For all intents, then, can't we assume that the inverted V has an
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
From: T A RUSSELL <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; TOWERTALK@contesting.com
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 http://www.juno.com
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com