Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees

[Grant Saviers <grants2@pacbell.net>]

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 off my 89' tower. 
The tower was always messing up the pattern.  Then I found that Greg 
Ordy (W8WWV) had written about this approach on his website and 
basically gave up on the idea after a very serious attempt.
So while a loaded vertical dipole is a useful antenna the tower 
interaction will likely be significant and modeling would be a very good 
idea.  The yagi top loading needs included since it will make the 
resonance not 90ft. OTOH maybe you have the resonance (or can make it) 
needed for a reflector and spacing the VD out on a catenary will yield a 
useful pattern.  I think that is described in ON4UN.  For an omni VD (or 
adjusting resonance for a yagi) probably detuning the tower into lower 
interacting segments will be needed, see the W8JI website for how this 
works.
It's a tough game to achieve low angles from horizontal antennas on 80m 
until over 1/2 wl high.
Safety is a concern since the voltage at QRO at the bottom end of any VD 
can be awesome.
Grant KZ1W

On 6/15/2020 07:49, 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 
> tower at 90 feet and the ends slope down to 35 feet to two poles on each side 
> of my property.   Here's an idea I have been thinking about.  Hanging a 
> vertical dipole from the tower with loading coils in each leg to compensate for 
> the shorter length.  Better low angle radiation ?  I know I would have reduced 
> bandwidth but that would be ok, I hang out in the very low end of 80 anyway 
> chasing CW DX.  What do you think, improvement over the V ?
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2020, at 7:10 AM, jimlux <jimlux@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/14/20 8:23 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
> > > On 6/14/2020 7:03 PM, wesattaway wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 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 below, higher is better. :)
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > > 3) Soil quality STRONGLY affects vertically polarized antennas -- the better 
> > > the soil conductivity, the better they work.
> > > 4) HF verticals work better on the roof than on the ground.
> > <snip>
> >
> > There's two separate factors at work in #3
> > a) a "near field" effect - for a monopole vertical, the ground (or radial field) is half 
> > the antenna. Hence the "120 radials" for FCC proof of performance exemption.  Not so much 
> > effect for a vertical dipole.
> >
> > b) a "far field" effect - H-pol is reflected well almost at any incidence angle 
> > and with any soil properties. Not so with V-pol which is strongly affected by soil 
> > properties and incidence angle.
> >
> >
> > The difference in these two effects (in broad strokes) is that (a) is a big 
> > deal close in (dimensions comparable to antenna height) and (b) is about the 
> > soil properties farther away.
> >
> > Consider a 50 foot tall monopole. You can think about the ray from the antenna 
> > hitting a spot at some distance and then reflecting. And each point on the 
> > antenna hits a different spot.
> >
> > For a low elevation angle, say, 10 degrees, the spot for the top of the antenna is 50/tan(elev) =  
> > 283 feet away.  And it gets way farther out very rapidly.  For 3 degree elevation, the 
> > "reflection spot" is 1000 ft away.  Of course, for a spot on the antenna that is 25 ft 
> > high, the "spot" is half as far away.
> >
> > So for really low angle radiation (like 3 degrees), everything within 20 times 
> > the height of the antenna contributes.
> >
> > Hence the popularity of verticals at the beach, or in the middle of the 
> > proverbial salt marsh.
> >
> >
> > As Jim points out in #4, raising the antenna is good (reduces losses from near 
> > field (a)) but does extend the far field issue. For a 50 foot elevated dipole 
> > at 100 ft the radiation at 3 degrees is reflecting from spots at 1500-2500 ft 
> > away.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk