Hi Guy Thanks for your detailed reply. I am building a two-phase vertical for 80 meters, 1/4wave separated. Untill now I usee 1 single vertical with around 50 or 60 radials and I have noticed that towards East the dipole works way better than the Vertical (maybe because towards NA I have a down slope cliff untill the ocean and towards EU/AS I have about 100m high montain).
I got several replies dead it's not worth the effort to put the two dipoles phased, so I guesd I will skip it and try to compare the 2 elem vert with dipole towards EU/AS Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. 73s Filipe Lopes CT1ILT aka CR6K Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 Em 10/10/2016 10:38 p.m., "Guy Olinger K2AV" <k2av....@gmail.com> escreveu: > If that were not enough, W8JI famously had a 160 dipole up 270 feet doing > A/B tests vs. his verticals, this for over a year I think. In the end, he > heard better signals on the dipole just a handful of times. Most of the > time the verticals were significantly better. > > 160 is on the vertical polarization side of a dotted line somewhere between > 160 and 80 meters where there is some poorly defined and poorly understood > modal shift, heavily favoring vertical for non-NVIS paths on 160. > > For some, an inverted vee is a possibility where other physical > configurations are just not possible. If that is what you can do, it sure > beats not being on the band :>) > > Phasing two of them will get you 2-3 db over just one of them. But probably > the two will get beaten by an *efficient* inverted L over an *efficient* > counterpoise, because the L will smoke any inverted vee at low angles, and > is on the correct side of whatever the modal shift is. > > The emphasized "efficient" modifier twice in the last sentence is very much > intentional. > > On 160 it is very easy to lose energy to induced current in the ground, or > miscellaneous dielectric loss. If your reason for choosing an inverted vee > is not because of physical site restraints, then it is very likely that > prior vertical attempts were diminished, possibly severely diminished, by > losses avoidable with various techniques. > > The big loss advantage of an inverted vee is that 1) there is no lossy > counterpoise and 2) the RF current max is way in the air. There are ways to > invoke those advantages with vertically polarized antennas. An inverted L > out in the clear over an FCP is a good one, but only one over some several > vertical alternatives. > > 73, Guy K2AV > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Herbert Schoenbohm < > herbert.schoenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Probably not worth the effort as any dipoles less than 250 feet high are > > serious cloud warmers. > > > > > > > > On 10/10/2016 9:21 AM, Filipe Lopes wrote: > > > >> Hi guys > >> > >> We are rebuilding our station and I was thinking about putting up 2 > >> dipoles > >> 1/8 wavelength apart. > >> > >> Has anyone ever tried to phase them for example with Christman method? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Filipe Lopes CT1ILT aka CR6K > >> > >> Sent from my Huawei Mate 8 > >> _________________ > >> Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > >> > > > > _________________ > > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > > > _________________ > Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband > _________________ Topband Reflector Archives - http://www.contesting.com/_topband