Uwe,
'Bigger/longer' isn't necessarily 'better'! A longer
dipole -may- resonante on the desired frequency, but the
65 feet (approximate) is really all you need. Twice that
length would probably work for you, but feeding it in the
center would also be a very bad impedance match for 50 ohm
coax. Not to mention will produce a radiation pattern
different from what you might expect. A full wave, instead
of a 1/2 wave, dipole can be made to work, but all things
considered, why bother?
'Doc

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:31:41 -0500, 'Doc wrote:

Not to mention will produce a radiation pattern
different from what you might expect.

Oh, and just how different would the pattern be?

Danny, K6MHE

Dan Richardson wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:31:41 -0500, 'Doc wrote:
Not to mention will produce a radiation pattern
different from what you might expect.

Oh, and just how different would the pattern be?

A one-wavelength dipole has about 2 dB gain over a 1/2WL
dipole at the expense of other directions assuming a
height of 1/2WL+.
--
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! =-----

Dan,
It's green instead of the 'normal' blue...
'Doc

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:39:32 -0500, 'Doc wrote:



Dan,
It's green instead of the 'normal' blue...
'Doc

I fail to see that answers my question. Which was and is just how is
the pattern of a ½-wave dipole different than a full-wave dipole?

I know the answer, base upon you response to the original question I
wonder if you do.

However, because of you refusal to include the portion of the previous
message that you responding too in your postings (normal N/G
etiquette) it is difficult to be sure what you are talking about.

Danny

"Dan Richardson @mendolink.com" ChangeThisToCallSign wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:39:32 -0500, 'Doc wrote:

However, because of you refusal to include the portion of the previous
message that you responding too in your postings (normal N/G
etiquette) it is difficult to be sure what you are talking about.

He claims he doesn't know how to quote. I plonked him some time ago. Got
tired of trying to figure out what he was responding to. Would rather have
not done that as he does have useful information but his posting method is
just to cryptic.

Dan & CW,
This may help understand 'how' I post, probably won't
excuse any percieved 'mistakes' in the procedure, but at
least you'll understand. I use a 'newsgroup' reader, it
shows each thread and each response in a thread, and
everything progrsses in a very logical manner. One of
these 'newsgroup' readers is provided in Netscape and IE.
I see no point in repeating what is already 'there' for
anyone to see (if they use a NGreader, of course). I have
to assume that you don't, too bad.
As for the radiation pattern differences between a 1/2
wave and full wave antenna, a specific explanation would
be kind'a difficult because more than the 'length' can make
a difference, height, environment, other antennas, etc.
But, in general, the usual higher angles of radiation are
more pronounced, and the pattern is 'sort of' sharper (if that
makes any sense) for the full wave dipole. It's easy to
see than to describe if you use a modeling program, or the
usual radiation pattern diagrams in the antenna books. This
also depends on the antenna's height, what I attempted to
describe
is at more than a 1/2 wave above ground. Being lower than a 1/2
wave above ground makes for even greater differences.
I hope that convinces you that I might have at least a faint
idea of what's happening...
'Doc

'Doc wrote:
This may help understand 'how' I post, probably won't
excuse any percieved 'mistakes' in the procedure, but at
least you'll understand. I use a 'newsgroup' reader, it
shows each thread and each response in a thread, and
everything progrsses in a very logical manner.

I use the Netscape newsreader but it is more convenient
for me to sort by date rather than by thread. Therefore,
I don't know to whom you are replying unless you quote
the attributions and understanding the context of
your postings is quite often difficult for me.
--
73, Cecil, 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, 16 Apr 2004 08:07:34 -0500, 'Doc wrote:

Here, so all can see exactly what I am responding to:
[snip]
I use a 'newsgroup' reader, it
shows each thread and each response in a thread, and
everything progrsses in a very logical manner.
[snip]

I too use a reader as I believe everyone else does, however, rather
than clutter up my screen with old obsolete messages I us an option of
my reader that lists only the new unread messages.

Additionally, there are at times multiple replies to a thread and your
posting may be listed several messages below the one you are replying
to and it can be anyone's guess which one it was.

Thirdly, for anyone reading the news group archives and trying to
follow anything you have posted is near to impossible as the archive
listing can be by the poster and not the thread.

Lastly, news group etiquette was setup of a good reason. Following
those suggestions allows for a minimum of confusion.

Please think about this. Of course, if you just want to be contrary
then have fun.

73
Danny

"'Doc" wrote in message ...


Uwe,
'Bigger/longer' isn't necessarily 'better'! A longer
dipole -may- resonante on the desired frequency, but the
65 feet (approximate) is really all you need. Twice that
length would probably work for you, but feeding it in the
center would also be a very bad impedance match for 50 ohm
coax.

The impedance will still be 50-to-70 ohms if you add the extra
half-wavelength to just one end of the antenna.
i.e. The wire on one side of the antenna feed point (coax connection) is
still 32.5 feet, and the wire on the other side would be 65' + 32.5' plus
another 3.3', since there is no end-effect on the extra half-wavelength of
wire you are adding. So actually, one side is 32.5 feet and the other side
is 100.8 feet. You should get almost 2 db of gain in four directions (a
"cloverleaf") by doing that. You will also get a significant reduction in
signal strength (a "null") broadside to the antenna and off the ends. I used
a dipole like that for years in Florida where one of the gain lobes was NE
and the nulls cut out a lot of the stateside QRM for me during European
contests. The full-wave dipole was up about a half-wavelength (65 feet), so
I used RG59 (75 ohm) coax instead of RG58 (50 ohm) coax, and had a good
match. No balun was needed.

Andy