[TenTec] Vertical Dipole "Fringe Benefits"

Thu Jul 14 09:07:49 EDT 2005

Gary -

At least you don't need a rotator.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Hoffman" <ghoffman at spacetech.com>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Vertical Dipole "Fringe Benefits"

> Me too.  I still have a multi-band vertical up, but of course its not a 
> half
> wave dipole.  Even so, it compares reasonably well with my beam.  (That 
> is,
> the beam is better, but not by an overwhelming margin).  So, going to a 
> half
> wave vertical dipole might be quite effective, as well as fun.  Of course,
> the front to back would be terrible by comparison.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert & Linda McGraw K4TAX" <RMcGraw at Blomand.Net>
> To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] Vertical Dipole "Fringe Benefits"
>
>
>> I agree.  All this discussion, while not directly Tentec related, has got
> me
>> to thinking about putting up a vertical dipole.
>>
>> 73
>> Bob, K4TAX
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "NJ0IP" <Rick at DJ0IP.de>
>> To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 4:59 AM
>> Subject: [TenTec] Vertical Dipole "Fringe Benefits"
>>
>>
>> > Ten-Tec is my first love in radio equipment, that's why I'm on this
>> > reflector.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I guess it's time for Ten-Tec to release a new product because we
> haven't
>> > seen much complaining here for quite some time now (hi).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Until then, I am enjoying these antenna discussions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > THE VERTICAL DIPOLE AND 80m SURPRISE: DX better than on the full size
>> > dipole.(often)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I put up the vertical dipole for the first time ever in 1993 when I
> moved
>> > into my previous QTH, which didn't have much ground space.
>> >
>> > I took it down once I got the beam and openwire fed horizontal dipole
> up.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Here at the new QTH I use the vertical dipole everyday, though each 
>> > side
>> > is
>> > now 1m longer than it was at the previous QTH.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I have had horizontal dipoles (dublets) fed with openwire at my last 3
>> > locations.
>> >
>> > Each was a different size, based on the space I had available.
>> >
>> > All were about the same height: 13m (40 ft.).
>> >
>> > They were: 2x 20m (now, used 6 years), 2x 10m previously (used 7 
>> > years),
>> > and
>> > 2x 13m (used 5 years)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The first interesting question might be, how did these 3 compare?
>> >
>> > Hey, this is about as subjective as it gets, because they were used
> during
>> > different times, different sunspot cycles and at different locations.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > My highly subjective gut feeling, for 40m and above, all performed 
>> > about
>> > equally well.
>> >
>> > For 80m, the 2x13m performed about the same as the 2x20m and the 2x10m
> was
>> > noticeably weaker.  This is based on my ability to work multis in
> contests
>> > with the first or second call, as well as the day to day reports I got
> in
>> > my
>> > 80m skeds.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Now the surprise.  I have always tried to orient these horizontal
> antennas
>> > such that I could have the major lobe facing stateside, and as a 
>> > result,
>> > working Asiatic Russia has always been a real challenge.  In contests, 
>> > I
>> > could hear those guys 599 for hours but simply couldn't work them.
>> > Eventually I would snag one but the time wasted wasn't helping my
> contest
>> > score.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At the last QTH, 2x10m, I pulled the openwire feedline out of the
> Annecke
>> > and stuck just one side of it into an MFJ Differential-T.  My only
> ground
>> > was the cold water pipe. I had no radials or counterpoise.  This was a
>> > panic
>> > effort in the middle of a CQWW to try and work UK9/0.  Hey, I worked it
> in
>> > a
>> > relatively short time.  This tells me the radiation pattern of the
>> > "Inverted-L" which I had converted my horizontal dipole into was more
>> > favorable for the east  in that configuration than in the classical
> dipole
>> > configuration.  Remember, I had already taken down my vertical dipole
> and
>> > didn't have it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Here at the new QTH, I have the vertical dipole.  I found I can call 
>> > for
>> > hours using the horizontal dipole and still don't manage to work 
>> > UK9/0 -
>> > even with maximum legal power.  However, switching to the vertical
> dipole,
>> > I
>> > can work them even with 100w with just a few calls.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So two years ago, I worked a CQWW single band 80m from home and spent
> most
>> > of the time just switching between antennas.  For transatlantic work it
>> > was
>> > a wash.  One time the signal was louder on the horizontal (full size up
>> > 13m), the next time it was louder on the vertical.  For working the
>> > European
>> > multipliers, the horizontal was almost always a couple of S-units
> louder.
>> > Asiatic Russia only worked on the Vertical Dipole.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The following year (last year) I stayed home again for CQWW but didn't
> put
>> > in a serious effort.  Still, I made another valuable experience.  On
> 40m,
>> > the vertical dipole was almost always 1 S-Unit better than the 2x20m
>> > horizontal on long-haul, but the big surprise was that for EU
> multipliers,
>> > the vertical dipole was also stronger - almost always, except for the
>> > countries which are very close to Bavaria.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The Bottom Line:  It's sure nice to have two antennas instead of just
> one.
>> > The vertical dipole is a significant enhancement to my station even on
> the
>> > low bands, where I, for many years, only had a horizontal dipole.  This
>> > was
>> > a pleasant surprise because I had initially put the vertical up for the
>> > high
>> > bands.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 73
>> >
>> > Rick
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TenTec mailing list
>> > TenTec at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TenTec mailing list
>> TenTec at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
> 