hi


i might have a chance to put up a real antenna on my roof and ponder
which type is best"" as i can only do one

my choices are either a multi ele beam or a verticle

looking for what is 'best' overall for all type not just dx

I operate all modes and all bands 160-10

my roof is about 150' off the ground my antenna would be about 30ft off
the roof flat surface


i was realizing that no one antenna is 'perfect' but wondered
generically which would be best overall if you could only get one?


thanks

The best, all round, antenna is undoubtably an approx quarter-wave
vertical antenna, or an Inverted-L, on the lowest frequency of
interest, with a modest set of a few buried ground radials. An
antenna tuner is needed for higher frequencies..

The next best. almost as good, is an approx half-wave dipole at the
lowest frequency of interest, fed with openwire line, where no ground
system is needed. An antenna tuner is still needed for higher
frequencies.
----
Reg.

ml wrote:
i was realizing that no one antenna is 'perfect' but wondered
generically which would be best overall if you could only get one?

I would suggest a log-periodic beam with a GMC 455ci engine to
rotate it. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:29:50 GMT, ml wrote:

hi


i might have a chance to put up a real antenna on my roof and ponder
which type is best"" as i can only do one

my choices are either a multi ele beam or a verticle

looking for what is 'best' overall for all type not just dx

I operate all modes and all bands 160-10

If they'll let you put a 160-10m beam on the building, I'd say go for
it :-)

bob
k5qwg



my roof is about 150' off the ground my antenna would be about 30ft off
the roof flat surface


i was realizing that no one antenna is 'perfect' but wondered
generically which would be best overall if you could only get one?


thanks

I really like my Cushcraft A3S with the 40 meter option.
However, it does not cover the "new bands" or 80/160. If you were to
mount it 20 feet or more above the roof it would probably work well. I
am in the throws of trying to figure out what to do about 80 & 160
myself. Any way you do it you will have to trade physical size for
band width.

Now would be a good time to start considering what you are going to do
about lightning protection though.

John Ferrell, W8CCW

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:29:50 GMT, ml wrote:

hi


i might have a chance to put up a real antenna on my roof and ponder
which type is best"" as i can only do one

my choices are either a multi ele beam or a verticle

looking for what is 'best' overall for all type not just dx

I operate all modes and all bands 160-10

my roof is about 150' off the ground my antenna would be about 30ft off
the roof flat surface


i was realizing that no one antenna is 'perfect' but wondered
generically which would be best overall if you could only get one?


thanks

In article ,
"Reg Edwards" wrote:

The best, all round, antenna is undoubtably an approx quarter-wave
vertical antenna, or an Inverted-L, on the lowest frequency of
interest, with a modest set of a few buried ground radials. An
antenna tuner is needed for higher frequencies..

The next best. almost as good, is an approx half-wave dipole at the
lowest frequency of interest, fed with openwire line, where no ground
system is needed. An antenna tuner is still needed for higher
frequencies.
----
Reg.

thanks to all that replied seems a good verticle is going to win, and
avoids the rotor complexity

i already have a dipole works pretty good but i have nothing to
compare it to so a verticle might afford me some interesting
comparisons /experimenting

ml wrote:
i already have a dipole works pretty good but i have nothing to
compare it to so a verticle might afford me some interesting
comparisons /experimenting

You will be disappointed in two directions and amazed in the
other two directions. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote
You will be disappointed in two directions and amazed in the
other two directions. :-)
==================================

Cec, with the verticals and inverted-L's and dipoles I have ever
erected, I have never noticed much difference between one direction
and another except when my house or the neighbour's house got in the
way. And most of the difference was just my imagination.

Simple antennas, in the average amateur's environment, are effectively
omni-directional in all planes without any nulls. I have never had any
silly objections to radiation from the feedline, although I have never
been certain that I ever had any.

If I ever made made any propagation calculations I always treated my
antennas as being isotropes. When the calculating uncertainty is plus
or minus 10 dB who cares anyway? I am the last person to suffer from
delusions of accuracy. Yet I am a firm believer in Kelvin.

I once made a balun. It was in the feedline for 24 hours. It didn't
make a scrap of difference to anything except weight. I still have
it. The workmanship and neatness of the windings around the ferrite
ring was too good to throw away.

I've just noticed this message is in terms of a history. I am 80 this
month.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

happy birthday if you were around nyc i'd buy you a cake

so if i understood your below, your saying you had a dipole in some
direction lets say n s and your average signals came in same as your
E W dipole?

or say if i had a nice multielement optibeam on 20m and i heard a week
signal started to turn the beam all around findng max signal East

if i switched to my verticle you'd hypothise it'd come in about the same

further if your below was true then wouldn't turning the beam mean my
signal would always be about the same?

or was it just a dipole vs verticle comparison that i spazed out on ?



In article ,
"Reg Edwards" wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote
You will be disappointed in two directions and amazed in the
other two directions. :-)
==================================

Cec, with the verticals and inverted-L's and dipoles I have ever
erected, I have never noticed much difference between one direction
and another except when my house or the neighbour's house got in the
way. And most of the difference was just my imagination.

Simple antennas, in the average amateur's environment, are effectively
omni-directional in all planes without any nulls. I have never had any
silly objections to radiation from the feedline, although I have never
been certain that I ever had any.

If I ever made made any propagation calculations I always treated my
antennas as being isotropes. When the calculating uncertainty is plus
or minus 10 dB who cares anyway? I am the last person to suffer from
delusions of accuracy. Yet I am a firm believer in Kelvin.

I once made a balun. It was in the feedline for 24 hours. It didn't
make a scrap of difference to anything except weight. I still have
it. The workmanship and neatness of the windings around the ferrite
ring was too good to throw away.

I've just noticed this message is in terms of a history. I am 80 this
month.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

Reg Edwards wrote:
Simple antennas, in the average amateur's environment, are effectively
omni-directional in all planes without any nulls.

My rotatable 33 ft. dipole at 50 ft. is a pretty simple antenna, Reg.
It is not omni-directional. Rotating it can make about two S-units
difference on 20m and up to about 4 S-units difference on 10m.

I've just noticed this message is in terms of a history. I am 80 this
month.

I hear Scorpio is the sexiest sign in the Zodiac. Happy Birthday, Reg,
and many happy returns. My 95 year old aunt, a mile away in the nursing
home, says you are just a young sprout.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp