On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:58:31 -0800 (PST), N0GW
wrote:

It was then that I noticed that when I
overlayed the pattern from a vertical half wavelength dipole with that
of a horizontal half wave dipole at the same center height over real
ground that the pattern from the vertical was completely enclosed by
the horizontal dipole pattern, at least broadside to the horizontal
dipole that is. The vertical dipole pattern definitely showed a lower
angle of peak radiation but no greater gain a low angles than the
horizontal dipole.

Hi Gary,

You have so much left unsaid, that it is shooting in the dark.
However, proceeding with that risk in mind....

A vertical dipole described above is not the vertical antenna that you
describe following:
The interesting question then: Is the improved performance of
vertical antennas over horizontal dipoles on 75 meters at DX distances
due to a combination of direct radiation plus radiation from the
ground in the area of strong ground wave strength out hundreds of
meters? Is the ground wave leakage providing additional low signal
strength in both transmit and receive?

Better? You are relying too heavily on anecdotal reports.

For one, I seriously doubt you compared a 75M vertical dipole to a 75M
horizontal dipole in your lecture - no one in your audience would have
the financial clout to go there I suspect. That vertical dipole tip
would have to be hoisted quite a distance to see that the bottom tip
wasn't buried in the earth.

The next problem is height (again) and how it contributes to (or
subtracts from) gain as that varies. There is no "similar" comparison
between the two. You could model and present variations on horizontal
dipole elevation alone for two hours, much less both of them.

Rule 1 of presentations: Don't give them off the cuff unless you are
prepared to follow the surprises.

Rule 2: If you are willing to follow the surprises; then you aren't
really giving a presentation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Feb 14, 12:03 am, Richard Clark wrote:

You have so much left unsaid, that it is shooting in the dark.
However, proceeding with that risk in mind....

A vertical dipole described above is not the vertical antenna that you
describe following:

Better? You are relying too heavily on anecdotal reports.

The next problem is height (again) and how it contributes to (or
subtracts from) gain as that varies. There is no "similar" comparison
between the two. You could model and present variations on horizontal
dipole elevation alone for two hours, much less both of them.

Rule 1 of presentations: Don't give them off the cuff unless you are
prepared to follow the surprises.

Rule 2: If you are willing to follow the surprises; then you aren't
really giving a presentation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, thanks for the comments. Yep, I thought of the thing about
the model versus the inverted L mentioned after I had already sent the
message. What I should have mentioned is that the EZNEC pattern for
the inverted L showed lower gain than the vertical dipole.

As for the anecdotal evidence thing: It's my observation. My
756ProIII S meter may not be a calibrated piece of test equipment but
the deflection of the needle was much higher while listening with the
inverted L. While I can't give an quantitative number to the
difference in strength, I can say qualitatively that the Inverted L
provided a much stronger and clearer signal.

As for the presentation, that is why I'm here asking the question. No
point in putting out info if it is going to be bogus. I saw a
discrepancy between my experience and the text books. I'm just trying
to resolve that.

Thanks again.

Gary - N0GW

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:10:23 -0800 (PST), N0GW
wrote:

As for the presentation, that is why I'm here asking the question. No
point in putting out info if it is going to be bogus. I saw a
discrepancy between my experience and the text books. I'm just trying
to resolve that.

Hi Gary,

Experience is often the most confounding experience you will ever
experience.

After all, does experience explain the angle at which you
receive/transmit that portion of signal in a circuit (the jargon for
connection between you and that distant operator)? NVIS can hammer a
vertical, if that is what you want; even if you forget to lift the
horizontal into the air. So a horizontal dipole on the ground is the
best antenna compared to the best vertical? Not when you shift bands
and target a DX station.

Does experience explain the difference in (at what would be a strain
to justify) "a vertical at the same height as a horizontal dipole?" To
fill in that last parenthetical: What makes a vertical dipole at an
EQUAL height to a horizontal dipole? The equal high feed points? The
equal highest point of metal? The equal average height of both?
Choose any one of three and the other two could have better
performance over the other - and still someone in the audience could
cry nothing can be said to be EQUAL.

Does the experience at 160M with a ground mounted vertical translate
into the same experience at 10M? Experience in the 'burbs with trees,
homes, sheds, cars, playsets in the vicinity would suggest no. An
antenna 16 times taller can see over those same things which are
barely dimples to the field.

A head-to-head comparison will quickly resolve; but as this is an
amateur society with limited antenna options and a multitude of band
choices, experience will often roller-coaster between disappointment
and elation - and as so often proven in threads of amazing inventions
here, those inventors demand classical text books should be discarded
as being obviously counter to "experience."

The emerging new invention of an 160M band antenna the size of two
shoe-boxes should show how plastic and flexible experience is such
that it can stretch to fit into a suit 300 times it size.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC