I don't think so, Tim. If I understand Carl, he's describing two ground planes - one above the other - and the pattern/gain would depend on the phasing between the two feeds and the vertical separati
Actually, the "normal" way to "stack" vertidals is HORIZONTALLy - into broadside or end-fire arrays. It seems that Carl is describing collinear monopoles - in the case he describes - "collinear" grou
Hi, Mike When you say that you use "stacked" vertical beams - aren't they "stacked" horizontally? It seems to me that the vertical collinear elements,along the lines of what Carl is describing, are g
Well, if I understand Carl's proposed antenna - he is proposing enough vertical height for two 1/4 wave ground plane antennas, one above the other. In that case I would elect to use a vertical dipole
Gee, I wonder if Carl had any idea what a "catfight" he was going to start, when he began this thread? For my money, if I had enough support height to support two 1/4 wave ground planes, one above th
Well, Carl You just proposed a total height of 3/4 wavelength, it seems. Do you have that much height? Charlie, K4OTV Look at it as 2 ground planes with the lower feed point 1/4 wave above ground alo
Well, some quick mental arithmetic suggests to me that 12' is approx. 0.025 wavelength at 160 and 6' would be approx. 0.0125 wavelength. Pretty tight coupling it seems to me. - even if we double thos
Hi, Mike I remember the guy that you are referring to, but it's been so many years that I don't remember his last name tither. He published a book via either ARRL or CQ mag. A collinear 1/2 wave over
Thanks, Tony Yes, that's the one! I was pretty sure that it was published by CQ, but I was having a "senior moment" and couldn't remember Paul's last name! J 73, Charlie, K4OTV From: Anthony Scandurr
But, how would we feed it" Unless the tower has a base insulator?? Maybe a shunt feed might be possible? Charlie, K4OTV --Original Message-- From: Topband [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On B
Hi, Mike Yes, after I wrote that coment yesterday, I did realize that the lower ground 1/4 wave element could, indeed, be shunt fed. I guess I'm more used to collinear arrays at VHF and UHF where the
Amen!! 73, Charlie, K4OTV Now the smoke has cleared-sort of I have the Vertical Antenna Handbook, by Capt.. Paul H. Lee USN (RET) N6PL second edition. I also had the first edition way back then/when.
Hi, Jim! Good to hear from you! I don't think there's any simple or definitive answer to your question. The reason is that the 5/8 wave vertical splits the radiation into 2 lobes and has a second hig
BTW, Jim Nothing wrong with a 1/4 wave ground-plane! I've done really well on 40, 80 and 160 with quarter-wave verticals ( if you're willing to accept the 160 inverted L as a "quarter wave vertical".
That's great, Jim! Give it a try on 40 and 30m as well. You'll be pleased. The FO0AAA loop, because of its larger area, has a bit more gain than my 40' X 10' KAZ loop but both are good antennas. I ex
No I haven't attempted that modeling exercise, Carl. I mostly model things I can build of wire and/or tubing. That's new information about the tower not being grounded, I think. Do you feed it at the
Jim, Mike et al: I've been putting together a document along with some models, plots etc. that addresses the 1/4, 1/2, 5/8 wave vertical question, and I hope, illustrates where some of the confusion
Not "hearsay" Tim! That's exactly the problem. The reflected sky wave from the very high angle lobe of the 5/8 wave vertical can produce both destructive or constructive/reinforcing interference with
All, There has been a lot of "cussin', and discussin' " on this reflector regarding 5/8 wave and shorter vertical and perceived merits. There have also been perceived insults, irritation and hurt fee
Well it seems that somehow the document attachment got removed. I'll try again! Charlie _____________________________________________ From: Charlie Cunningham [mailto:charlie-cunningham@nc.rr.com] Se