[TowerTalk] 160M Inverted Vee

[Bill Axelrod]

I just can't resist sending this post.

One more take it or leave it observation about an 160M inverted Vee.  Mine 
is hung off of my tower with the apex at 70ft and the ends at ~20 ft.

And sure, it is a better receiving antenna than my vertical - IF and only 
IF - I measure "better receiving antenna" by the noise level.  Certainly, 
it's a whole lot quieter than the vertical.  It doesn't hear all the noise. 
Unfortunaly, it also doesn't hear signals all that well unless they are 
close (100 to 1000 miles).  Seems to me that's the real issue.

It doesn't transmit all that well.  Does a great job on USA QSOs out to the 
midwest.  But there's lots of DX I can't hear.  And more that can't hear me 
on the Vee.

Despite that, I worked about 50 countries on 160 this past winter season, 
and a small number of "real good" DX at that.  So what?

Am I happy with it?  Heck no.  New vertical and beverages going up this 
week.

So, all the emails bragging about working so many countries or some rare DX 
don't testify to how good any electrically low 160M inverted Vee is.  Nor 
does it matter how "quieter" it is.  That's not the issue.  What matters is 
how does it compare to that vertical for transmitting, or that beverage, 
K9AY loop, etc for receiving.  The laws of physics will dictate the results. 
I'd be leery of those who claim an exemption.

73...   Bill K3WA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K4SAV" <RadioIR at charter.net>
To: <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 160M Inverted Vee


>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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>