[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
From: Richards <jruing@ameritech.net>
Reply-to: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:36:52 -0500
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
Do you claim your vertical dipole works better than a quarter wave with 
four good, properly tuned/cut elevated radials?

Reason I ask is that my aluminum rotatable dipole project has technical 
problems  (The alum elements sag and dip and wave in the wind too much 
-- I did not select sufficiently large diameter and stiff tubing.... but 
ham radio is for experimenting, right...?)   AND I was
thinking I could salvage the project by turning the floppy thing 
vertical and make it a vertical dipole - OR - I might convert it into a 
single tubing vertical elevated ground plane and add some wire radials.

Any traction ?     (I will stick my neck out here... re: your 
challenge... and expect the properly tuned elevated radials to equal the 
work of the second half of the vertical dipole and say they should 
perform equally well.   N'est ce pas?)

================== James - K8JHR  ====================

On 1/5/2011 8:42 PM, Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP wrote:

> I have used the vertical dipole instead of the classical vertical because of
> my despise for radials.

  > I still stand by my challenge for anyone to come up with a simple cheap
> antenna that will out-perform the simple vertical dipole.

TenTec mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>