Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Richardson wrote:
If you wish you can send me the *.ez file and I'll run it with MultiNec using the EZNEC engine. Hi Danny, I'm at work and the file is at home, but it is just a 130 ft. dipole, 40 ft. high, used on 10.125 MHz over average ground. The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131 -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:37 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: Dan Richardson wrote: If you wish you can send me the *.ez file and I'll run it with MultiNec using the EZNEC engine. Hi Danny, I'm at work and the file is at home, but it is just a 130 ft. dipole, 40 ft. high, used on 10.125 MHz over average ground. The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131 Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi Danny |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Richardson wrote:
wrote: The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131 Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi Thanks, that beats the average azimuthal gain for a ground-mounted 1/4WL monopole. -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Comments below...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Dan Richardson wrote: wrote: The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131 Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi Thanks, that beats the average azimuthal gain for a ground-mounted 1/4WL monopole. Using your numbers for the (somewhat radial-challenged) monopole, the monopole peak is 1.822 dB less, but at a more favorable (for DX) 26 degrees elevation angle. I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller footprint and greatly reduced support requirements. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder; and I wouldn't dream of trying to steal your affections from the big dipole. 73, Ed -- 73, Cecil, W5DXP |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Danny -
Thank you very much for your contribution here! Any chance you could run another 360 azimuth cut at 26 degrees elevation? TNX es 73, Ed "Dan Richardson @mendolink.com" ChangeThisToCallSign wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:37 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote: Dan Richardson wrote: If you wish you can send me the *.ez file and I'll run it with MultiNec using the EZNEC engine. Hi Danny, I'm at work and the file is at home, but it is just a 130 ft. dipole, 40 ft. high, used on 10.125 MHz over average ground. The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131 Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi Danny |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Old Ed wrote:
I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller footprint and greatly reduced support requirements. Huh???? My 40m monopole was the most difficult antenna I have ever attempted to erect. My dipole goes between two trees and gives me 9 dBi gain toward AZ on 30m. It's no contest. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:06:28 GMT, "Old Ed"
wrote: Hi Danny - Thank you very much for your contribution here! Any chance you could run another 360 azimuth cut at 26 degrees elevation? TNX es 73, Ed Sure Ed, however as you are comparing the dipole to a monopole I also modeled that. The monopole was resonated at 10.125 MHz. Using 16 ¼-wave in length buried 5" deep. The maximum elevation takeoff angle reported by EZNEC/pro using the NEC4 engine was 27º. Here are the results for average gain at 27º EL. Monopole -1.11 dBi Cecil's dipole 1.596 dBi 73 Danny |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, Cecil, Cecil, Cecil!
I appreciate your inputs, and I really don't want to pull your chain. But I gotta say you are quite the maestro of the biased comparison! [ Have you considered working for a network news show? ;-) ] 1. The discussion was about a 30m monopole, I thought. 2. If trees are assumed to be available to support dipoles, then trees could be used to support a monopole. But not being clairvoyant, I didn't know about your trees. So what I had in mind was a self-supporting monopole, versus 2 or 3 self-supporting dipole masts. 3. As to the gain figure, you seem to assume that the dipole is always operating at the peak of one of its lobes, and never has to operate in one of its nulls. If only specific directions are of interest to you, and if the dipole is oriented for those directions, and if the operating frequency is low enough to avoid multi-multi-lobe fragmentation of the pattern, then I guess that's a good assumption for your situation. But one can't assume that this assumption would apply to everyone. Here's some good news, though... Just to show you I believe in being fair all around, I am honor-bound to report that: Danny came up with a lower gain than you did for the modeled monopole, thus increasing the modeled dipole's average advantage to 2.7 dB. BTW, I'm also using and enjoying dipoles out here in the land of fruits and nuts. 73! Ed "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Old Ed wrote: I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller footprint and greatly reduced support requirements. Huh???? My 40m monopole was the most difficult antenna I have ever attempted to erect. My dipole goes between two trees and gives me 9 dBi gain toward AZ on 30m. It's no contest. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Dan Richardson wrote:
Here are the results for average gain at 27º EL. Monopole -1.11 dBi Cecil's dipole 1.596 dBi For more of an omni-directional pattern, a 24 ft wire hanging down from both ends of the dipole will beat the monopole by at least a dB in *all* directions and by 6dB in four directions. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Old Ed wrote:
2. If trees are assumed to be available to support dipoles, then trees could be used to support a monopole. But trees absorb energy from the monopole which has no gain to waste. Trees absorb virtually no energy from a dipole. 3. As to the gain figure, you seem to assume that the dipole is always operating at the peak of one of its lobes, and never has to operate in one of its nulls. I never operate my antenna in a null. I also don't drive my pickup one mile per hour even if I only average driving it one hour per day. Seems by your logic, I should always walk since I can walk faster than the average speed of my pickup over any 24 hour period. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
FS: Connectors, Antennas, Meters, Mounts, etc. | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
Smith Chart Quiz | Antenna |