[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans

To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Vertical plans
From: "Jim Brown" <>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:54:16 -0700
List-post: <">>
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:31:49 -0400, Scott MacKenzie wrote:

>That was what I was told - that I would be wasting my time and time
>of everyone else by putting up a simple vertical on 80M. 

Horsepucky. A REASONABLY EFFICIENT vertical will outperform a dipole 
that's up a quarter wave on axis of the dipole by an S-unit at low 
angles, which is what you want for a lot of DX. At higher angles the 
dipole wins -- on axis. 

Reasonably efficient means 

1) close to a quarter wave -- loading, if needed based on height, 
needs to be efficient. Top loading is efficient.


2) a reasonably good radial system -- at least 16 radials, more is 
better. A lousy radial system will suck power. 


3) nothing in the near field to interfere with it.  A feedline to 
another antenna that's close to a half wave on 80 would likely 
interfere and skew the pattern. 

Verticals have a bad rap because most that hams install are built 
and/or installed inefficiently, and/or because they only use them for 
local ragchewing. Many (most?) commercially built verticals are pretty 
inefficient, primarily because they use a lot of power-sucking tricks 
to "cover all bands" or because they aren't long enough. 


Jim Brown K9YC


TowerTalk mailing list

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