[TowerTalk] 80M Delta Loop

[kq2m at kq2m.com]

I have interspersed some comments below....

On 2024-07-24 22:07, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 7/24/2024 4:13 PM, kq2m at kq2m.com wrote:
>> I mentioned "one antenna that does work well even over poor ground", 
>> not the best antenna overall.  And it does work very well - enough to 
>> let me work 39 zones and 300+ countries on 80 not to mention being a 
>> very effective antenna in DX contests when the K index is below 5.

>>> I looked at the FCC map, and you're right, Bob, your soil 
>>> conductivity is poor. Thus, the principle advantage of your array as 
>>> compared to a high horizontal dipole is directivity, NOT gain. And 
>>> yes, elevated radials could be a good design choice. But there's a 
>>> lot more to radial systems than most hams are aware of -- Rudy 
>>> Severns' work, published about ten years ago in QEX, is required 
>>> reading for optimizing their efficiency (and thus both field strength 
>>> and directivity).

Jim, you've moved the goalposts and now I'm moving them back.  I never 
compared a 4-square to a high horizontal dipole.  You did that.  The 
first line of my post clearly states above "one antenna that does work 
well even over poor ground".  Where do you see "high horizontal dipole" 
in that?  It's not there!  You don't get to conflate what I wrote with 
what you want to talk about that is unrelated, and then use what you 
talk about as a reason to claim that you are correct and imply that I am 
incorrect.

My 4-square has gain at low angles compare to a low horizontal dipole 
and/or inverted V, which I will define arbitrarily as 70' height or less 
for 80.  I know that because I modeled it with AO - Brian Beezeley's 
excellent program, which I stated previously.  And I know it from direct 
comparisons at my qth.  And, yes the 4-square has directivity as well, 
but the gain at low angles from using a low height antenna is what makes 
it really valuable to me.

120' high trees on the East coast are rare, so comparing that an Inv V 
or horizontal dipole at that height to a 4-square is silly.  It is just 
not an option here.  You have to do the best you can with what you have 
available which for most of us are trees ~ 70' - 90' height, and most 
places have far shorter trees.  The reasons for that are simple - crappy 
soil plus ferocious Summer and Winter storms that destroy tall trees.  
Yes, with a tall tower you can have access to 120' height, but one 
element supported horizontally is very difficult to achieve and not 
practical at most qth's in the East even if you were to dedicate one 
tower to it and forego antennas for other bands, which is not practical 
either. Contest stations almost always use all 6 bands not just one or 
two.

>>> On the basis of the serious modeling study I did ten years ago on how 
>>> horizontal and vertical antennas are affected by height and ground 
>>> quality, I'd take a wild guess and say that its Gain is probably 
>>> fairly close to my dipoles at right angles to each other at about 120 
>>> ft, and that its directivity in the horizontal plane is significantly 
>>> better. I have to get RX directivity from dedicated RX antennas. And 
>>> your contesting station is competitive because you're on the east 
>>> coast; it wouldn't even be in the game if it were in W6. :)

No Jim.  My station is competitive with most other W1 stations, 
including those East of me which are the ones that I am concerned with.  
Not with the biggest or the best stations, but I am competitive most of 
them. And I do well on 80 compared to most of those W1 stations, which 
is what matters to me.

>>> The effects of ground are to attenuate the signal in the near field, 
>>> the far field, and to form the vertical pattern. Those losses ONLY 
>>> affect transmission, not receiving.

Hearing low angle signals louder with a 4-square than a 70' dipole or 
Inv V certainly does impact receiving; and very favorably so, as does 
the directivity with gain and for reducing noise and unwanted signals 
from other directions with clearly improves the S/N ratio.  So using the 
4-square with Elevated radials benefits me both on transmit as well as 
receive.

>>> As to 80M DX -- I've been in W6 for just under 18 years; I'm missing 
>>> zones 22, 34, and 40. I have 239 countries on 80. Note that low band 
>>> countries count is FAR easier from the east coast than from W6. Yes, 
>>> Asia and OC are tough from the east coast, but there are FAR more 
>>> countries easily workable from the east coast than from W6. :)  So 
>>> DXCC achievements are NOT a measure of antenna effectiveness.

Jim, I am TOP of the HONOR ROLL, so talking down to me about where 
countries are located might make you feel good but adds nothing relevant 
to this conversation.  And while it is nice that ~60 EU DX countries are 
located in zones 14 and 15 it sure didn't help me with all the tough 
Asian/Pacific zones that I worked/confirmed on 80 with my 4-square. JT, 
Zone 23, remains the only zone that I haven't worked/confirmed on 80 and 
that is only because JT1CO has not been on for the East coast pretty 
much for the past 10 years.  I'll get Chak someday I'm sure.

>>> Choices of antennas for most of us is strongly dependent on our real 
>>> estate, our finances, and what we want to work. Your choice was a 
>>> good one for you. That 80M choice isn't even possible for me.

It was never about you Jim.  The 4-square with elevated radials IS "one 
antenna that does work well even over poor ground" and that is true for 
most stations at most qth's, which was why I mentioned it in the first 
place.  And if ops. only have a choice of using a low Inv V or low 
dipole option because of short trees, or absence of towers, or lack of $ 
to invest, then the 4-square option becomes even better.

I think that this topic has run it's course.  If anyone wants to 
communicate with me further about it then I ask that they do so 
off-reflector.

73

Bob, KQ2M

> 73, Jim K9YC