Topband: Topband resource

[Artek Manuals]

Roger

Apples and oranges

Your antenna is not a dipole but rather an Inverted V . Inverted V's 
have a significant "vertical" radiation component compared to a dipole

I am not sure how you can compare your performance to the W4RNL 
installation given your 750 miles north of there? Please explain the 
basis for your claim?

Dave
NR1DX


On 1/15/2020 10:58 AM, Roger Parsons via Topband wrote:
> W8JI's experience with a horizontal dipole at 300 ft is often quoted as proof that only vertical antennas are useful for 160m DX. This is not my experience with a dipole with the centre at 320 ft and the ends at over 250'. In its favoured directions it is equal to a W4RNL half wave vertical array over a very large radial system. It is unsurprisingly not as good off the ends, and quite is useless for relatively local communications.
> I am also inclined to support Roger, G3YRO, in his use of a low dipole, having myself successfully used relatively low horizontal antennas for DX in the past. There are most certainly times when higher angles are useful for DX - and possibly more frequently than we imagine. There actually have to be, otherwise Roger would never work any DX at all. Note, this does not mean that a good vertical antenna is not often or even usually better than a low horizontal one. Finally, the UK is small compared to many other countries, but it is not actually a tiny island. Roger's path to North America is over about 300 km of land, and he is more than 10km from the sea in any direction.
>
> 73 RogerVE3ZI/G3RBP
> _________________
> Searchable Archives: http://www.contesting.com/_topband - Topband Reflector

-- 
Dave
Manuals at ArtekManuals.com
www.ArtekManuals.com