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