bb wrote:
First... what is phasing of verticals.

Essentially the same as phasing of horizontal elements. If you turn
a 40m horizontal Yagi on it's side and bury half of it under a good
ground plane, you have a vertical beam.

My 40 m dipole is only 30' up...would vertical phasing be an
improvement?

Maybe, maybe not. At my QTH, the vertical noise is 2 s-units higher
than the horizontal noise rendering any vertical antenna virtually
unusable. No vertical that I have ever tried could overcome that
-10 dB disadvantage. But your QTH could be entirely different from
mine. It is possible, but not likely, that your vertical noise is
lower than your horizontal noise.
--
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 ...
bb wrote:
First... what is phasing of verticals.

Essentially the same as phasing of horizontal elements. If you turn
a 40m horizontal Yagi on it's side and bury half of it under a good
ground plane, you have a vertical beam.

My 40 m dipole is only 30' up...would vertical phasing be an
improvement?

A single vertical would be an improvement over a dipole at 30 ft if
working dx.
Two phased would be even better. If you aren't working dx, but more
close in stations within a few hundred miles, you would be better off
phasing parallel dipoles for gain. A bit of gain nearly equal to a 2
el yagi, and about an average 20 db f/b.

Maybe, maybe not. At my QTH, the vertical noise is 2 s-units higher
than the horizontal noise rendering any vertical antenna virtually
unusable. No vertical that I have ever tried could overcome that
-10 dB disadvantage. But your QTH could be entirely different from
mine. It is possible, but not likely, that your vertical noise is
lower than your horizontal noise.

If you are using the vertical for long haul, the increased received
noise is a non issue. 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.
Noise was never an issue when I used mine. The increased signals
always overrode it by a good amount. You didn't see this because you
didn't use yours for long haul. Many times my GP was nearly as quiet
as the dipole. If there is no vertically polarized local noise, there
is little difference between the two. At the moment I have three
antennas on 160. An inv L, a top load vertical, and a Z dipole. All
receive about equal noise as far as S meter reading. The dipole is
just as noisy as the other two on that band. Only my indoor 16 inch
small loop is really quiet...:/ MK

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

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! =-----

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".