Hi Jim..
Jim Brown wrote:
>
> BTW -- as I've observed in that tutorial, a vertical dipole is not
> a very good antenna, primarily because reflections from ground
> give it a rather poor vertical pattern. :) This is clear from the
> NEC model, and on-the-air tests yield the same result. The
> vertical works, but an inverted Vee hung at the same height from
> the same support works a LOT better.
>
> 73,
>
> Jim K9YC
>
I'd have to disagree with that statement. I have both vertical
dipoles and inverted Vs for 80 and 160m.
The Verticals are separated from the Vs by about 500 yds, so they don't
"see" each other. They are all at about 55ft at the highest point. Both
inverted Vs are good general purpose antennae, but are at their best for
local high angle stuff. The verticals amaze me..'specially the 160m one.
It has only got 45ft of wire that radiates..ie. the vertical part. It
completely out-performs the inverted V on the long haul, and has gotten
me 190 countries on top band. Not bad for a 45 ft radiator and NO ground
system. http://www.iol.ie/~bravo/low_band_antennae.htm#My%20TX%20Antennae
Of course, if you compare them at a height of 300ft, that'd be a
completely different story.
Vy 73
John EI7BA
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|