To: | topband@contesting.com |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: Topband: Inverted V verses inverted L |
From: | Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com> |
Reply-to: | jim@audiosystemsgroup.com |
Date: | Sun, 19 Apr 2020 13:04:36 -0700 |
List-post: | <mailto:topband@contesting.com> |
On 4/19/2020 11:57 AM, terry burge wrote: I've been contemplating putting up and inverted V on 160 meter too in hopes it could give me more 'local' coverage and a quieter background noise. If you're going to add an antenna of that size, a good RX antenna system seems a better investment of your time. The only benefit of the inv-V (which will be VERY low as a fraction of a wavelength, and thus have poor efficiency) is the horizontal polarization for the situations W0FLS noted. 73, Jim K9YC _________________ Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Topband: Inverted V verses inverted L, terry burge |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: Topband: Inverted V vs inverted L, fmoeves |
Previous by Thread: | Topband: Inverted V verses inverted L, terry burge |
Next by Thread: | Topband: JA 160m band extended !, Nagi |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |