Typically I hear about mounting with the feedpoint high, and the ends
low, but I managed to mount it with the feedpoint at about 35 feet, and
one end at 60 feet, and the other end at around 35 feet, so I have kind
of a sloping dipole.

Curious about what the characteristics of this antenna would be -- is
it more of a cloud burner, or does the slope offer a lower angle of
radiation?

Thanks for any thoughts!

-Chuck
KB5GC

Chuck W. wrote:
Typically I hear about mounting with the feedpoint high, and the ends
low, but I managed to mount it with the feedpoint at about 35 feet,
and
one end at 60 feet, and the other end at around 35 feet, so I have
kind
of a sloping dipole.

Curious about what the characteristics of this antenna would be -- is
it more of a cloud burner, or does the slope offer a lower angle of
radiation?

Thanks for any thoughts!

-Chuck
KB5GC

Hi Chuck, Depends on what bands you are using the G5RV. On 80 and 40M
you will have an omnidirectional cloud burner. On the higher bands you
will have some directional effects.
You could model this and see what effects the sloping has. Someone
will correct me, but I think a G5RV can be modeled as a 102' doublet.
Your average heigth is 48', so 40m may exhibit directivity.
You should have good results with a G5RV mounted this way at 60'
sloping to 35'. If that's what you can do, then go for it.
Gary N4AST

Chuck W. wrote:
Typically I hear about mounting with the feedpoint high, and the ends
low, but I managed to mount it with the feedpoint at about 35 feet, and
one end at 60 feet, and the other end at around 35 feet, so I have kind
of a sloping dipole.

Curious about what the characteristics of this antenna would be -- is
it more of a cloud burner, or does the slope offer a lower angle of
radiation?

Download the free demo version of EZNEC from http://www.eznec.com
and see for yourself.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Here's a thought -- I'm using this mostly on 20 meters, and it seems to
be performing well as a 3 x 1/2 wavelength doublet. I understand that
with this setup, it fires off the ends rather than broadside. Since it
fires off the ends would that mean a lower angle of radiation of the
ends are higher? I'm thinking about getting the 35' end up a bit and
perhaps end up with more like a non-inverted Vee arrangement.

Say I did download EZNEC. Dang that looks like a complicated program!

-Chuck
KB5GC

Chuck W. wrote:
Say I did download EZNEC. Dang that looks like a complicated program!

NEC *is* a complicated program but EZNEC is easy to use.
Load one of the sample antennas and click on "FFPlot".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Chuck W. wrote:
Typically I hear about mounting with the feedpoint high, and the
ends
low, but I managed to mount it with the feedpoint at about 35 feet,
and
one end at 60 feet, and the other end at around 35 feet, so I have
kind
of a sloping dipole.

Curious about what the characteristics of this antenna would be --
is
it more of a cloud burner, or does the slope offer a lower angle of
radiation?



Hi Chuck what you discribe is about what I now have here also.. It
works ok.. not a beam but seems to work well on 80 , 40, 20 12 meters
...
The eznec plots look pretty good I have done some eznec plots if you
haven't done them yourself would be willing to send them to you .
73 Dave kc1di

I've moved the legs up to about "level" but on the same plane it is in
a "Vee" configuration, close to 90 degrees. It seems to be performing
OK, but I'm concerned that at 90 degrees or less some kind of signal
cancellation can occur. True?

Probably preferable to have them 100 degrees or better angle?

Thanks,

Chuck

"Chuck W." wrote in message
oups.com...
I've moved the legs up to about "level" but on the same plane it is
in
a "Vee" configuration, close to 90 degrees. It seems to be
performing
OK, but I'm concerned that at 90 degrees or less some kind of signal
cancellation can occur. True?

==================================

To gain an idea of the performance of an Inverted-V, as the included
angle varies from 180 to 0 degrees, download program INV_VEE from
website below. Takes only a few seconds. Run immediately.
----
.................................................. ..........
Regards from Reg, G4FGQ
For Free Radio Design Software go to
http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp
.................................................. ..........

No "signal cancellation" occurs at any angle. Except for conductor loss,
every watt of power you feed into it is radiated, regardless of the
angle. What does happen at narrow angles is that the radiation
resistance drops, which can increase loss, although it typically has to
drop quite a bit before the increase is significant. It also narrows the
antenna's bandwidth, so you'd have to retune after a smaller frequency
change.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Chuck W. wrote:
I've moved the legs up to about "level" but on the same plane it is in
a "Vee" configuration, close to 90 degrees. It seems to be performing
OK, but I'm concerned that at 90 degrees or less some kind of signal
cancellation can occur. True?

Probably preferable to have them 100 degrees or better angle?

Thanks,

Chuck

"Chuck W." wrote

I've moved the legs up to about "level" but on the same plane it is in
a "Vee" configuration, close to 90 degrees. It seems to be performing
OK, but I'm concerned that at 90 degrees or less some kind of signal
cancellation can occur. True?

Probably preferable to have them 100 degrees or better angle?

Thanks,

Chuck


Chuck, 120 degrees of the included angle of a dipole (fanned underneath a
horizontal, or installed as an inverted-vee by itself) was described in this
forum as the minimum recommended angle for optimal performance. I'm sorry I
can't locate a file I probably saved that information in, but it is a number
that the originator in this group might recognize as his suggestion ;-)

Best regards,

Jack