Mikey wrote:
Yes, phased verticals will outperform a dipole.

Some phased verticals will outperform a dipole, depending upon how one
defines "outperform". 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. Reference: Fig 10, Chapter 8, The ARRL Antenna
Book, 15th edition. The maximum gain figure for a two-element phased vertical
is 4.7 dB over a 1/4 WL monopole. The average is about 3 dB depending on
spacing and phasing. That same graphic is Fig 11, Chapter 8, on the ARRL
Antenna Book CD, ver 2.0.

EZNEC sez my simple 130 ft. dipole at 40 ft. has a gain of 10.8 dBi on
10m with a take-off-angle of 12 degrees. It would take quite a vertical
array to equal that. (Then I would have to somehow overcome a +10 dB
vertically polarized noise level. :-)
--
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 ...
Mikey wrote:
Yes, phased verticals will outperform a dipole.

Some phased verticals will outperform a dipole, depending upon how one
defines "outperform".

It's more depending on the distance worked.

A dipole at a decent height can have a 7 dB gain
over a 1/4 WL monopole.

His is at 30 ft. Yea, it might have 7 db max gain over the vertical.
If he's working within 500 miles...

A two-element phased vertical cannot equal that
figure over average ground.

Are you saying he should avoid radials, and use only the fairly lame
"average ground"? No wonder none of your verticals work well... Cecil,
I got news for you. A GOOD 2 el phased vertical setup would trounce a
dipole at 30 ft at long distances past 1000 miles. A single GOOD
vertical will beat the dipole on the same longer paths. Of course, I'm
talking real verticals with the proper number of radials per height in
wavelength, not some shortened loaded storebought junk, with no
radials.

Reference: Fig 10, Chapter 8, The ARRL Antenna
Book, 15th edition. The maximum gain figure for a two-element phased vertical
is 4.7 dB over a 1/4 WL monopole. The average is about 3 dB depending on
spacing and phasing. That same graphic is Fig 11, Chapter 8, on the ARRL
Antenna Book CD, ver 2.0.

Gain fiqures are very misleading in this case. Tells only about half
the story.
You are causing more confusion than anything, because you don't
properly apply the antennas to their proper jobs/paths. You never saw
good results with yours because you misapplied it by using it for
short paths, and also stunted it's performance by using too few
radials. It never had a chance.

EZNEC sez my simple 130 ft. dipole at 40 ft. has a gain of 10.8 dBi on
10m with a take-off-angle of 12 degrees. It would take quite a vertical
array to equal that. (Then I would have to somehow overcome a +10 dB
vertically polarized noise level. :-)

What direction is all this gain? What will happen when you have to
work someone in one of your nulls? Heck, I bet many of my old 5/8
ground planes would have equaled or beat your signal on 10m, to *most*
people. I don't ever remember being beat by a simple dipole. In fact,
when I used ground planes on 10m, I considered a horizontal dipole to
generally be inferior. I know the ones I had were inferior to my
ground planes at paths 1500-2000 miles away. And yes, some were long,
and should have shown gain. They were over a wavelength high also. I
wonder how your 10.8 dbi on 10m dipole would stack against my
Cushcraft A4S beam? It has less gain according to the specs. But, I
bet it beats your dipole on 10m in any direction if mounted at the
same height. BTW, none of my 10m ground planes showed a 10 db increase
in noise over my dipoles or other wire antennas. MK

Mark Keith wrote:
You are causing more confusion than anything, because you don't
properly apply the antennas to their proper jobs/paths. You never saw
good results with yours because you misapplied it by using it for
short paths, and also stunted it's performance by using too few
radials. It never had a chance.

I didn't say anything about my vertical, Mark. I merely quoted The
ARRL Antenna Book and EZNEC results. Your (biased) argument is with
them, not with me.
--
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:
You are causing more confusion than anything, because you don't
properly apply the antennas to their proper jobs/paths. You never saw
good results with yours because you misapplied it by using it for
short paths, and also stunted it's performance by using too few
radials. It never had a chance.

I didn't say anything about my vertical, Mark. I merely quoted The
ARRL Antenna Book and EZNEC results. Your (biased) argument is with
them, not with me.

