ill in the country here in NH.
Carl.
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Wilson via Topband"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Topband: low inv-vee
I have always used an 80m inverted-vee (66.6 ft per side) with apex at 50ft
at top of a yagi-free tower
1) I have yet to (and likely never will) install an RX only antenna. Hence, I
receive on the same inverted-L I transmit on. It's been my experience that I
still hear better than I get out with 500W. Perhaps it is just operator skill
that makes it possible. :-)
2) "Poor" is rather subject
1. You never use an inverted L or other vertical for receiving,
unless maybe, you are in a QTH so remote and noise free it might work.
But in-town, forget it.
2, From my experience, 7 or 8 out of 10 hams on 160 m., have poor
antennas, usually low horizontal wires. Most of these fellows are
casu
Guy,
Your's is about as complete an explanation as it gets. I only would like to
add one aspect (which is covered by the reference to antenna efficiency) but
is perhaps worth pointing out.
Opinions on vertical vs. horizontal on are strongly subject to one's
location. In the desert (AZ, etc.) it
Just for fun, I modeled a 160m low inverted-V in NEC4.2, using 4NEC2 to
look at the patterns. The apex was 15m up. Each leg was 40.7m long
with the ends 7.5m up. It was fed with 300 Ohm open wire dropping
vertically to 1m above the ground. I fed it from a 300 Ohm source.
Directly under th
This is as perfect an answer as any expert could come up with :-)
I've been a ham for over 42 years. But well before I was the
wet-behind-the-ears Novice-class WN8BTU, many experienced Topbanders have
found that *all especially successful 160m DX stations use vertical
polarization. That's just
Yes, the real world on 160 is very complicated, and by some issues that
seem, anyway, to be unknown to more hams than not.
W8JI had a 160 dipole up at 300 feet and ran over a year's worth of A/B
tests, concluding after all that data, that the dipole would never beat a
commercial-AM-BC-quality ver
If you run a NEC analysis it will show that a 160 dipole at a half
wavelength height will blow away any vertical when the signal is
broadside to the dipole. The people that have tried this say it aint
so. At least some of the reasons are that NEC knows nothing about 160
propagation and it kno
Roger, near your dawn your signal is very good here over the years on 160.
That is the time when low dipoles seem to really work well.
Herb, KV4FZ
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Roger Kennedy <
ro...@wessexproductions.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Well I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again .
: Re: Topband: low inv-vee
I seem to recall reading that the "ideal" angle between the legs was 110
degrees. How that was derived or even if it is true I do not know.
I had a half sloper and converted to an inverted vee. I had done fairly
well with the half sloper and not too bad with th
I seem to recall reading that the "ideal" angle between the legs was 110
degrees. How that was derived or even if it is true I do not know.
I had a half sloper and converted to an inverted vee. I had done fairly
well with the half sloper and not too bad with the inverted vee but with
the inver
I was going to stay out of this low inv vee antenna - probably should - but
here goes.
The short remark is I believe N6RK comments are true - its a top loaded
vertical
with a little inv vee thrown in .
The long story is below - read at your own riisk.
In about 9 years I am at 126 countries
Could be. An effective balun on 160 isn't trivial, but then the questions are at
least twofold. 1) How ineffective is it and what are the relative currents on
the intended radiator compared to the incidental radiator and 2) what
constitutes the ground plane? On my cactus patch I'm working my t
We live in two countries separated by a common language.
In the states, we consider any wire in a "v" shape suspended upside down to
be...wait for it... an inverted vee, regardless of height as far as I know.
Are you suggesting that in Merrie Olde England there is a specified angle
between le
I don't think so. In my Electromagnetic Fields and Waves class in EE
school (way back when dinosaurs just stopped roaming the earth and
Constellations still graced the skies...) the prof derived the equation for
a received signal. The polarization terms disappeared after the first
ionospheric bou
Amen. 73, Guy K2AV
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Richard (Rick) Karlquist <
rich...@karlquist.com> wrote:
> One thing about an inverted vee on 160 that can
> confusing: if you don't go to a lot of trouble to
> have a really effective balun, you end up having
> feedline radiation. In the ca
One thing about an inverted vee on 160 that can
confusing: if you don't go to a lot of trouble to
have a really effective balun, you end up having
feedline radiation. In the case, you really have
an inverted L. This is related to articles written
about so called "loop skywires" where they say:
Interesting. Some say that on 160 vertical polarization rules, while on
80, horizontal polarization rules (or at least *often* rules). Of course
polarization and angle of arrival are two different things...
-Steve K8LX
On 03/28/18 17:23 PM, Roger Kennedy wrote:
Well I've said it before and I
Well I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again . . .
In my experience, most DX propagation on 160m ISN'T low angle (unlike 80m
when it nearly always IS.)
For the past 45 years, at several different QTHs I've always used a
horizontal co-ax fed halfwave dipole, only 50ft high . . . I'm
Jeff Wilson via
Topband
Sent: March 28, 2018 3:31 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Re: Topband: low inv-vee
I have always used an 80m inverted-vee (66.6 ft per side) with apex at
50ft at top of a yagi-free tower attached to a steel workshop and fed
with 450 ohm ladder line and shorted at the t
ested!
Jeff VE3CV
On 3/28/2018 12:00 PM, topband-requ...@contesting.com wrote:
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:26:41 +
From: Brian Campbell
To: Carl Luetzelschwab ,
"topband@contesting.com"
Subject: Re: Topband: low inv-vee
Message-ID:
Con
http://www.w0btu.com/160_meters.html :-)
73, Mike
www.w0btu.com
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 4:12 PM Kenneth Grimm wrote:
> There are antennas and there are better antennas. We use what we have and
> always dream of something better.
>
> 73,
>
> Ken - K4XL
>
_
Topband Reflector Archiv
There are antennas and there are better antennas. We use what we have and
always dream of something better.
73,
Ken - K4XL
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Wes Stewart wrote:
> My first 67 entities worked on 160 were with an inverted-vee with apex at
> about 45 feet and the ends about 5 feet
My first 67 entities worked on 160 were with an inverted-vee with apex at about
45 feet and the ends about 5 feet high. Actually a few were with the antenna
cut for 80 and using a tuner. I couldn't even run full power (500W) with that
configuration.
Wes N7WS
On 3/27/2018 11:49 AM, Carl Lu
Luetzelschwab
Sent: March 27, 2018 2:49 PM
To: topband@contesting.com
Subject: Topband: low inv-vee
Pete N4ZR said one option was to "Suspend inverted vees for 80 and 40 from
the top of the rocket launcher (right under the tribander)."
Gene AD3F commented on low inv-vees: "From
Pete N4ZR said one option was to "Suspend inverted vees for 80 and 40 from
the top of the rocket launcher (right under the tribander)."
Gene AD3F commented on low inv-vees: "From what I've read on Topband and
TowerTalk over the years, a low Vee as you're proposing is likely to be a
cloud warmer."
26 matches
Mail list logo
