(Jeffdeham) wrote in message . com...
W5DXP wrote in message ...
Kristinn Andersen wrote:
Any comments, anyone, before I remove the vertical and turn to another
design?

I spent considerable time and effort erecting a 33ft vertical 40m
antenna with 8 elevated radials at 20ft. Average signal strengths were
about 2 S-units below a dipole and the noise level was about 2 S-units
higher than the dipole. At my QTH, it was a dog.

I had exactly the opposite results. It was 2-3 S units better at low
angles of radiation compared to my low dipole. I've heard other
experiences like this too. I just wonder if there some part of antenna
theory that's missing that could explain why that happens. Murphy's
law, blind luck, who knows. 8-)

73!

Jeff

It's simple. Cecil did not use enough radials for the low height he
mounted the vertical. Also, he didn't use it to work much long haul or
dx, which is what the vertical is best for. His antenna was just a bit
higher than an 1/8 wave. For an antenna that high to equal a GP at 1/2
wave with 4 radials, he really needed nearly 40-50-60 radials. A 1/2
wave high GP with 4 radials = a 1/4 wave high GP with 8-10 radials = a
1/8 wave high GP with 50-60 radials = a ground mount with 120 radials.
They all have the same appx ground loss. Now look at Cecils GP at a
bit over 1/8 wave and only 8 radials. Thats not much better than a
ground mount with 16-20 radials. No one will ever confuse a vertical
with 120 radials against one with appx 16-20 in the real world. I ran
a 40m GP at 36 ft, which is a bit over a 1/4 wave up. I used only 4
radials, but my antenna was appx equal to a ground mount with about 60
radials. My ground cdx are better than his also, so if anything he
should need more radials than I did. To me, his results are about as
to be expected. Heck, on 40m at night, my mobile vertical antenna will
outdo my home dipole at 42 ft to anyone at least 1000 miles away. I've
tested it many times. And my mobile antenna was a peanut whistle
compared to the full size GP I ran here at the house. To VK, Japan,
EU, etc, my GP would always be 3-4 S units better than my dipole at 36
ft. Heck, I'd give Tokyo a 20 db over 9 window rattling when I ran
that GP and a full KW. My dipole would be lucky to be S 8-9 with the
same power. MK

Mark Keith wrote:
It's simple. Cecil did not use enough radials for the low height he
mounted the vertical.

I used *twice as much wire* for radials in the vertical as I used for
the entire horizontal antenna. :-) In addition, the top of the vertical
was 15 feet higher than the horizontal and was a lightning rod. In
addition, the RG-213 cost three times as much as ladder-line. Anyone
need a 33 ft aluminum tubing vertical? Come haul it away.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

W5DXP wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
It's simple. Cecil did not use enough radials for the low height he
mounted the vertical.

I used *twice as much wire* for radials in the vertical as I used for
the entire horizontal antenna. :-)

Unfortunately, that was not enough.

In addition, the top of the vertical
was 15 feet higher than the horizontal and was a lightning rod.

The top of mine was nearly 70 ft in the air. It was never struck once
the whole time I had it up, and went through some radical t-storms.
Funny part? After I took it down, I've had that mast struck twice,
with much less height.

In
addition, the RG-213 cost three times as much as ladder-line.

You are a retired injuneer. You should able able to afford it. :/

Anyone
need a 33 ft aluminum tubing vertical? Come haul it away.

I would, if I were closer. Then I could put up two of them, phase
them, and really kick some butt. I'd take that overpriced 213 off your
hands too. MK

Kristinn,

Before you decide to remove it, I would see if it can be made to resonate on
20 meters by itself. Ditch the tuner, and see how it performs. As somebody
suggested, see what it does with a ZL or VK, or even W6. I never had any
luck with 20m verticals myself, but talked to an G station on 20 SSB a few
days ago who was using one; sounded fine.

BTW, here is an odd one. I once had a 40 meter vertical with the feedpoint
at about 30 feet and 4 radials, sloping down at about 45 deg. At the same
time I had a 40m dipole at about 50 feet. I made tests with two groups of
hams. The one group was about 400 miles away, the other group about 1100
miles. Without exception, in each group people with verticals preferred my
vertical, and people with horizontal antennas preferred my dipole. Yes, I
know all about polarization not being important for a skywave signal.

Tam/WB2TT
"Kristinn Andersen" wrote in message
om...
I just finished putting up a 6m long aluminum tube for a vertical for
10/15/20m. Its length is just over 1/4 wavelength on 20m and

Mark Keith wrote:
. . .
Also, I suspect excess loss if the noise and signals drop compared to
any other antenna. If the coax is not bad, old or waterlogged, or thin
stuff like rg-58, then I'd suspect excess loss in the autotuner. . . .

