I was indicating what my actual results are, regardless of what software
indicates. Also, if I had looked at software first, I might still have done
the NIVIS based on other practical experience noted by others in the research I
did. Lastly, without software or others' experience, I still would have tried
because my high water table (in the ground) is 2 - 2.5 ft below grade for a
few months in late winter to spring, and otherwise right about 5.5 ft below
grade (tested when required by town for building an addition, we are on wells
and septics thus the requirement.) I only wish I had a way to add salt to the
water HI.
Hey, it works well for me, maybe not well for others and I don't disagree with
Jim's assessment of the software results. And again, it is so easy to erect
that maybe worth a try where you are.
Steve K1PEK
On Oct 12, 2015, at 12:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Omnidirectional antenna for domestic contests. TowerTalk
> Digest, Vol 154, Issue 16 (Al Kozakiewicz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:15:42 +0000
> From: Al Kozakiewicz <[email protected]>
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Omnidirectional antenna for domestic
> contests. TowerTalk Digest, Vol 154, Issue 16
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I'll see your argumentum ab auctoritate and raise you a post hoc ergo propter
> hoc and a misleading vividness.
>
> Inefficient wasn't the criteria. Omnidirectionality was. I have an 80 meter
> inverted V hung from the peak of a one story segment of my house. The peak is
> maybe at 16 or 20 feet.
>
> Compared to my very narrow banded vertical, it does quite well during
> November Sweepstakes, which is the only time it is used. The horrific loss
> makes it quite broad banded which I compensate for by running 1500 watts 8-)
>
> I'd call the results "good" if by results we're talking about QSOs in a
> contest. On the other hand, if by results you mean ERP at various radiation
> angles, probably not so much.
>
> Al
> AB2ZY
> ________________________________________
> From: TowerTalk <[email protected]> on behalf of Jim Brown
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Omnidirectional antenna for domestic contests.
> TowerTalk Digest, Vol 154, Issue 16
>
> On Sun,10/11/2015 12:06 PM, Stephen Davis wrote:
>> A very easy to put up, with good results to a distance of 400 miles (at
>> least from here in MA) , omni directional , is a NIVIS.
>
> This is VERY wrong. See http://k9yc.com/VertOrHorizontal-Slides.pdf The
> major characteristic of the very low dipole you describe is poor
> efficiency at all vertical angles. The polar plot done by modeling
> software makes it LOOK like its good at high angles, but it isn't --
> most of the TX power is lost in the earth.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|