> Have been watching the discussion with interest. I suspect it's not so much
> vertical vs. horizontal antennas, but high-angle vs. low-angle radiation.
> As such, to be a "big gun" on 160 you really need to be able to cater for
> both, as conditions can vary so much from path to path and from day to day.
> I always recall a particular topband contest some years back (I think it
> was one of those sponsored by 73 Magazine, which used to run 160, 80 and 40
> metre contests). I put up a high inverted-L for DX working, and a low (30ft
> at the centre!) inverted-vee to work the UK and Europe. On night one I
> couldn't raise any W/VE stations on the inverted-L, but almost all of them
> responded first call on the low inverted-vee! On the second night
> everything was back to normal - the inverted-vee worked only for close-in
> stuff, whereas the inverted-L did the trick for DX. I wish now that I had
> noted the solar data for the two nights - it might have been possible to
> draw some conclusions.
>
>Don G3XTT
True, but I never seen any high-angle DX openings on 160 or 80 however
it could be my geographical location, seems to me the further north you get
(should work for south pole area also) the lower angle you need.
>From 500 km (300 miles) and out my 4 square or single vertical are always
better then low inv v dipoles (low is 20 mtr (65 feet) or less).
Also I have a problem getting good performance from beverage antennas
and I think its due to not low angle enough, seems like I need to get them
at least 7 or 8 lambda long and then they start to get pritty narrow on the
nose which is a drawback, cant win them all.
73 Jim SM2EKM
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|