Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160m\s+inv\s+vee\s+questions\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+160m\s+inv\s+vee\s+questions\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 18:41:12 -0400; Hi all, For many years I?ve had a trapped 80m/160m inverted vee with the apex at about 94? on a tower that?s loaded with various yagis. The vee is oriented so that it?s broadside to the NE and SW (wi; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00043.html (10,202 bytes)
2. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: Brian Pease <bpease2@myfairpoint.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 19:41:13 -0400; I modeled an inverted-V last week. If the feed is balanced, the total radiation pattern (Hor + Ver) is omni-azimuthal with a lot of upward radiation. Directly broadside, the radiation is horizontal; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00045.html (11,697 bytes)
3. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m73@gmail.com>; Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 20:19:59 -0400; Meaning run the wires NE-SW? The article I read did mention the polarity being vertical in the direction of the wires, consistent with your model. Would the same apply to the 80m portion? Thanks & 73; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00047.html (12,604 bytes)
4. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: Brian Pease <bpease2@myfairpoint.net>; Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 21:32:21 -0400; Yes run the wires NE-SW for 160. This might not help (or hurt) 80m. Even a flat (low) dipole has vertical radiation off the ends. I have a full-size NE-SW 630m dipole only 2m off the ground that ha; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00048.html (12,855 bytes)
5. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:10:18 -0400; FYI in response to two recent threads: http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/2018-03/msg00139.html http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00043.html This plot show; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00052.html (9,048 bytes)
6. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>; Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 07:35:21 -0400; This plot shows my low inv-V (30m apex is only 0.19 wavelengths) compared to my 3 element parasitic vertical. Study the relative gain vs TOA plots carefully: Ooops...bad link. Use this one: http://us; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00055.html (9,625 bytes)
7. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck@gmail.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 11:58:31 -0500; There was a QEX article in 2016 that examined ground mounted verticals. http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/2016/March-April2016/Zavrel.pdf Chuck W5PR Sent from Mail for Windows 10 This plo; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00063.html (11,257 bytes)
8. Re: Topband: 160m inv vee questions (score: 1): Author: "john@kk9a.com" <john@kk9a.com>; Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 13:36:21 -0400; This is easy to model an inverted V to see the actual pattern. I am sure that whatever configuration / direction you use will be inferior to a top loaded vertical. BTW two weeks ago I used a 300' hig; /archives//html/Topband/2018-04/msg00065.html (11,790 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]