Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
I would like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what
they
refer
to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on my house
to
both
sides of the property. I would like to feed the antenna with coax,
so
as
to
reduce the likelihood of household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with it's
ends
lower
than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design, it usually results from
being
unable to elevate both ends equal to the feedpoint of a half wave
dipole. It
nonetheless works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring
no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted vee'
designation.

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal inverted-vee" v.s.
a
"vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud clearly described an
inverted-vee where the house forms the center feedpoint and the ends are
lower at opposite ends of his property. This is like every other
inverted-vee I ever heard of, whether center point was a tower or any
other
kind of support. Just because the ends slope downward (giving some
vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented antenna.
It
is not. It does have less directionality because of it's vertical
component,
and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is
also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally
figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and 'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go out and
build
some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually try to
envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a 'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole antenna
for
general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think is
what you
envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in calling that
horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally vertical
inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question to you was "what
other kind is there"? Which you have failed to answer. I'm still waiting to
hear about this vertical-inverted-vee you're touting. I've been to some
antenna schools, and I guess I missed the day they covered your
vertical-inverted-vee.

Your lack of comprehension of what is in the vertical plane and what is in the
horizontal plane is absolutely boggling.

I'd be happy to have you over for a tutorial, but at this point I'd have to
start charging.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

Damn canaDUHians,teach em everything I know and they still don't know
nouthing!
cuhulin

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote in message

Lightning strikes very often happen on very pretty Summertime
days/nights when you least expect lightning to happen.There are very
good ways to protect your radio antennas and radios agains't lightning
strikes.I don't know much of those ways,perhaps someone who does know
will show up and elaborate about such things.
cuhulin

Or watch my safety video!

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/safetyvideo23.mpg

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

wrote in message
...
Damn canaDUHians,teach em everything I know and they still don't know
nouthing!

My irony meter just melted into a puddle of slag.

In article 1Rt8e.2096$lz1.1199@lakeread01,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote I would
like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on
my house to both sides of the property. I would like to feed
the antenna with coax, so as to reduce the likelihood of
household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with
it's ends lower than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design,
it usually results from being unable to elevate both ends
equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It nonetheless
works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted
vee' designation.

dxAce Michigan USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal
inverted-vee" v.s. a "vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud
clearly described an inverted-vee where the house forms the
center feedpoint and the ends are lower at opposite ends of his
property. This is like every other inverted-vee I ever heard of,
whether center point was a tower or any other kind of support.
Just because the ends slope downward (giving some vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented
antenna. It is not. It does have less directionality because of
it's vertical component, and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure
horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and
'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted
vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go
out and build some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually
try to envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a
'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole
antenna for general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce Michigan USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think
is what you envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in
calling that horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally
vertical inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question
to you was "what other kind is there"? Which you have failed to
answer. I'm still waiting to hear about this vertical-inverted-vee
you're touting. I've been to some antenna schools, and I guess I
missed the day they covered your vertical-inverted-vee.


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
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article 1Rt8e.2096$lz1.1199@lakeread01,
"Jack Painter" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"dxAce" wrote

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote I would
like to switch to a V shaped antenna, perhaps it is what they
refer to as an "inverted V" extending from a central point on
my house to both sides of the property. I would like to feed
the antenna with coax, so as to reduce the likelihood of
household interference.

Thanks for any help.

Dr. Artaud

The Inverted-vee is a center (or off-center) fed dipole with
it's ends lower than the feedpoint. Rarely a desired design,
it usually results from being unable to elevate both ends
equal to the feedpoint of a half wave dipole. It nonetheless
works fairly well and is a "complete" antenna, requiring no
grounding. It is not a vertical antenna as Ace suggested.

They are generally vertically oriented, therefore the 'inverted
vee' designation.

dxAce Michigan USA


Huh? Please describe what you mean by a "horizontal
inverted-vee" v.s. a "vertical oriented inverted-vee" Dr. Arnaud
clearly described an inverted-vee where the house forms the
center feedpoint and the ends are lower at opposite ends of his
property. This is like every other inverted-vee I ever heard of,
whether center point was a tower or any other kind of support.
Just because the ends slope downward (giving some vertical
component to the antenna) does not make it a vertical-oriented
antenna. It is not. It does have less directionality because of
it's vertical component, and slightly wider bandwidth than a pure
horizontal half wave dipole.

No, actually it has less bandwidth. Look it up!

It is also less efficient.

You get back to me after you go to 'antenna school'! And, after you
finally figure out the difference between 'horizontal' and
'vertical'.

I don't think I ever really mentioned a 'horizontal inverted
vee'...

You really need to pick up an antenna book or two and actually go
out and build some stuff.

Please, go back and read the original posters comments and actually
try to envision what he was proposing, which would seem to be a
'horizontal vee'.

At any rate, using an 'inverted vee', or a 'horizontal vee' dipole
antenna for general shortwave listening is simply a bad idea.

Your inexperience is certainly showing this morning, Jack.

dxAce Michigan USA

Steve,

Here are your exact words to Dr. Artaud:

"An inverted 'V' itself would be vertical... a horizontal 'V' I think
is what you envision."

Now as I tried to kindly point out before, you are mistaken in
calling that horizontal as compared to some imaginary and "normally
vertical inverted-vee". Of course it's horizontal, and my question
to you was "what other kind is there"? Which you have failed to
answer. I'm still waiting to hear about this vertical-inverted-vee
you're touting. I've been to some antenna schools, and I guess I
missed the day they covered your vertical-inverted-vee.

