horizontally a quarter wave above ground - and a quarter wave MONOPOLE (vertical), >ground mounted... Now, the dipole has that wonderful 4dB of reflection gain (or whatever your favorite fantasy dB n
Dennis, EZNEC modelling certainly doesn't confirm what you are saying. I just modelled a 40m horizontal half-wave 33ft above average ground - the optimum take-off angle was 66 degrees. Then I modelle
I kinds like to think of it like the serious DXer who has 3 or 4 stacked Yagis using the lowest one for close in and the higher for longer distance. Actually which ever one gives the best signal at a
Was the year 1958 or 2008? Did he build the dipole or the vertical? Did he know what he was doing? Etc. "Just so" stories can mean anything or nothing. I have a vertical and a low dipole in a valley.
Steve, I agree that is what a Mininec model likely shows... A model is not the real world... A good read of Cebik in this subject will give additional information... ... And while my example may be a
Denny, Do you have a specific Cebik article in mind? I'm pretty familiar with his work and I just re-read his 5-part article on modelling 160m verticals, but I can't immediately see anything that sug
Denny, I've spent some more time wading through LB's pages, but I'm struggling to find anything that suggests he thinks the modelling might not be valid. The most pertinent page "Horizontal vs.Vertic
Back in the late 60's through the 70's I ran a contest style station with separate rigs and antennas on each band. I ran a 5L KLM on 20, 6L on 15 and a 7L Wilson on 10. I ran verticals, both single a
I am thinking the modeling does suggest the vertical has a bit lower take off angle than a low slug dipole (which for most of us is the best we can do...) but they overlap considerably. It is one rea