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.

21. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:04:38 -0700; The comparative results are very interesting in the sense that as Jim Brown explains the nulls can be very deep but also fairly sharp. I find it interesting to switch around between these antennas o; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00109.html (11,800 bytes)
22. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Jeff Blaine <KeepWalking188@ac0c.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:10:55 -0500; Don't discount the participation of other wires, antennas or metals in the area. Everything in the near field will participate to some extent which is why deep modeled nulls seen are often hard to s; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00110.html (12,842 bytes)
23. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 23:53:16 -0700; <for an idealized half wave dipole, the 10dB down point is at about 67 <degrees off broadside. <For a 1/4 wavelength (half length) dipole, it's at about 70.5 degrees, <and for an infinitesimal dipole; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00111.html (8,374 bytes)
24. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:14:32 -0500; The current distribution from the feed point to ends doesn't taper linearly but halfway out it isn't close to maximum. I can't model anything here and anyway, I don't put all my trust in antenna mode; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00112.html (10,810 bytes)
25. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 05:36:33 -0500; <<<As Jim pointed out horizontal polarization beats vertical polarization almost all the time. Your V is H-pol. I've modeled dozens of antennas for restricted spaces (like suburban lots) and, of cour; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00113.html (9,035 bytes)
26. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: <dj7ww@t-online.de>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:34:12 +0200; No, my best 160m receiving antenna is my vertical. Very weak signals are not audible on my receiving antenna. My receiving beverage antennas 120-160m long are only good for directivity like suppressi; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00115.html (9,978 bytes)
27. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:04:40 -0700; <for an idealized half wave dipole, the 10dB down point is at about 67 <degrees off broadside. <For a 1/4 wavelength (half length) dipole, it's at about 70.5 degrees, <and for an infinitesimal dipole; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00116.html (9,913 bytes)
28. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:25:54 -0700; Of course, beverages are vertically polarized (as are rhombics) - the field is between the wire and the soil underneath, and vertically oriented. 73 Peter <<<As Jim pointed out horizontal polarizati; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00117.html (10,833 bytes)
29. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:45:40 -0500; Correction: That should have read: The ends of a low inverted V are in a similar situation. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00119.html (7,856 bytes)
30. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: john@kk9a.com; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:59:15 -0500; That is quite a null! I think I will keep using my isotropic antenna. John KK9A These are theoretical dipoles, so infinite null. _______________________________________________ ______________________; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00120.html (8,042 bytes)
31. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:15:53 -0700; That is quite a null! I think I will keep using my isotropic antenna. John KK9A These are theoretical dipoles, so infinite null. The hairy ball theorem says that isotropes don't exist in the real wor; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00121.html (8,390 bytes)
32. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: "Jim Thomson" <jim.thom@telus.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:33:49 -0700; <The hairy ball theorem says that isotropes don't exist in the real <world. And neither do perfect dipoles. <grin> <I'd be impressed by a 30 dB null on a real dipole on real supports in a <real envir; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00123.html (9,493 bytes)
33. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:38:31 -0700; RIGHT! The first antennas I rigged when I moved in here 14 years ago were multiple high coax-fed dipoles for 160-10 and a Tee vertical for 160M. The vertical wasn't working as well as I thought it sh; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00125.html (10,461 bytes)
34. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 11:06:38 -0700; My RX antenna is my TX vertical too. Conventional wisdom says you "have" to have a receiving antenna and a vertical TX antenna to work DX. I worked my first 80 countries or so with an inverted-vee,; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00129.html (9,147 bytes)
35. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 21:58:35 -0500; A brief note on my experiences on 75-80 m: I have K9AY receive loops, a F12 Sigma 80 OCF vertical dipole, and an inverted V with the apex at about 40 ft and the ends about 10-12 ft above the ground.; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00133.html (11,103 bytes)
36. [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Donald Chester <k4kyv@hotmail.com>; Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 03:07:31 +0000; 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. T; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00240.html (10,613 bytes)
37. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 21:11:26 -0700; Very nice design, Don. Everything you report makes sense. A horizontal dipole at 110 ft is a VERY respectable antenna on 80M (and 40M too). By contrast, it's a low antenna on 160M, so it will have si; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00242.html (12,030 bytes)
38. Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees (score: 1): Author: Wes <wes_n7ws@triconet.org>; Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:16:31 -0700; Don says: "The 127' tower is insulated at the base," _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tower; /archives//html/Towertalk/2020-06/msg00245.html (8,415 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 38
Page: [1] [2]