i was wondering.. ... currently i have a horz center fed dipole it's
not big but my roofside sgc at least keeps the swr's nice.

it's about 20ft off the surface of my roof wich is about 175ft off the
ground ...


i was thinking about adding a verticle antenna such as the
challanger(gap) or such...



what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??


tnx

On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:52:13 GMT, ml wrote:

what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??

Hi Myles,

Probably none, or at best, different from the dipole, but only on
alternate days (as an average, no difference).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
Richard Clark wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2005 00:52:13 GMT, ml wrote:

what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??

Hi Myles,

Probably none, or at best, different from the dipole, but only on
alternate days (as an average, no difference).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

hmm tnx for the reply, on one hand i sorta thought that might be the
case but at times i wondered if it might not be, ... hope your well

m

"ml" wrote in message

i was wondering.. ... currently i have a horz center fed dipole it's
not big but my roofside sgc at least keeps the swr's nice.

it's about 20ft off the surface of my roof wich is about 175ft off the
ground ...

i was thinking about adding a verticle antenna such as the
challanger(gap) or such...

what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??


One thing to keep in mind is a horizontal antenna by nature is more quiet
antenna and is going to be someone directional. A vertial is going to be
omio direction and prolly better at working DX because it's angle of
radiation is going to be lower.

Adair

ml wrote:
what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??

Here's some comparison radiation patterns on 40m for the
horizontal and vertical antennas that I had up a year ago.
The vertical suffered from 2 S-units higher (local) noise.
http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/dipvsver.htm
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I had a dipole and vertical when I lived in the Four Corners and the
vertical was so noisy on receive that it was just about useless but I did
use it on transmit. Farmington is at 5600 ft. elev. and quite dry with dry
rock soil.

Later when I moved to Tulsa where the ground and air are always damp the
vertical was a lot quieter and useable on receive.

Radials do make a noteable differnce, the more radials the better but no on
receive. Lots of noise is vertically polarized and drier air seems to have
more.

--

73
Hank WD5JFR


"ml" wrote in message
...


i was wondering.. ... currently i have a horz center fed dipole it's
not big but my roofside sgc at least keeps the swr's nice.

it's about 20ft off the surface of my roof wich is about 175ft off the
ground ...


i was thinking about adding a verticle antenna such as the
challanger(gap) or such...



what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??


tnx

Just out of curiosity, did you have an RF choke or resistor across the
vertical's feedpoint to bleed off static when you lived in Farmington?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Henry Kolesnik wrote:
I had a dipole and vertical when I lived in the Four Corners and the
vertical was so noisy on receive that it was just about useless but I did
use it on transmit. Farmington is at 5600 ft. elev. and quite dry with dry
rock soil.

Later when I moved to Tulsa where the ground and air are always damp the
vertical was a lot quieter and useable on receive.

Radials do make a noteable differnce, the more radials the better but no on
receive. Lots of noise is vertically polarized and drier air seems to have
more.

Roy

No I didn't know about a drain because until you mentioned it, I didn't know
about it but it sounds like a good idea. Too bad I can't try it.

--

73
Hank WD5JFR
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Just out of curiosity, did you have an RF choke or resistor across the
vertical's feedpoint to bleed off static when you lived in Farmington?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Henry Kolesnik wrote:
I had a dipole and vertical when I lived in the Four Corners and the
vertical was so noisy on receive that it was just about useless but I did
use it on transmit. Farmington is at 5600 ft. elev. and quite dry with
dry rock soil.

Later when I moved to Tulsa where the ground and air are always damp the
vertical was a lot quieter and useable on receive.

Radials do make a noteable differnce, the more radials the better but no
on receive. Lots of noise is vertically polarized and drier air seems to
have more.

On 40 meters, I have a vertical with two sloping radials with the top of the
vertical at 60 feet. I also have a full wave center-fed horizontal antenna
that I use on 40, and that antenna is at 65 feet.

90% of the time, DX stations are stronger and/or more readable on the
vertical than on the horizontal antenna. Likewise, 90% of the time USA
stations east of the Mississippi (I'm in NC) are much stronger on the
horizontal than on the vertical. However, there are those occasional days
when many stations in the eastern USA are stronger on the vertical than the
horizontal.

If I'm working a USA contest or just want to participate in ECARs, MidCARS,
or SouthCARS, I'll go with the horizontal. DX chasing is always done on the
vertical. I can switch between the two for those rare exceptions.

I'm in a pretty quiet area from a noise standpoint, and find no advantage to
either antenna when it comes to noise.

If you have no interest in DXing, I'd say just stick with the horizontal
antenna. If the prime interest is DXing, then the vertical might be the way
to go for you. An interesting variation that provides decent vertical and
horizontal polarization is the center fed "L", where one half is horizontal
and one is vertical, fed at the center with open wire line. That works
remarkably well for me on 80/75 meters.

73, K8AC



"ml" wrote in message
...


i was wondering.. ... currently i have a horz center fed dipole it's
not big but my roofside sgc at least keeps the swr's nice.

it's about 20ft off the surface of my roof wich is about 175ft off the
ground ...


i was thinking about adding a verticle antenna such as the
challanger(gap) or such...



what i ponder is what if any improvements i might see over the dipole
or if under what 'conditions' it might be better --if at all??


tnx