[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Natual "V" Dipole

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Natual "V" Dipole
From: Dick Green" < (Dick Green)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:54:12 -0400
For all intents, then, can't we assume that the inverted V has an
omnidirectional pattern?

Also, if you compare an inverted V with a dipole that's less than 1/2
wavelength high, isn't it pretty much a wash? That's what I figured when I
opted to make my 60' high 80M antenna an inverted V instead of a dipole
(easier to raise, easier to match, and no worse than a 60' high dipole on

73, Dick, WC1M

-----Original Message-----
From: T A RUSSELL <>
To: <>;
To: <>
Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Natual "V" Dipole

>Both a V and inverted V (half wavelength) will have
>LESS  GAIN than a FLAT, Horizontal Dipole.
>This is because there will be more radiation off the ends
>of the V configurations, taking power AWAY from the
>desired broadside radiation.   The smaller the angle
>of the V, the greater the reduction in radiation broadside to
>the V.  With a 90 degree angle, the reduction in broadside
>radiation will be close to 3 dB.
>The exact feed-point impedance will depend on the
>height of the antenna above ground, but the V antennas
>will have a somewhat lower feed-point impedance
>than a flat dipole.
>de  Tom  N4KG
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>FAQ on WWW:     
>Administrative requests:

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>