A full size low dipole on 160m does great for me on receiving
because it rejects ground wave noise more than it rejects
sky wave signals. On TX, it might be down several S units.
I noticed no difference in receiving while A/B'ing one at 30 feet
against another at 60 feet high. I never used the dipoles for
NVIS, if there is even such a phenomenon on 160m. I did work a
lot of DX while receiving on a low dipole.
I feel your pain about the weak stations, who don't realize
just how really weak they are. Sometimes 20 to 40 dB below
below a kW and a decent vertical.
Rick N6RK
On 6/12/2020 4:08 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
The problem with these antennas (one problem at least) is when they
are used by hams who don't understand the lack of reciprocity between
transmitting and receiving when using them. They hear great but are
piss weak when they call me from 500 miles away, and they cannot
understand or believe it when I can barely copy them answering my CQ.
This is especially true on 160 m.
Rob
K5UJ
Well part of the discussion has been why not 1/4 wave high since you gain some
lower angle performance without losing any high angle. If one thinks about it in
terms of low noise *receive* and doesn't need the lower >angle - that's why.
-Steve K8LX
On 06/11/20 11:44 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:
Hello Steve:
Yes it is NVIS. This is not a DX antenna! It's only purpose is for the WPA
section and PA statewide nets.
It is good for daytime communications out several hundred miles and really
good in close.
73
Tim K3LR
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|