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

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:19:20 -0600, Cecil Moore
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
I'm not interested in Flat Earth Socialist rhetoric.

Richard Clark wrote:
I'm not interested in Flat Earth Socialist rhetoric.

Looks like you are trying to delete and hide the fact that
a resistor plus its leads has a resonant frequency that can
be measured. At that resonant frequency, do you think the
current is the same everywhere along the resistor and leads?
Remember, you were scornful of such a concept.

What I have done is presented a situation where lumped circuit
theory totally falls apart as it does in physically large mobile
loading coils. That's one reason that distributed network theory
was invented.

Flat Earth thinking equates to using lumped circuit theory for
applications where it simply doesn't work.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:32:15 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
I'm not interested in Flat Earth Socialist rhetoric.

Looks like you are trying to delete and hide
Mark's experience eclipses this nonsense of Flat Earth Socialist
rhetoric.

Cecil:

[snip]
What I have done is presented a situation where lumped circuit
theory totally falls apart as it does in physically large mobile
loading coils. That's one reason that distributed network theory
was invented.

Flat Earth thinking equates to using lumped circuit theory for
applications where it simply doesn't work.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP
[snip]

As you well know 19th century electromagnetic field [EMAG] theory has been
supplanted by
modern 20th century quantum electro-dynamics QED, just as EMAG supplanted
the circuit
theory of the 18th century, and QED is "lumped" *not* "distributed".

What???

Hey... give it up man! Distributed is passe...

Even the latest Scientific American has an article on "Loop Quantum Gravity"
the latest *lumped*
physical theory, where the final three holdouts for the continuum and those
discredited *distributed*
theories, i.e. gravity, space, and time itself [i.e. Einstein's celebrated
20the century theory of general relativity]
are now found to be "lumped" and are in fact comprised of purely discrete
quanta. Time is not continuous or distributed but proceeds in tiny steps
measured in Planck times of 10^-43 seconds. Space is also quantized
in chunks of cubic Planck lengths of about 10^-99 cc's. See: Lee Smolin,
"Atoms of Space and Time", Scientific American, January 2004, pp. 66-75.

Quanta and lumps rule!
--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL
[counting grains of sand on the beach today... :-)]

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! =-----