Richard Harrison wrote:

Art, KB9MZ wrote:
"---the comparisons are all over the place and hard to follow."

When the title reads: "Does phasing verticals work better than a
dipole?" that could be expected to evoke confusing replies. Hams play
antenna favorites, often when the favorites aren`t justified.

I agree. Note what Cecil posts: "A dipole at a decent height can have a
7 dB gain
over a 1/4 WL monopole. A two-element phased vertical cannot equal that
figure over average ground."

If you go by what Cecil says, you would get the impression a vertical,
or vertical array would never have a chance over the dipole. Lets look
at modeling with a clear head. The original posters dipole is at 30 ft.
Ask Cecil to run that through the program and see where that 7dbi gain
is at. Heck, I'll save all the trouble. It's at 89 degrees, or straight
up. Whats the gain at 10 degrees? -4.32 dbi. 5 degrees? -10.17dbi.
"using eznec over medium "real/high accuracy" ground"
Whatta a dx buster.
Lets run my 40m GP through the program. Same ground specs. Max gain is
4.38dbi at 11 degrees. At 10 degrees gain drops to 4.37dbi. No real
change. At 5 degrees, 3.41 dbi gain. I don't know about you, but when
working DX or any low angle path, I know which antenna I'll be using.
See, even modeling "proves" what I say. But my real world results
over a good period of time verify this. And others have also. W8JI for
one. I have no real favorite, except as applies to a certain path.
I always had BOTH a dipole and a vertical. Sure, in the day, I'd almost
always be on the dipole. Out to about 800 miles or so, it was a draw.
Could go either way. But over 1500 miles, no contest. The vertical was
king of the hill. Believe me, if the dipole was actually better, I'd be
the first to say so.
I haven't even ventured into multi elements yet.. :/
Or the belief that any small extra noise really matters, when the DX
signal increase almost always overrides it. You would only worry about
the extra noise on the vertical if you were misapplying it and trying to
work higher angle stateside stuff.


I think it would be worth while to see what the most successful DXers
actually use.

True! I think you'll find most use verticals, or vertical arrays to
transmit for the most part on the low bands. Many schemes are used for
receiving.

ON4UN has tried to do this in "Low-Band DXing". Many use
separate antennas for receiving and transmitting. The goal is signal to
noise ratio on reception. The goal is effective radiated power on the
target for transmission.

Many Beverages are listed to receive the DX signal. At 80m, there are
Yagis, slopers, Vees, etc. to transmit. At 160m, there are quite a few
inverted Vees and other antennas which seem to trend to vertical
polarization.

An inv Vee is still going to be mostly horizontal on that band, unless
it's really high, and the legs are very steeply sloped.

The antennas may be too large to rotate and
omnidirectionality may be accepted without so much struggle. Multiple
directional transmitting antennas might be a better solution if the
resources are available. You may only need a few hundred acres.

Size may well influence many to vertical on 160m due to space
constraints. But, I'm still of the opinion that there is an advantage to
vertical polarization at night on any band that the primary skip takes
the dark path instead of day. I don't really think this applies to day
paths too much though for some reason. BUT!, I still think vertical can
do very well on the high bands. With a single element, it puts more of
your power where you really want it. At low angles. Only on say 20m to
stateside stuff might you use the higher angles a low dipole might
provide. I do usually prefer a dipole on 20m for "average" use. But I
usually prefer a 5/8 GP on 10m if I can't have a yagi. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
Actually, I have tried it on 10m and most other bands. "I do have 80m
dipoles". But no, the dipole never beat the 5/8 GP.

Fed with coax, and no doubt, laying on the ground.

Yep, fed with coax, but being the mismatch wasn't that large in the real
world, the loss shouldn't have been overly bad. Actually, I think it was
nearly resonant. or under 3:1 anyway...The antenna was at 36 ft. Hardly
on the ground.

It's like when I was out camping using a ladder line fed 80m, 130 ft
dipole. I tried it on ten. It was pathetic due to the overly high takeoff
angles. I'm talking terrible.

Perhaps, you had a cold solder joint (maybe on purpose so you could
report what you are reporting?) Your results just don't make sense.

Worked fine on 80 and 40. My results make sense to me. But I'm a flat
earther. Well, unless I'm high up in a jet. Then I can tell it slightly
curves a bit. But when I'm on the ground, the earth does seem fairly
flat. So it must be...MK

--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

Cecil, It is extremely hard to follow this thread as many comparisons
are vague i.e. frequency, length of antenna e.t.c.
You are not helping things when you talk of a 130 foot dipole and its
use on ten meters. I think calling that antenna a dipole is misleading
to say the least

In the Marine Corps, they call this a cluster#$%^...MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Mark Keith wrote:
Lets run my 40m GP through the program. Same ground specs. Max gain is
4.38dbi at 11 degrees. At 10 degrees gain drops to 4.37dbi.

