I had both a 32 ft vertical dipole and the same vertical dipole converted
over to a 40 meter 1/4 wave ground plane with 4 elevated radials.
In my case the performance very close to the same on 40 meters, minus the
pita the radials were.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richards" <email@example.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)
> 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
>> 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
TenTec mailing list