On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:54:12 -0400 "Dick Green" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>For all intents, then, can't we assume that the inverted V has an
When the antenna is less than 1/4 wavelength high,
then YES, it is more or less omni directional at high
angles, whether it is a dipole or inverted vee....N4KG
>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'
>dipole on 80M.)
>73, Dick, WC1M
Below 1/4 wavelength high, near-field ground losses increase.
For local work, this is probably not even noticable. Away from
the east coast, an inverted vee at 90 ft is NOTICABLY better
for DX than one at 60 ft (on 80 meters)....maybe even in W1.
>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