[TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)

[N4PY2]

Years ago I had a vertical dipole for 40 meters and a raised vertical with 3 
radials 10 feet above the ground.  The raised vertical was about 6 DB better 
than the vertical dipole for European stations.  The raised vertical was 10 
feet off the ground at the bottom with 3 full size radials (33 feet long). 
I like raised verticals.

Carl Moreschi N4PY
121 Little Bell Drive
Hays, NC 28635
www.n4py.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Denton" <denton at oregontrail.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] New and Improved Terminology (NVIS origins)


>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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec