An addition to my antennas comparison post.
I compared an equilateral delta to an inverted vee. If you flatten the
shape of the delta some to get the bottom wire higher, you can pick up a
little more gain. Maybe make the sloping wires about 63% of the bottom
one, and feed it about 25% up one of the sloping sides. When you do
that, at the same height as the inverted vee it gives 3 to 6 dB more
gain than the inverted vee between the elevation angles of 5 to 11
degrees. The break even point becomes 18 degrees elevation, and after
that the inverted vee wins big time again.
So whether this is a better antenna for DX, or not, now depends on how
much DX you think arrives below 18 degrees elevation on 80 meters.
Jerry, K4SAV
>Randy Lake wrote:
>
>
>
>>So if one was to have the choice of an inv.v at 95' or a delta hung from
>>the same support which would be the best choice for dx?
>>73, Randy N1KWF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>----------------
>
>
K4SAV wrote
>Here is a comparison between an inverted vee, apex at 95 ft with an
>included angle of 120 degrees, compared to an equilateral delta loop
>with apex at 95 feet (which makes the bottom wire at 9 feet) and fed at
>the bottom corner. Broadside to the antennas, the delta only has 1 to 2
>dB advantage for very low angles (less than about 7 degrees). The
>break-even point is 11 degrees elevation. Above 11 degrees, the
>inverted vee wins big time. Off the ends of the antennas, the delta
>loop, in the direction opposite from where it is fed, has a little more
>gain than the inverted vee off its ends. I think the inverted vee is a
>hands-down winner, for all purposes, when the choice is between these two.
>
>Note: An inverted vee with an included angle of 90 degrees loses about
>0.6 dB compared to one with 120 degree angle, but it gets the advantage
>back when looking at the gain off the ends of the vee.
>
>There are some other choices of shapes that I think will beat an
>inverted vee at 95 feet for DX, such as a rectangular loop (100 ft x 45
>ft) fed on the side, but these are hard to support from a single tower,
>and so, may not be a fair comparison. You didn't ask for comparison to
>other choices.
>
>Jerry, K4SAV
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|