John Tait wrote:
> Hi Jim..
>
> Jim Brown wrote:
>
>> BTW -- as I've observed in that tutorial, a vertical dipole is not
>> a very good antenna, primarily because reflections from ground
>> give it a rather poor vertical pattern. :) This is clear from the
>> NEC model, and on-the-air tests yield the same result. The
>> vertical works, but an inverted Vee hung at the same height from
>> the same support works a LOT better.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jim K9YC
>>
>>
> I'd have to disagree with that statement. I have both vertical
> dipoles and inverted Vs for 80 and 160m.
> The Verticals are separated from the Vs by about 500 yds, so they don't
> "see" each other. They are all at about 55ft at the highest point. Both
> inverted Vs are good general purpose antennae, but are at their best for
> local high angle stuff. The verticals amaze me..'specially the 160m one.
> It has only got 45ft of wire that radiates..ie. the vertical part. It
> completely out-performs the inverted V on the long haul, and has gotten
> me 190 countries on top band. Not bad for a 45 ft radiator and NO ground
> system. http://www.iol.ie/~bravo/low_band_antennae.htm#My%20TX%20Antennae
> Of course, if you compare them at a height of 300ft, that'd be a
> completely different story.
>
> Vy 73
> John EI7BA
>
>
>
>
I have the same antenna set up as EI7BA and I agree with what he says.
The vertical dipoles almost always beat my Inverted-V's on the long haul
stuff. The Inverted-V can be equal to or slightly better than the
vertical dipoles on a few occasions around sunrise or sunset when the DX
arrives from a higher angle. Vertical dipoles are good low band antennas.
Ian - K8MM
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|