Jim Brown, K9YC wrote: "BUT - in my experience, vertical dipoles don't work very well on the HF bands." My personal experience is a little different Jim! I have a single self-supporting tower for all
This just proves the old adage you can't ever have enough antennas. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@co
It is difficult to feed a vertical dipole in the traditional way in the center without the feedline affecting the pattern. It is also tricky to feed it from the bottom, as a half wave vertical. I did
Rick, How high off the ground was the bottom of the bottom half of the vertical dipole? 73..de John/K4WJ -- Original Message -- From: "Rick Karlquist" <richard@karlquist.com> To: <k0rc@citlink.net> C
I've found that a fairly easy to transport and erect antenna for portable operation is just a center fed vertical dipole using 450 ohm line and a true (i.e. not just a balun on the feed line) balance
A few inches. Rick N6RK _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk mailing list TowerTalk@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mai
Rick, How did you feed the 1/2 wave vertical. From the center or the bottom? 73 Gary K4FMX _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ TowerTalk ma
Rudy Severns, N6LF, figured out a way to end feed it, and I expanded on it. I built my version and hung it from a pulley high in a redwood, with the top about 110 ft above ground. It works, but when
A half wave vertical or a vertical dipole doesn't work well when elevated above ground because of reflection losses due to the Brewster angle. This problem is independent of any problems with feeding
Fed from the bottom with series inductor and shunt capacitor. You can now buy a version of this from Par Electronics. Rick N6RK _______________________________________________ _______________________
Verticals in general (ground plane or vertical dipoles) are inferior to a dipole more than 0.4 wavelength above ground unless they are over a large expanse of salt water - e.g., "verticals on the be
really more the reflectivity of an interface between dielectrics being very high for waves polarized parallel to the interface (i.e. Horizontal) independent of incidence angle, but varying a lot for
I'm curious about this. Why would it do so? The physics of this is pretty well understood and it's not one of the areas where approximations need to be made or where the "finite element-ness" of it b
NEC may model the pattern for vertical antennas but not the magnitude. It regularly understates losses in the near field resulting in an overstatement of absolute signal levels in the far field - pa