"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
Every year, I fear the spring and summer. I have a random wire antenna
that traverses one side of my property, the wire extending about 70 feet.
No lightning protection. I remove the wire from the radio when I am at
home
and I know that I storm is coming. But when I am at work, and storms
happen
unexpectedly, the radio stays connected. Even protecting the radio from
the
static of a nearby lightning strike by disconnecting it doesn't protect
the
house from the results of a strike to the wire.

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. The feed would only be
about 20 feet long. I would have trouble grounding it at the apex of the
V,
since that would be on the house itself and the patio is directly below
it,
providing much cement but little ground to place the rod. Though I could
drill the patio, I am unsure of the pipes below it.

My lot, at least as far as the usable area for the antenna is concerned,
would be about 30 feet wide and 70 feet long, with the elevation of the V
to be approximately 12 feet from the ground.

Can anybody conceptualize an antenna that I can use, with lightning
protection, and provide links to it? Is anybody using something similar?

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.

However, for lightning protection, all antenna feedlines regardless of
antenna type should be shield-grounded if using a coax feedline. The first
point of this shield-grounding should be as near as possible to where a
grounding conductor/jumper/bond can be first located. That means on the
tower if the tower is the feedpoint of the inverted-vee, or where the
feedline first reaches earth-grade at 90 degrees from the feedpoint. Coax is
again shield-grounded at the ground rod used as the shack's single point
ground. A surge protector or oft-called lightning arrestor is then used to
protect the equipment where the feedline originates.

If it is physically possible for the antenna to take a direct lightning
strike (not a probability if nearby objects are higher) then the feedpoint
shield ground is the primary discharge point, and should have a network of
ground rods connected by heavy (#4 or larger copper wire or wide copper
straps). Even if a direct strike is not possible, indirect strikes
(flashovers from a nearby tree or other higher object) are still possible,
and the first shield ground remains of primary importance in the protection
scheme. Feedline running along the earth or even buried a few inches in the
earth are also subject to magnetic and capacitive coupling of lightning
strikes nearby. The near surface of earth carries 10's of thousands of volt
potential from strikes as far as 100 yards away. Any ground system that is
connected to equipment in the shack has the potential to reference these
voltages right onto the grounded equipment cases in the shack. This is why
proper bonding of inside equipment and all grounding systems is vital to
prevent this ground potential rise from exiting the equipment through AC
power connections out the rear of the equipment. See my site for further
information about bonding and grounding antennas and equipment:

http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Jack Painter wrote:

"§ Dr. Artaud §" wrote
Every year, I fear the spring and summer. I have a random wire antenna
that traverses one side of my property, the wire extending about 70 feet.
No lightning protection. I remove the wire from the radio when I am at
home
and I know that I storm is coming. But when I am at work, and storms
happen
unexpectedly, the radio stays connected. Even protecting the radio from
the
static of a nearby lightning strike by disconnecting it doesn't protect
the
house from the results of a strike to the wire.

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. The feed would only be
about 20 feet long. I would have trouble grounding it at the apex of the
V,
since that would be on the house itself and the patio is directly below
it,
providing much cement but little ground to place the rod. Though I could
drill the patio, I am unsure of the pipes below it.

My lot, at least as far as the usable area for the antenna is concerned,
would be about 30 feet wide and 70 feet long, with the elevation of the V
to be approximately 12 feet from the ground.

Can anybody conceptualize an antenna that I can use, with lightning
protection, and provide links to it? Is anybody using something similar?

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



However, for lightning protection, all antenna feedlines regardless of
antenna type should be shield-grounded if using a coax feedline. The first
point of this shield-grounding should be as near as possible to where a
grounding conductor/jumper/bond can be first located. That means on the
tower if the tower is the feedpoint of the inverted-vee, or where the
feedline first reaches earth-grade at 90 degrees from the feedpoint. Coax is
again shield-grounded at the ground rod used as the shack's single point
ground. A surge protector or oft-called lightning arrestor is then used to
protect the equipment where the feedline originates.

If it is physically possible for the antenna to take a direct lightning
strike (not a probability if nearby objects are higher) then the feedpoint
shield ground is the primary discharge point, and should have a network of
ground rods connected by heavy (#4 or larger copper wire or wide copper
straps). Even if a direct strike is not possible, indirect strikes
(flashovers from a nearby tree or other higher object) are still possible,
and the first shield ground remains of primary importance in the protection
scheme. Feedline running along the earth or even buried a few inches in the
earth are also subject to magnetic and capacitive coupling of lightning
strikes nearby. The near surface of earth carries 10's of thousands of volt
potential from strikes as far as 100 yards away. Any ground system that is
connected to equipment in the shack has the potential to reference these
voltages right onto the grounded equipment cases in the shack. This is why
proper bonding of inside equipment and all grounding systems is vital to
prevent this ground potential rise from exiting the equipment through AC
power connections out the rear of the equipment. See my site for further
information about bonding and grounding antennas and equipment:

http://members.cox.net/pc-usa/station/ground0.htm

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:43:50 -0400, dxAce
wrote:


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
''Efficiency is less than a horizontal dipole of similar height, but
the radiation pattern is more omni-directional which may be considered
to be an advantage.''

http://www.smeter.net/antennas/inv_vee.php

I think characterising the Inverted V as an ''inferior'' choice is
wrong.

David wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:43:50 -0400, dxAce
wrote:

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
''Efficiency is less than a horizontal dipole of similar height, but
the radiation pattern is more omni-directional which may be considered
to be an advantage.''

http://www.smeter.net/antennas/inv_vee.php

I think characterising the Inverted V as an ''inferior'' choice is
wrong.

Damn, you finally got something right.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"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. It is
also less efficient.

Best regards,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Virginia

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

"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.

Jack

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

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