Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Inverted Vees

To: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees
From: Donald Chester <k4kyv@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 03:07:31 +0000
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Grant Saviers grants2 at pacbell.net Mon Jun 15 14:09:50 EDT 2020 wrote:
> It's a tough game to achieve low angles from horizontal antennas on 80m 
> until over 1/2 wl high.

My 80m dipole is attached to the tower at the 120' level, with the ends 
drooping down to 100'.  With that small amount of slope I consider it closer to 
a true horizontal dipole than an inverted vee.   The feedline is open wire 
line, two #10 conductors spaced 2" apart, running up through the interior of 
the tower, spaced at the geometric centre of the cross-section triangle of the 
Rohn 25G.

The 127' tower is insulated at the base, with 120 uniformly  spaced buried 
radials, each 133' 4" long.  The base-insulated tower is used as a quarter-wave 
vertical tee for 160, with the dipole serving as the horizontal portion of the 
tee.  Even though neither the dipole nor the feeders are electrically in 
contact with the tower at any point, the  close proximity of the feedline to 
the tower over its entire length causes the dipole to be closely enough coupled 
to the tower to add substantial top loading; as a result, the base impedance of 
the tower on 160 is in the range of hundreds of ohms with significant reactive 
component, rather than ~38-40Ω + j0 as it would be expected with just the tower 
with no dipole attached.

A few  years ago I tried loading the tower as a half-wave vertical on 75.  As 
expected, the performance was mediocre at best at less than 600-800 miles, but 
I had interesting results working DX.  I contacted the same French station on 
75m AM phone several times, as well as stations in the pacific northwest, and 
asked for signal comparisons between the half-wave vertical and the (nearly)  
half-wave high horizontal dipole.  In every case, at both distant locations, 
the reports were that  the signal strength peaked about the same with both 
antennas, but with the vertical tee, the fades were much deeper.  The signal 
was decidedly more solid with the dipole.

I had expected the half-wave vertical tee with 120 half-wave radials on 80m to 
be a killer antenna out beyond 2000 miles or so.  I was a little disappointed 
that it didn't perform quite so well as the dipole. I never tried the 
comparison at KH6, VK/ZL or Asia; maybe that's where the half-wave vertical 
would have dominated. 

I rarely work DX, so since then I have stuck with using the dipole on 75-80m. 
The 80m dipole will load on 160 as a quarter-wave dipole (using the appropriate 
ATU).  Normally on 160 the vertical is about 10 dB stronger at points beyond a 
couple hundred miles, but at locations 50-100 miles away, in the evening the 
80m dipole may be as much as 30 dB stronger than the vertical tee.

I also use the dipole as a double-zepp aka two-halfwaves in phase on 40m with 
good results.

Don k4kyv
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>