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.

No, actually one only needs one center support or mast.

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.

Again, no... it is no more 'lossy' than anything else as long as it is cut
properly.
In practical terms I found the pattern from them to be a bit more omni than what
one might consider a 'standard' dipole to be, but yes, losses applying to
transmitting apply just the same to receiving. A loss is a loss is a loss.

I've had numerous 'inverted vee's' up over the years and found them to be very
good mono-band antennas. Having said that, they are generally very tight
frequency wise and if one wishes to make broad excursions an antenna tuner would
be highly advised.

My current plan here is to put up a 60 or 90 meter band inverted vee for the
upcoming 2005-2006 season. I'd like to put up a long wire to S. America, and
that may be possible if I can secure my neighbours permission, at least over the
winter months.

My problem here at present is that my lot is 85' by 462' and I do have
unrestricted access to the West and North East, up to say 1000' but I am limited
to the South East for something in the several hundred foot range for South
America, providing I can secure permission to cross the neighbours property.

Currently I do have a 70' and 200' wire up.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"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. Nor was he trying to compare polarization of any kind. He
just can't read or listen today. 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. And all center-fed
dipoles have small bandwidth, but of course they work well with a tuner
above their cut frequency. 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. 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.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

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. Nor was he trying to compare polarization of any kind. He
just can't read or listen today. 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. And all center-fed
dipoles have small bandwidth, but of course they work well with a tuner
above their cut frequency. 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. 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.

And you still haven't a clue... keep on promulgating your crap... though it does
indeed have a sense of truth to it.

Still waiting for you to broadcast that 'test' on 8983...

What are you waiting for, John?

dxAce
Michigan
USA





Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

dxAce wrote in
:

Remember, I was the one asking for advice, ergo I am the one ignorant on
the issue. Although I do appreciate any serious response, I especially
appreciated his (Jack Painter's) willingness to have spent so much time
writing a response. As I asked for links, I believed that I would be able
to sort through the responses and make a decision for myself.

To compound the matter, I spent the day looking at vertical antennas for
HF transmitting, something that I am not yet licensed to do (Technician).
Anyway, my property is narrow, I live next door to a borough official
that doesn't like me (understatement, and the feeling is mutual), my
property suffers absolutely tremendous winds during some (most) of the
summer storms (you have to see it to believe it, the rear of the house
looks like pre-tornado, the front, mostly calm wind wise, but there is
not enough front to use for mounting antennas and the high tension and
other wires are but a mere 20 feet away).

I am not going to be able to erect a tower and use a beam (wife's
prohibition), the property doesn't lend itself to traipsing guy wires to
support a vertical in high winds, and my wife isn't going to let me have
guy wires stuck hither and thither anyway (I need a free standing
vertical with 80 mph wind resistance).

I thought that the inverted V might be a start, I realize that I can
transmit on it as well (utilizing a tuner). All I have now is a random
wire down one side of the property, attached by rubber tubing (of a sort)
to a large tree near the end of my property, the other end going directly
to my radio.

The inverted V was just a way to allow me a more convenient way to use
coax for the radio to antenna feed, and to use some form of grounding at
the point where the coax enters the house (though as I said, I can't run
a ground wire straight down, as the patio is directly below).

You comments are appreciated, perhaps you can also help me with the
vertical. But I do need a way to ground my antenna soon, as the storms
will soon be here.

Thanks.

Dr. Artaud

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote:

dxAce wrote in
:

Remember, I was the one asking for advice, ergo I am the one ignorant on
the issue. Although I do appreciate any serious response, I especially
appreciated his (Jack Painter's) willingness to have spent so much time
writing a response.

OK, but if his response was predicated upon crap... so be it! This ain't rocket
science...

I just plain give up.

But I'm still waiting for the fellow who supposedly has a Coast Guard setup in
his home to say something on 8983!

By the way... I checked it out (months ago) ... and as far as I can determine
they've never heard of him. But perhaps he might provide something a bit more
definitive.

As I asked for links, I believed that I would be able
to sort through the responses and make a decision for myself.

To compound the matter, I spent the day looking at vertical antennas for
HF transmitting, something that I am not yet licensed to do (Technician).
Anyway, my property is narrow, I live next door to a borough official
that doesn't like me (understatement, and the feeling is mutual), my
property suffers absolutely tremendous winds during some (most) of the
summer storms (you have to see it to believe it, the rear of the house
looks like pre-tornado, the front, mostly calm wind wise, but there is
not enough front to use for mounting antennas and the high tension and
other wires are but a mere 20 feet away).

I am not going to be able to erect a tower and use a beam (wife's
prohibition), the property doesn't lend itself to traipsing guy wires to
support a vertical in high winds, and my wife isn't going to let me have
guy wires stuck hither and thither anyway (I need a free standing
vertical with 80 mph wind resistance).

I thought that the inverted V might be a start, I realize that I can
transmit on it as well (utilizing a tuner). All I have now is a random
wire down one side of the property, attached by rubber tubing (of a sort)
to a large tree near the end of my property, the other end going directly
to my radio.

The inverted V was just a way to allow me a more convenient way to use
coax for the radio to antenna feed, and to use some form of grounding at
the point where the coax enters the house (though as I said, I can't run
a ground wire straight down, as the patio is directly below).

You comments are appreciated, perhaps you can also help me with the
vertical. But I do need a way to ground my antenna soon, as the storms
will soon be here.

Thanks.

Good luck.

dxAce
Michigan
USA