Assuming that sufficient tower height was available, guy wires are insulated or broken up into short non-resonant sections. Tower face is 12 or 18". Start at 1/4 wave up with a 1/4 wave ground plane
Isn't this a "Vertical dipole"? Two quarter wave radiating elements? And tower behind it will be some kind of reflector/director depending on height. The radials seem unimportant if thought of this w
I don't think so, Tim. If I understand Carl, he's describing two ground planes - one above the other - and the pattern/gain would depend on the phasing between the two feeds and the vertical separati
Actually, the "normal" way to "stack" vertidals is HORIZONTALLy - into broadside or end-fire arrays. It seems that Carl is describing collinear monopoles - in the case he describes - "collinear" grou
Isn't this a "Vertical dipole"? Two quarter wave radiating elements? And tower behind it will be some kind of reflector/director depending on height. The radials seem unimportant if thought of this w
Tom and all, If I am reading the question correctly, aren't we talking about something that is done at VHF/UHF with great regularity? Stacked vertical elements, stacked vertically polarized beams and
Hi, Mike When you say that you use "stacked" vertical beams - aren't they "stacked" horizontally? It seems to me that the vertical collinear elements,along the lines of what Carl is describing, are g
If I am reading the question correctly, aren't we talking about something that is done at VHF/UHF with great regularity? Stacked vertical elements, stacked vertically polarized beams and all manner o
Well, if I understand Carl's proposed antenna - he is proposing enough vertical height for two 1/4 wave ground plane antennas, one above the other. In that case I would elect to use a vertical dipole
Tom, Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by "comet" or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As
Fully understood. I wasn't referring to the usual collinear antennas sold by "comet" or anything of that nature. I am referring to the stacking arrangements used for ops like moonbounce, etc. As far
Oh Tom, I FULLY agree that it would be VERY difficult and not very practical, especially considering we are talking 160...... In fact, the price/performance ratio simply wouldn't be worth it, in my o
Oh, I didn't address one comment you made, Tom...... 5/8ths are dogs on 160? Really? That is odd in the extreme to me. I had incredible success with a ground mounted 5/8 on 20 meters while I was stat
Mike, could you kindly supply the address on Iroquois Point? If it's in the area I'm looking at with Google Earth, the answer why the difference is pretty plain, and points to why such a difference v
Guy, I was right across from the small marina you see. The difference I am talking about is the difference between a 5/8ths wave vertical and a quarter wave vertical in the same place. I am not talki
Guy, you aren't reading my emails...... because that question is not appropriate to the conversation. I am NOT, I repeat NOT talking the difference between LOCATIONS, but the difference between ANTEN
Mike, Tom, W8JI has a comparison between 1/4 wave and 5/8 wave vertical mobile antennas here: http://www.w8ji.com/VHF%20mobile%20vertical.htm He is comparing mobile antennas but it looks like the 5/8
Like Tom said earlier, it's all about ground loss. Near the sea, a 1/2 or 5/8 wave vertical may perform very differently than a duplicate antenna a long way from the sea. The near-field and far-field
On two meters, yes indeed. But we are talking about 160. To quote Tom above: "Also, for 160, antennas are near earth. Earth spoils everything. A 160 antenna at 260 feet is like a two meter antenna at
Mike, you are answering the wrong question. Guy didn't understand the question at all. I KNOW that sea water is a better ground than dirt...... The comparison I was ALWAYS talking about had NOTHING A