[TowerTalk] 160M Wire Antenna
K7GCO@aol.com
K7GCO@aol.com
Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:10:16 EDT
In a message dated 25.04.00 07:36:23 Pacific Daylight Time,
w8ji@contesting.com writes:
<<
> Are you saying that a "W" shape is preferable to an inverted "V" or a
> drooping dipole because keeping the ends high will contribute to a more
> directive pattern? I'm getting closer to putting up my 300 foot doublet
> and am trying to decide what tasks to assign to which trees!
All I am saying is when the ends of the antenna are placed near
the lossy media, losses increase. Because of that, I try to make
my Inverted V dipoles as flat as I can and I especially try to keep
the higher current areas as un-bent and high as possible.
I was corrected on this reflector a year or so ago when I failed to
give importance to the very low ends hurting efficiency from ground
losses. As I recall, people were discussing the pro's and con's of
Inverted V vs regular dipoles and the consensus was Inverted V
dipoles are great way up in the air, but not with the ends down in
all the clutter and near earth.
I tend to think in terms of high antennas without a sharp apex angle.
73, Tom W8JI
w8ji@contesting.com
>>
Good information Tom. I have found that inverted vees work unusually
well over fences and will try and duplicate the affect of variations of this
in Eznec. Perhaps the fence wires help reduce the ground losses of end wires
close to the ground. I will try different patterns branching out from the
ends and just parallel radials under the inverted vee extending out 1/2 wave
or more. I have a location to try it with and without on 160-40M.
I have used the "W" configuration on 160M but didn't have a comparison
inverted vee for reference. k7gco
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm