Jack Twilley wrote in message ...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So who actually has the space and resources to set up an ideal
horizontal dipole on HF with the full length and height as specified
in all the formulas?

Thats all I use here.

Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to set up a
vertical if you could install something that high off the ground?

No.

The only thing I've seen personally that looks like it meets the ideal
is a small station tucked into the northeast cloverleaf of an exit off
Interstate 93 near Boston, MA, and the station appeared to be a marker
for Logan. Anyone have any personal, real-life experience with a
full-size, full-height HF dipole? Is it worth the cost?

If you run a full size dipole, "I prefer coax fed in general", you
have a full sized dipole signal with very little losses. Well, unless
you have 500-1000 ft of coax... What more can I say... The antenna
cost is cheap. Wire and coax. I'm on a city lot. I presently have
160m,80m,40m dipoles up in parallel. Fed with one coax. The 160 dipole
is in a Z layout to fit the lot. The 80 and 40 are in straight lines
as normal, but spaced apart a good bit. Myself, I don't use anything
but full size coax fed dipoles, unless it's impossible. As far as
single band dipoles go, anything less is a step down as far as I'm
concerned. Loss wise and also ease of use. No tuner, no weather
hassles, etc...When I switch bands, there is nothing to do but key the
radio. MK

"Jack Twilley" wrote

So who actually has the space and resources to set up an ideal
horizontal dipole on HF with the full length and height as specified
in all the formulas? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to set up a
vertical if you could install something that high off the ground?

I thought a 1/2 wave dipole was "the standard". Standard meaning the
traditional use of the dipole for efficiency and common use. I did not know
it was a significant compromise from a full wave length long antenna which
would be impossible to install in most backyards when you talk about 60
meters or higher. If a full wave length dipole is common I never see
references to it either.

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach VA

Has anyone got an ideal ground ??

Nick

"Jack Twilley" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Richard" == Richard Clark writes:

Jack I am interested in people who have first-hand experience with a
Jack full-length dipole mounted at the full height for any particular
Jack band. A 10M dipole is full-sized if it's the full length and
Jack mounted at the full height. Ditto for 160M.

Richard Describe your needs first, and then ask what would be
Richard reasonable.

Jack I hope the clarification above is enough -- if not, please let
Jack me know.

Richard Hi Jack,

Richard This is still inspecific. "Full height" is actually
Richard meaningless. Let's look at a 40M dipole antenna and choose a
Richard modest 20° launch angle to compare against. 5M over real
Richard ground: -2dBi 10M over real ground: 1.29dBi 15M over real
Richard ground: 3.75dBi 20M over real ground: 6.27dBi 25M over real
Richard ground: 8.08dBi 30M over real ground: 7.67dBi 35M over real
Richard ground: 7.1dBi 40M over real ground: 7.52dBi

Where did the twenty-degree launch angle come from?

Richard Well, let's see - best gain is NOT at any cardinal point such
Richard as quarter wave, half wave, three quarter, nor full wave
Richard above ground ANY of which "could" be interpreted as "full
Richard height."

I'm not familiar with twenty-degrees as any particular canonical
value. As for what I meant by "full height", one-quarter wavelength
minimum should serve.

Richard This exercise is easily within the limited feature set of the
Richard free distribution of EZNEC.

I do not doubt that your calculations are within the capabilities of
EZNEC. However, I'm more interested in real-life experience, not
computer-generated simulations.

EZNEC will probably give you a better idea of whats going on than anecdotal
opinions. There of course is always the GiGo factor but this applies to both
computer and human analysis alike.

Jack Twilley wrote:
"This is the kind of experience I had hoped to hear."

A look at the vertical radiation patterns of half-wave horizontals
broadside to the antenna wire such as that shown on page 3-11 of the
19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book provides evidence of the best
height.

A vertical angle of 50-degrees gives a first reflection target distance
of 80 to 500 miles, depending on the height of the reflecting layer,
from the graph on page 92 of Ed Laport`s "Antenna Engineering". A
vertical angle of 5-degrees gives a target distance of 700 to 2500 miles
according to the same graph.

For angles between 5 and 50-degrees, a dipole height of 1/2-wave
maximizes radiation around a vertical angle of about 30-degrees.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sun, 16 May 2004 21:15:29 GMT, R. David Steele
/OMEGA wrote:

I gather that while they are very broad
banded, they have less the best gain?

Yes, resistors have good bandwidth but less gain. ;o)

g1
--
Replace x in adr with c