[WARC] NVIS

[Len Litvan]

Hi Dick,

Thanks for pointing out the facts (facts....those nasty things!).  I 
have been inundated with sources and advice about NVIS.  Guess I need to 
find some time and study it all.

The item in Ed's references which caught my attention had to do with the 
option of inverted V vs. other physical layouts.  We had been trying 
inverted Vs, and that's apparently not the best configuration based on 
practical experience reported.

Fifty feet per leg is a good dipole length for a shortened multi-band 
antenna extending to 80 meters because it stays away from the high 
impedance lengths on most bands.  Let me look again at what Dr. Ed 
sent.  Maybe 88 feet is a dedicated answer for NVIS, which is strictly 
an 80-40 meter option.

Thanks again.   We are learning.

Putting the pieces together, the next experiment might be 88 feet 
flat-top dipole up 15 feet with a 92.4 foot (105%) reflector on the 
ground underneath.

Did you ever see the movie "Contact"????

73,
Len  KC0RSX

Dick Lindner wrote:
> Am I missing something here?
>
> According to what I read, Ed gave the formula...88 feet - 2- 44 foot 
> sections - dipole - at 15 feet elevation above ground - all kinds of 
> data to back it up - tuner at the feedpoint - coax to transmitter...
>
> Data suggests that there is no such thing as a random length that 
> works and that the optimum length for an 80-40 two-band is 88 feet.
>
> This sounds sassy and is not intended to be so.  Dick
> _______________________________________________
> WARC mailing list
> WARC at lists.w0ne.org
> http://lists.w0ne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/warc
>
>