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! =-----

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

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! =-----

Hi again -

I no longer aspire to cornering you into an unbiased comparison.
I can see you're much too crafty for that! ;-)

But I don't want you to think I'm easily fooled, either.
So a couple more comments below...

"Cecil Moore" wrote
in message ...

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.

OK, we need to assume that you have a couple of trees that
are 130+ feet apart, because you say you are using them to
support a dipole of that length.

So instead of a "T" between the trees where the top is a
dipole and the vertical element is the feedline, why not
a "T" between the trees where the top is a support rope
and the vertical element is a monopole? Do you think
a couple of trees 65+ feet away from said monopole
would suck up all its radiated energy? And if so, why
wouldn't they clobber the much closer, high-impedance
ends of the dipole?

BTW, I repeat that I'm NOT trying to convert you to a
different antenna type; I'm merely advocating some
technical objectivity when making comparisons.

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.

This is quite a remarkable feat! Do you only talk to a list
of favored stations that are known to lie in your lobes?
Or do you refuse to answer a list of stations that lie in your
nulls? (Or if they're DEEP in a null, you might be unaware
of their existence, I suppose.)

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. :-)

I'm afraid this analogy is so strained and inapplicable that
it doesn't really need a response.

--
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:
So instead of a "T" between the trees where the top is a
dipole and the vertical element is the feedline, why not
a "T" between the trees where the top is a support rope
and the vertical element is a monopole?

Given that, I've gone to all the trouble of putting up a
dipole. Why would I choose to put up something inferior
to a dipole? Plus, with a vertical, I would have to lay
in a ground plane only to make my noise level 2 S-units
worse than with the dipole. Where's the ROI?

Do you think
a couple of trees 65+ feet away from said monopole
would suck up all its radiated energy? And if so, why
wouldn't they clobber the much closer, high-impedance
ends of the dipole?

Because the trees then act as part of the end-hat circuit
which is a good thing.

I never operate my antenna in a null.

This is quite a remarkable feat! Do you only talk to a list
of favored stations that are known to lie in your lobes?

Yes, that's why I placed the lobes where they are.

Or do you refuse to answer a list of stations that lie in your
nulls?

I don't QSO with weak signals. Life is too short for QRP.

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. :-)

I'm afraid this analogy is so strained and inapplicable that
it doesn't really need a response.

It's the same logic. You are arguing that the average radiation
pattern is what is important and not the directional gain while
it is performing useful work.

So to be consistent, you must also argue, that it is the average
speed of my pickup that is important and not the speed while it
is performing useful work.

Since the average gain of a beam is about equal to a vertical,
do you advocate getting rid of all the beams? :-)
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

This will be my last hurrah in this sub-thread, and
then I'll go into bandwidth conservation mode....

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Old Ed wrote:
So instead of a "T" between the trees where the top is a
dipole and the vertical element is the feedline, why not
a "T" between the trees where the top is a support rope
and the vertical element is a monopole?

Given that, I've gone to all the trouble of putting up a
dipole. Why would I choose to put up something inferior
to a dipole? Plus, with a vertical, I would have to lay
in a ground plane only to make my noise level 2 S-units
worse than with the dipole. Where's the ROI?

I will interpret your subject change here as conceding
the point I was trying to make.

Do you think
a couple of trees 65+ feet away from said monopole
would suck up all its radiated energy? And if so, why
wouldn't they clobber the much closer, high-impedance
ends of the dipole?

Because the trees then act as part of the end-hat circuit
which is a good thing.

This is somewhere between incoherent and grasping at
straws, so again, I will consider the point made.

I never operate my antenna in a null.

This is quite a remarkable feat! Do you only talk to a list
of favored stations that are known to lie in your lobes?

Yes, that's why I placed the lobes where they are.

Or do you refuse to answer a list of stations that lie in your
nulls?

I don't QSO with weak signals. Life is too short for QRP.

Great, this is progress... we now know your ground rules!

But I assume you will acknowledge that there are quite a
few other amateur stations that want to be unrestricted in
azimuth.

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. :-)

I'm afraid this analogy is so strained and inapplicable that
it doesn't really need a response.

It's the same logic. You are arguing that the average radiation
pattern is what is important and not the directional gain while
it is performing useful work.

So to be consistent, you must also argue, that it is the average
speed of my pickup that is important and not the speed while it
is performing useful work.

Sorry, this didn't get any better. It's still nonsense, as an analogy.

Since the average gain of a beam is about equal to a vertical,
do you advocate getting rid of all the beams? :-)

No, not all of them... only the ones that need to cover 360 degrees
azimuth, and don't rotate. 8-)

73 es QRT, Ed

--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Old Ed wrote:
I will interpret your subject change here as conceding
the point I was trying to make.

I thought Danny's calculations had already conceded
your point.

Because the trees then act as part of the end-hat circuit
which is a good thing

This is somewhere between incoherent and grasping at
straws, so again, I will consider the point made.

Trees are part of the world that provides capacitance
for the ends of dipoles.

Great, this is progress...

No, this is humor.

But I assume you will acknowledge that there are quite a
few other amateur stations that want to be unrestricted in
azimuth.

Of course, that's why I suggested the two 24 foot wires hanging
down from the ends of the 130 ft. dipole as a way to cause the
dipole to beat the vertical in any and all directions and by
as much as 6 dB in four directions.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:11:32 GMT, "Old Ed"
wrote:
Oh, Cecil, Cecil, Cecil!
If trees
you seem to assume
If only
and if
and if
then I guess

Good guess, but about what?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:11:32 GMT, "Old Ed"
wrote:

Oh, Cecil, Cecil, Cecil!
If trees
you seem to assume
If only
and if
and if
then I guess

Good guess, but about what?

Please look up "analogy" in the dictionary and "conditional
statements" in a good logic book. And look up "emoticon"
on the web.
--
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:
"---trees could be used to support a monopole."

Yes, but in supporting a monopole, the tree is more or less parallel,
near, and lossy. Horizontal dipoles are somewhat perpendicular to trees
which are likely to be in the nulls of the dipole pattern.

Shortwaves are propagated effectively by bounce at the correct angle off
the ionosphere. Propagation of shortwaves along the earth`s surface is
seriously attenuated.

Vertical antennas up to 5/8-wavelength launch their maximum signal along
the earth`s surface, not good for skywave propagation in most cases. It
works at sea where conductivity is excellent and over much greater
distance than over land, so that not all shortwave tangential energy is
necessarily wasted.

Horizontal antennas produce no tangential aignal along highly conducting
earth. The reflection at near zero elevation is equal and opposite in
polarity and it cancels.

High 1/2-wave dipoles (between 1/4-wave and 1/2-wave high) have gains at
some angle between zero and 90-degrees as compared with the same dipole
in free-space.

A 1/2-wave dipole between 1/4-wave and 1/2-wave above good ground can
have a dB or two gain at some elevation angle between 15 and 30-degrees.
It`s not much, but it`s not a loss. Even over poor ground, the
free-space 1/2-wave dipole characteristic is likely available at the
useful elevation angle.

I worked for years in shortwave broadcasting and have yet to see any
facility which employed vertical transmitting antennas. I`ve heard there
are some verticals, but when serious investment is professionally made
in shortwave transmitting antennas it is nearly always made in the
horizontally polarized variety.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI