Jerry, let me throw two things at you: 1. I think a horizontal loop is a pretty good radiator, straight up. 2. The vertical dipole antenna I've described has been in use here for nearly 20 years, at
Author: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj@weather.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:17:25 -0600
And those who like them find they work well for operations like SS and FD where working stations in surrounding states on 80 and 40 is good. One I used at a club FD was not small and worked well. One
I will confirm Rick's results. Almost the same antenna here -- 30 ft of tower insulated from ground on my sun deck with a 24 ft aluminum rod insulated from the top of the tower; the rod fed against t
There is a question or two on the Extra Class Exam that makes the same point. You add ground radials to to a quarter wave vertical antenna to increase low radiation angle. Gordon West says so on his
Used a small roof tower for several years with 22' of aluminum out of it and a #10 wire to the ground. Fed with twinlead via a Johnson box and worked all over. Pretty much anything I could hear. Clea
I presume the "wink" indicates that is a joke ! The only thing that would improve the elevation pattern would be improved ground conditions in the Fresnel Zone where the ground reflections are taking
I, too, have always had good results with vertical dipoles. Pat Hawker wrote one of mine up in 1970 or 1971. It consisted of a 12AVQ trap vertical for the top half, and quarter-wavelength counterpois
I have had until recently, an R7 that worked almost anywhere I wanted to try, but if you want to talk 1.4 wave verticals, I would thing you want to start with Severns article in QST (In 2000). Also w
"Work by Al Christman, K3LC (ex-KB8I) has shown that 4 to 8 elevated radials can provide performance comparable to 120 " 1/4 wavelength "long buried wires." That pretty much says it all. After all, t
With apologies to all, the article I was thinking about was by Jerry Sevick, W2FMI in April, 1978 QST on Short radial systems, not Somers as I cited., John -- WA1JG WA1JG@nsradio.org ________________
That excellent (long) article was in QEX, but for us non-engineer guys, there was an excellent shortened article published in QST last year. I had always heard that elevated radials enabled you to ge
Er... ah... No joke. Do you doubt the proposition that a good ground plane lowers radiation take off angle? If so, I would be curious as to your reasons. (Seriously, and with no intention to flame or
Please take this with the grain of salt that it deserves. I am not the author and am only quoting what I read (or thought I read). The 1978 article on shortened antennas and radials is available from
There are two distinct and different issues here. Take a look at how the ARRL Antenna Book tackles them quite separately. 1. Antenna efficiency: directly affected by the ground conductivity in the Re
Yes, absolutely. Sorry, but unless I'm wrong, you are missing the point, Jim. All of the below has to do with the "amount" of radiation at low angles. Nobody ever disputed that. My comment, which tri
J E R R Y, NEED SOME HELP HERE. Jim puts forth good arguments, but it goes against what I have learned many years ago. Your thoughts please. Tnx 73 Rick Er... ah... No joke. Do you doubt the proposit
The ARRL Antenna Book puts it much more succinctly than I just did - Page 3-20 of 21st Edition: "In short, far-field losses for vertically polarized antennas are highly dependent on the conductivity
I am NOT taking sides on this thread, but reporting my twenty five year experience with NVIS and vertical antennas at my location. My conditions are a rural subdivision one acre lot, with several fee
At my last 3 home QTH's, I have put up both a horizontal antenna fed with open wire, and a vertical dipole (also fed with openwire), for reasons Gary just stated. It's horses for courses. The horizon