On Jul 31, 2:45 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


What I did learn was that at any given moment, either the vertical or
the horizontal antenna was "the best". While some generalizations could
be made for distance and the angle the signal was likely coming in at,
there was a lot of variation within it. The difference could vary over
time also.

I did the same thing at one time on 40m. "Compared a 1/4 WL ground
plane vs a horizontal dipole. You see some strange things at times.
The distance of the path has a large bearing over which is best.
In my case, 800 miles seemed to be about the crossover point
where both would be about the same on peaks. But even then,
sometimes you will see peaks on the vertical that are the strongest.
The ionosphere seems to tumble back and forth.
On the longer paths at say 1500 miles, the peaks on the vertical
would
almost always be the strongest. And the farther the distance out,
the
larger the difference would be. IE: the vertical would be 2 S units
better
vs the dipole to CA. This was very repeatable, and almost the same
margin
on any given night. To VK, the difference would be 4 S units.. Again,
that
same margin most any night.
As you can see, I'm a believer in a good vertical for the lower bands.
The only thing that could beat it were either yagi's, or multi element
arrays like the various curtains, etc.. Other than that, I smoked
everyone
else on the band to DX.. I did run a KW though.. :/ I would be 20
over 9
in Tokyo...
The bobtail curtains could put a hurt on me though...
But, they had three elements, vs my one..
I almost always used receive as the indication as to which was best
at a given time. I could probably count the number of times
reciprical
operation didn't pan out on a single hand, and have a few fingers
left..
It's pretty rare not to be reciprical receive vs transmit.. IE: almost
never happens, except in a really weird situations.


That being the case, I questioned if assuming that the angle for best
reception is also the angle for best transmission, especially with what
appears to be a change over time.

I think it's quite accurate.. I use my switch and compare.. Whichever
receives the best signal gets the nod as far as transmit.
BTW, my vertical was pretty good compared to many you see...
Was full sized, with the base at 36 ft with sloping radials. Not much
loss involved compared to some you see on the ground with a
few meager radials.. It was a lot better than the 1/4 wave I had
ground mounted with 32 radials.
It would always seem just as "hot" as my dipole on receive. It was
just vertical. So it's quite possible for a lesser vertical not to see
the
results I had. As an example, the ground mount with 32 radials
was barely better than the dipole to CA. You didn't see the 2 S unit
difference as on the elevated GP I used later. So in the case of
the ground mount, the distance where it would overtake the
horizontal antenna on peaks would be farther out, vs the GP.
MK