And I cant even get into the 3rd tier with my 160' high inverted V Steve.
I think Yuri is correct...it is too high. When I first moved here in
89-90 winter all I had was a V at 55'...worked 3Y5X on Bouvet on 1 call
thru one of the biggest pileups ever....Go figure!
The verticals certainly do an above average job for me and seem to be the
antenna of choice amongst most New England DXers. But then you have K1MEM
with a 80' high V that works it all too....including such uniques as the
Andamans many years ago ( '87??).
Last year I also touched on my 87-88 experiments with driving both
polarizations at once with one exciter and 2 amps. Have to revisit that
idea again.
73 Carl KM1H
On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 06:56:04 +0800 Steve Ireland <sire@omen.com.au>
writes:
>Those who have found that putting a vertical/low angle antenna on 160m
>improves their DX performance and think that this is the answer to
>everything/everybody should take heed from old campaigners like Yuri
>K3BU/VE3BMU, Jeff K1ZM and Bob NM7M.
>
>Unfortunately, vertical polarised antennas don't work too well in some
>places - like in the Perth area of VK6, for example. Mike VK6HD and I
>both
>use dipoles - myself an inverted-U at 66 - 45' high, while Mike has an
>inverted-V at 90'. Both of us have tried a range of vertical antennas
>on
>160m - from inverted-Ls to top loaded verticals to shunt fed towers,
>but
>horizontals work better.
>
>In the other places we have lived, both of us used verticals for LF
>band
>DXing - and would never dream that a low horizontal antenna could ever
>work
>better. For the vast majority of my twenty seven years as a radio
>amateur,
>I have only used verticals...
>
>To give you an idea how poorly verticals perform here on 160m, my
>friend
>VK6IM has a 70' top loaded vertical (no inductor, just a large
>capacity hat)
>for 160m with an earth mat of 40-plus full size quarter wave radials
>under
>it. In most geographical locations, this would leave a low dipole for
>dead
>on DX - but not here - I work DX easily VK6IM can barely hear/work...
>
>On rare occasions, on one very distinct path/time, a vertical
>occasionally
>will outperform my low dipole - to the eastern seaboard of the USA
>(K1, VE1)
>just after my sunset.
>
>For 90 per cent of the time here on 160m, an efficient high angle
>radiator
>is better than a reasonably efficient low angle radiator. On 80m, for
>a
>vertical to marginally beat a low dipole at long distances, I needed
>50
>quarter wave-ish radials, with a perimeter wire... Now, if I could put
>up a
>4-square with loads of radials for 160m, I'm sure that would beat my
>low
>dipole - for some of the time...
>
>As the old hands have said many times, you need as many kinds of
>radiators
>and receiving antennas as you possibly can, to cover all the bases.
>The
>only reason I am still interested in verticals from my small QTH is
>that for
>maybe 10% of the time, a vertical might just get me that rare DX QSO
>that my
>horizontal won't...
>
>Vy 73,
>
>Steve, VK6VZ
>
>
>
>Vy 73,
>
>Steve, VK6VZ
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
>Submissions: topband@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
>
_____________________________________________________________________
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/topband.html
Submissions: topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests: topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-topband@contesting.com
|