> I've never understood the fascination with verticals for the low
> bands. If you put up a dipole or inverted vee, you get 100%
> efficiency, lower receive noise, use a LOT less copper and do a lot
> less work. And the local signals will be much stronger.
>
> Yes, I know verticals have a lower radiation angle, but on 160/80/40
> most signals arrive at high angles anyway. On the higher frequencies
> a vertical would be more practical, but there most folks use beams.
> Bill, W6WRT
>
I have A/B'ed verticals vs inverted vees on many bands. On 160M, a
90 ft vertical will beat a 90 ft high inverted vee by 10 to 20 dB,
even on local signals. On 80, an inverted vee becomes competitive with
a vertical only for heights over 100 ft. But at those heights, local
signals
are not strong. For that you need less than 50 feet. But a low dipole
will be 10 dB down for DX. On 40, vertical vs horizontal is about a wash
at my QTH. On 20 meters and up, especially the higher frequencies,
an inverted vee is better than a ground mounted vertical most of the time.
You are correct about verticals being lousy receive antennas on the low
bands.
What I have is inverted vee cloud warmers for 40/80 local work,
and verticals for 80/160 transmit. I receive on the cloud warmer
for 80 and 160 for general listening, when I am not using a beverage.'
("local" means < 200 miles).
Rick N6RK
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|