"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Richard" == Richard Clark writes:

Jack I am interested in people who have first-hand experience with a
Jack full-length dipole mounted at the full height for any particular
Jack band. A 10M dipole is full-sized if it's the full length and
Jack mounted at the full height. Ditto for 160M.

Richard Describe your needs first, and then ask what would be
Richard reasonable.

Jack I hope the clarification above is enough -- if not, please let
Jack me know.

Richard Hi Jack,

Richard This is still inspecific. "Full height" is actually
Richard meaningless. Let's look at a 40M dipole antenna and choose a
Richard modest 20° launch angle to compare against. 5M over real
Richard ground: -2dBi 10M over real ground: 1.29dBi 15M over real
Richard ground: 3.75dBi 20M over real ground: 6.27dBi 25M over real
Richard ground: 8.08dBi 30M over real ground: 7.67dBi 35M over real
Richard ground: 7.1dBi 40M over real ground: 7.52dBi

Where did the twenty-degree launch angle come from?

Richard Well, let's see - best gain is NOT at any cardinal point such
Richard as quarter wave, half wave, three quarter, nor full wave
Richard above ground ANY of which "could" be interpreted as "full
Richard height."

I'm not familiar with twenty-degrees as any particular canonical
value. As for what I meant by "full height", one-quarter wavelength
minimum should serve.

Richard This exercise is easily within the limited feature set of the
Richard free distribution of EZNEC.

I do not doubt that your calculations are within the capabilities of
EZNEC. However, I'm more interested in real-life experience, not
computer-generated simulations.

EZNEC will probably give you a better idea of whats going on than anecdotal
opinions. There of course is always the GiGo factor but this applies to both
computer and human analysis alike.