Jack Painter wrote:

"Telamon" wrote
That is simple it is a vertical dipole where the angle between the two
elements is something other than 180 degrees. You would need two instead
of one mast. Maybe you could call it a vertical C instead.

There is some confusion here regarding vertical and horizontal
polarization and the V height. Ace is being physically descriptive and
Jack is talking about the electric polarization.

I have not looked up the efficiency but I expect that the V is more
lossy for transmitting and that does not apply to receiving. The angle
for receiving will affect the angle of reception though.


Telamon,

If you can figure out why dxAce would make personal attacks on me while we
were having a polite discussion about antennas, good luck. I quoted his
misunderstanding of the original poster's comments three times, and that
poster even verified I was describing exactly what he wanted, while dxAce
was not. Ace never envisioned a "vertical dipole" such as you gave him an
out for above.

Bull****... it was you who could not understand a 'vertical vee'.

Nor was he trying to compare polarization of any kind.

Bull****, 'tard boy.

He
just can't read or listen today.

You obviously can't read last week or tomorrow!

Nor does he understand what lossy means,
such as an inverted-vee can receive much better than it's lossy
transmitting, nearly equaling the horizontal dipole in most reception but
falling far short in transmitting compared to same.

BS... transmitting losses are pretty much the same as receiving losses.

And all center-fed
dipoles have small bandwidth, but of course they work well with a tuner
above their cut frequency.

And indeed, inverted vee's have a smaller bandwidth than a standard dipole...
that's one you refused to answer!

I replaced an inverted-vee with a horizontal
dipole years ago, and the same antenna horizontally can do with 125 watts
that which took 1,000 watts to accomplish with the vee.

But in what direction? Are we comparing apples to oranges here?

The lossiness comes
mainly from the antennas ends of a vee approaching far to close to the
ground. The horizontal dipole at minimum 1/4 wavelength above ground is
about 80% efficient. At 1/2 wavelength is it over 90% efficient, even over
lossy ground. But receiving has nothing to do with the ground losses from
transmitting from a dipole, and poor Ace is determined to dig himself into a
deeper and deeper hole on that simple fact.

The only hole you've dug yourself in is trying to portray yourself as a
homebound Coasty who can transmit on 8983 and 5696 when the regualars can't seem
to hear. Give me a frickin break... or prove it!

dxAce
Michigan
USA