At 07:57 PM 10/2/96 +0000, Harold Smith wrote:
>I see a lot of discussion about an inverted V on 160.
>
>Think about this. If you had a dipole on 160 at 50ft ( an inverted V would
>be impossible at that height ), It would perform about the same as a dipole
>on 20 meters at 6.25 ft. There would be no vertical radiation to speak of.
>To make it a true inverted V on 160 it would have to be at least 265 ft up !!
>
>This is why inverted Ls and verticals are the best choice for DX.
>
Dunno about this. My inverted vee usually stomps my big vertical. And the
inverted vee is only up about 150'. Almost every USA station I've ever
worked has been on the inverted vee. Model an inverted vee and you'll see
it radiates a lot in the vertical plane, too. The point is not so much to
defend the inverted vee, but to point out that what works best in one locale
may be second best in another. Convential wisdom says go with a vertical,
so I did. I'm just glad I had enough foresight and enough geography to try
other antennas, too.
Dan KL7Y
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|