[TowerTalk] Inverted Vees

[dj7ww at t-online.de]

No, my best 160m receiving antenna is my vertical.
Very weak signals are not audible on my receiving antenna.
My receiving beverage antennas 120-160m long are only good for directivity
like suppressing qrm.

73
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rob
Atkinson
Sent: Dienstag, 16. Juni 2020 12:37
To: towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Inverted Vees

<<<As Jim pointed out horizontal polarization beats vertical
polarization almost all the time. Your V is H-pol. I've modeled dozens
of antennas for restricted spaces (like suburban lots) and, of course,
verticals are attractive in that application (inconspicuous, and they
fit), but I've not found something that consistently beats even an
electrically short horizontal dipole (or a V with shallow droop, up to
45 degrees). Unless your house is in the middle of a particularly
excellent soil properties (salt marshes again). There are specialized
cases where the trade might push one way or the other. Or you might
value inconspicuous over performance (defined in a TBD way).>>>

I have to disagree with this in one case, that of the ham who chases
DX on 40 and 80 meters and is unable to put a rotatable beam or dipole
up high enough on a tower to be effective.   My experience with
friends in these cases has been that they can achieve their goal of
5BDXCC using relatively modest loaded verticals at heights of 15 or 20
feet and a few elevated radials.  Horizontal antennas at the same
height are a show stopper.  BUT, the deal killer with the verticals
isn't on transmit, it is on _receive_.   These fellows _must_ have a
few varied receiving antenna options as the DX may well be engulfed in
noise on the transmit vertical.

73

Rob
K5UJ
_______________________________________________



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