=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Richard" =3D=3D 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=B0 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.

Richard 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFApZ/cGPFSfAB/ezgRAparAKDulUdO0dGqcrNrCxjkuBZPl203vQCgosND
+PUWZk0Lx5NTUyy7Av1quhY=3D
=3DksOs
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:43:03 -0700, Jack Twilley
wrote:


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.

Hi Jack,

20° serves as well as any and at least offers a basis of comparison.
This again turns to the matter of the inspecific. You cite no
particular application (DX v. NVIS) no particular band (that is
heavily swayed by ground given ground characteristics vary over
frequency) and offer a quarter wave height as "full height" which by
most standards is generally accepted as mediocre at best where half
wave height (twice full height?) offers better performance (which is
borne out in testimonial) and where higher sometimes offers worse
performance (also borne out in testimonial). Such issues are easily
isolated and compared through modeling and are consistent with
experience.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"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.