* On 2010 28 Nov 12:45 -0600, Rob Atkinson wrote:
> Height has to be thought of in terms of wavelength on the band of
> interest. 35 feet okay on 20, but not on 160. Would you operate
> with a dipole 4 feet high on 20 meters? Surprisingly, many hams with
> dipoles 30 feet high on 160 do not comprehend this.
Please, let's not fall into the trap of building every antenna for DX.
Placing the 160m antenna at 35 feet is in the range for effective NVIS
work for which a low angle of radiation is just as useless as high angle
radiation is for DX. So-called cloud warmers have their place. DX
isn't the last word in antennas.
> Some things work better than other things but that doesn't always mean
> they are good, or excellent.
Agreed. There are courses for horses and antennas that are a better
choice for a given use case than others.
73, de Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://n0nb.us/index.html
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|