-- Original Message -- > IN REALITY I THINK WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT I have difficulty in accepting the explanation of poor vertical antenna performance due to ground loss.It seems to be the culpri
There are excellent discussions of this in the ARRL Antenna Book, on W2DU's website (chapters excerpted from his book "Reflections," and on N6LF's website. 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________
Any explanation of verticals needs to address the demonstrated fact that they work very well on 160 meters, and still work well on 80 meters but gradually become ineffective as the frequency goes up.
I'm convinced that it is the result of how vertically polarized waves and horizontally polarized waves are propagated. During the contest this afternoon, I will use only my vertical, because it's a g
I believe the reason that verticals work better on lower bands is a result of lower takeoff angles on the low bands, low frequencies, whereas as you move to higher frequencies, the takeoff angle seem
That's certainly part of it, but it's NOT the whole story. I'm convinced that the polarization issue I cited is a big factor. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ ____________
I believe the reason that verticals work better on lower bands is a result of lower takeoff angles on the low bands, low frequencies, whereas as you move to higher frequencies, the takeoff angle seem
Hi Peter -- 2) I am not considering what a dipole does at 1 wavelength or even at 1/2 wavelength - as that is not realistic or feasible for nearly all hams on 160, 80, or 40 meters. This discussion i
Greetings Al = Er.... ah... um.... I think I was trying to reply to the thread on the Inverted L discussion... maybe I got it confused and posted in in the wrong place... Sorry if I messed up. My roa
--Original Message-- From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richards Sent: Samstag, 6. Dezember 2008 05:11 To: Peter Voelpel Cc: towertalk@conte
Peter, I hope you didn't fall into the trap of just comparing the optimum take-off angles. It's quite possible for a dipole with a higher take-off angle to be better than a vertical with a low take-o
Peter, I hope you didn't fall into the trap of just comparing the optimum take-off angles. It's quite possible for a dipole with a higher take-off angle to be better than a vertical with a low take-o
Here's another example. 40m half-wave dipole at 40ft vs 45ft monople: http://www.karinya.net/g3txq/dipole_vs_monopole2.png Notice that the dipole "take-off angle" is 51 degrees compared to the monopo
Peter, "In all cases the dipole radiated at a slightly higher angle than the vertical, which is why the vertical is a better choice, sometimes, than the dipole for low band DXing." Steve G3TXQ ______
Peter, "In all cases the dipole radiated at a slightly higher angle than the vertical, which is why the vertical is a better choice, sometimes, than the dipole for low band DXing." Steve G3TXQ ______
Jim - the 20ft height of your vertical is obviously an advantage. Lest anyone misunderstands me: I'm not saying the dipole is always better than the vertical - I'm trying to highlight the dangers of
Good point - I believe I avoided that pitfall, because I have BOTH the vertical and various dipoles that I switch in and out depending on what works better in a given situation and to suit my whim (w
For the purpose of calculation, it is convenient to consider that the reflected wave is generated not by reflection, but rather by an "image" antenna located below the surface of the ground. The imag
The word picture (and diagrams) of the 'missing half 'of a dipole antenna going down into the ground is a device to help visualization of how the induced ground currents act to complete the return cu