Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Flat\s+top\s+vs\s+Inv\s+Vee\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Flat\s+top\s+vs\s+Inv\s+Vee\s*$/: 19 ]

Total 19 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w4an@contesting.com (Bill Fisher - W4AN); Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:07:05 -0400; I don't care what your computer says. A flat top dipole will outperform an inverted vee dipole at the same feedpoint height EVERY time. By more than a small amount. This is my experience, and many o; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00651.html (8,429 bytes)
2. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: davidc@bit-net.com (DavidC); Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 23:50:58 -0400; V an than talked Doesn't the inverted vee offer some of the advantages of a vertical, lower beam in a stack, etc.? Can one not model certain ground effect and propagation conditions where a vee may; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00656.html (8,612 bytes)
3. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w5rz@troi.csw.net (Dennis Schaefer); Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 22:59:44 -0500; I agree with Bill. However, when I got EZNEC, the first thing I did was model inverted vees vs. dipoles. The difference was startling, in favor of the flat-top dipole. I used the same center height f; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00657.html (9,178 bytes)
4. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: k4oj@ij.net (Jim White, K4OJ); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:09:10 -0400; ...... "The difference was startling, in favor of the flat-top dipole. I used the same center height for the inv-vee as the flat-top height. As the inverted-vee center gets higher than the dipole, th; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00658.html (9,342 bytes)
5. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 03:07:32 -0400; Hi Bill, The first line I wrote in my earlier reply was: "Folding the legs down mainly changes efficiency by decreasing feedpoint impedance and lowering the effective height of the antenna." I think; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00662.html (10,471 bytes)
6. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T A RUSSELL); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 07:22:22 -0600; The apparent disparity between flat top and inverted vee radiators most likely comes from the difference in heights between observers. W8JI correctly stated that an inverted vee operates very much li; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00666.html (9,338 bytes)
7. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 09:44:03 -0400; Hi Dennis, of the Different I don't know what quantity "startling" is. Perhaps the problem is my fault, because I call a change "insignificant" while others correctly define the very same change as "; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00669.html (11,125 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (Edward W. Sleight); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 13:48:34 -0400; I would not make definitive statements which you cannot back up. Try looking a a model of a flat top dipole 90 degrees out of its broadside layout. An inverted V will beat it to death. 73 Ed -- FAQ o; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00670.html (8,603 bytes)
9. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: k4sb@mindspring.com (Edward W. Sleight); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 13:50:20 -0400; Bill specifically stated both centers were at the same height. Don't mix apples and oranges. 73 Ed -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com Adm; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00671.html (8,139 bytes)
10. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: pmcinnish@.att.net (Paul McInnish - K4BET); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:10:40 -0400; Inverted V also has amore circular pattern with somewhat less rejection off the ends... -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com Administrative; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00675.html (9,569 bytes)
11. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w7why@mail.coos.or.us (Tom Osborne); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 15:24:36 -0700; Hi Tom. Another thing we have to figure on is that if you have 2 160 foot towers, the antenna will probably be about 140 feet up at the center as 150-200 feet of RG-8 is pretty heavy and there is bou; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00678.html (8,813 bytes)
12. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: K7LXC@aol.com (K7LXC@aol.com); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:51:44 EDT; Okay. I've got a 100 foot tower. Would I be better off with sloping dipoles (feedpoints at 60-70 feet but a straight dipole) or an inverted vee with the feedpoint at 100 feet? Input appreciated. I'm; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00681.html (8,889 bytes)
13. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w5rz@troi.csw.net (Dennis Schaefer); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 11:18:15 -0500; Tom, Thanks for your input. Although most on Towertalk are quite knowledgeable, I consider your input to be some of the most valuable. Of course, you are correct, but I wanted to make a little clear; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00683.html (11,734 bytes)
14. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: nx7k@worldnet.att.net (Wayne Bailey); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 16:42:56 +0100; Put up the high inverted vee and for get it. Performance counts. I can't complain about my inverted vees for 80, 75, and 160 all up about 105 ft at the apex. I had rather have the more circular patte; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00684.html (10,104 bytes)
15. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: n4kg@juno.com (T A RUSSELL); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:22:42 -0600; The definitive paper on dipole efficiency over imperfect earth appeared in the November 1972 issue of the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, p. 766 with important corrections on p. 755 of; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00689.html (10,308 bytes)
16. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale L. Martin); Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 18:38:03 -0500; rejection off the == Does that mean it's heart-shaped? ;-) 73, dale, kg5u -- FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com Administrative requests: to; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00704.html (8,197 bytes)
17. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: w8ji.tom@MCIONE.com (w8ji.tom); Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 10:41:08 -0400; I looked at results in a paper published by Jack Belrose comparing full blown NEC-2 to actual full pattern measurements by Haagn and Barker over 30 mS/m soil, and the error was about 5 dB at .05 wl h; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00719.html (9,671 bytes)
18. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: kb3aug@juno.com (Bill Hinkle); Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 22:00:09 -0400; Steve, I have never modeled anything. I'll tell you what has worked for me on 75 meters. Guess it doesn't make a lot of difference that I'm on the east coast because the contacts are from everywhere.; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00744.html (10,671 bytes)
19. [TowerTalk] Flat top vs Inv Vee (score: 1): Author: tomwagner@mindspring.com (Tom Wagner); Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 06:12:08 -0400; <snip> Tom -- Can you quantify this effect? How many db could one expect to improve a dipole over poor or over good ground? Are there any references to this effect? Do you place the wires in parallel; /archives//html/Towertalk/1998-08/msg00752.html (8,813 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 19
Page: [1]