" Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message news:acKJb.51720$xX.290427@attbi_s02...
Let me clarify this statement so that we are on the same page.

On reflection it would appear that the horizontal dipole gave low angle TOA
all the way thru 90 degrees.

??? 90 degrees is straight up. NO low horizontal dipole will have very
good low angle performance on that band. Trust me. I used a full size
Z dipole for two years,"01-02" and ended up yanking it down. Good for
close in local stuff. Pitiful for lower angle far off stuff.

Thus this is inferior to a vertical that captures the low angles and
descriminates against the high angles plus inferior to a poor vertical that
discriminates against low angles.

How is it inferior? It's just different. You choose the antenna to
match the path you want to work. If you are going to talk 100-150
miles away, yes a low dipole will work pretty well, maybe the best.
But so will an inv L, or even my top loaded vertical will usually do
fine also. The L will usually be the better of the verticals close if
it's up and down sky wave, as it has more horizontal componant. My
loaded vertical has an overhead null.
Even still, many times, even just 200 miles away, my loaded vertical
is better than the L. Actually, the loaded vertical beats the L
probably 90% of the time. Even fairly close. Farther off paths? The
dipoles I had were poor at best. The vertical is the only way to go in
that case for a simple antenna. Remember, my dipole was at maybe 35-40
ft. Thats like a 80m dipole at 15-20 ft off the ground. Will be poor
for long distance use. Of course, using ground wave, the loaded
vertical is king of the hill here...

This just shows how much ground effect controls the
verticals but only to a much lower extent on horizontally polarised signals
with respect to selectivity.

??
With respect to noise it does not affect me to
much in the comparison because of the use of a Faraday shield.

?? Shield for what? You? MK