Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+Vees\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[TowerTalk\]\s+Inverted\s+Vees\s*$/: 38 ]

Total 38 documents matching your query.

1. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Bill via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 16:48:23 +0000 (UTC); Quick question: When mounting an inverted Vee antenna, one end can end at a higher level (perhaps in a tree and the other end is lower) obviously the antenna will perform to some degree better. Ho; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00083.html (6,973 bytes)
2. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>; Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:49:02 -0700; If you have a proper balun at the feedpoint, there isn't a "hot end." It's a balanced dipole, until it isn't because one end is closer to the ground than the other, of course. Wes N7WS On 6/13/2020; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00084.html (7,345 bytes)
3. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: "John Langdon" <jlangdon1@austin.rr.com>; Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 13:33:26 -0500; The current is highest nearest the center feed point, so INHO, all else being equal you want that as high as you can get it. Worst performance would be ends up high and center down close to the groun; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00086.html (7,892 bytes)
4. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Richard Bell <richfbell@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:37:01 -0500; Tell us more, like the balun youre using and location, feedline type, length and height. My yard is slopped, each end of my Zep is at different heights above ground. It was a mediocre performer until; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00087.html (8,256 bytes)
5. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: wesattaway <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>; Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 21:03:50 -0500; The inverted vee format does help at low heights. However, as overall height is raised then best performance occurs when the wires are level. I think Jim Briwn may have some data on this. --We; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00089.html (9,339 bytes)
6. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 20:23:38 -0700; Hi Wes, My study was on the effect of height on horizontal and vertical antennas, and I developed a figure of merit in dB for height of horizontal antennas. The executive summary is that for 30M and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00091.html (8,917 bytes)
7. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 05:55:17 -0500; Inverted Vs are compromise antennas in most cases compared to flat top dipoles. The ARRL hyped the inverted V in handbooks claiming its advantage with a 50 ohm Z (as if 75 ohms would make an antenna; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00092.html (8,347 bytes)
8. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Dennis OConnor via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:56:59 +0000 (UTC); The concept of "hot end" versus "cold end" is not supported by the laws of physics, so there is no difference in performance if you reverse the coax connections at the antenna. Getting the center of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00093.html (8,611 bytes)
9. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:10:16 -0700; Hi Wes, My study was on the effect of height on horizontal and vertical antennas, and I developed a figure of merit in dB for height of horizontal antennas. The executive summary is that for 30M and; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00094.html (11,223 bytes)
10. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Robert Harmon <k6uj@pacbell.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:49:00 -0700; Interesting discussion on inverted V's. I have probably a typical inverted V setup for 80M strung off of a tower. I have the center of the V strung off my tower at 90 feet and the ends slope down to; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00095.html (11,903 bytes)
11. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 08:38:26 -0700; On 6/15/20 7:49 AM, Robert Harmon wrote: Interesting discussion on inverted V's. I have probably a typical inverted V setup for 80M strung off of a tower. I have the center of the V strung off my tow; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00096.html (14,048 bytes)
12. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:31:03 -0700; height of an inverted V is the average between the apex height and the height of the ends. So a 60 foot high apex with the ends on the ground is pretty much like having a flat top at 30 feet. All is; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00097.html (9,088 bytes)
13. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 11:09:50 -0700; On my way to try to find more low angle 80m gain than my Tornado loaded rotatable dipole at 100' (average EU arrival < 10deg from 47.5N WWA) I explored (lot's of modeling) phased inverted V's hung of; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00098.html (14,409 bytes)
14. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: john@kk9a.com; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:18:14 -0500; Also an inverted V does not have the big nulls that a flat dipole has making the inverted V's orientation is less critical. John KK9A height of an inverted V is the average between the apex height an; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00099.html (8,909 bytes)
15. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:14:33 -0700; John KK9A height of an inverted V is the average between the apex height and the height of the ends. So a 60 foot high apex with the ends on the ground is pretty much like having a flat top at 30 fe; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00100.html (9,792 bytes)
16. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 13:45:51 -0700; Calling the nulls "big" is not accurate -- the nulls ARE deep, but they are also relatively narrow in angle. i have dipoles at right angles to each other for 80 and 40 at 120 ft. On any given signal,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00102.html (8,874 bytes)
17. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:35:40 -0700; Calling the nulls "big" is not accurate -- the nulls ARE deep, but they are also relatively narrow in angle. i have dipoles at right angles to each other for 80 and 40 at 120 ft. On any given signal,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00103.html (10,791 bytes)
18. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 16:44:58 -0700; Indeed, that's why monopulse RADAR antennas determine angle information using the delta channel nulls. Wes N7WS One thing you also need to be aware of when working with nulls is that the slope of th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00104.html (8,399 bytes)
19. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: "Wes Attaway $N5WA$" <wesattaway@bellsouth.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:09:40 -0500; This has been an interesting discussion. I have two 40M/20M fan dipoles at right angles and they are in a slightly inverted vee formation. The one that is broadside to NE/SW has the center up 72'. Th; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00107.html (12,093 bytes)
20. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 22:58:59 -0500; I expect polarization has a lot to do with the unexpected results. A horizontal dipole has zero sensitivity to vertical polarization broadside, regardless of arrival angle, but has at least some sens; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00108.html (13,400 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]