I guess so then. I know that applying that info to the real world will
not really pan out on longer low band paths despite what models might
say about gain at a certain lower angle. It's below 10 degrees or so
that really counts to long dx.
Biased? Maybe so. But at least I've actually used a good full sized
elevated vertical to be able to make an accurate opinion. Over a three
or four year time span I might add. It's not like I'm speculating or
just barking at the moon. I made nightly comparisons. I nearly wore my
antenna switch out switching back and forth. When on a long path at
1500 miles or farther, not a single time was the vertical "in my case
elevated ground plane" ever beat by the dipole I had at 36 ft. Not
one. Nada. Zip. And at that 1500 mile mark to CA., the vertical was
always 2 S units better. Always! Of course, you have fading where the
peaks of each polarization swap back and forth, but the peaks of the
vertical were always 2 s units stronger than the peaks of the
horizontal dipole. And this was reciprical. I didn't have to get on
the air reports to see which antenna was better to a certain place.
Yep, I guess you could call me biased...I'd even take this farther and
speculate that the dipole even at a half wave "65 ft on 40m" would
have trouble beating the elevated vertical I had on long paths. After
all, it's going to have to come up an average of 4 S units "average
report given to me over the 36 ft dipole" to a long DX haul site to do
it. "IE: TX to VK land". Do you think raising the dipole from 36 ft to
65 ft will give me 4 more S units to VK land? Maybe, but I really
doubt it myself. W8JI's tests of high 160m dipoles, vs tower
verticals tends to back me up on this. Tom once said he thought a
high 160m dipole would surely tromp over the verticals and he put one
up. I think modeling told him it would be better. But it didn't pan
out. I seem to recall him saying it was a waste of time and tower
space.. Or something along those lines...If I add to add anything for
the benefit of the original poster, it would be to consider the path
length, when deciding which to use. If he doesn't work dx, he probably
doesn't want a vertical. He'd be better off with a dipole array. If he
does, he oughta try one. If it's a good vertical, he'll like it. My
dipole is so lame compared to my GP on 40m late at night, I actually
quit getting on the air at night after I took it down. Instantly
dropping 4 s units to VK land is no fun. I still have the antenna on
the side of the house though, if I ever feel the need to brown the
food over there. The guys running bobtail curtains, "basically a
vertical phased array" did even better than I did. They were the only
ones that could beat me consistantly every night.
And they were mounted on the ground to boot, compared to my GP at 36
ft.
There is power in the number of elements... MK

Mark Keith wrote:
Yep, I guess you could call me biased...I'd even take this farther and
speculate that the dipole even at a half wave "65 ft on 40m" would
have trouble beating the elevated vertical I had on long paths.

But, Mark, you are neglecting physical efficiency. Divide the performance
by the amount of metal required for each antenna and see what you get. :-)
My dipole uses 1/2WL of wire. Your vertical uses how many wavelengths of
wire?
--
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! =-----

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:29:16 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

But, Mark, you are neglecting physical efficiency.

On 18 Feb 2004 22:15:35 -0800, (Mark Keith) wrote:

After
all, it's going to have to come up an average of 4 S units "average
report given to me over the 36 ft dipole" to a long DX haul site to do
it. "IE: TX to VK land".

Hi Mark,

The Flat Earth Socialists invent new forms of "efficiency" to argue
against success. With their logic, a dummy load is the world's best
antenna (and quiet too). The are obviously seduced by their own math
models where less current emerges from a resistor than goes in. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
The are obviously seduced by their own math
models where less current emerges from a resistor than goes in. ;-)

What does your lumped circuit math model say about resistors used
on a frequency where the resistor plus its leads is 1/4WL long? At
that frequency, why are you surprised that the current in is different
from the current out (in the presence of standing waves)?

Heck, I have seen a GDO find the resonant frequency of a resistor
with the leads shorted together (that's the entire circuit).
Do you think the current is the same everywhere in a resistor
that is a 1/2WL loop?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
Yep, I guess you could call me biased...I'd even take this farther and
speculate that the dipole even at a half wave "65 ft on 40m" would
have trouble beating the elevated vertical I had on long paths.

But, Mark, you are neglecting physical efficiency. Divide the performance
by the amount of metal required for each antenna and see what you get. :-)
My dipole uses 1/2WL of wire. Your vertical uses how many wavelengths of
wire?

Good grief.....What an argument you have here, Cecil....Like the
amount of wire used is pertinent to performance. But if you must know,
my GP used 5 lengths of 1/4 wave material. The radiator being fully
self supporting aluminum. The other four 1/4 wave lengths were of that
high $$$$ stuff called wire. Really broke me that antenna did... MK

Mark Keith wrote:
Good grief.....What an argument you have here, Cecil...

Good grief, Mark. Would you please learn what :-) means.
--
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 ...
Mikey wrote:
Yes, phased verticals will outperform a dipole.

Some phased verticals will outperform a dipole, depending upon how one
defines "outperform". 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. Reference: Fig 10, Chapter 8, The ARRL Antenna
Book, 15th edition. The maximum gain figure for a two-element phased vertical
is 4.7 dB over a 1/4 WL monopole. The average is about 3 dB depending on
spacing and phasing. That same graphic is Fig 11, Chapter 8, on the ARRL
Antenna Book CD, ver 2.0.

EZNEC sez my simple 130 ft. dipole at 40 ft. has a gain of 10.8 dBi on
10m with a take-off-angle of 12 degrees. It would take quite a vertical
array to equal that. (Then I would have to somehow overcome a +10 dB
vertically polarized noise level. :-)

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
For ten meters I would call it something more than a dipole.
To talk of a simple dipole having 10 db gain on this group is more
than misleading it is an attempt to confuse.
Can you imagine me entering the 160 metre discussion and discussing my
collinear dipole in the vertical position as just
a "simple " dipole and with no buried ground plane at that? If you are
going to continue to compare antennas then the info must be factual
and completely comparible or you do not have a legit comparison. I
came in late but I read all the postings on this thread and the
comparisons are all over the place and hard to follow, so back to what
I was doing which is more productive.
Have fun, will pop back later when the postings get to over 200.
Art