Unfortunately, my 130 ft dipole at 50 ft. used on 10m shows 10 dBi gain
at 10 degrees. I don't know about you, but, seems to me, 10 dBi at 10
degrees beats 4.37 dBi at 10 degrees unless you live in a different
reality from me which is entirely probable.
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:
Yep, fed with coax, but being the mismatch wasn't that large in the real
world, the loss shouldn't have been overly bad.

Egads, that is the whole problem. The mismatch was terrible.

It's like when I was out camping using a ladder line fed 80m, 130 ft
dipole. I tried it on ten. It was pathetic due to the overly high takeoff
angles.

Absolutely false! The TOA of a 130 ft. dipole on 10m is about 10 degrees.
MOM+physics, not your feelings, dictate that fact.

But when I'm on the ground, the earth does seem fairly
flat. So it must be...MK

Yep, that's what the Catholic priests told Galileo so it must be true.
--
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! =-----

Mark Keith wrote:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Cecil, It is extremely hard to follow this thread as many comparisons
are vague i.e. frequency, length of antenna e.t.c.
You are not helping things when you talk of a 130 foot dipole and its
use on ten meters. I think calling that antenna a dipole is misleading
to say the least

In the Marine Corps, they call this a cluster#$%^...MK

Sorry, but in Texas, two wires are the same as two (conductive) poles.
We conceive our poles as fishing poles, and go on from there. :-)
--
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! =-----

Cecil wrote,

But when I'm on the ground, the earth does seem fairly
flat. So it must be...MK

Yep, that's what the Catholic priests told Galileo so it must be true.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


Careful, Cecil. The last time I wrote something like that I got an
irate email from a fellow who accused me of Catholic-bashing.
Actually, those Catholic priests knew the Earth is round, Aristotle
told them so. They might have taken an assertion that the Earth
wasn't the center of the universe with a grain of salt, though.
73,
Tom Donaly KA6RUH

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
Yep, fed with coax, but being the mismatch wasn't that large in the real
world, the loss shouldn't have been overly bad.

Egads, that is the whole problem. The mismatch was terrible.

No, it wasn't terrible. Not by a long shot. But I'm sure height,
surroundings, etc, etc influenced this outcome. On paper, yes, it
*should* have been bad. This sure wasn't the problem in the next
example.

It's like when I was out camping using a ladder line fed 80m, 130 ft
dipole. I tried it on ten. It was pathetic due to the overly high takeoff
angles.

Absolutely false! The TOA of a 130 ft. dipole on 10m is about 10 degrees.
MOM+physics, not your feelings, dictate that fact.

My feelings had nothing to do with it. My friend, who was the one that
wanted to get on 10m in the first place, called people until he was blue
in the face. Not a single one answered him. It was like all our signal
was shooting off into space overhead. Which is what was happening for
some reason. It wasn't excess tuner loss, because I always use the bare
min inductance needed to tune. It wasn't the feedline. It was overly
high angles of radiation. Probably because the antenna was fairly low.
The TOA of a 130 ft dipole will depend on the height above ground. You
state gain numbers, yet you don't ask how high the dipole I used was.
It's the all important "missing link". The dipole we used was probably
15-20 ft off the ground. Model that on 10m at 20 ft and see how it
looks. Probably even worse at 15 ft. Looking at the elevation plot, the
angle of max gain is 24 degrees at 0 degrees azimuth angle, and 28
degrees at 90 degrees angle. I show negative gain "dbi" at all angles
below 10 degrees.

Compare this with a lowly 10m 1/4 wave GP at 8 ft off the ground. This
leaves the sloping radials at 2.5 ft off the ground. Max gain is at 13
degrees. You don't see negative gain until 4 degrees or less. It will
beat your gain-daddy dipole in most all directions on long low angle
paths or ground/space wave I suspect. I know my mobile antenna trounced
the one we used. MK


--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
Lets run my 40m GP through the program. Same ground specs. Max gain is
4.38dbi at 11 degrees. At 10 degrees gain drops to 4.37dbi.

Unfortunately, my 130 ft dipole at 50 ft. used on 10m shows 10 dBi gain
at 10 degrees. I don't know about you, but, seems to me, 10 dBi at 10
degrees beats 4.37 dBi at 10 degrees unless you live in a different
reality from me which is entirely probable.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Thats Cecil alright. I know it's not a sears imposter. Use his 10m specs
to compare to my 40m specs...Totally valid comparison... Not...MK

--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k

Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Cecil, It is extremely hard to follow this thread as many comparisons
are vague i.e. frequency, length of antenna e.t.c.
You are not helping things when you talk of a 130 foot dipole and its
use on ten meters. I think calling that antenna a dipole is misleading
to say the least

In the Marine Corps, they call this a cluster#$%^...MK

Sorry, but in Texas, two wires are the same as two (conductive) poles.
We conceive our poles as fishing poles, and go on from there. :-)

Actually, it's not calling it a dipole that bothers me...:/ MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k