On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:14:41 -0600, Rob Atkinson wrote:
>I don't think there is any relevance in comparing an inverted V to a
>vertical dipole.
The relevance is a practical one. Let's say I have a rope in a pulley
at 100 ft (or a tower that I can climb) and I want to support an
antenna, and I have no other supports (or at least nothing high). What
antenna should I try to support from that single point -- a vertical
dipole or an inverted Vee? The Inverted Vee is clearly superior, as
shown by modeling in NEC, and by the analysis in the paper Rob has
cited.
Rudy's design, and the ones that David and Ian are describing, are
quite ingenious, and interact differently with the earth by virtue of
their design (and height). They are also CONSTRUCTED very differently.
They are the answer to a different real estate problem -- I can erect
a tower of modest neight and I want to work 160M (or 80M). :)
BTW -- the interaction with the earth is strongly dependent on HEIGHT
of the antenna. When I modeled my vertical dipole, I tried it at
several heights, and found that while "higher is better," it isn't
enough better to make it a good antenna. :)
73,
Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|