Mark Keith wrote:
The dipole we used was probably 15-20 ft off the ground.

If you had buried it, you could report even worse performance. :-)
--
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:
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

Sorry, I'm suffering from macular degeneration and missed the "40m"
part. So how would you overcome an s7 vertical noise level on 40m
at my QTH?
--
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 Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
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

Sorry, I'm suffering from macular degeneration and missed the "40m"
part. So how would you overcome an s7 vertical noise level on 40m
at my QTH?

Overcome whatever it is causing the noise. MK

Mark Keith wrote:
Overcome whatever it is causing the noise. MK

Overcome Entergy? Shirley, you jest. I'm just lucky to get electricity
to my house with or without noise. The same holds true for telephone
service. Half the time, the telephone line noise is so bad, my modem
won't work. The telephone company says, yep, they need to replace a
section of cable that runs under the highway. The 60 Hz AC noise is
so bad all over town that it drowns out WTAW, a 10kW AM station 30
miles away.
--
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:
If you are using the vertical for long haul, the increased received
noise is a non issue.

Actually, that's when an s-7 noise level is the biggest issue. Most
long haul signals are below s-7.

The signals will override the noise. IE: the
noise might be 2 s units higher, but the signal increase over the low
dipole will likely be more than that. The vertical still wins overall.

Bottom line: Verticals are essentially useless in Madisonville, TX and,
to the best of my knowledge, all hams here are forced to use horizontally
polarized antennas. Anyone who wants a nice 33 foot long vertical, come
on over and haul it away for free. Drilling out the pop rivets allows
collapsing it to six feet long.
--
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 Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
If you are using the vertical for long haul, the increased received
noise is a non issue.

Actually, that's when an s-7 noise level is the biggest issue. Most
long haul signals are below s-7.

The signals will override the noise. IE: the
noise might be 2 s units higher, but the signal increase over the low
dipole will likely be more than that. The vertical still wins overall.

Bottom line: Verticals are essentially useless in Madisonville, TX and,
to the best of my knowledge, all hams here are forced to use horizontally
polarized antennas. Anyone who wants a nice 33 foot long vertical, come
on over and haul it away for free. Drilling out the pop rivets allows
collapsing it to six feet long.

Cecil,
verticals are essentially useless...Have you tried link coupling to a
vertcal?
If that doesn't work then you could then add a picket fence even tho
there will be a bit of capacitive loss.
Regards
Art

In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

Mark Keith wrote:
If you are using the vertical for long haul, the increased received
noise is a non issue.

Actually, that's when an s-7 noise level is the biggest issue. Most
long haul signals are below s-7.

The signals will override the noise. IE: the
noise might be 2 s units higher, but the signal increase over the low
dipole will likely be more than that. The vertical still wins overall.

Bottom line: Verticals are essentially useless in Madisonville, TX and,
to the best of my knowledge, all hams here are forced to use horizontally
polarized antennas. Anyone who wants a nice 33 foot long vertical, come
on over and haul it away for free. Drilling out the pop rivets allows
collapsing it to six feet long.

Why don't you keep the vertical and just use it for transmitting when
working DX? You could still use the horizontal antenna for receiving.

Alternatively you could put up another noise antenna with poor distance
capabilities but good response to the locally-generated noise, and
combine the signals from it and the good vertical for reception, so as
to reduce the local noise without greatly reducing the incoming DX
signal strength.

David, ex-W8EZE, who remembers working ZLs and VKs from Ohio with very
low power on 80 CW while using a vertical

--
David Ryeburn

To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz".

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Bottom line: Verticals are essentially useless in Madisonville, TX

Cecil, verticals are essentially useless...

Now Art, don't misquote me. My QTH has terrible vertically polarized
power line noise all over town which it didn't have 50 years ago when
I was first licensed. In the early 50's, I used a vertical and it
worked well enough to WAS except for Idaho.

I am not down on verticals in general. I am down on verticals at my QTH.
Virtually every power pole with a transformer drowns out a 10kw AM
station 30 miles away on a car radio.
--
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! =-----