Dan Richardson wrote:
If you wish you can send me the *.ez file and I'll run it with
MultiNec using the EZNEC engine.

Hi Danny,
I'm at work and the file is at home, but it is just a 130 ft.
dipole, 40 ft. high, used on 10.125 MHz over average ground.

The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:37 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Dan Richardson wrote:
If you wish you can send me the *.ez file and I'll run it with
MultiNec using the EZNEC engine.

Hi Danny,
I'm at work and the file is at home, but it is just a 130 ft.
dipole, 40 ft. high, used on 10.125 MHz over average ground.

The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131

Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi

Danny

Dan Richardson wrote:

wrote:
The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131

Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi

Thanks, that beats the average azimuthal gain for a
ground-mounted 1/4WL monopole.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Comments below...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Dan Richardson wrote:

wrote:
The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131

Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi

Thanks, that beats the average azimuthal gain for a
ground-mounted 1/4WL monopole.

Using your numbers for the (somewhat radial-challenged) monopole,
the monopole peak is 1.822 dB less, but at a more favorable (for DX)
26 degrees elevation angle.

I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller
footprint and greatly reduced support requirements. But beauty is
in the eye of the beholder; and I wouldn't dream of trying to steal
your affections from the big dipole.

73, Ed

--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Hi Danny -

Thank you very much for your contribution here!
Any chance you could run another 360 azimuth cut
at 26 degrees elevation?

TNX es 73, Ed

"Dan Richardson @mendolink.com" ChangeThisToCallSign wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:29:37 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Dan Richardson wrote:
If you wish you can send me the *.ez file and I'll run it with
MultiNec using the EZNEC engine.

Hi Danny,
I'm at work and the file is at home, but it is just a 130 ft.
dipole, 40 ft. high, used on 10.125 MHz over average ground.

The wire in EZNEC looks like: 0, 0, 40 130, 0, 40 #14 131

Based on the above, the average azimuth gain @ 34º EL is 1.822 dBi

Danny

Old Ed wrote:
I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller
footprint and greatly reduced support requirements.

Huh???? My 40m monopole was the most difficult antenna I have
ever attempted to erect. My dipole goes between two trees and
gives me 9 dBi gain toward AZ on 30m. It's no contest.
--
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 Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:06:28 GMT, "Old Ed"
wrote:

Hi Danny -

Thank you very much for your contribution here!
Any chance you could run another 360 azimuth cut
at 26 degrees elevation?

TNX es 73, Ed

Sure Ed, however as you are comparing the dipole to a monopole I also
modeled that. The monopole was resonated at 10.125 MHz. Using 16
¼-wave in length buried 5" deep. The maximum elevation takeoff angle
reported by EZNEC/pro using the NEC4 engine was 27º.

Here are the results for average gain at 27º EL.

Monopole -1.11 dBi
Cecil's dipole 1.596 dBi

73
Danny

Oh, Cecil, Cecil, Cecil!

I appreciate your inputs, and I really don't want to pull your chain.
But I gotta say you are quite the maestro of the biased comparison!
[ Have you considered working for a network news show? ;-) ]

1. The discussion was about a 30m monopole, I thought.

2. If trees are assumed to be available to support dipoles,
then trees could be used to support a monopole.
But not being clairvoyant, I didn't know about your trees.
So what I had in mind was a self-supporting monopole,
versus 2 or 3 self-supporting dipole masts.

3. As to the gain figure, you seem to assume that the
dipole is always operating at the peak of one of its
lobes, and never has to operate in one of its nulls.
If only specific directions are of interest to you,
and if the dipole is oriented for those directions,
and if the operating frequency is low enough to
avoid multi-multi-lobe fragmentation of the pattern,
then I guess that's a good assumption for your situation.
But one can't assume that this assumption would apply
to everyone.

Here's some good news, though... Just to show you I believe
in being fair all around, I am honor-bound to report that:
Danny came up with a lower gain than you did for the modeled
monopole, thus increasing the modeled dipole's average
advantage to 2.7 dB.

BTW, I'm also using and enjoying dipoles out here in the
land of fruits and nuts.

73! Ed

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
I would say that's not a bad showing, considering the much smaller
footprint and greatly reduced support requirements.

Huh???? My 40m monopole was the most difficult antenna I have
ever attempted to erect. My dipole goes between two trees and
gives me 9 dBi gain toward AZ on 30m. It's no contest.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Dan Richardson wrote:
Here are the results for average gain at 27º EL.

Monopole -1.11 dBi
Cecil's dipole 1.596 dBi

For more of an omni-directional pattern, a 24 ft wire hanging
down from both ends of the dipole will beat the monopole by at
least a dB in *all* directions and by 6dB in four directions.
--
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! =-----

Old Ed wrote:
2. If trees are assumed to be available to support dipoles,
then trees could be used to support a monopole.

But trees absorb energy from the monopole which has no gain
to waste. Trees absorb virtually no energy from a dipole.

3. As to the gain figure, you seem to assume that the
dipole is always operating at the peak of one of its
lobes, and never has to operate in one of its nulls.

I never operate my antenna in a null. I also don't drive my
pickup one mile per hour even if I only average driving it
one hour per day. Seems by your logic, I should always walk
since I can walk faster than the average speed of my pickup
over any 24 hour period. :-)
--
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! =-----