Re: Topband: low inv-vee

in the country here in NH. Carl. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Wilson via Topband" <topband@contesting.com> To: <topband@contesting.com> 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 s

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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.)

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

: 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

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 the inverted vee but with the

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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:

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Topband: low inv-vee

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 . . .

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

om> on behalf of Jeff Wilson via Topband <topband@contesting.com> 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 f

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

ntesting.com> Subject: Re: Topband: low inv-vee Message-ID: <cy4pr12mb18627341f91e72b246d5c847ff...@cy4pr12mb1862.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I put up a 1/2 wave Inverted V ( each leg is about 140' ) for 160M in January

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

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

Re: Topband: low inv-vee

f Carl Luetzelschwab <carlluetzelsch...@gmail.com> 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 AD3

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 what I've read on Topband and TowerTalk over the years, a low Vee as you're proposing is likely to be a cloud