[TowerTalk] 160M Inverted Vee

[K4SAV]

I have seen two posts now claiming that an inverted vee works better 
than a vertical for receiving on 160 meters for both DX and local (at 
least for the persons posting).  I'm not disputing these claims, but I 
don't understand them.

I am assuming when someone says "quiter", they mean a higher signal to 
noise ratio.

It seems to me that a properly constructed short inverted vee will have 
a big lobe straight up on 160, and overall, a higher response angle.  So 
what is it about an inverted vee that makes it better for your 
situation? Any speculation?

If you say the signals are actually coming in at a high angle, that 
would say that the inverted vee would also work better than a beverage.

Here's a piece of information that may/or may not be helpful.  An 
inverted vee that is very short (very high SWR), fed with coax and no 
balun, will have high common mode feedline currents, and function a lot 
like a vertical.  If the feedline is placed next to something, like a 
tower, the feedline will couple to the tower.

Jerry, K4SAV

Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:

>>Seriously though, such statements are of no value unless you include 
>>a lot more information. If you expect me to believe the 20 dB figure 
>>for all signals from all directions at all times of day...
>>    
>>
>
>We listened all night long during a 160m contest to stations in
>all directions, near and far.  The vee never compared to the vertical.
>It may be, that once in a while, the vee would have been useful,
>although I never observed that; but this test convinced me that
>if I had to pick one of the other (for transmit), I would take
>the vertical any day.
>
>The vee (any vee, even a 40 meter vee) is better on receive
>than any vertical, at my QTH.
>
>Rick N6RK
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TowerTalk mailing list
>TowerTalk at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>  
>