[TowerTalk] NVIS

[Richard (Rick) Karlquist]

A full size low dipole on 160m does great for me on receiving
because it rejects ground wave noise more than it rejects
sky wave signals.  On TX, it might be down several S units.
I noticed no difference in receiving while A/B'ing one at 30 feet
against another at 60 feet high.  I never used the dipoles for
NVIS, if there is even such a phenomenon on 160m.  I did work a
lot of DX while receiving on a low dipole.

I feel your pain about the weak stations, who don't realize
just how really weak they are.  Sometimes 20 to 40 dB below
below a kW and a decent vertical.

Rick N6RK

On 6/12/2020 4:08 AM, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> The problem with these antennas (one problem at least) is when they
> are used by hams who don't understand the lack of reciprocity between
> transmitting and receiving when using them.  They hear great but are
> piss weak when they call me from 500 miles away, and they cannot
> understand or believe it when I can barely copy them answering my CQ.
> This is especially true on 160 m.
> 
> Rob
> K5UJ
> 
>> Well part of the discussion has been why not 1/4 wave high since you gain some lower angle performance without losing any high angle. If one thinks about it in terms of low noise *receive* and doesn't need the lower >angle - that's why.
> 
>> -Steve K8LX
> 
>> On 06/11/20 11:44 AM, Tim Duffy wrote:
> 
>>> Hello Steve:
> 
>>> Yes it is NVIS. This is not a DX antenna! It's only purpose is for the WPA
>>> section and PA statewide nets.
> 
>>> It is good for daytime communications out several hundred miles and really
>>> good in close.
> 
>>> 73
>>> Tim K3LR
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>