Out of curiosity, just how much loss do you think "thin stuff like
RG-58", say 50 feet of it, has on 20 meters?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
. . .
Also, I suspect excess loss if the noise and signals drop compared to
any other antenna. If the coax is not bad, old or waterlogged, or thin
stuff like rg-58, then I'd suspect excess loss in the autotuner. . . .

Out of curiosity, just how much loss do you think "thin stuff like
RG-58", say 50 feet of it, has on 20 meters?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Normally it shouldn't be too much. But if the "thin" stuff is old, or
has been damaged , it might be more than usual. MK

Well, 50 feet of RG-58 has about 3/4 dB loss at 14 MHz. And when it's
old. . . I've got RG-58 that's well over 20 years old, and can't measure
the difference in loss between it and new cable. If it's damaged, it
might create an impedance bump, which you might or might not notice. But
that's true of larger diameter cable, too.

I'm bemused to find that today's hams have somehow gotten convinced they
all need BIG cable for a BIG signal. Maybe they've been listening to the
same ads that sell people on monster audio cables and SUVs. But I sure
hate to see this misleading concept being passed along to newcomers.
They'll fall for the ads soon enough without help.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Mark Keith wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...

Mark Keith wrote:

. . .
Also, I suspect excess loss if the noise and signals drop compared to
any other antenna. If the coax is not bad, old or waterlogged, or thin
stuff like rg-58, then I'd suspect excess loss in the autotuner. . . .

Out of curiosity, just how much loss do you think "thin stuff like
RG-58", say 50 feet of it, has on 20 meters?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Normally it shouldn't be too much. But if the "thin" stuff is old, or
has been damaged , it might be more than usual. MK

Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
Well, 50 feet of RG-58 has about 3/4 dB loss at 14 MHz. And when it's
old. . . I've got RG-58 that's well over 20 years old, and can't measure
the difference in loss between it and new cable. If it's damaged, it
might create an impedance bump, which you might or might not notice. But
that's true of larger diameter cable, too.

I'm bemused to find that today's hams have somehow gotten convinced they
all need BIG cable for a BIG signal. Maybe they've been listening to the
same ads that sell people on monster audio cables and SUVs. But I sure
hate to see this misleading concept being passed along to newcomers.
They'll fall for the ads soon enough without help.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I don't think I've really promoted the cause of excess loss in thin
coax, but it is worse than thick cable. By damaged, I mean waterlogged
generally. There are not too many other ways to damage it to make it
overly lossy. I've seen some old thin coax that was pretty bad as far
as loss. Quite noticable on 10m anyway...Maybe not 20m as much. I do
prefer larger coax any day of the week, but thats mainly to reduce the
losses when I have a fairly large mismatch. IE: warc band use with
tuner, etc. Also less loss on higher freq's. In this case, I only
mentioned it in case the tuner ends up not being the problem. The coax
needs to at least be considered. But I think the tuner is the likely
culprit. MK

One thing to keep in mind is that vertically polarized waves can
propagate by ground wave, while horizontally polarized waves can't.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


True, but at close distances in which we have our man made noise sources, and
power lines contributing to conduct arcing, there is not that much of
"propagating" going on (almost near field). Our antennas "see" the noise
sources in their full "beauty" of "all kinds" polarization. Major factor is the
radiation pattern of the vertical (main lobe close to horizon) and its height
(lower to ground - "looking" straight at the noise sources).
Snooping with AM radio with ferite antenna can be very revealing in seeing the
polarization at particular point. Broadband noise source (spark transmitter)
can be very "ingenious" in producing and propagating the arcs over the wires
and air.

Back in Toronto I was plagued by 90% of the time with 20 over 9 from HV power
line noise. On 160 and 80 m, even from horizontals the "background" noise was
around S8. But having vertical whip stuck at the beach at Cape Hatteras, NC,
allowed me to hear rare DX at the opening and closing of the bands and getting
reports like "only or first NA station" with barefoot TX. Simply amazing. Oh,
and background noise is just non existent, S-meter needle sits at ZERO except
when static crashes.
One has to consider and select antenna systems based on requirements, geography
and noise situation. If local noise masks the signals, then fuggetabout it.
Some gadgets like noise cancellers can help in certain situations (single
source, phasing) also by positioning nulls in the antenna pattern at the noise
source can help, but it is royal pain in the butt especially for the contester.
I am willing to travel to no noise territory to enjoy hearing the band breathe.

So, saying that verticals are no good because they pick noise, is like saying
that Ferrari is no good to haul manure :-)

Yuri, K3BU, VE3BMV