[TowerTalk] Vertical dipole other choices?

[J.P.]

OK Karen.

On 10/28/2020 10:51 AM, Robert Harmon wrote:
> There's no need for the sarcasam Rob.
>
> Rick made some valid points based on his tests which should not be discounted.
>   
>
> Bob
> K6UJ
>
>
>
>
>> On Oct 28, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me again emphasize that I compared received signal strength
>>> (not SNR) which is a proxy for transmitted signal strength if
>>> you believe in reciprocity.  It is true that it is not extremely
>>> accurate due to fading, but if the half wave vertical over bare
>>> dirt were as poor as some are saying, it would be apparent.
>>>
>> In this case reciprocity may not exist.  Also, if you are measuring
>> skywave received signals, there are variables that are not being
>> controlled.  You also compared the radialess half wave with a 90
>> degree vertical with some N number of radials.  Compare the half wave
>> with another half wave that has an adequate ground system.   I'll save
>> some time:  Your method is flawed and not all that useful.
>>
>>> On 20 meters, why would I care about ground wave performance?  Only
>>> sky wave is relevant on that band, and we can't assume that the
>>> two are necessarily correlated.
>>>
>> You didn't say what frequency you were on previously.   Okay, conduct
>> the test using a FIM of the space wave.
>>
>> Why do hams continually try to find a way around the laws of physics?
>> Live with Mother Nature; don't fight her.  Happiness and better
>> signals will result.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73
>> Rob
>> K5UJ
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk