Roger
Apples and oranges
Your antenna is not a dipole but rather an Inverted V . Inverted V's
have a significant "vertical" radiation component compared to a dipole
I am not sure how you can compare your performance to the W4RNL
installation given your 750 miles north of there? Please explain the
basis for your claim?
Dave
NR1DX
On 1/15/2020 10:58 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:
W8JI's experience with a horizontal dipole at 300 ft is often quoted as proof
that only vertical antennas are useful for 160m DX. This is not my experience
with a dipole with the centre at 320 ft and the ends at over 250'. In its
favoured directions it is equal to a W4RNL half wave vertical array over a very
large radial system. It is unsurprisingly not as good off the ends, and quite
is useless for relatively local communications.
I am also inclined to support Roger, G3YRO, in his use of a low dipole, having
myself successfully used relatively low horizontal antennas for DX in the past.
There are most certainly times when higher angles are useful for DX - and
possibly more frequently than we imagine. There actually have to be, otherwise
Roger would never work any DX at all. Note, this does not mean that a good
vertical antenna is not often or even usually better than a low horizontal one.
Finally, the UK is small compared to many other countries, but it is not
actually a tiny island. Roger's path to North America is over about 300 km of
land, and he is more than 10km from the sea in any direction.
73 RogerVE3ZI/G3RBP
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
--
Dave
Manuals@ArtekManuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com
_________________
Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector
|