You might be 4:1 at the antenna as well. You would do considerably better on 18 MHz to just cut an 18 MHz dipole and string it 20 feet up in the air. Signals are quite strong on 17 meters. tower.
At 20 ft, MOST of the radiated energy will pass into outer space. As most readers of TowerTalk know, I strongly recommend 40 ft as the minimum height for effective coverage of the upper angles suppor
Actually NOT. If you model it you will see that the pattern 3 db points on elevation are 15 degrees through 75 degrees with a very broad maximum around 40 degrees. Straight up is a minimum on the pat
Hi Mark, I think our main disagreement comes over the the maximum angle that is supported on 10M. I believe that to be around 20 degrees (at very high MUF's). Some time ago, someone plotted his 10M S
around At 18 MHz, the highest angle supported by the ionosphere is around 30 degrees, so ALL of the radiation from 30 through 75 degrees goes into space. Total WASTE of energy above 30 degrees. At 7
around At 18 MHz, the highest angle supported by the ionosphere is around 30 degrees, so ALL of the radiation from 30 through 75 degrees goes into space. Total WASTE of energy above 30 degrees. At 7
The original post was about using a C31XR on EIGHTEEN POINT ONE MHz. That's a band it was not designed for. And that a low dipole would beat it. Where did you get **TEN** meters from? Stick to the su
Just wanted to add that during a recent A/B comparison of 40 meter inverted vees at 30 and 60 foot heights, I also tried them on 15 meters (3rd overtone mode). As expected, they loaded up perfectly.
My TEN Meter note was in response to a private note from another reader who was asking about very low 10M antennas (at 20 ft). I did not want to publicly post his comments without permission but I th
Dear Tom, Rant mode on: YES, BUT... The same problem I ran into the last time I tried to chase down VALIDATION of this angle business. The N6BV "STUDY" you quote is a RE-REPRESENTATION OF MODEL DATA.