Hi Steve!
I don't want to get into an anecdote contest with anyone
but would just like to factually correct something you wrote. I'll
summarize my opinion by simply saying:
1. Vertical antennas are better DX antennas than low dipoles.
2. Any dipole less than 250' high is low (<0.5 wavelength).
3. Any 160 antenna (dipoles included) is better than no 160 antenna!
73, Bill W4ZV
VK6VZ wrote:
>The other thing to note is that those DXexpeditions who equip themselves
>with the great Battle Creek Special - an inverted-L antenna - get as much
>radiation above 45 degrees as they get below it. The BCS gets a lot of
>credit as a low angle radiator, but it is also a good high angle antenna on
>160m, with appreciable horizontal polarised radiation.
This is incorrect. You are probably thinking about a 3/8 wl
inverted-L which is indeed a high angle antenna. The BCS is a loaded
50' high 1/4 wl inverted-L with approximately 70' horizontal. Over good
ground, EZNEC shows the 3 dB power points at 8 and 56 degrees with the
maximum at 25 degrees. Over very good ground, it the 3 dB points are 4
and 52 degrees with the peak at 19 degrees. I'm not taking the time to
model the on-ground radials it actually uses but I would estimate its
performance lies between the two results given. BTW, W8JI and I also
have poor ground conductivities (2-4 mS/m) and the same was true for
my location in Colorado. Fortuntely a good radial system can overcome
any ground conductivity for near-fields.
|