> All this discussion of HF2V, radials, etc. causes me to wonder: if
> inverted "L" is so great for 160, why isn't it used on 40 and 80?
I'm assuming you mean the common L, which is vertically polarized.
On 160, a wave can penetrate deeper and cut a larger cross-section of
earth. Because of that, losses are generally less. The best example
of this would be to compare groundwave attenuation with distance as
frequency is reduced.
Obstructions are also less problematic on 160 and 80, where things
have to be taller to cause big problems. Since a vertical depends
more on reflection at a distance, there is less clutter that affects
the signal on lower (longer wavelength) bands.
It is also nearly impossible for most people to get a 5/8th wl high
dipole on 80, let alone 160. So the increased FS at lower wave
angles, despite having less peak gain, can offset differences between
A practical dipole has a clear transmitting advantage on 40 in most
cases, while a practical Inverted L or vertical has the clear
transmitting advantage on 40 meters and high...in most cases.
The above does NOT apply to receiving, that is a whole different
73, Tom W8JI