TopBand: Inverted-L vs. Inveted-Vee

[Jim Reid]

Aloha to All and to John Devoldere, ON4UN

Couple of days ago I posted a question about Inv-L's
ve Inv-V's.  I misquoted,  because I misrecollected what
John, ON4UN had written in his book on Low Band
DXing.  I was recalling and did not look up the bit
again in the book when I wrote.  John has e-mailed
to me his corrections to my remarks,  thought I should
post exerpts to the reflector,  along with my apology to
John for my error.

Part of John's post   to me:

>Allow me to reply:

He posts a short quote from my bit:

>>"  I was a bit put-off
>>by  ON4UN's (John's) dismissal of the inverted -vees in his book
>>on low band DXing:  he claims the result is a partail cancellation of
>>the signal."

Now John:
  
>
>"Where did I say that? 

>What I wrote is that when both leggs are parallel, it looks like a quarter
>wave long (open) line, and as such the input impedance is zero, and there is
>no radiation as one cannot apply any power to a load that has a zero ohm
>impedance. 
>
>You go one step further and say that I wrote that with an inverted V, where
>the legs are NOT parallel, partial cancellation occurs. I did never say that.
>
>My example was simply to illustrate the behaviour of the impedance of the
>inverted V for different apex angles.
>
>Good luck with the  inverted V, however.
>
>The big issue, is an issue of radiation angle, which means antenna height.
>If the inverted V is up 150 ft otr so, it will be a good performer. If it is
>up 70 or 80 ft you will work some DX.
>
>73
>
>john, ON4UN"

And thank you to all who have commented either to me or back to the
reflector on the topic.  And again,  I am sorry for not referring again
to John's writing before I posted my questions.

73,  Jim, AH6NB (for another few weeks)


--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/topband.html
Submissions:              topband@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  topband-REQUEST@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P