Yes your inverted-vee has max gain at 90 degrees elevation, but you (editorial sense) still need to compare its gain in the direction of interest with a vertical (or near vertical) over the same ground and with a real-world ground system.
> From: Radio Amateur N5GE <
[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] antenna farm
> To:
[hidden email]
> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 12:40 PM
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:58:26 -0800,
> "Ron D'Eau Claire" <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> Yes you did open the flood gate. Antenna opinions are
> like noses.
> Every one has one...
>
> As Ron say's, If you can't get a dipole up 1/2wl you
> will be sending
> most of your radiated output and receiving at high angles,
> which won't
> be what you want unless you plan to do a lot of local rag
> chewing.
>
> Here's a real life test that I made:
>
> I have an 80m half sloper on my tower sloping from 38 feet
> which does
> pretty well working 360 degrees around (the tower becomes
> the radiator
> when using this type of sloper). A couple of weeks
> ago I put an 80m
> inverted vee up and compared the two. The inverted
> vee could not even
> hear the European signals, but could hear signals within a
> few hundred
> miles very well. The reason for that was because the
> inverted V (at
> 38 feet) was radiating the largest amount of energy
> straight up at 90
> degrees (verified with EZNEC 5.0).
>
> 73,
>
> Tom, N5GE
>
>
[hidden email]
> K3 #806 with SUB RX, K3 #1055, PR6,
> XV144, XV432, KRC2,
> W1, 2 W2's and other small kits
>
> 1 K144XV on order
>
>
http://www.n5ge.com>
http://www.swotrc.net>
> >As Ken mentioned, height is an important factor in a
> horizontal or
> >semi-horizontal antenna. There's limited "gain" in any
> direction at low
> >angles unless the radiator is 1/2 wavelength above
> ground. That's why most
> >of us have to live with little directivity on the lower
> bands.
> >
> >The option is to consider verticals. Unless you are
> living on salt water (or
> >atop a sheet of copper), or can make the vertical a
> full 1/2 wave high, the
> >vertical won't be as efficient as doublet or dipole,
> but a vertical will
> >produce typically much better signals at lower angles
> of radiation than a
> >horizontal antenna (under 1/2 wave high) and doesn't
> require a huge
> >'footprint'. Also you can phase multiple verticals for
> directivity and even
> >design them so you can use them for supports for
> horizontal wires on the
> >higher bands.
> >
> >You've probably noticed that 45 foot verticals are
> being heavily promoted
> >these days. That's an old design that is very handy for
> limited space. It
> >provides low angles of radiation on all bands up
> through 20 meters where
> >it's 5/8 wavelength high (on bands where it's more than
> 5/8 wavelength the
> >angle of the main lobe rises from the horizontal and
> minor lobes appear at
> >high angles). Down on 80 meters it's just a bit shy of
> 1/4 wavelength. With
> >a good ground system it can produce excellent results
> down there and even on
> >160 - especially when compared with the short, low (in
> wavelengths above
> >ground) antennas most of us are forced to use on those
> bands
> >
> >Ron AC7AC
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home:
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft> Help:
http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm> Post: mailto:
[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by:
http://www.qsl.net> Please help support this email list:
http://www.qsl.net/donate.html>