

    Default

    That's so low the wire sag will make it a lot lower in between supports...may not be worth the effort.

    However where there's a will...

    I work Don KG9OM quite often. He uses loops about 50' above ground as shown here: http://www.k4qky.com/antennas/multi-band-loop.html

    ...and they work well for him. But those are at 50' above ground. I know Don experimented a lot with this, back at his old QTH in KY and also at his current one. His discussion on the website link provided above provides some insight about what he found.
    A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

    -- George Bernard Shaw

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ6AJL View Post
    I'm thinking about taking on the challenge of putting up a full wave loop for 160M and I'm curious what the minimum height should be.
    A full-wave loop radiates broadside to the loop. If the loop is horizontal, most of the radiation will be almost straight up. At any reasonable height on 160m, that makes it an NVIS antenna. Or are you talking about a vertical loop?
    73, Cecil, www.w5dxp.com
    Can CO2 emissions save us from the coming ice age?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    St. Mary's County Md since 2000
    Posts
    7,507

    Default

    Worthwhile? Compared to what?
    ,
    What are your objectives? If you are happy working regionally this would be good. If you want to work Europe from California, then you need it a lot higher.

    Nobody can accurately answer all your questions. Put the antenna up. Do what you can. You won't learn anything if you don't try it!
    "Loading Zone: No Parking"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    In Missouri Ozark Mountains
    Posts
    5,692

    Default

    I will tell you how mine worked it had varying heights using existing supports @ 50/40/25/18' and a very ragged rectangle. Ladder Line is a PITA to use and not necessary at all. I used coax all the way and it was fed from a corner at my tower close to the house to a tuner it worked from 6-160m. It was the best antenna that I have used and I have a lot of antennas for North and Central America on the low bands 30-160m. In fact in the first 160m SSB Contest I worked 43 states and 19 enties under poor conditions it was excellent on 80/160m.

    I had yagis and beams for all bands 432-40m and verticals for 440-160m as well and dipoles covering the same so I did a few to compare to. It is known as a quiet antenna the jury is out here on that, granted it's not a great DX antenna but did work a little a few times mostly EU's. If you want a good low band antenna for NA,CA it's well worth putting up and 30' will surprise you I think all you need is wire and a balun, coax.
    73 de Fred N0AZZ

    _____________________________________

    The License is Only Your Starting Point in Radio!
    MVDX/CC of SW MO., DX Hogs, OARS, NARC, NCDXF
    ARRL member, ARRL and W5YI VE
    DX the thrill of the chase

    ""D-STAR making use of the 2/ 440m repeaters for real world Digital Voice usage around town and around the world""

    " Not one of us can do what all of us can do " ** Max Lucado

  6. #6

    Default

    Thanks for the info, I'll check out that web site. My goal is to experiment and have fun. I'd like to have something that can work DX on 80M though. My understanding was that a loop cut for 160 would beam the majority of the energy straight up, but on 80M it would radiate at a much lower angle. Is that accurate?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ6AJL View Post
    Thanks for the info, I'll check out that web site. My goal is to experiment and have fun. I'd like to have something that can work DX on 80M though. My understanding was that a loop cut for 160 would beam the majority of the energy straight up, but on 80M it would radiate at a much lower angle. Is that accurate?
    Not at 20-30 feet, it won't. Still, even if it has substantially less than 0 dBd gain at lower angles, you'll make contacts!

    I've worked VKs on 80m from my van using a 7' tall mobile whip; it's all in "timing" and being there.

    As Don Wallace W6AM told me 35 years ago when I asked him his secret for working so much DX: "Be there when the DX is."
    A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

    -- George Bernard Shaw

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Horizontal loops don't start radiating off the sides until you get to about 1.5 wavelength. Most don't use 1.5 wavelength loops because the impedances are atrocious every odd half wavelength. So really, 2 wavelengths is where you want to be if your looking for radiation in the direction and angle that you would need to work DX. If you have the room for a 2 wavelength 160 meter horizontal loop then go for it. I had an 80 meter loop that was gangbusters on the higher bands where it was more than 2 wavelengths long even though on one side of the loop it did indeed droop quite a bit and was probably lower than 20 feet. It also worked VERY well locally on 80.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    4,598

    Default

    Antenna height is sometimes a variable that can be difficult. Most antenna modeling programs will allow you to put in the soil charateristics. This can have a deep impact on how well it will work. At 30 feet with normal soil it would be a cloud warmer but if you had really bad soil the effective height appears much higher and the antenna will perform in a very different way. Different can be better. If you can model your idea you would see what performance you should get. Modeling for just one antenna might be a bit much but with it you can find the exact point where you should be for the perfomance you want.
    The idea of put it up and try it is a good one too. That's how it was done even a few years ago. It can be an interesting experiment. I have an antenna that has it's bottom section 6 feet of the ground and the top is 16 feet up. I have worked all over the world with it on 40 meters. It works on 60 meters and 75/80 meters as well. The modeling for this antenna shows the best performance would be if I could get the bottom up 10 more feet.
    So try it you might be pleasantly surprised.
    73
    Gary

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    US - Little Rock, AR
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Just for clarity and my education, what might be considered bad soil? In my area, the topsoil is maybe 2 - 3 inches deep and then it is mostly rock and shale. I would expect this to fall under the "bad" category which seems would be good for a dipole and bad for a vertical with radials, is my understanding correct?

    Robert

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •