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