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