[TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

[Denton]

I had both a 32 ft vertical dipole and the same vertical dipole converted 
over to a 40 meter 1/4 wave ground plane with 4 elevated radials.
In my case the performance very close to the same on 40 meters, minus the 
pita the radials were.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richards" <jruing at ameritech.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)


> Do you claim your vertical dipole works better than a quarter wave with
> four good, properly tuned/cut elevated radials?
>
> Reason I ask is that my aluminum rotatable dipole project has technical
> problems  (The alum elements sag and dip and wave in the wind too much
> -- I did not select sufficiently large diameter and stiff tubing.... but
> ham radio is for experimenting, right...?)   AND I was
> thinking I could salvage the project by turning the floppy thing
> vertical and make it a vertical dipole - OR - I might convert it into a
> single tubing vertical elevated ground plane and add some wire radials.
>
> Any traction ?     (I will stick my neck out here... re: your
> challenge... and expect the properly tuned elevated radials to equal the
> work of the second half of the vertical dipole and say they should
> perform equally well.   N'est ce pas?)
>
> ================== James - K8JHR  ====================
>
>
>
> On 1/5/2011 8:42 PM, Rick - NJ0IP / DJ0IP wrote:
>
>> I have used the vertical dipole instead of the classical vertical because 
>> of
>> my despise for radials.
>
>  > I still stand by my challenge for anyone to come up with a simple cheap
>> antenna that will out-perform the simple vertical dipole.
>
> ====================================================
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>