And while you have the feedpoint higher, you may as well run a half-wave (two quarter wave) wires, to have a normal inverted V. This would be speculative, but in my opinion if you need an inverted V, you need to get the feedpoint up higher than traditionally done with the Buddipole. Why is this not a more popular configuration?.As the Buddipole itself is a compromise antenna, there are many design factors to take into account, which makes the math on detail even more complex.Ĭhances are that some detail is indeed overlooked, simplisticly speaking. I believe that in order to answer that you need to experiment, measure, and probably apply complex math's to answer such a question. However to say that "no one" uses this, is probably an overstretch While never really experimented or measured it, I am not sure about either advandtages or disadvantages of such. I cannot recall if the results were any different then the elements horizontal. However I must say that I have experience with the Buddipole. "no one" probably is an assumption which is speculative. Why does no one use a Buddipole as an Inverted V?.Reason is probably that questions 1/3/4 are quite speculative. There are good answers given for question 2, but not for the others. Why is this not a more popular configuration? I think it would also bring the impedance closer to 50 ohms which would eliminate the balun requirement, right? Why does no one use a Buddipole as an Inverted V? There are 4 questions in the original post:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |