N4KG responses inserted below.
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 Michael Watts <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Tom, you have not answered the question.
> You changed the question.
> The question was NOT what a one tower guy should do.
> It was "what should a one antenna guy do".
Guilty as charged.
I simply would not limit myself to only ONE antenna.
> I don't know all the reasons why a guy might be limited to one
> antenna. Could be money, could be windage, could be a crankup
> tower (which is more difficult to mount a second lower antenna on).
It's pretty easy to sidemount a small 2L Yagi or dipole,
even on a crank up. ANY high band antenna over 60 ft
WILL have NULLS in the useful range.
> So: If you only have one ANTENNA and you can put it at 60' or 100',
> which would you do and what would the choice be based on?
K6LL summed it up pretty well. A tribander at 50 ft
has pretty good coverage of most of the useful angles.
Many people go to great lengths / expense to pick
up a couple of dB with long boom Yagis or stacks
yet IGNORE the huge LOSS in the NULL region.
If you don't have an antenna that fills in the NULLS,
you don't KNOW what you are missing. Most of
the time, it doesn't matter, but in a BIG PILEUP
for a New Country or Contest Multiplier, every dB
A 10 or 20 dB NULL means you will
spend a LOT more time calling than if you had
a 'fill' antenna. I've had several tribanders at 80 ft
and they have been consistently uncompetitive
on 10 and 15M once those bands are wide open.
At 40 to 50 ft, you give up a few dB at the lowest
angles but have EXCELLENT coverage of the
predominant daytime angles. This is my preferred
ONE ANTENNA solution for the High Bands.
I don't accept the argument that if you can put an
antenna up at 100 ft (or even 60 ft) that you can't
also put up a small lower antenna to fill in the nulls.
I received two private messages from guys with
180 and 200 ft high stacks who reported that
during the day, SMALL TRIBANDERS at 30
and 45 ft were better to EU and AFR on 10, 15
and 20M than ANY combination of their HIGH
ANTENNAS (over 100 ft).
Anyone still in doubt that a low antenna can be
better than a high antenna is welcome to put up their
own low antenna(s) (35 - 45 ft) and compare for themselves.
That's the only way they will KNOW for sure.
> I submit that the right choice is the one that yields the best
> results the greatest percentage of time for the operator's
> chosen mission. I can't say whether any certain number
> of hours to Europe is enough. It depends on what he is trying to work.
> PS. Your opinion is interesting anyway, even if it wasn't directly
> responsive to the one antenna question.
> --- email@example.com wrote:
> > HELLO ! I'm not advising to put ONE antenna low,
> > I'm advising the ONE TOWER guy to put a second
> > antenna at 35 to 40 ft to fill in the NULLS from his
> > higher (60 to 80 ft) high antenna. Even a low DIPOLE
> > will be stronger than the biggest Yagi in it's NULL.
> > OK? Why so much resistance to a second small
> > antenna on the same tower that can do nothing but
> > improve your performance? N4KG
> > >If you had only one antenna, would you put it lower or higher?
> > If I had a 40 or 50 ft tower I would have only ONE
> > high band antenna. If I had a 60 to 100 ft tower,
> > I would have at least TWO high band antennas.
> > I don't know how well low antennas play in California,
> > but everywhere East of the Rockies and in Alaska,
> > I have reports of low antennas being better than high
> > antennas for significant periods of time.
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
Where do you get ICE bandpass filters & beverage matching boxes? The
same place that pays for the hosting of this list: The eHam Store.
Order online at http://store.eham.net.
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com